Their best estimate is that there will be 10-20 inches less rainfall in some of the poorest areas of the world, not to mention most of europe. What exactly do you think less rainfall is going to do? People are going to starve. Maybe that's not a concern for you when you can drive down the street to the McDonalds and get a big mac, but for people who live by subsistance farming its really bad news. The whole "won't affect me" attitude is a lot of the problem. Crank up the A/C and keep watching Fox news.
Hey smugly, you know what else hurts third world countries? Lack of industrial infrastructure because the western world has decided that industry causes too much pollution. Maybe that's not a concern when you can go get a JOB down the street, but for people that are selling water they carried miles for less that a dollar a day it's really bad news. Light up another clove cigarette and keep watching PBS while you tell the rest of the world how to live.
Yes I understand the science. But I have a social question - why must this theory be SOLD so goddam much? There is more PR behind global warming than there is behind the US Republican Party for god's sake. Lots of profit in "the sky is falling" industry I guess.
Click those ads on that new scientist article, gotta keep that money flowing! Also, make sure you write your congressman, gotta keep that scientific funding flowing! And why not throw in a couple thousand to an eco-charity, gotta keep that charity flowing!
FEAR FEAR FEAR monkey, get under your rock! The sky is falling man, any second now! Now pay me my money for the help I just gave you.
I guess there really IS a benefit to global warming. It's measured in dollars and it resides in the bank accounts of so many "advocates".
People are dying around the world for Christ's sake - lack of clean water, diseases, social violence, piss poor living conditions, and starvation. All fixable. But there is no $ to do so because all the $ is in a fear of problems that might be coming to fruition somewhere around the year 3010? Real problems NOW, not 1k years from now. Who gives a shit about those? No one I guess. Someone preaches to you about your personal.000001 increase in CO2 output because you decided that it wasn't worth it to walk 10 miles, meanwhile a person is literally dying from starvation! The arrogance of the western world, you are now witnessing it.
I hate Microsoft as much as the next man, but I'll be entertained to see how some Slashdotters twist this into being "bad for Microsoft" or something. Every other day I see some comment like "The end is here for Microsoft" or "It's all over for MS" or some such nonsense. Let's see:
1) Record profits in the last year 2) Fastest-selling OS in history
It's only getting better for them, isn't it? We need another way to fight them...
That could happen if everyone posting FUD here would stop and start producing OSS software. But a lot of the OSS community falls under the label of "advocate", which is short for "I take but I don't give". This is also important, but producing software is more important to OSS. Good software is it's own advocate.
Seriously, you want to "beat" MS at anything, you better pack a goddam lunch and start producing software, because thats what the thousands of employees at MS are doing right this instant.
Some things people can do besides slam MS on slashdot every day:
1. Produce code - can't code? Why not? 2. Test code - the true value of OSS, use it. 3. Documentation - write it. Yes it sucks. So what. You want OSS to stick around? Make it easy to use. 4. True advocate - spread truth, not bullshit. If someone catches you spouting one line of what they think is FUD they will totally write you off. Be pragmatic about what software is advocated and why. Sometimes OSS software isn't the best there is.
I'm gonna get off my soap box now and try to contribute, that's the best I can do.
Also, something seems overlooked is that that in the US, land lines from a telco need a good credit check/rating before they'll install a phone line, whereas a cell phone can be easily purchased using a pre-paid plan. Companies like Verizon rarely waive installation fees for land lines and they are just an all around pain in the ass compared to the instant gratification of a cell phone. This is just more reasons why poorer people move to cell phone only.
You just hit all the standard talking points, don't you? Show me that this theory was anything other than a footnote (as opposed to a broadly held consensus view).
Does it matter what the scientific consensus was in 1975 if the public was made to believe a certain view based on "scientific evidence"? No, the only thing that matters is that global cooling was credited as legit in the mainstream press, albeit it's not the wide spread panic / money making machine that global warming is today.
So that's where the skepticism comes from. It's not baseless or a simple talking point, it's real history. Shocker, science has been wrong before and the public was made to believe the wrong thing. So that's where you get the skeptics from.
Honestly I don't understand why people so involved in science are outright angry at global warming skeptics. If anything they should embrace skepticism within their own work and prove with testable evidence that it actually is man made, instead of just calling someone a idiot in so many words because they don't believe.
My main concern with the models is that the variables are so "immense" that the system can only be modeled using data provided by the scientist to reach a certain conclusion. For instance, if I was modeling an airplane wing I could rely on data provided to be accurate because it's been tested and in those tests you can see the same results. Now when you model climate the problem becomes the lack of present data to use for variables and some variables are so hard to predict that it would be impossible to simulate with much accuracy. We can predict it will be between 50-75 degrees F tomorrow but we can't predict if it will be 55 F tomorrow at 1 pm EST. There are simply too many variables that we can't predict values for because the system is so complex.
That's the current state of climate models simply because we need more data. We need to know everything about how climate is affected by different weather patterns, humans, solar activity, etc. But we don't really know those things today, instead plopping in our models variable values we "think" are as accurate as they can be. Which is fair, we simply know what we know and we use that in our science. This is not a problem. The problem comes when these same models, which scientists understand are pretty much educated guesses, comes into the publics hands via PR machines such as Al Gore or large Eco Non Profits who need the doom and gloom to fund their "machines" of profit. Then the model becomes "fact" and is used in policy making. This is dangerous. My "demand" is simply for more accurate models when we need to make such important decisions. I think that's fair.
If you can't predict the outcome of the next coin toss, you can't predict the outcome of the next 1000 coin tosses.
Flunked statistics did you?
Wow, what a wonderful straw man argument you've built, and smug at that. "Flunked social skills didn't you"?
I don't see how your argument holds any weight. I'm certainly not out of line to demand that models are accurate if they are used for life changing events. yet again you prove my point, anyone outside of the mainstream thought pattern regarding climate change and you're labeled an idiot, a shill, or arrogant. In this case that's simply not true though.
Honestly, do all of the advocates of global warming thing that skeptics are skeptics because they are dumb or ignorant? That's not true. I have no reason to be attached to fossile fueled vehicles, or any particular type of energy usage. I'm not an oil industry shill. I'm an educated man that thinks for himself and history tells him that being a skeptic can be useful. It has nothing to do with wanting to keep some status quo or my political alignment. No, it's simply because I'm a skeptic and the data cited was either non-conclusive and needed more study, a model with variables pulled out of thin air based on assumptions, or PR used by people in positions of advantage where climate change is concerned.
See people will cite models used for other things such as building an airplane. But what they don't mention is that in those models they have variables based on factual data, and not just conjecture and "I think it will be so" values that are so often used in climate change models, but yet NONE to date have effectively modeled the climate, whereas the models for example aerospace, have been proven correct through trial and error. I'm sorry the argument that a model is "truth" holds no water. A model is only as good as it's results. And the results to date have been pretty far off considering you can't tell me what it's gonna be like tomorrow let alone 1000 years from now.
So go ahead and throw my opinions to the side as you seem to do with a concise little two-liner. But the fact remains that my argument is solid. If you can dispute the argument I made about climate modeling then please do.
[quote]Climate change will undoubtedly have losers -- but it will also have winners.[/quote]
It already has winners. The people making a ton of money off the doom and gloom stories, scientific funding, eco-products, paid lectures, eco-Non-profits, etc.
I'd like to sum up the most powerful argument against global warming models in the world:
When you can predict next month's weather with scientific accuracy then and only then will you be allowed to predict what it will be like in a 100 or 1000 years.
That's where the "skeptic" comes from. It's common sense to most. Sure you can point at charts showing things measurements changing in an ever changing world, but yet you can point to absolutely nothing predicting with accuracy how things will change and why.
Sure there are theories and models, but why is it wrong to be a skeptic on this topic? It has become so politicized that it's impossible to form an argument of skepticism without being labeled an earth killing pariah and the people that really run the world, the elite, have decided to take over this effort and seek profits.. as always.
Guess you didn't get the memo. Anti-American is the new black. Hell even if you're an American it's open season on other Americans. After all, it could never be you they are talking about right? It must be those other idiots.
I'm all for criticism where it's due but today's world is just plain crass. I'm no exception. I've become so damn jaded that every other statement is a complaint or sarcasm or just plain mean. I've even considered "bucking the system" and being nice! It's a sad state of affairs when being nice isn't common place.
Why on earth would you say I was "promoting" Microsoft? That kind of statement makes your post null and void.
Besides, your statement is ludicrous, that somehow enlightenment could use "less resources". Than what? XP? Vista? KDE? win 3.1?
I don't see a damn thing mentioned on the website about low power usage so as far as I'm concerned you are talking out of your ass. But I could be wrong. Prove me wrong with more than some open ended "you're an apologist" bullshit and some real facts and then I'll take notice.
Punk ass little bitch, talking shit from afar making assumptions about others and himself. How many GPLd projects do you have under your belt? I'd bet a big goose egg 0 and you're just a fan boy.
And here I thought I was the loner that loved the Aero interface. I love the look, I love the response time, and I love the side bar. I sit there and play WoW at 50 frames/sec in a window with other cpu intensive apps such as VS.Net running (hey everyone needs a break) and sidebar open. All on my laptop. I'm happy so far.
Why would it be assumed that it's poor execution? Is there some open source guru out there that can do better? if so how?
See all that is rhetorical because it's based on an assumption that the implementation is incorrect, yet I've never met a developer that can add glitz to an OS desktop without consuming more resources so I see no reason for such assumption.
As for "better power management", that means the power settings configured by the end users. IE Do you want it to hibernate under certain conditions, etc. These can now be setup across networks by admins to shut down or hibernate/sleep all machines during off hours, such as on weekends. It also means notifications to running software of an impending shutdown or sleep state. Those new features are all related to management of the machine by the user. It has nothing to do with the OS using more or less power in any particular state.
Sorry guys, but this is just another "gee I wish I could find yet one more way to bash MS" story. If there is a legit grievance then hell I'll chip in, but this doesn't exactly get me up in arms hearing that *shocker* more GUI effects = more resource usage. That's common sense.
So do you block it in your HOSTS file just to say that you block it in your HOSTS file? Because you could just, um... not go to it...
haha, hosts files are so 1997. I got an entire cluster of bigIPs blocking ALL of the internet. That's how fucking above it all I am... except for slashdot of course.
Well the thing is this IS news in the western world these days. If you read the news then you'll find that your body is failing, your consuming the wrong foods, the ones you do consume kill you, the car you drive isn't safe, the school you go to isn't teaching anything, the people representing you are crooks, the guy you work for is a pederast, the planet is dying, and a there are at least 10 million reasons why the universe is going to end your pitiful ape life at any second. But not until 10 pm when they can beam this shit into your brain between commercials.
I know a lot disagree with Michael Crichton over his environmental views, but his real point in that argument was not that global warming was a problem to be ignored or no problem at all. Instead his argument was that the "State of Fear" has engrosses our society and allowed this establishment, which he labels the Political/Legal/Media establishment, to make us into a bunch of scared children seeking a "father" that will save us. This can easily lead to a totalitarian state where the quest for "safety" overrides common sense and "political correctness" outweighs the truth. One where we seek safety in the arms of government and media and lobbyists and lawyers.
I'm sick of people making sweeping generalisations like this - I hear/read it all the time with regard to nuclear power, as if it's impossible to have a reasoned opposition without being a psycho-greenie.
That's what happens when your most outspoken proponents come off like rambling kooks, people get stereotyped.
For instance, if i said I was Republican you would say I was...
I wouldn't say it's a reaction to a particular event, but I'm pretty sure that Adobe is trying to use "OPEN SOURCE RAH RAH RAH" chant to try and show how they are so much better than MS, now that MS has released silverlight and is on their home turf.
Honestly I think Adobe could give two shits about OSS, as they prove when they state that Linux products aren't in the works. They use OSS to compete, gaining market share and driving their stock higher, nothing more. The good thing out of all of this is developers get the advantage, regardless of their intentions.
I'm not really sure why so many on here will applaud ANY entity attacking Microsoft citing it as a good thing. Adobe is no friend of OSS. They sell proprietary software.
I'm a bit in the dark regarding IronPython and it's relationship with MS - how can an open source project be acquired? If the license was OSI before couldn't the project just continue? From the wikipedia entry it looks like the project leader decided that the MS shared source license was going to be used. But this is the first time I've heard of it so I'm curious how it played out.
This is something I realized after 10+ years - smaller is better. I started out at a small shop and got my break doing everything and anything I could to help. I had to get along with 5 other people that were pretty much just like me.
Then I "moved up" for more pay to a mid size company, not bad. Pretty good actually.
Then eventually went to the largest privately owned company in the world. Benefits were great, but I was faceless. I was expected to do more work for less, but my heart wasn't in it. For some reason I couldn't help feeling used. Why? Because I felt detached from the company. Their goals were not my goals and they could have given a shit about my goals.
Maybe it was a personal issue, but at 30+ years old you simply come to a point in your life you make a decision. You either buy in and ass kissing becomes your specialty or you have a "life crisis" and try to find some sanity somewhere else. I chose the later and now work for a small company again. I don't think I'll ever go back to a large company, it just feels inhuman and unnatural.
But to each his own, some people don't have the same issues with authority that I have. More power to them.
Sorry, I meant it tongue in cheek. The parent made a similiar comparison and I thought I'd post a funny.
I'm for legalizing drugs 100%. It's more of a social disease than a criminal thing and I'd rather our prisons be filled with actual criminals, not ones that committed victimless crimes.
Slashdot Mirror
Their best estimate is that there will be 10-20 inches less rainfall in some of the poorest areas of the world, not to mention most of europe. What exactly do you think less rainfall is going to do? People are going to starve. Maybe that's not a concern for you when you can drive down the street to the McDonalds and get a big mac, but for people who live by subsistance farming its really bad news. The whole "won't affect me" attitude is a lot of the problem. Crank up the A/C and keep watching Fox news.
Hey smugly, you know what else hurts third world countries? Lack of industrial infrastructure because the western world has decided that industry causes too much pollution. Maybe that's not a concern when you can go get a JOB down the street, but for people that are selling water they carried miles for less that a dollar a day it's really bad news. Light up another clove cigarette and keep watching PBS while you tell the rest of the world how to live.
Yes I understand the science. But I have a social question - why must this theory be SOLD so goddam much? There is more PR behind global warming than there is behind the US Republican Party for god's sake. Lots of profit in "the sky is falling" industry I guess.
.000001 increase in CO2 output because you decided that it wasn't worth it to walk 10 miles, meanwhile a person is literally dying from starvation! The arrogance of the western world, you are now witnessing it.
Click those ads on that new scientist article, gotta keep that money flowing! Also, make sure you write your congressman, gotta keep that scientific funding flowing! And why not throw in a couple thousand to an eco-charity, gotta keep that charity flowing!
FEAR FEAR FEAR monkey, get under your rock! The sky is falling man, any second now! Now pay me my money for the help I just gave you.
I guess there really IS a benefit to global warming. It's measured in dollars and it resides in the bank accounts of so many "advocates".
People are dying around the world for Christ's sake - lack of clean water, diseases, social violence, piss poor living conditions, and starvation. All fixable. But there is no $ to do so because all the $ is in a fear of problems that might be coming to fruition somewhere around the year 3010? Real problems NOW, not 1k years from now. Who gives a shit about those? No one I guess. Someone preaches to you about your personal
I hate Microsoft as much as the next man, but I'll be entertained to see how some Slashdotters twist this into being "bad for Microsoft" or something. Every other day I see some comment like "The end is here for Microsoft" or "It's all over for MS" or some such nonsense. Let's see:
1) Record profits in the last year
2) Fastest-selling OS in history
It's only getting better for them, isn't it? We need another way to fight them...
That could happen if everyone posting FUD here would stop and start producing OSS software. But a lot of the OSS community falls under the label of "advocate", which is short for "I take but I don't give". This is also important, but producing software is more important to OSS. Good software is it's own advocate.
Seriously, you want to "beat" MS at anything, you better pack a goddam lunch and start producing software, because thats what the thousands of employees at MS are doing right this instant.
Some things people can do besides slam MS on slashdot every day:
1. Produce code - can't code? Why not?
2. Test code - the true value of OSS, use it.
3. Documentation - write it. Yes it sucks. So what. You want OSS to stick around? Make it easy to use.
4. True advocate - spread truth, not bullshit. If someone catches you spouting one line of what they think is FUD they will totally write you off. Be pragmatic about what software is advocated and why. Sometimes OSS software isn't the best there is.
I'm gonna get off my soap box now and try to contribute, that's the best I can do.
I was gonna say this is a good thing, but I dislike comcast so much that I actually wish more problems on them so I vote NAY.
hate hate hate hate
Also, something seems overlooked is that that in the US, land lines from a telco need a good credit check/rating before they'll install a phone line, whereas a cell phone can be easily purchased using a pre-paid plan. Companies like Verizon rarely waive installation fees for land lines and they are just an all around pain in the ass compared to the instant gratification of a cell phone. This is just more reasons why poorer people move to cell phone only.
You just hit all the standard talking points, don't you? Show me that this theory was anything other than a footnote (as opposed to a broadly held consensus view).
Well here is a newsweek article from 1975 which states that global cooling is(was) coming:http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cooling1.pdf
Does it matter what the scientific consensus was in 1975 if the public was made to believe a certain view based on "scientific evidence"? No, the only thing that matters is that global cooling was credited as legit in the mainstream press, albeit it's not the wide spread panic / money making machine that global warming is today.
So that's where the skepticism comes from. It's not baseless or a simple talking point, it's real history. Shocker, science has been wrong before and the public was made to believe the wrong thing. So that's where you get the skeptics from.
Honestly I don't understand why people so involved in science are outright angry at global warming skeptics. If anything they should embrace skepticism within their own work and prove with testable evidence that it actually is man made, instead of just calling someone a idiot in so many words because they don't believe.
Fair enough, good post.
My main concern with the models is that the variables are so "immense" that the system can only be modeled using data provided by the scientist to reach a certain conclusion. For instance, if I was modeling an airplane wing I could rely on data provided to be accurate because it's been tested and in those tests you can see the same results. Now when you model climate the problem becomes the lack of present data to use for variables and some variables are so hard to predict that it would be impossible to simulate with much accuracy. We can predict it will be between 50-75 degrees F tomorrow but we can't predict if it will be 55 F tomorrow at 1 pm EST. There are simply too many variables that we can't predict values for because the system is so complex.
That's the current state of climate models simply because we need more data. We need to know everything about how climate is affected by different weather patterns, humans, solar activity, etc. But we don't really know those things today, instead plopping in our models variable values we "think" are as accurate as they can be. Which is fair, we simply know what we know and we use that in our science. This is not a problem. The problem comes when these same models, which scientists understand are pretty much educated guesses, comes into the publics hands via PR machines such as Al Gore or large Eco Non Profits who need the doom and gloom to fund their "machines" of profit. Then the model becomes "fact" and is used in policy making. This is dangerous. My "demand" is simply for more accurate models when we need to make such important decisions. I think that's fair.
If you can't predict the outcome of the next coin toss, you can't predict the outcome of the next 1000 coin tosses.
Flunked statistics did you?
Wow, what a wonderful straw man argument you've built, and smug at that. "Flunked social skills didn't you"?
I don't see how your argument holds any weight. I'm certainly not out of line to demand that models are accurate if they are used for life changing events. yet again you prove my point, anyone outside of the mainstream thought pattern regarding climate change and you're labeled an idiot, a shill, or arrogant. In this case that's simply not true though.
Honestly, do all of the advocates of global warming thing that skeptics are skeptics because they are dumb or ignorant? That's not true. I have no reason to be attached to fossile fueled vehicles, or any particular type of energy usage. I'm not an oil industry shill. I'm an educated man that thinks for himself and history tells him that being a skeptic can be useful. It has nothing to do with wanting to keep some status quo or my political alignment. No, it's simply because I'm a skeptic and the data cited was either non-conclusive and needed more study, a model with variables pulled out of thin air based on assumptions, or PR used by people in positions of advantage where climate change is concerned.
See people will cite models used for other things such as building an airplane. But what they don't mention is that in those models they have variables based on factual data, and not just conjecture and "I think it will be so" values that are so often used in climate change models, but yet NONE to date have effectively modeled the climate, whereas the models for example aerospace, have been proven correct through trial and error. I'm sorry the argument that a model is "truth" holds no water. A model is only as good as it's results. And the results to date have been pretty far off considering you can't tell me what it's gonna be like tomorrow let alone 1000 years from now.
So go ahead and throw my opinions to the side as you seem to do with a concise little two-liner. But the fact remains that my argument is solid. If you can dispute the argument I made about climate modeling then please do.
[quote]Climate change will undoubtedly have losers -- but it will also have winners.[/quote]
It already has winners. The people making a ton of money off the doom and gloom stories, scientific funding, eco-products, paid lectures, eco-Non-profits, etc.
I'd like to sum up the most powerful argument against global warming models in the world:
When you can predict next month's weather with scientific accuracy then and only then will you be allowed to predict what it will be like in a 100 or 1000 years.
That's where the "skeptic" comes from. It's common sense to most. Sure you can point at charts showing things measurements changing in an ever changing world, but yet you can point to absolutely nothing predicting with accuracy how things will change and why.
Sure there are theories and models, but why is it wrong to be a skeptic on this topic? It has become so politicized that it's impossible to form an argument of skepticism without being labeled an earth killing pariah and the people that really run the world, the elite, have decided to take over this effort and seek profits.. as always.
Guess you didn't get the memo. Anti-American is the new black. Hell even if you're an American it's open season on other Americans. After all, it could never be you they are talking about right? It must be those other idiots.
I'm all for criticism where it's due but today's world is just plain crass. I'm no exception. I've become so damn jaded that every other statement is a complaint or sarcasm or just plain mean. I've even considered "bucking the system" and being nice! It's a sad state of affairs when being nice isn't common place.
Why on earth would you say I was "promoting" Microsoft? That kind of statement makes your post null and void.
Besides, your statement is ludicrous, that somehow enlightenment could use "less resources". Than what? XP? Vista? KDE? win 3.1?
I don't see a damn thing mentioned on the website about low power usage so as far as I'm concerned you are talking out of your ass. But I could be wrong. Prove me wrong with more than some open ended "you're an apologist" bullshit and some real facts and then I'll take notice.
Punk ass little bitch, talking shit from afar making assumptions about others and himself. How many GPLd projects do you have under your belt? I'd bet a big goose egg 0 and you're just a fan boy.
And here I thought I was the loner that loved the Aero interface. I love the look, I love the response time, and I love the side bar. I sit there and play WoW at 50 frames/sec in a window with other cpu intensive apps such as VS.Net running (hey everyone needs a break) and sidebar open. All on my laptop. I'm happy so far.
Why would it be assumed that it's poor execution? Is there some open source guru out there that can do better? if so how?
See all that is rhetorical because it's based on an assumption that the implementation is incorrect, yet I've never met a developer that can add glitz to an OS desktop without consuming more resources so I see no reason for such assumption.
As for "better power management", that means the power settings configured by the end users. IE Do you want it to hibernate under certain conditions, etc. These can now be setup across networks by admins to shut down or hibernate/sleep all machines during off hours, such as on weekends. It also means notifications to running software of an impending shutdown or sleep state. Those new features are all related to management of the machine by the user. It has nothing to do with the OS using more or less power in any particular state.
Sorry guys, but this is just another "gee I wish I could find yet one more way to bash MS" story. If there is a legit grievance then hell I'll chip in, but this doesn't exactly get me up in arms hearing that *shocker* more GUI effects = more resource usage. That's common sense.
You may (or may not) remember the Mariner 10 probe making 3 passes by Mercury between March 29th, 1974, September 21st 1974 and March 16, 1975."
Sure I remember young whipper snappers! And then the talkies came and Vaudeville was dead..
I'm pretty sure I'm an "old man" here and I was less than a year old then so I can't say I remember.
So do you block it in your HOSTS file just to say that you block it in your HOSTS file? Because you could just, um... not go to it...
.. except for slashdot of course.
haha, hosts files are so 1997. I got an entire cluster of bigIPs blocking ALL of the internet. That's how fucking above it all I am.
Well the thing is this IS news in the western world these days. If you read the news then you'll find that your body is failing, your consuming the wrong foods, the ones you do consume kill you, the car you drive isn't safe, the school you go to isn't teaching anything, the people representing you are crooks, the guy you work for is a pederast, the planet is dying, and a there are at least 10 million reasons why the universe is going to end your pitiful ape life at any second. But not until 10 pm when they can beam this shit into your brain between commercials.
I know a lot disagree with Michael Crichton over his environmental views, but his real point in that argument was not that global warming was a problem to be ignored or no problem at all. Instead his argument was that the "State of Fear" has engrosses our society and allowed this establishment, which he labels the Political/Legal/Media establishment, to make us into a bunch of scared children seeking a "father" that will save us. This can easily lead to a totalitarian state where the quest for "safety" overrides common sense and "political correctness" outweighs the truth. One where we seek safety in the arms of government and media and lobbyists and lawyers.
I'm sick of people making sweeping generalisations like this - I hear/read it all the time with regard to nuclear power, as if it's impossible to have a reasoned opposition without being a psycho-greenie.
...
That's what happens when your most outspoken proponents come off like rambling kooks, people get stereotyped.
For instance, if i said I was Republican you would say I was
Is it too much to ask for products to be made of safe materials?
Like soylent green for example. It doesn't get any more "green" than soylent green.
I demand that my PCs be made of biodegradable environmentalists!
"One topic that is evidently too hot to handle: How do you cope with sexual desire among healthy young men and women during a mission years long?"
Two questions:
1. Have you ever read Lord of the Flies?
2. Can a man or woman be charged with rape if he's off the planet?
Okay that's the info I needed. Thanks for your comment.
Also thanks for the OSS contribution, every bit counts.
I wouldn't say it's a reaction to a particular event, but I'm pretty sure that Adobe is trying to use "OPEN SOURCE RAH RAH RAH" chant to try and show how they are so much better than MS, now that MS has released silverlight and is on their home turf.
Honestly I think Adobe could give two shits about OSS, as they prove when they state that Linux products aren't in the works. They use OSS to compete, gaining market share and driving their stock higher, nothing more. The good thing out of all of this is developers get the advantage, regardless of their intentions.
I'm not really sure why so many on here will applaud ANY entity attacking Microsoft citing it as a good thing. Adobe is no friend of OSS. They sell proprietary software.
I'm a bit in the dark regarding IronPython and it's relationship with MS - how can an open source project be acquired? If the license was OSI before couldn't the project just continue? From the wikipedia entry it looks like the project leader decided that the MS shared source license was going to be used. But this is the first time I've heard of it so I'm curious how it played out.
This is something I realized after 10+ years - smaller is better. I started out at a small shop and got my break doing everything and anything I could to help. I had to get along with 5 other people that were pretty much just like me.
Then I "moved up" for more pay to a mid size company, not bad. Pretty good actually.
Then eventually went to the largest privately owned company in the world. Benefits were great, but I was faceless. I was expected to do more work for less, but my heart wasn't in it. For some reason I couldn't help feeling used. Why? Because I felt detached from the company. Their goals were not my goals and they could have given a shit about my goals.
Maybe it was a personal issue, but at 30+ years old you simply come to a point in your life you make a decision. You either buy in and ass kissing becomes your specialty or you have a "life crisis" and try to find some sanity somewhere else. I chose the later and now work for a small company again. I don't think I'll ever go back to a large company, it just feels inhuman and unnatural.
But to each his own, some people don't have the same issues with authority that I have. More power to them.
Sorry, I meant it tongue in cheek. The parent made a similiar comparison and I thought I'd post a funny.
I'm for legalizing drugs 100%. It's more of a social disease than a criminal thing and I'd rather our prisons be filled with actual criminals, not ones that committed victimless crimes.