I bought a Dell Laptop running Ubuntu for my sister years ago when they first started selling Linux laptops, it was at least as much as the same one with Windows, and it was loaded with tons of crapware. I booted it up, saw Dell's junk all over the screen and just wiped it clean and installed Ubuntu fresh.
"Stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere and get it back into the ground is" what you should do about it, that's THE answer, the question is how, and there's no single answer for that. There are some easy targets though, the replacement of coal power with...just about anything else being the easiest.
That's right, the rules are the same in all fields, so someone who "disagrees" with science in one field but not in others that follow the same methods and standards is not only a denialist, but also a little bit insane.
Consider this: Politicians will do little if anything about climate change, ever, but they sure as hell love to push through IP & Internet censorship laws. I think you'd be better off with an anti-science nutbag who was pro copyright & patent reform and pro-Internet-freedom.
his answer would probably be something like "You can't use appstores because they are non free" which of course would be consigning FOSS to the dustbin of history since both Apple and MSFT have already embraced the appstore and they together own the desktop and a pretty large chunk of mobile.
For reasons epyT-R already described, youre asking FOSS to become the enemy to beat the enemy, IMO a fate worse than being consigned to the dustbin of history. You could have said similar things about consoles and FOSS gaming.
while they demand remote control of our cars, refrigerators, diets, and thermostats (among other casualties of the 'smart grid')
You think the Republicans wouldn't like the Smart Grid? It increases power company profits, reducing energy usage is the means (charge the same for lower amounts of more cheaply delivered energy), not the end.
There's your answer. And this is what I was worried about. Locking down the rules with and without net neutrality are two very different things, and I wouldn't want to lock them down without.
I can't make you share my opinion, you have access to all the same facts as me, you're just reckless. I have similar conversations with text n' drivers.
You're right, let's hear what the Heartland Institute and Exxon have to say about this, we need balanced information here, not some scientific monologue.
Let's assume you're entirely right. I'd say the correct response would be to artificially alter the climate to maintain something like the status quo which is highly favorable to us and the animals that currently exist. What do you think about that?
Actually it's more like arguing that they'll still have their windshield glass after it is re-formed by the moose, which many of them argue with a straight face.
You joke but that's a common line of thought among denialists. "How could we be so arrogant to think a little human activity could change the climate of this mighty planet?" or "God won't let that happen" or something like that.
For example, neither of the two studies mentioned in this story which allege considerable temperature increase by 2100, have been tested again real temperature data that extends more than a century and a half(...)So they are untested models outside of the modern age.
This model is intended to make short-term predictions within the modern age so the test case seems sensible and sufficient.
I think you continue to underestimate the damage and difficulty of reversing problems caused by climate change and vastly overestimate the costs. There are no do-overs or emergency options, to me it's the kind of problem you act on early and don't dick around with. The rise in temperature and sea level rise itself are small problems compared to ocean acidification and methane clathrate release.
Yep, something like this RC toy would never work in full scale.
If you want a full-scale robot that transforms from bipedal to wheeled vehicle form, it would be better to go with something like the HAVWCs from FLAG:
Maybe I should have said "effectively regressive" instead. Strictly from a numbers standpoint you're technically correct (the best kind of correct!) but context matters, and lower-income earners have to spend most of their income on necessities, while as income goes up the fraction that must be spent on necessities goes down...the "prebate" helps in the case of the FairTax, but sales taxes are effectively regressive.
The wikipedia entry, OTOH, sums it up nicely in this sentence: "The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University concluded in a 2007 study that "replacing income and payroll taxes with the FairTax would make the United States federal tax system more progressive than it is now".[23]" That's what I'm saying.
That argument compares an ideal, theoretical view of the FairTax with the awful reality of the current tax system. Do you really think everyone is going to be a good sport and play fair? Might as well go with communism if you think so.
BTW, the rich that spend outside the country STILL OWE the Fair Tax on their purchase, and a customs agent will be happy to collect it when they bring their bauble back so they can enjoy it at home.
Who said they'll bring it back? I said "offshoring of wealth to" not "importation of products from." Some already use this kind of arrangement, spending more than 6 months in the jurisdiction with favorable taxes.
And if the rich paid zero taxes and mine dropped I'd still be upset. A flat tax would be harsh enough, but an upper class taking in the lion's share of wealth and doing nothing to support society wouldn't upset you at all? It would upset me.
Slashdot Mirror
I bought a Dell Laptop running Ubuntu for my sister years ago when they first started selling Linux laptops, it was at least as much as the same one with Windows, and it was loaded with tons of crapware. I booted it up, saw Dell's junk all over the screen and just wiped it clean and installed Ubuntu fresh.
"Stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere and get it back into the ground is" what you should do about it, that's THE answer, the question is how, and there's no single answer for that. There are some easy targets though, the replacement of coal power with...just about anything else being the easiest.
That's right, the rules are the same in all fields, so someone who "disagrees" with science in one field but not in others that follow the same methods and standards is not only a denialist, but also a little bit insane.
This.
Consider this: Politicians will do little if anything about climate change, ever, but they sure as hell love to push through IP & Internet censorship laws. I think you'd be better off with an anti-science nutbag who was pro copyright & patent reform and pro-Internet-freedom.
his answer would probably be something like "You can't use appstores because they are non free" which of course would be consigning FOSS to the dustbin of history since both Apple and MSFT have already embraced the appstore and they together own the desktop and a pretty large chunk of mobile.
For reasons epyT-R already described, youre asking FOSS to become the enemy to beat the enemy, IMO a fate worse than being consigned to the dustbin of history. You could have said similar things about consoles and FOSS gaming.
Require at least one CLI command to install said product, that should keep the most clueless noobs out.
Too late:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-australia.html
These patents are round-corner-grade stupid.
while they demand remote control of our cars, refrigerators, diets, and thermostats (among other casualties of the 'smart grid')
You think the Republicans wouldn't like the Smart Grid? It increases power company profits, reducing energy usage is the means (charge the same for lower amounts of more cheaply delivered energy), not the end.
There's your answer. And this is what I was worried about. Locking down the rules with and without net neutrality are two very different things, and I wouldn't want to lock them down without.
...as a progressive, meritocratic business environment hasn't been squashed yet?
Not only is it even more ageist than the rest of the IT industry in general, but it's also racist as all hell.
Apparently nobody notices if you cover it up with some hipster glasses and trendy office design, good thing this wasn't discovered earlier.
I thought rehashing At the Mountains of Madness as Prometheus was pretty ballsy.
This doesn't demonstrate that ocean acidification is a problem?
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/341465/description/Calcium_offers_clues_in_mass_extinction
I can't make you share my opinion, you have access to all the same facts as me, you're just reckless. I have similar conversations with text n' drivers.
You're right, let's hear what the Heartland Institute and Exxon have to say about this, we need balanced information here, not some scientific monologue.
Let's assume you're entirely right. I'd say the correct response would be to artificially alter the climate to maintain something like the status quo which is highly favorable to us and the animals that currently exist. What do you think about that?
LOL mod parent Funny or Insightful!
What's the plan for generating a magnetic field to keep the atmosphere from being blown off by solar wind?
Actually it's more like arguing that they'll still have their windshield glass after it is re-formed by the moose, which many of them argue with a straight face.
You joke but that's a common line of thought among denialists. "How could we be so arrogant to think a little human activity could change the climate of this mighty planet?" or "God won't let that happen" or something like that.
A perfect example I like to use:
Objective reporting: "Experts say Earth is round, 'Flat-Earthers' entirely wrong"
Balanced reporting: "Debate rages on over potential roundness of Earth"
For example, neither of the two studies mentioned in this story which allege considerable temperature increase by 2100, have been tested again real temperature data that extends more than a century and a half(...)So they are untested models outside of the modern age.
This model is intended to make short-term predictions within the modern age so the test case seems sensible and sufficient.
I think you continue to underestimate the damage and difficulty of reversing problems caused by climate change and vastly overestimate the costs. There are no do-overs or emergency options, to me it's the kind of problem you act on early and don't dick around with. The rise in temperature and sea level rise itself are small problems compared to ocean acidification and methane clathrate release.
Yep, something like this RC toy would never work in full scale.
If you want a full-scale robot that transforms from bipedal to wheeled vehicle form, it would be better to go with something like the HAVWCs from FLAG:
http://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/m/image/1250/82/1250822721463.jpg
Maybe I should have said "effectively regressive" instead. Strictly from a numbers standpoint you're technically correct (the best kind of correct!) but context matters, and lower-income earners have to spend most of their income on necessities, while as income goes up the fraction that must be spent on necessities goes down...the "prebate" helps in the case of the FairTax, but sales taxes are effectively regressive.
The wikipedia entry, OTOH, sums it up nicely in this sentence: "The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University concluded in a 2007 study that "replacing income and payroll taxes with the FairTax would make the United States federal tax system more progressive than it is now".[23]" That's what I'm saying.
That argument compares an ideal, theoretical view of the FairTax with the awful reality of the current tax system. Do you really think everyone is going to be a good sport and play fair? Might as well go with communism if you think so.
BTW, the rich that spend outside the country STILL OWE the Fair Tax on their purchase, and a customs agent will be happy to collect it when they bring their bauble back so they can enjoy it at home.
Who said they'll bring it back? I said "offshoring of wealth to" not "importation of products from." Some already use this kind of arrangement, spending more than 6 months in the jurisdiction with favorable taxes.
And if the rich paid zero taxes and mine dropped I'd still be upset. A flat tax would be harsh enough, but an upper class taking in the lion's share of wealth and doing nothing to support society wouldn't upset you at all? It would upset me.