Congratulations! Your logical fallacy is burden of proof. You claimed that such a machine could be built. You provided no proof. It's not my responsibility to disabuse you of your fantasies.
No. You claimed some particular event to be impossible. It is on you to prove it is impossible.
The null hypothesis is that everything is possible at some point in the future, unless proven impossible. You fail logic 101.
You admitted that your proposed machine defies the laws of thermodynamics.
But sometimes the truth is terrifying. Probably it is good to spread the fear that arises from truth, but truth definitely isn't a universal fear prevention device.
Whether or not I believe anything about the ROI of mitigation is irrelevant. Your statement about there never coming a point when CO2 neutral technologies will be unnecessary is incorrect either way. Because either way reverse conversion is always a possibility.
In that context in which you made it, the statement "For one thing there is no point at which converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary" is false.
Because, like I said earlier, reverse conversion is not impossible.
1. Modularity is defined in a context - nothing is absolutely modular or absolutely monolithic. Systemd is not modular enough to do away with journald while giving full control to syslog (or something else).
2. Your earlier statement about the reason for lack of alternatives is wrong , I see you make no effort to defend it.
Directing the logs still means using the new fangled software. No one in the business of reliable computing uses such things. Comparison with tar is not completely unworthy - it is decades old and in less critical a position than the principal log framework. Yet people in this business will use tar but not something cooked up last month.
You ask how is it unnecessary? Some administrator might not find a software with most code less than half a decade old, high recent code churn; suitable for logging in important servers. It might be fine for an init replacement because the init or its replacement runs rarely. Do you see such a person's point?
In what way does journald corrupt log files any more than any other logger?
Let us consider the following question in 2012 : In what way does btrfs corrupt files any more than any other filesystem?
Someone not willing to use btrfs in 2012 need not know the answer, but yet have every reason to not use btrfs. Including any other software that forces use of btrfs along with it. That is how software reliability (any reliability, but let us not digress) works.
Just pointing out that you are wrong. If I am wrong, it matters to me. I guessed, perhaps wrongly, that it would matter to you that you were wrong - in the following statement:
No evidence to suggest that that might be the case
Nice attempt at a face saving lie.
You haven't distinguished your argument from bill
My argument was about pointing out your false statement "For one thing there is no point at which converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary". Nothing about ROI.
Learn to read, idiot. I never said " the RoI on warming prevention is horrible, compared with other things to spend money". I haven't referred to any ROI.
Maybe for some. I recently clarified for someone how it is not monolithic where it matters, and also how different software are monolithic in different aspects.
I kind of agree with your posts in this thread that I read. But this post of your takes the cake for a post most unrelated to it's parent post, probably for the month. Congratulations.
Slashdot Mirror
Congratulations! Your logical fallacy is burden of proof. You claimed that such a machine could be built. You provided no proof. It's not my responsibility to disabuse you of your fantasies.
No. You claimed some particular event to be impossible. It is on you to prove it is impossible.
The null hypothesis is that everything is possible at some point in the future, unless proven impossible. You fail logic 101.
You admitted that your proposed machine defies the laws of thermodynamics.
No
There is no such future point.
I am still waiting for a proof , or even an argument supporting it, from you about the impossibility of such a future point.
I have already pointed out some of the circumstances which would make such a point materialize. There are more.
When we are discussing a future point where CO2 neutral technologies aren't necessary, ROI doesn't matter.
You need to demonstrate the ROI of your proposal ("reverse conversion")
It's not a proposal, it's an acceptance of its possibility. Hence ROI doesn't matter.
But sometimes the truth is terrifying. Probably it is good to spread the fear that arises from truth, but truth definitely isn't a universal fear prevention device.
Whether or not I believe anything about the ROI of mitigation is irrelevant. Your statement about there never coming a point when CO2 neutral technologies will be unnecessary is incorrect either way. Because either way reverse conversion is always a possibility.
Irrespective of the ROI being positive or negative, the statement is false.
In that context in which you made it, the statement "For one thing there is no point at which converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary" is false.
Because, like I said earlier, reverse conversion is not impossible.
1. Modularity is defined in a context - nothing is absolutely modular or absolutely monolithic. Systemd is not modular enough to do away with journald while giving full control to syslog (or something else).
2. Your earlier statement about the reason for lack of alternatives is wrong , I see you make no effort to defend it.
Directing the logs still means using the new fangled software. No one in the business of reliable computing uses such things. Comparison with tar is not completely unworthy - it is decades old and in less critical a position than the principal log framework. Yet people in this business will use tar but not something cooked up last month.
But it's not legal and they're facing fines as a result.
Fines that shareholders, customers will pay. Sometimes even taxpayers - e.g. when government is the customer. For management's crimes.
Please show me an example of a government that actually has these constraints.
ALL elections where incumbent government lost power.
Well, that depends on what matters to you
Fair point.
You can use systemd without many of its components. Just not without those.
Well, you asked for "Do you have an example of a case where there is unnecessary inter-dependence?".
You ask how is it unnecessary? Some administrator might not find a software with most code less than half a decade old, high recent code churn; suitable for logging in important servers. It might be fine for an init replacement because the init or its replacement runs rarely. Do you see such a person's point?
In what way does journald corrupt log files any more than any other logger?
Let us consider the following question in 2012 : In what way does btrfs corrupt files any more than any other filesystem?
Someone not willing to use btrfs in 2012 need not know the answer, but yet have every reason to not use btrfs. Including any other software that forces use of btrfs along with it. That is how software reliability (any reliability, but let us not digress) works.
It has nothing about me engaging in any conversation about the ROI on climate change mitigation. Try again.
Ok, when are you starting to read a post before replying to it?
Why does it matter?
Just pointing out that you are wrong. If I am wrong, it matters to me. I guessed, perhaps wrongly, that it would matter to you that you were wrong - in the following statement :
why do no suitable replacements exist? Because nobody has written them
which you now replace with more correct statement "Journald cannot be separated from systemd because it draws .... So yes, this is monolithic "
It is you who concludes "has ever existed" from "will". Not me.
No evidence to suggest that that might be the case
Nice attempt at a face saving lie.
You haven't distinguished your argument from bill
My argument was about pointing out your false statement "For one thing there is no point at which converting to CO2 neutral technologies stops being necessary". Nothing about ROI.
Oh, are you too dumb to figure out the difference between bill_mcgonigle - 4333 ; and bingoUV - 1066850 ?
you just spent several days engaged in a conversation about the ROI on climate change mitigation
Link?
No I'm saying your reading comprehension is shitty.
Learn to read, idiot. I never said " the RoI on warming prevention is horrible, compared with other things to spend money". I haven't referred to any ROI.
Maybe for some. I recently clarified for someone how it is not monolithic where it matters, and also how different software are monolithic in different aspects.
OK sweety, it's alright. Mumma will come with your pacifier in a minute.
I kind of agree with your posts in this thread that I read. But this post of your takes the cake for a post most unrelated to it's parent post, probably for the month. Congratulations.
OK, so you don't understand that monolithic is always in some context, with respect to something.