www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - DMD 0.175 release

reply Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Stack class variables, bug fixes.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.175.zip
Nov 25 2006
next sibling parent reply nazo <lovesyao gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Stack class variables, bug fixes.
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
 
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.175.zip

Nov 25 2006
parent Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
nazo wrote:
 linux binary is still 0.174:-(

Oops! Fixed.
Nov 25 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Bill Baxter <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Stack class variables, bug fixes.
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
 
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.175.zip

You, sir, are a bug fixin' machine! (And stack class vars aint bad either) I'm starting to think you're serious about this 1.0 release date. :-)
Nov 25 2006
parent Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
Bill Baxter wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 Stack class variables, bug fixes.

 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.175.zip

You, sir, are a bug fixin' machine! (And stack class vars aint bad either) I'm starting to think you're serious about this 1.0 release date. :-)

Where are we at with a 1.0 feature freeze, for that matter? Stewart. -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS/M d- s:- C++ a->--- UB P+ L E W++ N+++ o K- w++ O? M V? PS- PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++++ h-- r-- !y ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Nov 25 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent Tom S <h3r3tic remove.mat.uni.torun.pl> writes:
I haven't commented on the .174 release yet, so let me just say that .174 was
probably the best feature-wise release to date. Now .175 is a total bug massacre
:D Great job, Walter !

/** I'm going to port Bind to the new tuples, it's just that I've been quite
busy
recently and didn't have the time to do so yet */


--
Tomasz Stachowiak
Nov 25 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Lionello Lunesu" <lionello lunesu.remove.com> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:ek8vrl$5m8$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Stack class variables, bug fixes.

Damn, and I just figured out how to do that with alloca :) Very good release. Thanks! Which reminds me: will "char[varsize] array_on_stack" ever be possible? L.
Nov 25 2006
next sibling parent "Lionello Lunesu" <lionello lunesu.remove.com> writes:
scope auto a = new char[23];  !?

What d'you think? 
Nov 25 2006
prev sibling parent reply "John Reimer" <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 05:14:01 -0800, Lionello Lunesu  
<lionello lunesu.remove.com> wrote:

 "Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:ek8vrl$5m8$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Stack class variables, bug fixes.

Damn, and I just figured out how to do that with alloca :) Very good release. Thanks! Which reminds me: will "char[varsize] array_on_stack" ever be possible? L.

Huh? void main() { char[256] p; } Is already allocated on the stack. What do you mean? -JJR
Nov 25 2006
parent reply Frits van Bommel <fvbommel REMwOVExCAPSs.nl> writes:
John Reimer wrote:
 On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 05:14:01 -0800, Lionello Lunesu 
 <lionello lunesu.remove.com> wrote:
 Which reminds me: will "char[varsize] array_on_stack" ever be possible?

Huh? void main() { char[256] p; } Is already allocated on the stack. What do you mean?

I think he means something more along the lines of: void foo(size_t bar) { char[bar] p; }
Nov 25 2006
parent Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:
Frits van Bommel wrote:
 John Reimer wrote:
 On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 05:14:01 -0800, Lionello Lunesu 
 <lionello lunesu.remove.com> wrote:
 Which reminds me: will "char[varsize] array_on_stack" ever be possible?

Huh? void main() { char[256] p; } Is already allocated on the stack. What do you mean?

I think he means something more along the lines of: void foo(size_t bar) { char[bar] p; }

It'd be great if we could also: void foo(size_t bar) { char[bar] p = void; } to get rid of the initialization (which can take longer than a heap allocation w/ the current GC).
Nov 25 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Tom <tom nospam.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Stack class variables, bug fixes.
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
 
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.175.zip

Wow, a million bugfixes and a very nice feature... it seems that you didn't saw the sunlight for quite some time. Thank you. -- Tom;
Nov 25 2006
next sibling parent "nobody_" <spam spam.spam> writes:
Sunlight doesn't effect the transparent. 
Nov 25 2006
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Tom wrote:
 Wow, a million bugfixes and a very nice feature... it seems that you 
 didn't saw the sunlight for quite some time. Thank you.

This time of year, there is little sunlight. Nothing to do but work!
Nov 25 2006
parent reply Tom <tom nospam.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Tom wrote:
 Wow, a million bugfixes and a very nice feature... it seems that you 
 didn't saw the sunlight for quite some time. Thank you.

This time of year, there is little sunlight. Nothing to do but work!

Oh, I always forget that you people in the North don't have sunlight during this time of the year. Here, in Argentina, it's getting hotter every minute. God bless air conditioning :D -- Tom;
Nov 25 2006
parent reply "Kristian Kilpi" <kjkilpi gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 02:01:34 +0200, Tom <tom nospam.com> wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:
 Tom wrote:
 Wow, a million bugfixes and a very nice feature... it seems that you=



 didn't saw the sunlight for quite some time. Thank you.



 Oh, I always forget that you people in the North don't have sunlight  =

 during this time of the year. Here, in Argentina, it's getting hotter =

 every minute. God bless air conditioning :D

 --
 Tom;

You...! ;) Here in Finland is indeed pretty dark most of the day. Well, it should b= e = winter, but currently my thermometer shows +10 degrees of Celsius (it = should rather be showing -10 degrees). No snow in the ground, and water = is = raining. In October we had pretty much snow (10-30cm), but this month ha= s = been so warm that even lakes in southern Finland are not frozen anymore.= = There is still snow in northern Finland though = ( http://www.fmi.fi/en/index.html?neito=3Dlumi ). Global warming in its work? :/
Nov 26 2006
next sibling parent Tom <tom nospam.com> writes:
Kristian Kilpi wrote:
 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 02:01:34 +0200, Tom <tom nospam.com> wrote:
 
 Walter Bright wrote:
 Tom wrote:
 Wow, a million bugfixes and a very nice feature... it seems that you 
 didn't saw the sunlight for quite some time. Thank you.


Oh, I always forget that you people in the North don't have sunlight during this time of the year. Here, in Argentina, it's getting hotter every minute. God bless air conditioning :D -- Tom;

You...! ;) Here in Finland is indeed pretty dark most of the day. Well, it should be winter, but currently my thermometer shows +10 degrees of Celsius (it should rather be showing -10 degrees). No snow in the ground, and water is raining. In October we had pretty much snow (10-30cm), but this month has been so warm that even lakes in southern Finland are not frozen anymore. There is still snow in northern Finland though ( http://www.fmi.fi/en/index.html?neito=lumi ). Global warming in its work? :/

Hope not :(
Nov 26 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "John Reimer" <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 02:53:35 -0800, Kristian Kilpi <kjkilpi gmail.com>  =

wrote:

 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 02:01:34 +0200, Tom <tom nospam.com> wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:
 Tom wrote:
 Wow, a million bugfixes and a very nice feature... it seems that yo=




 didn't saw the sunlight for quite some time. Thank you.




 Oh, I always forget that you people in the North don't have sunlight =


 during this time of the year. Here, in Argentina, it's getting hotter=


 every minute. God bless air conditioning :D

 --
 Tom;

You...! ;) Here in Finland is indeed pretty dark most of the day. Well, it should=

 be winter, but currently my thermometer shows +10 degrees of Celsius (=

 should rather be showing -10 degrees). No snow in the ground, and wate=

 is raining. In October we had pretty much snow (10-30cm), but this mon=

 has been so warm that even lakes in southern Finland are not frozen  =

 anymore. There is still snow in northern Finland though  =

 ( http://www.fmi.fi/en/index.html?neito=3Dlumi ).

 Global warming in its work? :/

If there's such thing as global warming, it's not happening here. Almos= t = -24 C right now. Kind of chilly! :) -JJR
Nov 26 2006
next sibling parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
John Reimer wrote:
 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 02:53:35 -0800, Kristian Kilpi <kjkilpi gmail.com> 
 wrote:
 
 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 02:01:34 +0200, Tom <tom nospam.com> wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:
 Tom wrote:
 Wow, a million bugfixes and a very nice feature... it seems that 
 you didn't saw the sunlight for quite some time. Thank you.


Oh, I always forget that you people in the North don't have sunlight during this time of the year. Here, in Argentina, it's getting hotter every minute. God bless air conditioning :D -- Tom;

You...! ;) Here in Finland is indeed pretty dark most of the day. Well, it should be winter,


How are the seasons defined over there? Here in Britain, by the standard definition the seasons begin on their respective equinoxes and solstices.
 but currently my thermometer shows +10 degrees of Celsius 
 (it should rather be showing -10 degrees). No snow in the ground, and 
 water is raining. In October we had pretty much snow (10-30cm), but 
 this month has been so warm that even lakes in southern Finland are 
 not frozen anymore.


Sounds like an "Indian summer" as we sometimes call it over here. Except that 10°C here in England at this time is by no means exceptional - it would probably need to be at least 16°C to qualify. I'm still wondering what the equivalent term is for when it happens in the spring.
 There is still snow in northern Finland though ( 
 http://www.fmi.fi/en/index.html?neito=lumi ).

 Global warming in its work? :/

If there's such thing as global warming, it's not happening here. Almost -24 C right now. Kind of chilly! :)

You mean it wasn't -25°C a year ago? :-) Stewart. -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS/M d- s:- C++ a->--- UB P+ L E W++ N+++ o K- w++ O? M V? PS- PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++++ h-- r-- !y ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Nov 26 2006
next sibling parent "Kristian Kilpi" <kjkilpi gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 19:56:11 +0200, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com>  
wrote:
 John Reimer wrote:
 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 02:53:35 -0800, Kristian Kilpi <kjkilpi gmail.com>  
 wrote:

 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 02:01:34 +0200, Tom <tom nospam.com> wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:
 Tom wrote:
 Wow, a million bugfixes and a very nice feature... it seems that  
 you didn't saw the sunlight for quite some time. Thank you.


Oh, I always forget that you people in the North don't have sunlight during this time of the year. Here, in Argentina, it's getting hotter every minute. God bless air conditioning :D -- Tom;

You...! ;) Here in Finland is indeed pretty dark most of the day. Well, it should be winter,


How are the seasons defined over there? Here in Britain, by the standard definition the seasons begin on their respective equinoxes and solstices.

I didn't know that, interesting. :) We don't have the standard definitions here, or at least I'm not heard of them (or anyone I know of). The feather (nature) itself defines the seasons. The translations are quite clear normally. Of course, when I look out of a window now, it looks like autumn. Or if the sun is shining, it looks like spring. I think one can (usually) say that it's "officially" winter when the first snow is rain. Of course, it's not uncommon that the first snow will melt though, or a couple of next ones. It's summer when snow is melted, lakes too (we have a *lot* of lakes in Finland), and the temperature is pretty high (about 15-25'C). Spring is when snow is melting (when trees have new leaves, it's already summer; some bushes can have leaves in spring though), and autumn when trees turn yellow and red (and finally drop their leaves). Heh, I looked a dictionary for that, and it said "forest glowing with autumn tints" or "glowing autumn forest". No single word for it, huh?
 but currently my thermometer shows +10 degrees of Celsius (it should  
 rather be showing -10 degrees). No snow in the ground, and water is  
 raining. In October we had pretty much snow (10-30cm), but this month  
 has been so warm that even lakes in southern Finland are not frozen  
 anymore.


Sounds like an "Indian summer" as we sometimes call it over here. Except that 10°C here in England at this time is by no means exceptional - it would probably need to be at least 16°C to qualify.

Hey that's funny, I call a summer of exceptionally high temperatures as an "indian summer". But I did some checking (the net is handy), and it seems that I have been 'misinformed' about that. :) Ok, "a warm period after the cold autumn season has begun", got it.
Nov 26 2006
prev sibling parent reply "John Reimer" <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:56:11 -0800, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com>  
wrote:

 Global warming in its work? :/

Almost -24 C right now. Kind of chilly! :)

You mean it wasn't -25°C a year ago? :-) Stewart.

lol :D Well, actually it's been exceptionally cold this year. This cold snap is quite early in the season for us. Although every winter, we typically get some -30 C weather in Jan or Feb. -JJR
Nov 26 2006
parent reply "Kristian Kilpi" <kjkilpi gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 22:54:42 +0200, John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com>  
wrote:

 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:56:11 -0800, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com>  
 wrote:

 Global warming in its work? :/

Almost -24 C right now. Kind of chilly! :)

You mean it wasn't -25°C a year ago? :-) Stewart.

lol :D Well, actually it's been exceptionally cold this year. This cold snap is quite early in the season for us. Although every winter, we typically get some -30 C weather in Jan or Feb. -JJR

-30'C is pretty cold indeed. :) For instance, bicycling in that temperature is not so nice. (I used to bicycle to school when I was a kid. -20'C was cold enough... ;) ) By the way, if you don't mind asking, where do you live?
Nov 26 2006
parent reply "John Reimer" <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 13:10:33 -0800, Kristian Kilpi <kjkilpi gmail.com>  
wrote:

 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 22:54:42 +0200, John Reimer  
 <terminal.node gmail.com> wrote:

 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:56:11 -0800, Stewart Gordon  
 <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote:

 Global warming in its work? :/

Almost -24 C right now. Kind of chilly! :)

You mean it wasn't -25°C a year ago? :-) Stewart.

lol :D Well, actually it's been exceptionally cold this year. This cold snap is quite early in the season for us. Although every winter, we typically get some -30 C weather in Jan or Feb. -JJR

-30'C is pretty cold indeed. :) For instance, bicycling in that temperature is not so nice. (I used to bicycle to school when I was a kid. -20'C was cold enough... ;) ) By the way, if you don't mind asking, where do you live?

British Columbia, Canada, in a region that we call the Cariboo Interior. I've been to Rovaniemi, Finland (not sure where you are). It's not near as far north as that. Actually I run to work (between 5 to 7 km depending on which route I take), all year round. Tonight I'll be running in this temperature... fun! (I do have a headlamp) :). It's actually not so bad, if you keep moving. I can't imagine bicycling to work in that temperature, though .... brrrr... windchill would make it much colder. -JJR
Nov 26 2006
parent "Kristian Kilpi" <kjkilpi gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 23:22:11 +0200, John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com>  
wrote:

 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 13:10:33 -0800, Kristian Kilpi <kjkilpi gmail.com>  
 wrote:

 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 22:54:42 +0200, John Reimer  
 <terminal.node gmail.com> wrote:

 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:56:11 -0800, Stewart Gordon  
 <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote:

 Global warming in its work? :/

Almost -24 C right now. Kind of chilly! :)

You mean it wasn't -25°C a year ago? :-) Stewart.

lol :D Well, actually it's been exceptionally cold this year. This cold snap is quite early in the season for us. Although every winter, we typically get some -30 C weather in Jan or Feb. -JJR

-30'C is pretty cold indeed. :) For instance, bicycling in that temperature is not so nice. (I used to bicycle to school when I was a kid. -20'C was cold enough... ;) ) By the way, if you don't mind asking, where do you live?

British Columbia, Canada, in a region that we call the Cariboo Interior. I've been to Rovaniemi, Finland (not sure where you are). It's not near as far north as that.

Nice mountain ranges there. The views must be great there (and the nature in general). Probably a great place for hiking. :) Rovaniemi is pretty north in Finland, I live 630 km to the south (Finland is a quite small country; it's total length is 1160 km). Of course Rovaniemi is in north overall also; its latitude is 66.5', right on the Arctic Circle. Which plots, as we all know ;) , over northern Yokon Territory. I live near the latitude of 61', which goes over the southern Yokon or northern British Columbia. I'm glad that the Gulf-stream warms the feather here in Finland (especially in southern parts). Without it there would be much colder!
 Actually I run to work (between 5 to 7 km depending on which route I  
 take), all year round.  Tonight I'll be running in this temperature...  
 fun! (I do have a headlamp) :).

Good for you! (I think that's amazing and admirable!) 8) I can imagine that a headlamp will be handy... :) I don't run so much. Some bicycling in summer and cross-country skiing in winter.
 It's actually not so bad, if you keep moving.
 I can't imagine bicycling to work in that temperature, though ....  
 brrrr... windchill would make it much colder.

Yes, windchill indeed makes it cold. Your face and throat (and lower parts of your ears) tend to freeze unless properly covered with a scarf. If you don't have glasses, then your eyes will be freezing... not so comfortable. I remember one time when I was late for school, and forgot my gloves. It wasn't so cold (only something like -5 at most), so I didn't get them. After 0.5 km or so, I have to stop and put my hands to my armpits to warm them up. Oh, youth and stupidity. :)
Nov 27 2006
prev sibling parent Jesse Phillips <Jesse.K.Phillips+Digitalmars gmail.com> writes:
John Reimer wrote:
 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 02:53:35 -0800, Kristian Kilpi <kjkilpi gmail.com> 
 wrote:
 
 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 02:01:34 +0200, Tom <tom nospam.com> wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:
 Tom wrote:
 Wow, a million bugfixes and a very nice feature... it seems that 
 you didn't saw the sunlight for quite some time. Thank you.


Oh, I always forget that you people in the North don't have sunlight during this time of the year. Here, in Argentina, it's getting hotter every minute. God bless air conditioning :D -- Tom;

You...! ;) Here in Finland is indeed pretty dark most of the day. Well, it should be winter, but currently my thermometer shows +10 degrees of Celsius (it should rather be showing -10 degrees). No snow in the ground, and water is raining. In October we had pretty much snow (10-30cm), but this month has been so warm that even lakes in southern Finland are not frozen anymore. There is still snow in northern Finland though ( http://www.fmi.fi/en/index.html?neito=lumi ). Global warming in its work? :/

If there's such thing as global warming, it's not happening here. Almost -24 C right now. Kind of chilly! :) -JJR

Well that is what global warming will do. With increasing temperatures the world has to correct it and thus it will cause a great decrease in temperature. Of course no one really knows as we have not lived through and documented such events from the past.
Nov 26 2006
prev sibling parent reply David Medlock <noone nowhere.com> writes:
Kristian Kilpi wrote:
 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 02:01:34 +0200, Tom <tom nospam.com> wrote:
 
 Walter Bright wrote:

 Tom wrote:

 Wow, a million bugfixes and a very nice feature... it seems that 
 you  didn't saw the sunlight for quite some time. Thank you.

This time of year, there is little sunlight. Nothing to do but work!

Oh, I always forget that you people in the North don't have sunlight during this time of the year. Here, in Argentina, it's getting hotter every minute. God bless air conditioning :D -- Tom;

You...! ;) Here in Finland is indeed pretty dark most of the day. Well, it should be winter, but currently my thermometer shows +10 degrees of Celsius (it should rather be showing -10 degrees). No snow in the ground, and water is raining. In October we had pretty much snow (10-30cm), but this month has been so warm that even lakes in southern Finland are not frozen anymore. There is still snow in northern Finland though ( http://www.fmi.fi/en/index.html?neito=lumi ). Global warming in its work? :/

Cool. My wife's father(and his family) are from Finland. I think next summer we will get over her fear of flying and go there for a couple of weeks. Take heart with global warming. Its happening on Mars as well so it probably a fluctuation in the Sun, not human causes... -DavidM
Nov 26 2006
next sibling parent "John Reimer" <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 11:27:02 -0800, David Medlock <noone nowhere.com>  
wrote:


 Cool. My wife's father(and his family) are from Finland.

 I think next summer we will get over her fear of flying and go there for  
 a couple of weeks.

 Take heart with global warming.  Its happening on Mars as well so it  
 probably a fluctuation in the Sun, not human causes...

 -DavidM

Exactly :) -JJR
Nov 26 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent "Kristian Kilpi" <kjkilpi gmail.com> writes:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 21:27:02 +0200, David Medlock <noone nowhere.com>  =

wrote:

 Kristian Kilpi wrote:
 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 02:01:34 +0200, Tom <tom nospam.com> wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 Tom wrote:

 Wow, a million bugfixes and a very nice feature... it seems that  =





 you  didn't saw the sunlight for quite some time. Thank you.

This time of year, there is little sunlight. Nothing to do but wor=




 Oh, I always forget that you people in the North don't have sunlight=



 during this time of the year. Here, in Argentina, it's getting hotte=



 every minute. God bless air conditioning :D

 -- Tom;

Here in Finland is indeed pretty dark most of the day. Well, it shou=


 be  winter, but currently my thermometer shows +10 degrees of Celsius=


 (it  should rather be showing -10 degrees). No snow in the ground, an=


 water is  raining. In October we had pretty much snow (10-30cm), but =


 this month has  been so warm that even lakes in southern Finland are =


 not frozen anymore.  There is still snow in northern Finland though  =


 http://www.fmi.fi/en/index.html?neito=3Dlumi ).
  Global warming in its work? :/

Cool. My wife's father(and his family) are from Finland. I think next summer we will get over her fear of flying and go there f=

 a couple of weeks.

:)
 Take heart with global warming.  Its happening on Mars as well so it  =

 probably a fluctuation in the Sun, not human causes...

I haven't heard that Mars is warming up too. Are measures of the Sun's = temperature showing that the Sun is getting hotter (again, that is; the = = temperature fluctuates)? I think the green house effect cannot be ruled = = out though. Anything that preserves the nature and lessens pollution is = = good. Say that I am cynical, but it seems that big corporations are all = = about making money, usually, no matter of what. Remember gasoline with lead in it? It was 'proven' to be safe (when mone= y = talks... you know what). Of course, when the animals in the zoos start = paralysing and dying, it was realized that maybe there were 'side effect= s' = after all. It was even noticed that many animals should have been dead = because of the lead poisoning. You can imagine how the lead affected to = = people too... And now the same companies are selling the leaded gasoline= = to developing countries... Even if they know what harm it'll cause. Way = to = go! :( Grmh, sorry, I don't know where that came from... I shut up now and go t= o = sleep. (It's night already.)
Nov 26 2006
prev sibling parent reply "John S. Skogtvedt" <jss2k2 chello.no> writes:
David Medlock skrev:
 
 Take heart with global warming.  Its happening on Mars as well so it 
 probably a fluctuation in the Sun, not human causes...
 
 -DavidM

If you do a google search it seems it's not quite that simple: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
Nov 26 2006
parent reply David Medlock <noone nowhere.com> writes:
John S. Skogtvedt wrote:

 David Medlock skrev:
 
 Take heart with global warming.  Its happening on Mars as well so it 
 probably a fluctuation in the Sun, not human causes...

 -DavidM

If you do a google search it seems it's not quite that simple: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

True, but there is no hard evidence outside computer models that humans are causing any fluctuations in temperature. Whether it is happening is a separate issue than what is causing it. It would be terribly difficult to prove empirically that human activity is the cause. Also, consider that the total temperature only rose 1 degree in the last century and hurricane season was(comparatively) a flop this year. Even if you believe C02 emissions are doing it, remember that 100 years ago the automobile had just entered the market. Who knows what we will be using in 100 more! Politicians and anti-capitalists love the theories though. It lets them pass laws to make you live the way they want you to. Makes them feel good but its mostly junk science. The ban on DDT has killed millions of mostly children in Africa, but it was too banned on junk science and only after first world countries had used it successfully. -DavidM
Nov 26 2006
next sibling parent reply Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
David Medlock wrote:

 John S. Skogtvedt wrote:
 
 David Medlock skrev:
 
 Take heart with global warming.  Its happening on Mars as well so it
 probably a fluctuation in the Sun, not human causes...

 -DavidM

If you do a google search it seems it's not quite that simple: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

True, but there is no hard evidence outside computer models that humans are causing any fluctuations in temperature. Whether it is happening is a separate issue than what is causing it. It would be terribly difficult to prove empirically that human activity is the cause. Also, consider that the total temperature only rose 1 degree in the last century and hurricane season was(comparatively) a flop this year. Even if you believe C02 emissions are doing it, remember that 100 years ago the automobile had just entered the market. Who knows what we will be using in 100 more! Politicians and anti-capitalists love the theories though. It lets them pass laws to make you live the way they want you to. Makes them feel good but its mostly junk science. The ban on DDT has killed millions of mostly children in Africa, but it was too banned on junk science and only after first world countries had used it successfully. -DavidM

Sorry, calling it junk science is somewhat harsh, and it is still no reason to pollute, as it certainly doesn't cause anything good. Note that if what we are seeing now is actually due to pollution, then it is a bit late if we don't use cars in a 100 years. I for one thinks it sucks with +10 degrees Celsius and rain in late November, and it seems my son at 3 agrees. -- Lars Ivar Igesund blog at http://larsivi.net DSource & #D: larsivi
Nov 26 2006
parent reply David Medlock <noone nowhere.com> writes:
Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
 David Medlock wrote:
 
 
John S. Skogtvedt wrote:


David Medlock skrev:


Take heart with global warming.  Its happening on Mars as well so it
probably a fluctuation in the Sun, not human causes...

-DavidM

If you do a google search it seems it's not quite that simple: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

True, but there is no hard evidence outside computer models that humans are causing any fluctuations in temperature. Whether it is happening is a separate issue than what is causing it. It would be terribly difficult to prove empirically that human activity is the cause. Also, consider that the total temperature only rose 1 degree in the last century and hurricane season was(comparatively) a flop this year. Even if you believe C02 emissions are doing it, remember that 100 years ago the automobile had just entered the market. Who knows what we will be using in 100 more! Politicians and anti-capitalists love the theories though. It lets them pass laws to make you live the way they want you to. Makes them feel good but its mostly junk science. The ban on DDT has killed millions of mostly children in Africa, but it was too banned on junk science and only after first world countries had used it successfully. -DavidM

Sorry, calling it junk science is somewhat harsh, and it is still no reason to pollute, as it certainly doesn't cause anything good. Note that if what we are seeing now is actually due to pollution, then it is a bit late if we don't use cars in a 100 years. I for one thinks it sucks with +10 degrees Celsius and rain in late November, and it seems my son at 3 agrees.

I won't be drawn into a long discussion of this, but - I never said anything about pollution. C02 is a naturally occuring element in our atmosphere. Pollution is contamination of that environment. - My 3 year old likes going places in my car and heat for our house. You would pay much more for those things under Kyoto. Bringing your 3 year old into it is pretty juvenille. - There is still NO EVIDENCE of C02 caused by humans. Increasing C02 + more humans is not conclusive. You need reproducible results and double blind studies, not a 'consensus'. - The total temperature increase in the 1900s was 1 degree celsius. - It IS an anti-capitalist movement. Go read the Kyoto treaty, which was ironically rejected by Japan. Believe the chicken littles if you like, but they have an agenda just like everyone else. Until you have reproducible results it IS junk science. -DavidM
Nov 27 2006
next sibling parent Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
David Medlock wrote:

 
 I won't be drawn into a long discussion of this, but
 
 - I never said anything about pollution.  C02 is a naturally occuring
 element in our atmosphere.  Pollution is contamination of that
 environment.

Yes, and unaturally high levels should be considered contamination.
 
 - My 3 year old likes going places in my car and heat for our house.
 You would pay much more for those things under Kyoto. Bringing your 3
 year old into it is pretty juvenille.

So you're juvenile too ;) The Kyoto agreement is about paying more for what is considered to pollute the environment, which in turn will (and already is) lead to more environomentally means to fuel your car and heat your house (and better isolation, so you need less energy to heat it).
 
 - There is still NO EVIDENCE of C02 caused by humans.  Increasing C02 +
 more humans is not conclusive.  You need reproducible results and double
 blind studies, not a 'consensus'.

When we are talking about reproducible results, when is that? When we are certain because the polar caps melts and leads to major floodings around the world?
 
 - The total temperature increase in the 1900s was 1 degree celsius.
 
 - It IS an anti-capitalist movement.  Go read the Kyoto treaty, which
 was ironically rejected by Japan.

It is not at all anti-capitalist, it just tries to turn the capitalists towards other means of earning money on energy (and even CO2 quotas). Sadly most governments, even those who accepted the Kyoto treaty has failed to do what is necessary to make this process capitalist driven (ie the EU gives away 90% of the CO2 quotas for free).
 
 Believe the chicken littles if you like, but they have an agenda just
 like everyone else.  Until you have reproducible results it IS junk
 science.

You're FUD'ing just enough to seem to have an agenda yourself. -- Lars Ivar Igesund blog at http://larsivi.net DSource & #D: larsivi
Nov 27 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Alexander Panek <a.panek brainsware.org> writes:
 - There is still NO EVIDENCE of C02 caused by humans.  Increasing C02 +
 more humans is not conclusive.  You need reproducible results and double
 blind studies, not a 'consensus'.

Comment in #d : 14:01 < JimPanic> - There is still NO EVIDENCE of C02 caused by humans. 14:01 < downd> wtf 14:01 * downd breathes out 14:01 * downs breathes out AGAIN 14:02 < downs> See the CO2 yet? SIGKTHXBYE o/ (Sorry, this is just too ridiculous.)
Nov 27 2006
parent reply "John Reimer" <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 05:04:34 -0800, Alexander Panek  
<a.panek brainsware.org> wrote:

 - There is still NO EVIDENCE of C02 caused by humans.  Increasing C02 +
 more humans is not conclusive.  You need reproducible results and double
 blind studies, not a 'consensus'.

Comment in #d : 14:01 < JimPanic> - There is still NO EVIDENCE of C02 caused by humans. 14:01 < downd> wtf 14:01 * downd breathes out 14:01 * downs breathes out AGAIN 14:02 < downs> See the CO2 yet? SIGKTHXBYE o/ (Sorry, this is just too ridiculous.)

Why is CO2 a bad thing? Don't plants use it for photosynthesis? Wouldn't it make our planet a greener place? Wouldn't it encourage growth of trees and plants that industrialization destroys? Pollution seems to an important issue to deal with for health reasons alone, but I don't know how increased CO2 is going to destroy us any faster than disease, war, and bad health habits. -JJR
Nov 27 2006
next sibling parent Alexander Panek <a.panek brainsware.org> writes:
John Reimer wrote:
 On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 05:04:34 -0800, Alexander Panek 
 <a.panek brainsware.org> wrote:
 
 - There is still NO EVIDENCE of C02 caused by humans.  Increasing C02 +
 more humans is not conclusive.  You need reproducible results and double
 blind studies, not a 'consensus'.

Comment in #d : 14:01 < JimPanic> - There is still NO EVIDENCE of C02 caused by humans. 14:01 < downd> wtf 14:01 * downd breathes out 14:01 * downs breathes out AGAIN 14:02 < downs> See the CO2 yet? SIGKTHXBYE o/ (Sorry, this is just too ridiculous.)

Why is CO2 a bad thing? Don't plants use it for photosynthesis? Wouldn't it make our planet a greener place? Wouldn't it encourage growth of trees and plants that industrialization destroys?

Arr! Like totally. :D
 Pollution seems to an important issue to deal with for health reasons 
 alone, but I don't know how increased CO2 is going to destroy us any 
 faster than disease, war, and bad health habits.

Very true.
 
 -JJR

Nov 27 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Carlos Santander <csantander619 gmail.com> writes:
John Reimer escribió:
 
 
 Why is CO2 a bad thing?  Don't plants use it for photosynthesis?  
 Wouldn't it make our planet a greener place?  Wouldn't it encourage 
 growth of trees and plants that industrialization destroys?
 
 Pollution seems to an important issue to deal with for health reasons 
 alone, but I don't know how increased CO2 is going to destroy us any 
 faster than disease, war, and bad health habits.
 
 -JJR

I don't know for sure how everything affects everything else, but I think that even the slightest changes can alter the world in ways that can't really predict. And it won't only affect human beings, but also plants and animals. But everything is ultimately related, so I don't think it's that easy to just "more trees, great!" That's why I think we should try to disturb nature as few as possible, just because we don't know. -- Carlos Santander Bernal
Nov 27 2006
parent reply "John Reimer" <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:42:07 -0800, Carlos Santander  
<csantander619 gmail.com> wrote:

 John Reimer escribió:
   Why is CO2 a bad thing?  Don't plants use it for photosynthesis?   
 Wouldn't it make our planet a greener place?  Wouldn't it encourage  
 growth of trees and plants that industrialization destroys?
  Pollution seems to an important issue to deal with for health reasons  
 alone, but I don't know how increased CO2 is going to destroy us any  
 faster than disease, war, and bad health habits.
  -JJR

I don't know for sure how everything affects everything else, but I think that even the slightest changes can alter the world in ways that can't really predict. And it won't only affect human beings, but also plants and animals. But everything is ultimately related, so I don't think it's that easy to just "more trees, great!" That's why I think we should try to disturb nature as few as possible, just because we don't know.

What constitutes a disturbance of nature? What defines nature? Is nature something that excludes all human activity? Why? Of course, nothing is so simple. But if CO2 emmission is a central problem of greenhouse gases (greenhouses are for growing things, remember :) ), then the questions need to be answered, especially since all those plants provide us with the O2 we breath. But apparently nobody really knows the answer because there are too many variables in the whole system to take into account? Meanwhile, we do know that sunlight, water, heat, and CO2 cause plants to grow readily. More plants mean more water containment as well. Animals eat plants for survival. And humans use animals and plants as further resources. It goes on. In regard to global warming, the current predictions are of some sort of cataclysmic eventuality that humans are generating as result of CO2 production; isn't it more likely that some cataclysmic event will occur external to the system (solar or meteor related) than what's initiated by man's apparent CO2 contribution? If nature is unpredictable, and we are part of nature, what comparative portion of CO2 emissions do we contribute compared to the other parts of nature? Are not those emissions "bad" also? Do forest fires (which occur regularly in many parts of the world) constitute "bad" sources of co2? Are these fires only "bad" sources if set off by man? Are they "good" and normal if set off by lightning because that seems more natural? Is man part of nature? Nature disturbs itself all the time. So how do we make moral decisions on what is really bad? Where does the moral order of "bad" and "good" come from anyway? What are the influences of these "natural" disruptions on this nature that we consider so fragile? Of course, all of the questions have little meaning beyond a concrete motivational framework. We need concrete reasons to be stewards of this earth, not abstract unknowns and ambiguous interpretations/predictions of future events. What is the motivation for avoiding pollution of the earth and environment? Primary motives will simply be that of conservation of life and resources for the purpose of existance (beyond any worldview-related obligation). It's within the human's best interests to protect their environment to the best of their ability if they want to preserve their state of being. Once again, though, concrete reasons for environmental management (even though this might constitute environmental interferance!) serve a stronger motive than those debatable reasons related to green-house gases. If we make decisions on predictions of unknowns, we very well may be doing worse for ourselves and the environment and wasting tons of money in the process (something politicians are very good at). If we make decisions based on known destructive tendancies of pollutive emissions, than I think we have solid evidence for policy making. In summary, saying that greenhouse gases are "bad" because of an unpredictable affects on fragile ecosystems is no more helpful than saying we can fix the world by plugging volcanoes with corks or by installing giant lightning rods in forests. Nature itself is unpredictable, produces massive amounts green-house gases /unpredictably/ through many "natural" sources, and destroys and regenerates itself cyclicly. Let the scientists debate it all they want and plot their graphs of variable reliability concerning past changes. I think people need to stop depending on them for making moral decisions: their "right" and "wrong" are mercurial. There are better reasons to look after the world we live in. -JJR
Nov 27 2006
parent reply Carlos Santander <csantander619 gmail.com> writes:
John Reimer escribió:
 On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:42:07 -0800, Carlos Santander 
 <csantander619 gmail.com> wrote:
 
 I don't know for sure how everything affects everything else, but I 
 think that even the slightest changes can alter the world in ways that 
 can't really predict. And it won't only affect human beings, but also 
 plants and animals. But everything is ultimately related, so I don't 
 think it's that easy to just "more trees, great!" That's why I think 
 we should try to disturb nature as few as possible, just because we 
 don't know.

What constitutes a disturbance of nature? What defines nature? Is nature something that excludes all human activity? Why?

Like I said, I don't know.
 Of course, nothing is so simple.  But if CO2 emmission is a central 
 problem of greenhouse gases (greenhouses are for growing things, 
 remember :) ), then the questions need to be answered, especially since 
 all those plants provide us with the O2 we breath.  But apparently 
 nobody really knows the answer because there are too many variables in 
 the whole system to take into account? Meanwhile, we do know that 
 sunlight, water, heat, and CO2 cause plants to grow readily.  More 
 plants mean more water containment as well. Animals eat plants for 
 survival.  And humans use animals and plants as further resources. It 
 goes on.
 
 In regard to global warming, the current predictions are of some sort of 
 cataclysmic eventuality that humans are generating as result of CO2 
 production; isn't it more likely that some cataclysmic event will occur 
 external to the system (solar or meteor related) than what's initiated 
 by man's apparent CO2 contribution? If nature is unpredictable, and we 
 are part of nature, what comparative portion of CO2 emissions do we 
 contribute compared to the other parts of nature?  Are not those 
 emissions "bad" also?
 
 Do forest fires (which occur regularly in many parts of the world) 
 constitute "bad" sources of co2?  Are these fires only "bad" sources if 
 set off by man?  Are they "good" and normal if set off by lightning 
 because that seems more natural?  Is man part of nature?  Nature 
 disturbs itself all the time.  So how do we make moral decisions on what 
 is really bad?  Where does the moral order of "bad" and "good" come from 
 anyway?  What are the influences of these "natural" disruptions on this 
 nature that we consider so fragile?
 
 Of course, all of the questions have little meaning beyond a concrete 
 motivational framework.  We need concrete reasons to be stewards of this 
 earth, not abstract unknowns and ambiguous interpretations/predictions 
 of future events.
 
 What is the motivation for avoiding pollution of the earth and 
 environment?  Primary motives will simply be that of conservation of 
 life and resources for the purpose of existance (beyond any 
 worldview-related obligation).  It's within the human's best interests 
 to protect their environment to the best of their ability if they want 
 to preserve their state of being. Once again, though, concrete reasons 
 for environmental management (even though this might constitute 
 environmental interferance!) serve a stronger motive than those 
 debatable reasons related to green-house gases.  If we make decisions on 
 predictions of unknowns, we very well may be doing worse for ourselves 
 and the environment and wasting tons of money in the process (something 
 politicians are very good at).  If we make decisions based on known 
 destructive tendancies of pollutive emissions, than I think we have 
 solid evidence for policy making.
 
 In summary, saying that greenhouse gases are "bad" because of an 
 unpredictable affects on fragile ecosystems is no more helpful than 
 saying we can fix the world by plugging volcanoes with corks or by 
 installing giant lightning rods in forests.  Nature itself is 
 unpredictable, produces massive amounts green-house gases 
 /unpredictably/ through many "natural" sources, and destroys and 
 regenerates itself cyclicly. Let the scientists debate it all they want 
 and plot their graphs of variable reliability concerning past changes.  
 I think people need to stop depending on them for making moral 
 decisions: their "right" and "wrong" are mercurial. There are better 
 reasons to look after the world we live in.
 
 -JJR

You're right, but what I think is this: Earth is 4.5e9 years old, while humans have only existed for 1.3e5 years (according to Wikipedia), and no other species seems to have affected the Earth so rapidly as humans have (specially in the last couple of centuries.) You point out volcanoes, lightings, and forest fires, but they have been here far longer than us, so (in a way) Earth has already adapted to them. Has it adapted to us? The result of what we humans are doing is still unknown, and that uncertainty is what I fear. I'm sorry if I'm being too close-minded here, but this feels too much like treating with a new person: until you know how they will react to each thing you might say or do, you have to be careful in everything. That's it. I'm also sorry I can't come up with more logical reasons, and instead base my decisions on fear. -- Carlos Santander Bernal
Nov 27 2006
parent "John Reimer" <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 18:58:28 -0800, Carlos Santander  
<csantander619 gmail.com> wrote:


 You're right, but what I think is this: Earth is 4.5e9 years old, while  
 humans have only existed for 1.3e5 years (according to Wikipedia), and  
 no other species seems to have affected the Earth so rapidly as humans  
 have (specially in the last couple of centuries.) You point out  
 volcanoes, lightings, and forest fires, but they have been here far  
 longer than us, so (in a way) Earth has already adapted to them. Has it  
 adapted to us? The result of what we humans are doing is still unknown,  
 and that uncertainty is what I fear.

Okay... wikipedia is making some pretty assertive claims if it knows how old this earth is, or the universe for that matter. Most honest scientists wouldn't even claim that. I'm not surprised, I guess, given that being the "popular" belief. The age seems to change every year. None of that is science. None of it is scientifically verifiable. It's based on assumptions and presumptions, much of it inprecise and outrageous. It's the age-old problem of origins, metaphysics, and philosophy. Science has no business there; nor can it prove the truth of such an ancient existance: it has no mastery of time such that it can look back "millions of years" to be first hand witnesses to such events.
 I'm sorry if I'm being too close-minded here, but this feels too much  
 like treating with a new person: until you know how they will react to  
 each thing you might say or do, you have to be careful in everything.  
 That's it. I'm also sorry I can't come up with more logical reasons, and  
 instead base my decisions on fear.

Hey, no problem... this is not necessarily a good place to get into this, Carlos, and I appreciate your input. But, I must say you sure opened a "whole can of worms" with your earth dates. ;) -JJR
Nov 27 2006
prev sibling parent "Lionello Lunesu" <lionello lunesu.remove.com> writes:
"John Reimer" <terminal.node gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:op.tjowqrwv6gr7xp epsilon-alpha...
 Why is CO2 a bad thing?  Don't plants use it for photosynthesis?  Wouldn't 
 it make our planet a greener place?  Wouldn't it encourage growth of trees 
 and plants that industrialization destroys?

There was a report in Scientific American a few years ago regarding a study showing that increased CO2 levels did NOT result in more plant growth. I was quite surprised to read that. L.
Nov 28 2006
prev sibling parent reply Don Clugston <dac nospam.com.au> writes:
David Medlock wrote:
 - There is still NO EVIDENCE of C02 caused by humans.  Increasing C02 + 
 more humans is not conclusive.  You need reproducible results and double 
 blind studies, not a 'consensus'.

Please rephrase. There is plenty of evidence of CO2 caused by humans. There is no evidence of CO2 caused by humans, which you find convincing. Yet I think you've got your facts seriously wrong here. I've never heard anyone doubt the link between CO2 and humanity before. Likewise, the link between CO2 and direct effect on global temperature are also very well established; it's a very simple calculation. Most of the published papers argue that secondary effects will enhance the temperature effect, some argue that it will be 3 times the simple calculation, and cite global temperature measurements as evidence. The greenhouse sceptics generally argue that the secondary effects will lead to a net effect of about 0.5 times of the simple calculation, and say that the observed global temperature rise is largely due to non-human factors.
Nov 27 2006
parent reply David Medlock <noone nowhere.com> writes:
Don Clugston wrote:

 David Medlock wrote:
 
 - There is still NO EVIDENCE of C02 caused by humans.  Increasing C02 
 + more humans is not conclusive.  You need reproducible results and 
 double blind studies, not a 'consensus'.

Please rephrase. There is plenty of evidence of CO2 caused by humans. There is no evidence of CO2 caused by humans, which you find convincing. Yet I think you've got your facts seriously wrong here. I've never heard anyone doubt the link between CO2 and humanity before. Likewise, the link between CO2 and direct effect on global temperature are also very well established; it's a very simple calculation.

global *catastrophic* climate change. This is the basis of the Kyoto protocols. There are factors you just can't work into a calculation, Don. Of course humans produce C02, biologically and industrially. Equating it with global climate change is another issue. People have calculated we would run out of food before the 21st century too, that never happened either. I was wrong about the 1 degree C increase in the 1900s, it was 0.6 degrees Celsius(source:IPCC). We have been keeping records since 1880. www.junkscience.com has some calculations to disprove the doom and gloom. They have a standing challenge for someone to prove it otherwise. http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ Five or ten years of data is almost nothing in terms of historical weather. You need at least 30 to 50 to make any valid conclusions. You know what, 30 years ago they were talking global cooling and a coming ice age! In the 1600s a plant was weighed, then watered for 5 years. In that time the plant increased from 5 to 169 lbs, but the soil remained the same weight. This means the weight came from water, C02 and sunlight. Experiments on plants have shown that even at C02 levels of 30,000 ppm there was no negative effects. (Wittwer and Robb, 1964) Logically the conclusion is that the ecosystem is quite capable of adapting to increased C02 levels. Given that and the less than one-degree temperature increase in the last 100 years, why exactly should I pay double(or more) for my fuels/goods? Why should progress be stagnated over what is just a theory? Why are countries like India and China left out of Kyoto, they will soon be the major contributors to C02 emissions? Why was this year a nonexistant hurricane season? Believe what you will, but don't confuse consensus and politics with science. Sorry for the off-topic thread. I will cease posting to this topic now. -DavidM
Nov 27 2006
parent reply Charles D Hixson <charleshixsn earthlink.net> writes:
David Medlock wrote:
 Don Clugston wrote:
 
 David Medlock wrote:

 - There is still NO EVIDENCE of C02 caused by humans.  Increasing C02 
 + more humans is not conclusive.  You need reproducible results and 
 double blind studies, not a 'consensus'.

Please rephrase. There is plenty of evidence of CO2 caused by humans. There is no evidence of CO2 caused by humans, which you find convincing. Yet I think you've got your facts seriously wrong here. I've never heard anyone doubt the link between CO2 and humanity before. Likewise, the link between CO2 and direct effect on global temperature are also very well established; it's a very simple calculation.

global *catastrophic* climate change. This is the basis of the Kyoto protocols.

Does it really matter what's causing it, if we could do something to stop it, and we don't?
 
 There are factors you just can't work into a calculation, Don.  Of 
 course humans produce C02, biologically and industrially.  Equating it 
 with global climate change is another issue.  People have calculated we 
 would run out of food before the 21st century too, that never happened 
 either.
 
 I was wrong about the 1 degree C increase in the 1900s, it was 0.6 
 degrees Celsius(source:IPCC).  We have been keeping records since 1880.
 
 www.junkscience.com  has some calculations to disprove the doom and 
 gloom.  They have a standing challenge for someone to prove it otherwise.
 
 http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

 
 Five or ten years of data is almost nothing in terms of historical 
 weather.  You need at least 30 to 50 to make any valid conclusions.  You 
 know what, 30 years ago they were talking global cooling and a coming 
 ice age!

There will be a next ice age. The big melt comes first.
 
 In the 1600s a plant was weighed, then watered for 5 years.  In that 
 time the plant increased from 5 to 169 lbs, but the soil remained the 
 same weight.  This means the weight came from water, C02 and sunlight.
 
 Experiments on plants have shown that even at C02 levels of 30,000 ppm 
 there was no negative effects. (Wittwer and Robb, 1964)

I've seen several reports that dispute this. Some plants will grow better than others in high CO2 environments. (One of the beneficiaries is poison ivy...it also becomes equipped with a more concentrated poison.) Most plants will have fewer vitamins and minerals per ounce. May be good for the plants, but not for us.
 
 Logically the conclusion is that the ecosystem is quite capable of 
 adapting to increased C02 levels.

?? Well, yes, given sufficient time and freedom to move. Of course a large number of species will go extinct in the process, but given enough time new species will arise. That seems a very strange position for a person to take, however, as "enough time" is in the millions of years.
 
 Given that and the less than one-degree temperature increase in the last 
 100 years, why exactly should I pay double(or more) for my fuels/goods?
 Why should progress be stagnated over what is just a theory?
 
 Why are countries like India and China left out of Kyoto, they will soon 
 be the major contributors to C02 emissions?  Why was this year a 
 nonexistant hurricane season?

Weather is variable from year to year. A single year doesn't prove ANYTHING. (Neither does a warm autumn in Finland. But if you already believe, you may see it as an indicator.)
 
 Believe what you will, but don't confuse consensus and politics with 
 science.
 
 Sorry for the off-topic thread. I will cease posting to this topic now.
 
 -DavidM

Nov 27 2006
parent reply Tom <tom nospam.com> writes:
 http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/


Why? On the contrary, what I like about that source (thank you David for letting me know about it), is that they don't *just* say "I doubt the reliability of <whatever-they-don't-agree-with>." They also offer /a little bit more/ information about the WHY... ;) -- Tom;
Nov 27 2006
next sibling parent Charles D Hixson <charleshixsn earthlink.net> writes:
Tom wrote:
 http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/


Why? On the contrary, what I like about that source (thank you David for letting me know about it), is that they don't *just* say "I doubt the reliability of <whatever-they-don't-agree-with>." They also offer /a little bit more/ information about the WHY... ;) -- Tom;

Because I read the start of the article pointed at. Actually, when I read far enough it began to be reasonable. (I didn't do that at first.) So they're lying the way that newspapers usually lie. Put the "shaping" lines early in the story, and then put the rest of the story on the jump sheet. If you call them on it they can say "See, we printed the real story!", but if you just read the first part, you get a VERY distorted impression. So I don't trust them. If I want to invest that much effort, I'll look it up where they don't first try to mislead you. (And when you DO read the entire article, it doesn't support the tale that people aren't responsible [partially] for global warming. Or that global warming isn't happening.)
Nov 27 2006
prev sibling parent reply "John S. Skogtvedt" <jss2k2 chello.no> writes:
Tom skrev:
 
 Why? On the contrary, what I like about that source (thank you David
 for letting me know about it), is that they don't *just* say "I doubt
 the reliability of <whatever-they-don't-agree-with>." They also offer
 /a little bit more/ information about the WHY... ;)
 
 -- 
 Tom;

From a quick Google search: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=JunkScience.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy For more: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22junkscience.com%22
Nov 27 2006
parent Tom <tom nospam.com> writes:
Interesting but, lets not fall into some kind of argumentum ad hominem. The
article is very informative by itself (at the most, people should discuss the
arguments per se). Nevertheless I respect Charles distrust (towards the source)
because of the reasons he explained.

In order to stop newsgroup "pollution" ;), I'll cease posting on the subject as
well.

Kind regards,
--
Tom;

== Quote from John S. Skogtvedt (jss2k2 chello.no)'s article
 Tom skrev:
 Why? On the contrary, what I like about that source (thank you David
 for letting me know about it), is that they don't *just* say "I doubt
 the reliability of <whatever-they-don't-agree-with>." They also offer
 /a little bit more/ information about the WHY... ;)

 --
 Tom;

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=JunkScience.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy For more: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22junkscience.com%22

Nov 28 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent "Lionello Lunesu" <lionello lunesu.remove.com> writes:
 Politicians and anti-capitalists love the theories though.  It lets them 
 pass laws to make you live the way they want you to.

:)) I can't believe you're saying that :) What do "anti-capitalists" have to do with global warming? I believe pollution is causing problems, amonst which global warming. but I'm hardly a communist. :) L.
Nov 27 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Don Clugston <dac nospam.com.au> writes:
David Medlock wrote:
 John S. Skogtvedt wrote:
 
 David Medlock skrev:

 Take heart with global warming.  Its happening on Mars as well so it 
 probably a fluctuation in the Sun, not human causes...

 -DavidM

If you do a google search it seems it's not quite that simple: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

True, but there is no hard evidence outside computer models that humans are causing any fluctuations in temperature. Whether it is happening is a separate issue than what is causing it. It would be terribly difficult to prove empirically that human activity is the cause.

(1) It is clear that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing significantly as a result of human activity. (2) It is clear that, on its own, these increased CO2 levels will increase global temperature by a couple of degrees. (3) It is known that global temperatures have risen over the last hundred years, and particularly over the last 30. (4) What is completely unknown is, what feedback mechanisms are there in the earths climate? Especially cloud formation. Feedback could be positive or negative. (5) The contribution of solar activity is also unknown. (human activity) + (other causes) + (feedback mechanisms) = (observed climate change).
 Also, consider that the total temperature only rose 1 degree in the last 
 century and hurricane season was(comparatively) a flop this year.

Be careful with that "only". Only a few degrees difference in global temperature makes the difference between the current climate and the last ice age.
 Even if you believe C02 emissions are doing it, remember that 100 years 
 ago the automobile had just entered the market.  Who knows what we will 
 be using in 100 more!

Indeed. But the fundamental issue is this: For most of human history, we've implicitly treated the earth as essentially infinite, and human activity as a small perturbation. That is no longer a good assumption; for some topics, it's an extremely poor assumption. It's that simple.
 Politicians and anti-capitalists love the theories though.  It lets them 
 pass laws to make you live the way they want you to.  Makes them feel 
 good but its mostly junk science.  The ban on DDT has killed millions of 
 mostly children in Africa, but it was too banned on junk science and 
 only after first world countries had used it successfully.

There's a lot of junk science around, no doubt about it, in all kinds of directions. An interesting one is that a lot of air pollution publicity was funded by cigarette companies (so that people would blame their chronic bronchitis and lung cancer on environmental factors, instead of the toxic chemicals they were pumping directly into their lungs twenty times per day...).
Nov 27 2006
next sibling parent reply Lutger <lutger.blijdestijn gmail.com> writes:
Don Clugston wrote:
<snip>
 There's a lot of junk science around, no doubt about it, in all kinds of 
 directions. An interesting one is that a lot of air pollution publicity 
 was funded by cigarette companies (so that people would blame their 
 chronic bronchitis and lung cancer on environmental factors, instead of 
 the toxic chemicals they were pumping directly into their lungs twenty 
 times per day...).

The same happened to research that denied human influence on global warming - it was (partly) sponsored by oil companies. The effect of this on public opinion was that it destroyed the image of consensus, making it into a controversial subject. Even though only handful of (sponsored) scientist deny the phenonemon as opposed to several thousands that more or less agree, it still *looks* like there is something to dispute, hence not worry about it.
Nov 27 2006
next sibling parent Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar igesund.net> writes:
Lutger wrote:

 Don Clugston wrote:
 <snip>
 There's a lot of junk science around, no doubt about it, in all kinds of
 directions. An interesting one is that a lot of air pollution publicity
 was funded by cigarette companies (so that people would blame their
 chronic bronchitis and lung cancer on environmental factors, instead of
 the toxic chemicals they were pumping directly into their lungs twenty
 times per day...).

The same happened to research that denied human influence on global warming - it was (partly) sponsored by oil companies. The effect of this on public opinion was that it destroyed the image of consensus, making it into a controversial subject. Even though only handful of (sponsored) scientist deny the phenonemon as opposed to several thousands that more or less agree, it still *looks* like there is something to dispute, hence not worry about it.

Funnily enough, Norwegian politicians are all about saving the environment, except the little catch that the Norwegian economy is so oil boosted that it's been "hard" for them to actually do anything that matters. It's seemingly improving now, though. Too bad Norway is too small a country to really make a difference. -- Lars Ivar Igesund blog at http://larsivi.net DSource & #D: larsivi
Nov 27 2006
prev sibling parent David Medlock <noone nowhere.com> writes:
Lutger wrote:

 Don Clugston wrote:
 <snip>
 
 There's a lot of junk science around, no doubt about it, in all kinds 
 of directions. An interesting one is that a lot of air pollution 
 publicity was funded by cigarette companies (so that people would 
 blame their chronic bronchitis and lung cancer on environmental 
 factors, instead of the toxic chemicals they were pumping directly 
 into their lungs twenty times per day...).

The same happened to research that denied human influence on global warming - it was (partly) sponsored by oil companies. The effect of this on public opinion was that it destroyed the image of consensus, making it into a controversial subject. Even though only handful of (sponsored) scientist deny the phenonemon as opposed to several thousands that more or less agree, it still *looks* like there is something to dispute, hence not worry about it.

The Feds here in America make more than DOUBLE the profit on a barrel of oil than the oil companies do. I would say this casts more doubt on the government than the companies. Again whether its happening does not conclude why it is happening. -DavidM
Nov 27 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
Don Clugston wrote:
 
 (1) It is clear that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing 
 significantly as a result of human activity.
 (2) It is clear that, on its own, these increased CO2 levels will 
 increase global temperature by a couple of degrees.
 (3) It is known that global temperatures have risen over the last 
 hundred years, and particularly over the last 30.
 (4) What is completely unknown is, what feedback mechanisms are there in 
 the earths climate? Especially cloud formation. Feedback could be 
 positive or negative.
 (5) The contribution of solar activity is also unknown.
 
 (human activity) + (other causes) + (feedback mechanisms) = (observed 
 climate change).

One issue I've never heard discussed is what impact urban development has had on climate. In the past century, humanity has covered vast regions of the earth with stone (concrete and asphalt) that were previously forested, and has clear-cut other regions. Both should have a measurable impact on heat absorption and reflection in affected areas, particularly in those areas where vegetation was replaced by concrete. And I suspect it's possible that the heat rising from some urban areas may be sufficient to affect local weather patterns, similar to the "artificial mountain" method of terraforming. This may not contribute directly to a global temperature shift, but it could be enough to affect localized temperatures in some regions and possibly to affect local sea life from a corresponding shift in surface currents as well. Sean
Nov 27 2006
prev sibling parent reply "John Reimer" <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
What are the chances that a large meteorite will hit the earth and  
eliminate all further arguments on the matter of global warning? :)

What are the chances that we are all deteriorating from "pollution" of  
food-sources and over-dependecy on industrialization and manufacturing in  
which companies inject hydrogenated fats and trans-fats into most packaged  
foods (uninhibited), while many worry about our future of global warming  
in a whole system that has been known to be slowly running out of "steam"  
(entropy).

Folks, it's not just about junk science, it's about propaganda,  politics,  
and media and the pet issue of the times. The fear of global warming,  
there is no doubt about it, has been pushed at the public by media and  
politicians in tandem with a crowd of easily manipulated "scientists".   
Billions of dollars have been contributed to the cause (and the Kyoto  
protocol)...

And, no, the "majority" of scientists do not necessarily support all the  
conclusions made -- perhaps the "majority" of outspoken and public  
scientists have supported it.  Unfortunately, those that disagree haven't  
been near as vocal: the peer pressure has been huge to comply with the  
conclusions made in what I'd call "popular" science; those that don't  
comply, even respected scientists, have been ostrasized -- they lose their  
jobs for questioning the conclusions.  This is becoming a more common  
situation with the science of our times as research grants are frequently  
sourced from powerful and biased parties.

What consititutes "junk science" seems to depend more on whim and  
subjectivity than on rigid scrutiny of the techniques implemented in  
analysis.  Howevery, even "good" science can go completely awry when  
research is based upon wrong fundamental assumptions (every scientist  
assumes some pre-conditions to the universe).  Science is not perfection,  
and I'm pretty sure most scientists admit that it's more like groping in  
the dark and making hypothesis after hypothesis until some model is  
devined that maps closely to observed patterns.

Further, popular global-warming theory seems to point its finger at  
pollution as the focus of the "problem". Pollution should be corrected for  
much more obvious and direct reasons than the ambiguous conclusions of  
global warming (I fear that's is used as political turbo system for the  
cause).  Pollution of most sorts are bad for society directly (through  
direct contact, indirect contact (vegetables, animals), ingestion, or  
inhalation), let alone for debatable future cataclismic climate changes.

The money that goes into solving this "problem", one in essense that is  
really a fuzzy picture of the future and based on even fuzzier data  
collection and interpretation, seems to have been outrageously ill-spent  
(especially the kyoto protocol) and based on more public herding of  
opinion than a sincere desire to find solutions to a "problem" (that's an  
opinion). :)

-JJR
Nov 27 2006
parent Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:
John Reimer wrote:
 The money that goes into solving this "problem", one in essense that is 
 really a fuzzy picture of the future and based on even fuzzier data 
 collection and interpretation, seems to have been outrageously ill-spent 
 (especially the kyoto protocol) and based on more public herding of 
 opinion than a sincere desire to find solutions to a "problem" (that's 
 an opinion). :)
 
 -JJR

http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/6341044%20Hot%20&%20Cold%20Media.pdf
Dec 08 2006
prev sibling parent reply "Kristian Kilpi" <kjkilpi gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 03:59:34 +0200, David Medlock <noone nowhere.com>  
wrote:
 John S. Skogtvedt wrote:

 David Medlock skrev:


 Politicians and anti-capitalists love the theories though.  It lets them  
 pass laws to make you live the way they want you to.  Makes them feel  
 good but its mostly junk science.  The ban on DDT has killed millions of  
 mostly children in Africa, but it was too banned on junk science and  
 only after first world countries had used it successfully.

Oh, it's true that you can 'bend' almost any test cases to support your cause. But would it be obvious that a party (multi-million company, politician, etc) which sees an opportunity to make a lot of money will do quite much to achive that goal? For instance, they could publish results that support they goals. Test results of independent third parties (scientist that are not sponsored, or bribed even) are much more realiable to me. They are not actually getting or losing money when making those tests. I'm not communist, and pure communism doesn't work. However, a pure capitalism is a bad thing also. (Both of these things, in their purest form, don't exist in the real world.) A company is all about making money, right? It'll make money in any means necessary without breaking the law. (It could break the law if pros are much bigger than cons and risks.) If the law is not strict enough or there are loop holes, companies can do pretty horrible things. Why? That's simple: if a company 'A' won't do it, then a company 'B' will. Or at least, so the company 'A' thinks, so it acts first, before the company 'B' can act. It's in human nature. And note that when the number of companies gets larger, the probability that some of them will act will approach 100%. So the assumption the company 'A' makes is justified and true even. The history is full of examples of 'greediness'. Oil companies (lead in gasoline), arm companies etc (biochemical weapon factories build for Iran). And of course cigarette companies. They *knew* 30 year ago that cigarettes is harmful and will cause cancer, they just didn't publish that information. When the wheel was rolling, it was too late to make it stop, they thought. And were right. Now hundred millions are addicted to cigarettes, and the wheel is rolling so new young people will start smoking. And what's discusting, now cigarette companies are found new, fresh market area in the East (for instance, in China). Do the cigarette companies tell there the that it can kill you (if the law requires, there is a tiny label in the cigarette boxes)? No, the ads are directed to young *kids*! And why the goverments do nothing to stop that? Well, they get money when people buys cigarettes of course (taxes). The goverments do not notice (they don't want to) how much money will be spend to medical expences and in loss of taxes when people die before their time... (Or maybe they are just satisfied when many will die 5-20 years before their time; no need to pay pensions...) ... So, if any of you are smoking, please quit! :) About DDT... Of course, if you and your children are starving, and DDT would help, you would probably want to use it to say the least. But that's not the final solution, you have to think something else in the long run. DDT companies will of course sell the stuff until the end of time, and collect the profit. Because DDT is banned, another solutions must be invented. These are tough questions, though. But it's absolutely good that DDT is banned outside Africa, no question about it. It's clear that DDT is very harmful substance. I have seen so much (truth bending and manipulating) propaganda (by goverments and companies), so I though to do some anti-propaganda myself. ;) (I didn't intend to write so much... sorry about that.)
Nov 27 2006
next sibling parent reply David Medlock <noone nowhere.com> writes:
Kristian Kilpi wrote:

 
 About DDT...
 But it's absolutely good 
 that DDT is banned  outside Africa, no question about it. It's clear 
 that DDT is very harmful  substance.
 

Clear to whom? How is it absolutely good? By the way its banned from being produced in most countries, so Africa has been out of luck until recently. If they produce it they risk sanctions. It is theorized to thin eggshells but hasn't been shown to adversely affect humans. Malaria on the other hand kills a person every 30 seconds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm You must be confusing it with Agent Orange or DES, both of which are dangerous. -DavidM
Nov 27 2006
parent "Kristian Kilpi" <kjkilpi gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 15:45:58 +0200, David Medlock <noone nowhere.com>  
wrote:

 Kristian Kilpi wrote:

  About DDT...
 But it's absolutely good that DDT is banned  outside Africa, no  
 question about it. It's clear that DDT is very harmful  substance.

Clear to whom? How is it absolutely good? By the way its banned from being produced in most countries, so Africa has been out of luck until recently. If they produce it they risk sanctions. It is theorized to thin eggshells but hasn't been shown to adversely affect humans. Malaria on the other hand kills a person every 30 seconds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm You must be confusing it with Agent Orange or DES, both of which are dangerous. -DavidM

Hmmm... maybe. But one thing is clear (hopefully ;) ) that (almost) any substance is poisonous if eaten (or otherwise consumed) too much. Even water (if you drink it enough, it'll kill you; hyponatremia or water intoxication). So it's likely that DDT is also poisonous if the amounts are large enough. Well, what's too much? I don't know. But, because DDT has an cumulative effect in the food chain, it can be a serious problem in the future. It could take one million year, or just 30 years, but it's possible that when a critical mass of DDT around in the globe is reached, we are in deep s**t. ;)
Nov 27 2006
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Kristian Kilpi wrote:
 And of course cigarette companies. They *knew* 30 year ago that 
 cigarettes is harmful and will cause cancer, they just didn't publish 
 that information.

Cigarette smoking being harmful to health has been known for 400 years. There was no secret about it. The doctors certainly knew about it. Anyone who did an autopsy on a smoker knew about it. My father said that when he grew up before WW2 the kids called cigarettes "coffin nails." Way more than 30 years ago, I knew cigs were harmful and would kill you, and that's why I didn't take up smoking. It was common knowledge. It's like beer. I remember back as a teenager, a friend of mine was swigging beer. He'd joke about the billions of brain cells he was deliberately killing with each gulp. He also smoked, and his doctor told him his shortness of breath was caused by his smoking. Smokers and drinkers know, and knew. They just don't (and didn't) care. I've talked to young smokers today. They know all about the health risks. They just don't care.
Nov 27 2006
next sibling parent Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Kristian Kilpi wrote:
 And of course cigarette companies. They *knew* 30 year ago that 
 cigarettes is harmful and will cause cancer, they just didn't publish 
 that information.

Cigarette smoking being harmful to health has been known for 400 years. There was no secret about it. The doctors certainly knew about it. Anyone who did an autopsy on a smoker knew about it. My father said that when he grew up before WW2 the kids called cigarettes "coffin nails."

The propaganda to the contrary must have been just too effective. I've just been reminded of the slogan "Guinness is good for you" that was around when my family went on holiday to Ireland something like a decade ago. By a quick search, I've found this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3266819.stm But "A Guinness a day" must be an easy way to use up a significant portion of one's safe alcohol limit.
 Way more than 30 years ago, I knew cigs were harmful and would kill you, 
 and that's why I didn't take up smoking. It was common knowledge.
 
 It's like beer. I remember back as a teenager, a friend of mine was 
 swigging beer. He'd joke about the billions of brain cells he was 
 deliberately killing with each gulp. He also smoked, and his doctor told 
 him his shortness of breath was caused by his smoking.
 
 Smokers and drinkers know, and knew. They just don't (and didn't) care. 
 I've talked to young smokers today. They know all about the health 
 risks. They just don't care.

That still leaves one to wonder their motives for taking it up, and why they care about these. FTM, do they have any idea how much money they're spending on their habit? Stewart. -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS/M d- s:- C++ a->--- UB P+ L E W++ N+++ o K- w++ O? M V? PS- PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++++ h-- r-- !y ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Nov 27 2006
prev sibling parent reply "Kristian Kilpi" <kjkilpi gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:05:03 +0200, Walter Bright  
<newshound digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Kristian Kilpi wrote:
 And of course cigarette companies. They *knew* 30 year ago that  
 cigarettes is harmful and will cause cancer, they just didn't publish  
 that information.

Cigarette smoking being harmful to health has been known for 400 years. There was no secret about it. The doctors certainly knew about it. Anyone who did an autopsy on a smoker knew about it. My father said that when he grew up before WW2 the kids called cigarettes "coffin nails." Way more than 30 years ago, I knew cigs were harmful and would kill you, and that's why I didn't take up smoking. It was common knowledge. Smokers and drinkers know, and knew. They just don't (and didn't) care.

When I was a kid, I'm glad that we were informed about the harms of smoking in the school. So I didn't start smoking. I 'dared' not to smoke. But not all know the hazards of smoking (or drinking). Any country that does not have a smoking culture developed yet, or in which children aren't educated so much, is free game for cigarette companies. And that's highly immoral in my opinion! They direct ads to young people (potential smokers) and send a message: if you start smoking, you will get rich and popular. And lets then sponsor some movie stars, racing drives, etc. so that they will advertise cigarettes.
 I've talked to young smokers today. They know all about the health  
 risks. They just don't care.

That's a shame. I think something else could be more effective than telling about health risks (of course, one should also tell about health risks too). Using humour is one thing. To make them see how funny and/or stupid it's walking around and sucking a paper wrapper. For young adults I would create the following humorous TV ad (everybody, use your imagination): A young, cool guy and his babe are getting intimate in their bed room. The guy dumbs his cigarette, and the girl is laying in the bed, ready (lingeries still on of course, this isnt't a porn movie you know). The guy looks down (at his groin), but nothing happens. "C'mon!", he yells in frustation, "Don't fail me know!". But nothing helps. The camera transfers outside the department, and there is painful (and loud) "noooooo!" which fades in the night. In the screen appears: "Cigarettes cause impotence." And maybe after that: "That's why girls pick guys that don't smoke." Another thing that can be a worth of mentioning, is the need to smoke time after time. You will be a slave so to speak. Let's say you need to go smoking at every hour. Now, for example, when you're going to watch a movie in a local theather. You have to smoke before going in (for obvious reasons), and still you'll have an urge for smoking at the middle of the movie. If you can't resist, you will have to go to outside the theather to smoke. But if don't go, you'll be watching the clock the rest of the movie. And what if you can't smoke inside your house, etc.? I think it's very annoying to stop everything you were doing after an hour and go to out to smoke. Day after day, hour after hour.
Nov 27 2006
parent reply "Txarli" <basura txarli.com> writes:
mmmmm...... you are talking about D?

Sorry, just remember where you are


"Kristian Kilpi" <kjkilpi gmail.com> escribió en el mensaje 
news:op.tjpa5sn8usumhd mist...
 On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:05:03 +0200, Walter Bright 
 <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote:

 Kristian Kilpi wrote:
 And of course cigarette companies. They *knew* 30 year ago that 
 cigarettes is harmful and will cause cancer, they just didn't publish 
 that information.

Cigarette smoking being harmful to health has been known for 400 years. There was no secret about it. The doctors certainly knew about it. Anyone who did an autopsy on a smoker knew about it. My father said that when he grew up before WW2 the kids called cigarettes "coffin nails." Way more than 30 years ago, I knew cigs were harmful and would kill you, and that's why I didn't take up smoking. It was common knowledge. Smokers and drinkers know, and knew. They just don't (and didn't) care.

When I was a kid, I'm glad that we were informed about the harms of smoking in the school. So I didn't start smoking. I 'dared' not to smoke. But not all know the hazards of smoking (or drinking). Any country that does not have a smoking culture developed yet, or in which children aren't educated so much, is free game for cigarette companies. And that's highly immoral in my opinion! They direct ads to young people (potential smokers) and send a message: if you start smoking, you will get rich and popular. And lets then sponsor some movie stars, racing drives, etc. so that they will advertise cigarettes.
 I've talked to young smokers today. They know all about the health 
 risks. They just don't care.

That's a shame. I think something else could be more effective than telling about health risks (of course, one should also tell about health risks too). Using humour is one thing. To make them see how funny and/or stupid it's walking around and sucking a paper wrapper. For young adults I would create the following humorous TV ad (everybody, use your imagination): A young, cool guy and his babe are getting intimate in their bed room. The guy dumbs his cigarette, and the girl is laying in the bed, ready (lingeries still on of course, this isnt't a porn movie you know). The guy looks down (at his groin), but nothing happens. "C'mon!", he yells in frustation, "Don't fail me know!". But nothing helps. The camera transfers outside the department, and there is painful (and loud) "noooooo!" which fades in the night. In the screen appears: "Cigarettes cause impotence." And maybe after that: "That's why girls pick guys that don't smoke." Another thing that can be a worth of mentioning, is the need to smoke time after time. You will be a slave so to speak. Let's say you need to go smoking at every hour. Now, for example, when you're going to watch a movie in a local theather. You have to smoke before going in (for obvious reasons), and still you'll have an urge for smoking at the middle of the movie. If you can't resist, you will have to go to outside the theather to smoke. But if don't go, you'll be watching the clock the rest of the movie. And what if you can't smoke inside your house, etc.? I think it's very annoying to stop everything you were doing after an hour and go to out to smoke. Day after day, hour after hour.

Nov 28 2006
parent "Kristian Kilpi" <kjkilpi gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:38:03 +0200, Txarli <basura txarli.com> wrote:
 mmmmm...... you are talking about D?

 Sorry, just remember where you are

My apologizes.
Nov 28 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Ary Manzana <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:
Walter Bright escribió:
 Stack class variables, bug fixes.
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
 
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.175.zip

Wow, how many bugs fixed! Great! You forgot to add "super" to the specs... partially. :-) http://www.digitalmars.com/d/expression.html#IsExpression --- IsExpression: is ( Type ) is ( Type : TypeSpecialization ) is ( Type == TypeSpecialization ) is ( Type Identifier ) is ( Type Identifier : TypeSpecialization ) is ( Type Identifier == TypeSpecialization ) TypeSpecialization: Type typedef struct union class --> <-- "super" wants to be a part of this interface enum function delegate --- And it's ok in the table below. Ary
Nov 25 2006
parent Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
I'll fix.
Nov 25 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent "JohnC" <johnch_atms hotmail.com> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:ek8vrl$5m8$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Stack class variables, bug fixes.

 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html

 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.175.zip

Thanks for implementing type tuples as a base class list. Tuples are emerging as an excellent feature.
Nov 25 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Stack class variables, bug fixes.
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
 
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.175.zip

But Christmas is still a month away! Great work :-) Sean
Nov 25 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Thomas Kuehne <thomas-dloop kuehne.cn> writes:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Walter Bright schrieb am 2006-11-25:
 Stack class variables

Should the following allocate the class on the stack or not? # # scope Object o; # o = new Object; # Thomas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFFaNbcLK5blCcjpWoRAspJAJ9NRuOmv8Rqmgm+tuEDwoorVONrXQCgnOMz 7npc5q4BldVJxZPdDFKpciM= =4oVb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Nov 25 2006
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Thomas Kuehne wrote:
 Should the following allocate the class on the stack or not?
 #
 # scope Object o;
 # o = new Object;
 #

Not. But it will get RAII destructed.
Nov 25 2006
prev sibling parent Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
Thomas Kuehne wrote:
 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
 Hash: SHA1
 
 Walter Bright schrieb am 2006-11-25:
 Stack class variables

Should the following allocate the class on the stack or not? # # scope Object o; # o = new Object; #

Not, because it shouldn't be allowed. http://www.digitalmars.com/d/attribute.html#scope "Assignment to a scope, other than initialization, is not allowed." Stewart. -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS/M d- s:- C++ a->--- UB P+ L E W++ N+++ o K- w++ O? M V? PS- PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++++ h-- r-- !y ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Nov 26 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Kirk McDonald <kirklin.mcdonald gmail.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Stack class variables, bug fixes.
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
 
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.175.zip

I'm not sure what you did, Walter, but compiling Pyd with 0.175 results in dmd crashing. Windows gives me the ol' "dmd.exe has encountered a problem and needs to close" window, and the command line gives me the ol' "error: command 'C:\dmd\dmd\bin\dmd.exe' failed with exit status 1". Reverting to 0.174 fixes it. I'll try and work out a minimal working example, but Pyd is such a huge bloody mess of template code at this point that I don't look forward to it. -- Kirk McDonald Pyd: Wrapping Python with D http://pyd.dsource.org
Nov 25 2006
parent Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Kirk McDonald wrote:
 I'm not sure what you did, Walter, but compiling Pyd with 0.175 results 
 in dmd crashing. Windows gives me the ol' "dmd.exe has encountered a 
 problem and needs to close" window, and the command line gives me the 
 ol' "error: command 'C:\dmd\dmd\bin\dmd.exe' failed with exit status 1". 
 Reverting to 0.174 fixes it.
 
 I'll try and work out a minimal working example, but Pyd is such a huge 
 bloody mess of template code at this point that I don't look forward to it.

I know it's a lot of boring work to do such isolations. Sorry.
Nov 25 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Stack class variables, bug fixes.
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
 
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.175.zip

"Fixed problem with ForStatement scope." The same problem is still in ForeachStatement. Stewart. -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS/M d- s:- C++ a->--- UB P+ L E W++ N+++ o K- w++ O? M V? PS- PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++++ h-- r-- !y ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Nov 26 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Stack class variables, bug fixes.
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
 
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.175.zip

Thanks! The stack allocation and fixes are terrific! For the stack allocation, I'm wondering if in future versions it would be possible to suppress the call to _d_callfinalizer if there is no dtor to call? (sometimes the RAII isn't needed, but the speed is).
Nov 27 2006
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Dave wrote:
 For the stack allocation, I'm wondering if in future versions it would 
 be possible to suppress the call to _d_callfinalizer if there is no dtor 
 to call? (sometimes the RAII isn't needed, but the speed is).

The problem is the monitor needs to be freed, too.
Nov 27 2006
parent reply Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:
== Quote from Walter Bright (newshound digitalmars.com)'s article
 Dave wrote:
 For the stack allocation, I'm wondering if in future versions


 be possible to suppress the call to _d_callfinalizer if there


 to call? (sometimes the RAII isn't needed, but the speed is).


Could that part be inlined (if there isn't a dtor)? if (p && ((cast(void**)p)[1]) _d_monitorrelease(cast(Object)p);
Nov 28 2006
parent Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Dave wrote:
 == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound digitalmars.com)'s article
 Dave wrote:
 For the stack allocation, I'm wondering if in future versions


 be possible to suppress the call to _d_callfinalizer if there


 to call? (sometimes the RAII isn't needed, but the speed is).


Could that part be inlined (if there isn't a dtor)? if (p && ((cast(void**)p)[1]) _d_monitorrelease(cast(Object)p);

Yes, it could be, but it won't buy that much, because the real cost is that the release has to be set up in a finally block.
Nov 28 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Chris Miller" <chris dprogramming.com> writes:
I'm glad this version emits less greenhouse gases.
Nov 27 2006
parent "John Reimer" <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:43:45 -0800, Chris Miller <chris dprogramming.com>  
wrote:

 I'm glad this version emits less greenhouse gases.

Yet, this version seems to engender a burst of greenhouse gas /comments/... curious. :)
Nov 27 2006
prev sibling parent reply Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Stack class variables, bug fixes.
 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/d/changelog.html
 
 http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd.175.zip

Regarding bug #373 : The only doc change I see is the FOO->Foo consistency change, which is not what this bug is about. Did you forget to roll more doc updates or was that just it? -- Bruno Medeiros - MSc in CS/E student http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
Nov 28 2006
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
Bruno Medeiros wrote:
 Regarding bug #373 :
 The only doc change I see is the FOO->Foo consistency change, which is 
 not what this bug is about. Did you forget to roll more doc updates or 
 was that just it?

I added an opEquals to the TypeInfo implementation to compare them for equality.
Nov 28 2006
parent Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:
 Bruno Medeiros wrote:
 Regarding bug #373 :
 The only doc change I see is the FOO->Foo consistency change, which is 
 not what this bug is about. Did you forget to roll more doc updates or 
 was that just it?

I added an opEquals to the TypeInfo implementation to compare them for equality.

Ah, understood, that makes sense. -- Bruno Medeiros - MSc in CS/E student http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
Nov 29 2006