It depends on why you are switching from an older filesystem to ext4. It's a relatively new filesystem so you should probably expect it to be a bit more buggy when combined with software not designed for it. From my limited experience with a combination of KDE and ext4 recently I'd wait on upgrading for a while. Ext4 looks like it could be very interesting as software matures around it however, as it is currently KDE seemed to me at least a bit less stable on ext4 than it was on ext3. however, I didn't stay with the filesystem as long as I should have so take this with a bit of salt...
Why then it couldn't be controlled and the feds can't have that. This won't be the first time the feds have tried gettiing their hands on the inner workings of a system to "improve" it and it won't be the last. Their idea is that if it's "under their control" and centralized that it will mean things will be improved everywhere for the most part, unfortunately as is the case with other decentralized systems [the economy] centralization doesn't actually mean things will improve, often the reverse is true.
Quite possibly however, that is unlikely to be the reason why the desert exists in the first place as it is far older than faulty agricultural practices.
The desert exists because of a climate shift; presumably you would need to change the conditions which cause desertification and frankly, I don't think that we could create a wall of enough size to change air currents sufficiently.
Yes... it does seem rather odd that such an important document would be "accidentally" torrented... I mean really if it was that important it should have been encrypted and mounted on its own partition or at the least not anywhere near other files.. I mean honestly how do you accidentally torrent such a critical file?
Off the top of my head I can think of quite a few groups that have a similar strong following including:
Slashdotters social networking site addicts vim/emacs wars *nix in addition to Linux FOSS net neutrality Wii Xbox KDE/gnome Firefox Halo the chans etc...
Thank you for pointing out a big chunk of the problem. The same people who have trouble with anything other than XP are going to be the same people who are responsible for infecting military computers with conficker and any number of other malware.
The airforce and the military in general would do well not to create a monoculture; especially not one based on an arguably insecure operating system that is nearing its end of life. Despite the existence of *nix alternatives that are of comparable ease of use and generally superior security and customization, the military continues to insist that using an old operating system full of flaws and actively exploited by the vast majority of malware is suitable for government use. There is something very wrong here.
While I agree with your observation, cut away all the moral and ethical bullshit "justifications", and you'll come to the bottom line as to what is really driving this. It always comes down to someone feeling like they're being robbed. In this case, likely state officials feel as if they're not getting their "cut", or this is somehow cutting into other revenues.
Precisely. Whenever the government passes a law there is always going to be something in it for whoever allowed siad bill's passing. The assumption of selfishness somewhere in any action is a useful one for determing the likely behavior of any entity which has evolved or was created by something which evolved.
Prohibition doesn't work. Proxies make censorship such as this woefully ineffective at doing what they want it to. Free speech trumps their nanny state. Waste of money during a recession. The flaws are numerous and the sheer quantity of capital likely diverted from productive uses in order to enforce morality is offensive.
no matter what the ubuntu devs choose for the default theme, someone is going to be unhappy and that is why we have whole domains devoted to hosting various shiny things to put on your *nix box to customize to your liking.
i'd say the rampant spending going on in the us is a far bigger problem than how it is paid as there is no need for taxes if there is no spending. this point is where the republican party stopped being relevant- they decided that the spend+tax-ocrats were right after all and that we can borrow forever rather than cut anything. however, if we find that after seriously cutting spending to the bare bones isn't enough and that taxes are inevitable then i'd rather they tax a poison than my hard earned income. if taxes are not inevitable then neither is the carbon tax as we obviously were intelligent enough to find a way to fund government without taxes then we can find a way to offset property damage from pollutants without a pollution tax.
*shift taxation off of income so as to not punish wealth creation but discourage consumption. this helps protect the environment and at the same time takes advantage of supplu side economics. *destroy all subsidies to industry, these are destructive to the environment and cause higher debt and taxes. *remove barriers to the creation of hard currencies backed with CO2 and/or energy these are far more indicative of the strength of the economy and help fight inflation. they are also rather resistant against manipulation by the federal reserve. *extend property rights into the sky, people's property should be protected more than it is currently. you shouldn't have your land, air or water poisoned by someone else- that's an act of force against you. *remove regulatory barriers to the development of nuclear power, 3rd generation designs are of sufficient safety and can serve to take the burden off of fossil fuels in regard to energy.
there are tons of ways in which sound supply side economic policy overlaps with sound environmental policy. we just need to encourage these reforms rather than more statist reforms as is often the case, government intervention does more harm than good in economics and environmental policy.
CO2 can form the basis of organic chemical synthesis for industry. CO2 can be reduced to carbon monoxide which is *enormously useful* in chemistry being used to reduce and separate metals from their ores, as a chemical fuel, as a chemical feedstock for the synthesis of solvents, plastics etc... so no, it is plenty useful, it is just that oil is cheaper to synthesize other things with at its currently low price. a carbon tax could also work as a part of the green tax shift. cap and trade systems have been used successfully to reduce NOx and SOx emissions so adapting it to CO2 should also work with a few modifications as i had mentioned previously.
I believe that if done correctly, cap and trade is a valid temporary solution however I think that the ultimate solution to the problem is to knock out any regulatory restrictions preventing a viable market based on the trade of carbon dioxide as a resource. It may be possible to start with a cap and trade system and ween the economy off of it and on to a market that stands completely on its own. The big problem as is being seen to an extent in Europe is that it is somewhat difficult to quantify CO2 offsets in many cases. Too many permits in the wild can also cause the system not to work as efficiently as it should however auctioning the credits may solve that problem. A green shift in taxation may also improve conditions. Shifting away from our current very complicated tax system toward one that both functions to discourage wasteful consumption and simplifies the tax code [eliminating many tax loopoles in the process] may actually offer an overall economic benefit outside of the environment its self.
the ice is floating in the ocean as it is. it is therefore displacing as much water as it possibly can. had it been siting on a continent somewhere and slid off into the ocean then you'd be correct.
if we don't have a planet or environment, we're all dead.
indeed. That aside, climate change can be thought of as a diffuse property rights issue. Power plant produces CO2, CO2 warms planet and melts ice, sea levels rise, higher sea levels erode my property, who is responsible for the property damage?
"Some plants and animals may have to adapt"?
that is indeed true if the rate of diversification and adaptation are high enough or the rate of change is slow enough. However, there are several instances in biological history where this planet was made uninhabitable for 3/4 of all life or more including human beings had we existed then. There is a limit to how quickly an ecosystem can adapt to a change before permanent damage occurs. This certainly may not be a "fatal" event for humanity but in so far as destroying someone else's resource I don't see how any of that can possibly be justified ethically. You talk about the cost of doing something and you have a point- the current plans for dealing with climate change often involve costly measures but it certainly doesn't need to be the case. knocking out subsidies to inefficient, polluting industries would help the environment and save the government money. relying on a market based approach to solving the problem would be more efficient than a more planned economy could ever achieve. Don't be so quick to jump on the bandwagon that claims environmental protection can't coexist with sound economic policy- it's often the case that the waste caused in planned economies is even worse for the environment.
My issue is, I would never sacrifice freedom for (supposed) security - so why am I having it taken away from me anyway?
it's unfortunately in the US/UK a rather minority position and in a democracy, minorities are often screwed. Doubly so if the population has bread, circuses and a horrible educational system.
I think it would be irony if we hadn't seen this happen countless times in history repeating its self over and over again. Alien and Sedition acts, Japanese internment camps, censorship etc...
Slashdot Mirror
It depends on why you are switching from an older filesystem to ext4. It's a relatively new filesystem so you should probably expect it to be a bit more buggy when combined with software not designed for it. From my limited experience with a combination of KDE and ext4 recently I'd wait on upgrading for a while. Ext4 looks like it could be very interesting as software matures around it however, as it is currently KDE seemed to me at least a bit less stable on ext4 than it was on ext3. however, I didn't stay with the filesystem as long as I should have so take this with a bit of salt...
Why then it couldn't be controlled and the feds can't have that. This won't be the first time the feds have tried gettiing their hands on the inner workings of a system to "improve" it and it won't be the last. Their idea is that if it's "under their control" and centralized that it will mean things will be improved everywhere for the most part, unfortunately as is the case with other decentralized systems [the economy] centralization doesn't actually mean things will improve, often the reverse is true.
Quite possibly however, that is unlikely to be the reason why the desert exists in the first place as it is far older than faulty agricultural practices.
The desert exists because of a climate shift; presumably you would need to change the conditions which cause desertification and frankly, I don't think that we could create a wall of enough size to change air currents sufficiently.
Yes... it does seem rather odd that such an important document would be "accidentally" torrented... I mean really if it was that important it should have been encrypted and mounted on its own partition or at the least not anywhere near other files.. I mean honestly how do you accidentally torrent such a critical file?
Off the top of my head I can think of quite a few groups that have a similar strong following including:
Slashdotters
social networking site addicts
vim/emacs wars
*nix in addition to Linux
FOSS
net neutrality
Wii
Xbox
KDE/gnome
Firefox
Halo
the chans
etc...
Except that if Yahoo, MSN etc. are willing to pay the tax they'll gain lots of market-share.
Thank you for pointing out a big chunk of the problem. The same people who have trouble with anything other than XP are going to be the same people who are responsible for infecting military computers with conficker and any number of other malware.
The airforce and the military in general would do well not to create a monoculture; especially not one based on an arguably insecure operating system that is nearing its end of life. Despite the existence of *nix alternatives that are of comparable ease of use and generally superior security and customization, the military continues to insist that using an old operating system full of flaws and actively exploited by the vast majority of malware is suitable for government use. There is something very wrong here.
Precisely. Whenever the government passes a law there is always going to be something in it for whoever allowed siad bill's passing. The assumption of selfishness somewhere in any action is a useful one for determing the likely behavior of any entity which has evolved or was created by something which evolved.
Prohibition doesn't work. Proxies make censorship such as this woefully ineffective at doing what they want it to. Free speech trumps their nanny state. Waste of money during a recession. The flaws are numerous and the sheer quantity of capital likely diverted from productive uses in order to enforce morality is offensive.
you can change the size of icons in the prefs. I don't know where anyone gets this idea that icons are somehow one size fits all...
http://www.gnome-look.org/
http://www.kde-look.org/
no matter what the ubuntu devs choose for the default theme, someone is going to be unhappy and that is why we have whole domains devoted to hosting various shiny things to put on your *nix box to customize to your liking.
So far so good, bootime looks good, speed seems reasonable. No problems with stability to speak of yet.
Now we know that the only thing stopping North Korea from hitting anything in Japan or elsewhere is intention or lack therof rather than ability.
indeed however I wonder just how much of that cost was due to overly restrictive regulations and not the failings of nuclear power its self.
i'd say the rampant spending going on in the us is a far bigger problem than how it is paid as there is no need for taxes if there is no spending. this point is where the republican party stopped being relevant- they decided that the spend+tax-ocrats were right after all and that we can borrow forever rather than cut anything. however, if we find that after seriously cutting spending to the bare bones isn't enough and that taxes are inevitable then i'd rather they tax a poison than my hard earned income. if taxes are not inevitable then neither is the carbon tax as we obviously were intelligent enough to find a way to fund government without taxes then we can find a way to offset property damage from pollutants without a pollution tax.
*shift taxation off of income so as to not punish wealth creation but discourage consumption. this helps protect the environment and at the same time takes advantage of supplu side economics.
*destroy all subsidies to industry, these are destructive to the environment and cause higher debt and taxes.
*remove barriers to the creation of hard currencies backed with CO2 and/or energy these are far more indicative of the strength of the economy and help fight inflation. they are also rather resistant against manipulation by the federal reserve.
*extend property rights into the sky, people's property should be protected more than it is currently. you shouldn't have your land, air or water poisoned by someone else- that's an act of force against you.
*remove regulatory barriers to the development of nuclear power, 3rd generation designs are of sufficient safety and can serve to take the burden off of fossil fuels in regard to energy.
there are tons of ways in which sound supply side
economic policy overlaps with sound environmental policy. we just need to encourage these reforms rather than more statist reforms as is often the case, government intervention does more harm than good in economics and environmental policy.
CO2 can form the basis of organic chemical synthesis for industry. CO2 can be reduced to carbon monoxide which is *enormously useful* in chemistry being used to reduce and separate metals from their ores, as a chemical fuel, as a chemical feedstock for the synthesis of solvents, plastics etc... so no, it is plenty useful, it is just that oil is cheaper to synthesize other things with at its currently low price. a carbon tax could also work as a part of the green tax shift. cap and trade systems have been used successfully to reduce NOx and SOx emissions so adapting it to CO2 should also work with a few modifications as i had mentioned previously.
I believe that if done correctly, cap and trade is a valid temporary solution however I think that the ultimate solution to the problem is to knock out any regulatory restrictions preventing a viable market based on the trade of carbon dioxide as a resource. It may be possible to start with a cap and trade system and ween the economy off of it and on to a market that stands completely on its own. The big problem as is being seen to an extent in Europe is that it is somewhat difficult to quantify CO2 offsets in many cases. Too many permits in the wild can also cause the system not to work as efficiently as it should however auctioning the credits may solve that problem. A green shift in taxation may also improve conditions. Shifting away from our current very complicated tax system toward one that both functions to discourage wasteful consumption and simplifies the tax code [eliminating many tax loopoles in the process] may actually offer an overall economic benefit outside of the environment its self.
the ice is floating in the ocean as it is. it is therefore displacing as much water as it possibly can. had it been siting on a continent somewhere and slid off into the ocean then you'd be correct.
indeed. That aside, climate change can be thought of as a diffuse property rights issue. Power plant produces CO2, CO2 warms planet and melts ice, sea levels rise, higher sea levels erode my property, who is responsible for the property damage?
that is indeed true if the rate of diversification and adaptation are high enough or the rate of change is slow enough. However, there are several instances in biological history where this planet was made uninhabitable for 3/4 of all life or more including human beings had we existed then. There is a limit to how quickly an ecosystem can adapt to a change before permanent damage occurs. This certainly may not be a "fatal" event for humanity but in so far as destroying someone else's resource I don't see how any of that can possibly be justified ethically. You talk about the cost of doing something and you have a point- the current plans for dealing with climate change often involve costly measures but it certainly doesn't need to be the case. knocking out subsidies to inefficient, polluting industries would help the environment and save the government money. relying on a market based approach to solving the problem would be more efficient than a more planned economy could ever achieve. Don't be so quick to jump on the bandwagon that claims environmental protection can't coexist with sound economic policy- it's often the case that the waste caused in planned economies is even worse for the environment.
it's unfortunately in the US/UK a rather minority position and in a democracy, minorities are often screwed. Doubly so if the population has bread, circuses and a horrible educational system.
I think it would be irony if we hadn't seen this happen countless times in history repeating its self over and over again. Alien and Sedition acts, Japanese internment camps, censorship etc...
anti terror legislation advocates. Anyone in doubt as to what the feds would do with the W.O.T have their answer; expansion of power.