Slashdot Mirror

Of course the Pacific Institute has its own bias, but your criticisms of their analysis are pretty baseless. For example, you say

"Further is the problem with using 2000 as the reference point. In fact, it is perfectly valid to use 2000 as a reference point; it's just as valid as using 1997 or any other time."

At first glance, this seems to be a valid point. But if you had read the report thoroughly, you would notice that choosing any other year as a base of analysis would give just the opposite results - Europe performed 'better' than the US.

You also criticize the report for downplaying the effect of CO2 vis a vis other greenhouse gases. Just because they refuse to ignore other greenhouse gases doesn't mean that they are downplaying the effects of CO2, they are merely illuminating a very important point - that only by concentrating on CO2 exclusively, and given that only within a very specific time period, can the White House and Horner make the claims that they are making. Even focusing specifically on CO2 emissions, this claim is only partially true within that 'hunted' time period.

I think a more valid criticism can be made of this report. The wording seems to allude to the fact that Europe is doing a good job with greenhouse emissions. Compared to the U.S. this is certainly true, and the report backs that up with solid data. But what ever happened to global context?

Even with full implementation of all Kyoto protocols, the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would only be reduced 1% by 2050. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN-accountable organization, current emissions have to be reduced by 60-80% to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of CO2.

Furthermore, there is a lag time between emission of greenhouse gases and the resultant maximum climate change. The estimates of how long this lag time actually is vary from 30 to 50 years, but it means that the climate changes we are seeing now are a result of emissions in the past. It also means that even if we cut greenhouse gas emission to 0 right now, we will still be facing 30-50 years of the harshest climate change we have seen yet. What we need to be concentrating on is not who is doing 'better' by some slim fraction, but what measures we can take to effectively prepare for climate change.

http://www.cs.ntu.edu.au/homepages/bea/home/subjec ts/ith305/description.html

No, your statement comes from thin air between you ears.

...of the Elephant's Foot below reactor number four.

But the reason it takes so long to fix them is stupid design.

The myth that complexity is only achieved through complicated design is pervasive in computer programming, typified in Windows, and becoming more prevalant in Linux applications as Gnome and KDE become the standards.

The UNIX operating system was highly complex even in the days when it was dominated by small programs that were designed with the The Unix Philosophy. Small programs that did one thing well were the rule and complexity was achieved by utilizing clean well documented interfaces, standard data storage formats (ASCII), and non-captive UIs. The result is that most bugs can be tracked down to a specific small program that can either be fixed relatively quickly by the maintainer, or be replaced with one of a number of equivalent programs (either permanantly, or until the bug is found and fixed).

Windows design is mostly large programs that try to do everything for themselves, although they do share library functions. The result is huge masses of code that can effectively hide bugs indefinately (shatter), cannot be replaced with another program without breaking the OS (integration), and that the company seems to think of as "not our problem".

The issue I have with the desktop environments is that they seem to be following in the footsteps of Windows design, creating a tangled mess of (what should be) unecessary dependancies, huge libraries, and code that no one person is inheirently familiar with. As yet, I am unaware of any security problems inherent in either Gnome or KDE, but I do consider it a bug that installing a spreadsheet requires also requires a sound library to work properly.

Complex ends can be achieved through simple means and complex programs or OS do not need to be complicated.

Again, I'm thinking single-engine planes might not be a real comfortable place to be in that situation either....

In a single engine plane, you're landing, one way or another, and if you're smart, you just land straight ahead, trees or not. That rarely kills you, but it does mess up the plane. (Turning around is often fatal unless you have a lot of speed or altitude.)

In a twin-engine plane, you apply full power to the other engine (during takeoff, it may already be at full power.) This creates a large yaw force that tends to cause the plane to roll, sometimes so much that it can't maintain altitude and it becomes a lawn dart. It can all happen very quickly, and you're probably not very high up, so you don't have much time to correct for it.

Hmm, is it just me or should Hemos start posting articles on unemployment compensation or how to write a resume instead of on private jets and expensive stuff he can't afford anymore?

-sting3r