If you want global climate changing emissions, a single volcanic eruption can equal our current "greenhouse" output for the last few hundred years, globally, and there is not a single thing we can do about it.
I have already addressed this else where in anothe thread. The gasses and debrit released in a volcanic erruption do not make their way into the strasphere, where as those which humans release do, where they effect ozone depletion and global warming.
Not only is it possible to effect the climate of earth on a macro level, and the scientific concensus is that we already have begun to do so.
You are exactly correct in your assertion that scientists have only the data at hand with which to analyze. But the right commands to SAS or Excel, and you can predict and extrapolate just about any conclusion you desire. A 200 year snapshot is not sufficient for determining the future of human life.
I'll repeat myself in saying that they use indirect data as well like the fossil record, ice cores, &c. Is it not safer to err on the side of caution?
We instead will always adapt our surroundings to ourselves -- we always want big cars and SUVs, steak for dinner, and hamburgers for lunch.
Not indefinately. I for one avoid those things. I'm not the only one, and I wouldn't be surprised if the number of people like me in those respects is growing.
I also argue that scientists are not working for a better environment. Human nature is geared towards attempting to be the biggest fish, and environmental debate is just one outting for the environmental geeks to have more publicity. There may be a subset of a few who are in it for something besides a good living, but I guarantee they are not the idealistic bunch they would all like us to think they are.
Have one to many a run-in with a know-it all professor? I still conceed that many scientists have a genuine concern for humanity. There is nothing inherent in human nature that makes us always wanting to be the "biggest fish." Human civilization existed for thousands of years throughout North America without imperialistic behavior like we see today and have for a while. It has to do with a society's view of how it can survive. There was a point in history when your best chance of survival was to eat and breed as much as possible. As soon as individuals, and thus society, can come to terms that we are no longer acting in our own species interest, changes will be reflected in our behavior and thought. This sort of thing has to happen on many levels, and to some extent, has already begun. For example, people in wealthy nations produce less children per person than in developing countries. In that lies a change in thought and behavior, one which needs to be extended to other areas of resource usage.
Of course, we need to be looking for better ways, but in the mean time, gasoline is the best way. Just examine for yourself any of the latest solar, battery, and fuel cell technologies. But don't limit your search to the finished product, examine instead the entire chain of events that ends with that product.
I admit I haven't done much research into the environmental impact of electric cars. I ride my bike or walk wherever I need to go, taking the bus as needed, so I never considered alternatives in buying a car. Whta about ethanol? Let us entertain your statement that gas is simply the best way for now; would it not be in our interest to produce more fuel effecient vehicles and petroleum-based fuels? It is surely within our technological means, and has shown up in places.
It seems, to me, that people seem to think that their pride is threatened when they're not driving a wasteful car; ye, wasting as much as possible within one's economic means is the way to assert one's wealth in these relatively rich times.
Read the post before you troll, son. I had said: 'I'd like to quote the parts realted to global warming and seas from the "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity..."'. Sure, I mispelled related, but you should've been able to figure to move the 'l.' The document doesn't exclusively deal with climatology, but many areas of our environmental situation.
Perhaps I am one helping to propagate our own species' extinction, but get in an airplane or look at space photos. Look at the volume of air in the atmosphere. Humans are an inconsequential deposit on the surface of this rock. What humans should worry about is our own air and water quality in the areas we live in. Fix those, and you have environmental harmony.
Fixing those requires money and work. Most humans- used to buying products which were sold for the value in raw materials and process, not their impact on the environment- will have a hard time dealing with it. But I agree with you, largely on this. To improve our air and water quality we have to make conscious changes, ones that will not unly benefit us immediately, but the system which supports our civilization.
For us to think that something as insignificant in size as ourselves can affect something as large as this planet on a macro level, is the product of a superiority complex. Only scientists with a superiority complex (probably characterizes many scientists in the global warming debate -- they seem to like attention) can claim that data collected in the last 50 to 200 years can be interpolated to an entire ecological history of this planet.
I disagree. The problem is not that we're not going to destroy all life on this planet, but ourselves. Earth, and life on it, has gone through a lot more extremes than we can probably imagine, but most of life today is not adapted and ready for it. Bringing on an extreme for which we're not equipped is suicide.
Scientists only have the imformation they have. They have to extrapolate and use indirect means of collecting data (ice cores, &c). Denying the fact they we've had any negative effect on the environment because we cannot compare it to data recorded by humans, even though we may see this effects within the course of one lifetime is silly. This doesn't give scientists a superiority complex, but simply a concern for themselves and their children. Those which believe that all of our problems are solvable through some technological breakthrough in the future have a superiority complex, not to mention being extremely deluded.
Finally, I don't see any of them coming up with new energy storage and conversion technologies that can even clean up our local environments. Instead, they seem to be hung on the idea of sounding alarm bells for something people can't readily see. All changes must start at the small level and become large. Their whining is doing us no good, except accelerating the decay of logical thinking among peoples otherwise inclined to improve life by improving their local environment.
They (as in, scientists, somewhere) do come up with new energy solutions. They are largely ignored by a world that loves to drive gas guzzling SUVs and air conditioning. The mere fact that you've not heard of them is all the proof I need to conceed that statement. Many scientists do take steps in improving their local environment, but the fact is they know what they know- science. They may talk in lofty terms, but they're not just stitting around sounding alarms for some secret agenda. They're worried, and they're trying. Maybe they need to attack it at another angle.
In conclusion, I say these scientists who predict global geological failure, are in fact accelerating our demise. They make it appear that humanity has two choices: 1) Become bush people, 2) destroy ourselves. Naturally, being human, we will pick (2) because its more luxurious and comfortable and (1) is too much trouble.
Again, wrong. I would say that the majority of scientists wouldn't say we have to move back to being bushmen to survive, just revise the way we do things. Quit tearing down forests to stick out cattle on, so we can assert our wealth by eaying streak. Drive electric/hybrid/more effecient automobiles, and not drive any automobiles when possible. Self-regulate the number of children we have. Everyday at work, I see countless examples of people wasting resources, taking the for granted. If people started with little things, a lot could be accomplished. People, like yourself (from what I gather, excuse me if it's a hastily made judgement), are the ones who only see those two options, and would rather stick with (2), the status quo, in fear of moving back to (1).
In short... There are things that each and everyone one of us can do to help our situation, but for some reason (laziness?) do not. I try pretty hard to, and I still live a very luxurious life compared to many throughout the modern and historical world. No use in just dismissing the inbetween like you have in your above analysis.
"One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds... An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise." -- Aldo Leopold, 1953.
I'd like to note that ecology != environmentalism. Ecology is the study of natural systems, the way the land and the things inhabiting interact. However, the reason that most ecologists also happen to be environmentalists has to do with the fact that through what they know, they can see the problems we're causing for ourselves. Same goes for the majority of climatologists, zoologists and botanists. It's very unfortunate many people, Slashdotters or not, seem to assume that if you're a scientist and have environmental concern, you're automatically a tool of the "Environmental Agenda," whatever that means. While I don't sound just as bad, it's usually the opposite- those "scientists" (usually authors with no related scientific credentials) who deny that there are environmental problems are usually backed financially by those who have an agenda, those for which the status quo of resource usage and waste is profitable, who insist on living off the Earth's capital, instead of the sustainable interest.
Having that said, I have a knowledge of ecology and our environmental condition that is above that of an average American. Unfortunately, that doesn't say much. Having attended a surprisingly unbiased environmental highschool (School of Environmental Studies, Minnesota), I was edumacated on a lot of these issues.
I agree with Aldo Leopold. I am torn between the ignorance of the greater community and watching this community slowly kill itself by power of their denial.
What sort of scientific proof do you have of this? I'd like to quote the parts realted to global warming and seas from the "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity," a document which 1,575 of the world's scientists, including more than half of all living Nobel prize winers:
"Introduction
Human being and the natural world are on a colision course. Human activities influct harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practicesput at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision out present course will bring about.
The Environment
The environment is suffering critical stress:
The Atmopshere
Stratopheric ozone depletion threatens us with enhanced ultraviolet radiation at the earth's sruface, which can be damaging or lethal to many life forms. Air pollution near ground level and acid precipitation, are already causing widespread injury to humans, forests, and crops.
Water Resources
Heedless exploitation of depetable groundwater supplies endangers food production and other essential human systems. Heavy demands on the world's surface waters have resulted in serious shortages in some 80 countries, containing 40 percept of the world's population. Polution of rivers, lakes, and groundwater further limits the supply.
Oceans
Destructive pressure on the oceans is severe, particularly in the costal recions, which produce most of the world's food fish. The total marine catch is now at or above the estimated maximum sustainable yield. Some fisheries have already shown signs of collapse. Rivers carrying heavy burdens of eroded soil into the seas also carry industrial, municipal, agricultural, and livestock waste- some of it toxic."
I'm sorry, but you're opinion of the condition is shortsighted and is too dependnent on the "oh, if there's a problem, technology will fix it someday" mentality. Unless we change our ways and reverse that mentality, we're going to end up going the way of the dodo, and taking quite a few other species of plants and animals down with us.
Perhaps that is just natural selection at work- wiping outselves out with the power of our own ignorance. But as intelligent beings, we have the ability to keep ourselves in check, sustaining our own lives.
Water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas, and as parts of usually frozen ice, like the north pole in today's story, start to melt, it enforces a positive feed back loop, releasing more water vapor (as well as greenhouse gases like methane trapped in the ice), thereby causing higher temperatures, and thus leading to the ice melting even more.
It's not far fetched that once this has been kicked off, there's not much we can do to stop it before even the glaciers of Greenland and Antarctica start melting.
While it is true that one eruption of a volcano can produce well over the amount of greenhouse gases that humans do over the course of a year, decade, or more, that doesn't mean that volcano eruptions contribute to global warming. Your assumption is false, and illogical.
"The chlorine containing compounds released by volcanoes do not contribute much to ozone breakdown in the stratosphere because they don't end up there." -- Paul and Anne Ehrlich
However, the scientific consensus is that the greenhouse gases we produce end up in the stratosphere where they do contribute to ozone depletion and global warming. The chemicals and dust released with the eruption of a volcano are confined to the troposphere.
Yup, that's exactly what I'm proposing. Ideally, I'd junk most of userland Linux as well- all you would need to put Squeak on a PDA would be the kernel, Squeak, and maybe some other utils that Linux needs to get Squeak running. Squeak would run directly on the framebuffer- why bother using X or W if you're using a hosted windowing environment like Squeak?
PDA apps should be fairly easily built for Squeak in Smalltalk as well, especially with the newly released GUI builder. There would be a lot of technical points which wouldn't need to be addressed, like file format for syncing- just serialize the objects and send them down the serial port.
This device looks very promising as a Linux PDA. While I've seen plenty of posts from people whining about it's specs (66MHz CPU, 8MB RAM/2MB ROM, 16 shade greyscale screen at 240x160), they seem to be missing the point. The base model will cost $149! The iPAQ, Yopy, and other Linux-capable WinCE machines cost an order of magnitude more than $149.
That's it's strength, to me. I'd much rather have a small, cheap unit like this with OK battery life than an expensive, big (size and weight) and battery eating hog.
It's also as cheap as Palm and Visors cheapest offerings, but with a considerably faster CPU, more RAM and a bigger screen. Such is my argument (sans bigger screen) for another Linux capable PDA, the Helio.
I think it's pretty silly to put X on it, but I wouldn't call it a mistake, per se. Why? Because you can always take X off and put in Nano-X, Squeak, W, or Microwindows in instead.
Now, does anyone want to help me port Squeak to the Linux framebuffer for use on a PDA like this, so we can dump X?
Music will be provided by San 'NeTTwerk' Mehat DJing and featuring Jon 'CowboyNeal' Pater scratching.
Perhaps this "NeTTwerk" nickname was a joke, I fear it's not. Perhaps someone at the party should inform him that he ripped off the name of a record label which used to carry Skinny Puppy and some other cool projects, and politely change his name out of respect for the greatness of Skinny Puppy, or perhaps the Nettwerk label in general.
One of the original design intentions of Smalltalk was to create a language which resembled english more than other programming languages of the day, but remaining terse and effecient enough. While Smalltalk doesn't look exactly like english, it follows a similar syntax as basic english sentences- noun verb and noun verb noun.
To me, I see Smalltalk as resembling the language of the Ojibwe people, a Native American tribe which lived in parts of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Canada. While I'm not an expert in Ojibwe (having only one semester worth), I have a basic understanding of the general mechanisms of it. Ojibwe is very modular and simply sytactically, much like Smalltalk, whereas english is simple sometimes, but there are many gotchas even in simple constructs.
Ojibwe has the concepts of a pre-verb, that is, a one syllabal modifier of the verb, to change context. They declare future and past tenses, as the desire-to-perform-the-verb, the probability-the-verb-will-happen and others. It'd be an interesting idea to introduce to a language- small messages to an object to change context it's recieving it. Perhaps something like "(anObject become: somethingElse) doThis". Currently not used often, using them as a fundament of design might develop a new way of solving problems and coding the solution.
An interesting paper about this can be found here. While it doesn't address the what-ifs asked about, it's an interesting look at at least the english side of it. Not surprisingly, Smalltalk is a big example throughout.
This summer, I'm interning in a state different than the one I live and go to school in. Naturally, I needed internet access. I thought I'd try an AOL free month-long trial, just to get me started, and switch later to a local ISP after doing research online. My last experience with AOL was a number of years ago, before the WWW existed and gopher reigned supreme.
It was disapointing. Keywords are one-word "addresses," if you will, to content on AOL. I tried a few- all of them pointed to websites! Ones accessible by anyone with a browser and internet access. As another experiement, i tried out a couple chatrooms- all cheezy sex. Perhaps the christian singles rooms are better (ha!), but this was far below the quality of IRC. Also, the built-in Instant Messanging client was years behind the one you can download seperately from AOL.
The only real difference I saw between AOL and a regular ISP is that when I logged on, it flashed some adds before letting me do anything, asking if I wanted to buy.
The AOL client made my computer extremely unstable. I have a Mac, and was used to crashing about once a week. AOL installed and required a background application, which appeared to be some IPRouter, that would crash randomly, when I was on- and off-line. I had to reboot once, twice, or three times a day. It was absurd. And when I was on-line I would get kicked off randomly, even whilst active, with the helpful error that someone picked up the phone, or the phone plug fell out of the wall (!). I'm sure glad that this was only a trial- who would pay $20/month for this garbage when other quality ISPs charge far less?
Needless to day, I dumped AOL before my month was up and found some schmucky AltaVista free access. Yes, I have to look at adverts, but I had to do that on AOL, and now I get faster more stable connections. And the client doesn't happily bring my computer to it's knees.
And AOL isn't the only way for people new to computers to get on-line. I think the only reason it stays in business is that centiment is commonly circulated. My grandmother, completely new to computers, got an old pentium for last christmas. With the help of her also-new-to-computers neighbor (who's also an older lady), she was on-line with one of those free ISPs, sending me goofy e-cards.
A lot of people seem to be under the impression that C# is only available to those who went to the PDC. Nope. For a couple days, it's been available at Microsoft's site, and according to them, it's the same "sample bits" distributed at PDC.
Perhaps the more fatal flaw is that you refuse to touch it because of that attribute (significant whitespace). While Python isn't my favorite language (for other reasons), the whitespace-as-syntax has never been a problem for me or the other Python programmers out there. In fact, I've yet to talk to someone that hates the whitespace-as-syntax whose actually done more than go through the tutorial and a couple trivial scripts. Try it out for a while before you write it off as a design flaw.
I wonder this very same thing everytime I start up a Smalltalk image to get some work done. So many of the "innovations" of Java and C# are naught but features of Smalltalk with C's nasty syntax applied. Then you have abonomations like C++. I'll never understand the motivation behind that. I usually chalk it up to the fact that the average programmer's brain isn't flexible enough to look at non-BCPL/Algol syntax. Sounds elitist, but I'm at a loss for any other explanation.
Thanks for the pointer to Cugar- I've not looked at it yet, but hopefully I can use it to escape the hell known as C++ this coming school year... Bloody professors won't let me use Objective-C or Smalltalk, but I'll show them!:)
Re:Used it, played with it, worked with it.
on
Looking Back At NeXT
·
· Score: 2
Exactly.:) At first, I didn't like Aqua either, thought it looked annoying. I didn't like (and still don't) using Aqua themes for Mac OS 8+ and GTK+/Enlightenment/Sawmill. They're annoying. But having used both DP3 and DP4 a fair amount, I find it fine to use, and not distracting.
Doesn't Omni have a couple of the frameworks on which OmniWeb is dependent available, open-source style? Perhaps if someone ported those first to GNUstep, OmniWeb would be willing to do a port (or allow someone, under NDA) of OmniWeb, which is a great browser. Or would that violate the license of GNUstep? I cannot recall if it's GPL or LGPL.
Nope. While OpenStep is still in use, and people still develop for it, it doesn't run (nor did it ever, with the exception of within Apple) on PPC hardware. It runs on Intel and NeXT hardware (m68k - but *not* Macs!). NeXTSTEP 3.3 ran on NeXT hardware, Intel, HP PA-RISC, and Sun SPARC.
According to the NeXT newsgroups, they're still doing the y2k upgrades. The cool thing about it is that it's not just a patch CD... When I requested an OpenStep upgrade for my cube, I got: OpenStep 4.2/Mach for m68k and Intel, OpenStep 4.2 y2k Upgrade Patch CD, OpenStep Enterprise for Windows, and Enterprise Objects Framework. It was a pretty sweet deal, seeing how I actually run NeXTSTEP 3.3 on my cube, and I simply had to fill an email form with my cube's serial number and tell them I wanted OpenStep 4.2.:)
Another interesting tidbit about the Ross Perot/NeXT relationship goes thusly:
One of the reasons Perot bought into NeXT because NeXT was doing all of their manufacturing in house, or more importantly, in the USA. Perot, as many can remember, was against NAFTA and is a big advocate of keeping business in America. He got really excited about a computer company that was making it's boards and boxes in the US, not some country in Asia.
What's even more interesting is that when NeXT was not making any money making hardware, Perot, Mr. USA himself, advised that NeXT move their manufacturing operation overseas, to cut on costs.
Re:Used it, played with it, worked with it.
on
Looking Back At NeXT
·
· Score: 2
Dude, have you ever actually used Aqua? It looks awfully tacky in GTK+/Sawmill themes, but the look and feel of it is, in my experience, not a hinderance whatsoever. Nor is it annoying.
Also, deleting Extras.rsrc (the file to which you refer) makes is schizofrenic, not just revert back to a Mac OS X Server-esque platinum. But, have no fear! An Apple rep at MacHack (I believe) during a Q&A session confirmed that there will be some fascility for themeing in Mac OS X.
I'm surprised I've not heard anyone else mention this yet. The original NeXT cube came with no hard drive- only an optical drive, which could handle 256 and 512 MB disks. Then they started coming with the OD for data and apps and 100 MB harddrives for the OS. Then they gave up on that and went just with harddrives.
My cube has a working OD. Loud little sucker, it is. And slow, hence the move to harddrives. Just another bit of NeXT history for all you ignorant kiddies out there.:)
Yes, the hype of Java has won out in WebObjects. As of WebObjects 5 (not released yet), WO will be "100% Pure Java." In the past, Java relied on a Java Objective-C bridge to use WebObjects, which was written all in Objective-C. Apple decided to rewrite WebObjects in Java so they could have the marketing markee "100% Java." It's a shame, but at least they're keeping Objective-C around for Mac OS X programming.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want global climate changing emissions, a single volcanic eruption can equal our current "greenhouse" output for the last few hundred years, globally, and there is not a single thing we can do about it. I have already addressed this else where in anothe thread. The gasses and debrit released in a volcanic erruption do not make their way into the strasphere, where as those which humans release do, where they effect ozone depletion and global warming.
Not only is it possible to effect the climate of earth on a macro level, and the scientific concensus is that we already have begun to do so.
You are exactly correct in your assertion that scientists have only the data at hand with which to analyze. But the right commands to SAS or Excel, and you can predict and extrapolate just about any conclusion you desire. A 200 year snapshot is not sufficient for determining the future of human life.
I'll repeat myself in saying that they use indirect data as well like the fossil record, ice cores, &c. Is it not safer to err on the side of caution?
We instead will always adapt our surroundings to ourselves -- we always want big cars and SUVs, steak for dinner, and hamburgers for lunch.
Not indefinately. I for one avoid those things. I'm not the only one, and I wouldn't be surprised if the number of people like me in those respects is growing.
I also argue that scientists are not working for a better environment. Human nature is geared towards attempting to be the biggest fish, and environmental debate is just one outting for the environmental geeks to have more publicity. There may be a subset of a few who are in it for something besides a good living, but I guarantee they are not the idealistic bunch they would all like us to think they are.
Have one to many a run-in with a know-it all professor? I still conceed that many scientists have a genuine concern for humanity. There is nothing inherent in human nature that makes us always wanting to be the "biggest fish." Human civilization existed for thousands of years throughout North America without imperialistic behavior like we see today and have for a while. It has to do with a society's view of how it can survive. There was a point in history when your best chance of survival was to eat and breed as much as possible. As soon as individuals, and thus society, can come to terms that we are no longer acting in our own species interest, changes will be reflected in our behavior and thought. This sort of thing has to happen on many levels, and to some extent, has already begun. For example, people in wealthy nations produce less children per person than in developing countries. In that lies a change in thought and behavior, one which needs to be extended to other areas of resource usage.
Of course, we need to be looking for better ways, but in the mean time, gasoline is the best way. Just examine for yourself any of the latest solar, battery, and fuel cell technologies. But don't limit your search to the finished product, examine instead the entire chain of events that ends with that product.
I admit I haven't done much research into the environmental impact of electric cars. I ride my bike or walk wherever I need to go, taking the bus as needed, so I never considered alternatives in buying a car. Whta about ethanol? Let us entertain your statement that gas is simply the best way for now; would it not be in our interest to produce more fuel effecient vehicles and petroleum-based fuels? It is surely within our technological means, and has shown up in places.
It seems, to me, that people seem to think that their pride is threatened when they're not driving a wasteful car; ye, wasting as much as possible within one's economic means is the way to assert one's wealth in these relatively rich times.
Read the post before you troll, son. I had said: 'I'd like to quote the parts realted to global warming and seas from the "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity..."'. Sure, I mispelled related, but you should've been able to figure to move the 'l.' The document doesn't exclusively deal with climatology, but many areas of our environmental situation.
Perhaps I am one helping to propagate our own species' extinction, but get in an airplane or look at space photos. Look at the volume of air in the atmosphere. Humans are an inconsequential deposit on the surface of this rock. What humans should worry about is our own air and water quality in the areas we live in. Fix those, and you have environmental harmony.
Fixing those requires money and work. Most humans- used to buying products which were sold for the value in raw materials and process, not their impact on the environment- will have a hard time dealing with it. But I agree with you, largely on this. To improve our air and water quality we have to make conscious changes, ones that will not unly benefit us immediately, but the system which supports our civilization.
For us to think that something as insignificant in size as ourselves can affect something as large as this planet on a macro level, is the product of a superiority complex. Only scientists with a superiority complex (probably characterizes many scientists in the global warming debate -- they seem to like attention) can claim that data collected in the last 50 to 200 years can be interpolated to an entire ecological history of this planet.
I disagree. The problem is not that we're not going to destroy all life on this planet, but ourselves. Earth, and life on it, has gone through a lot more extremes than we can probably imagine, but most of life today is not adapted and ready for it. Bringing on an extreme for which we're not equipped is suicide.
Scientists only have the imformation they have. They have to extrapolate and use indirect means of collecting data (ice cores, &c). Denying the fact they we've had any negative effect on the environment because we cannot compare it to data recorded by humans, even though we may see this effects within the course of one lifetime is silly. This doesn't give scientists a superiority complex, but simply a concern for themselves and their children. Those which believe that all of our problems are solvable through some technological breakthrough in the future have a superiority complex, not to mention being extremely deluded.
Finally, I don't see any of them coming up with new energy storage and conversion technologies that can even clean up our local environments. Instead, they seem to be hung on the idea of sounding alarm bells for something people can't readily see. All changes must start at the small level and become large. Their whining is doing us no good, except accelerating the decay of logical thinking among peoples otherwise inclined to improve life by improving their local environment. They (as in, scientists, somewhere) do come up with new energy solutions. They are largely ignored by a world that loves to drive gas guzzling SUVs and air conditioning. The mere fact that you've not heard of them is all the proof I need to conceed that statement. Many scientists do take steps in improving their local environment, but the fact is they know what they know- science. They may talk in lofty terms, but they're not just stitting around sounding alarms for some secret agenda. They're worried, and they're trying. Maybe they need to attack it at another angle.
In conclusion, I say these scientists who predict global geological failure, are in fact accelerating our demise. They make it appear that humanity has two choices: 1) Become bush people, 2) destroy ourselves. Naturally, being human, we will pick (2) because its more luxurious and comfortable and (1) is too much trouble.
Again, wrong. I would say that the majority of scientists wouldn't say we have to move back to being bushmen to survive, just revise the way we do things. Quit tearing down forests to stick out cattle on, so we can assert our wealth by eaying streak. Drive electric/hybrid/more effecient automobiles, and not drive any automobiles when possible. Self-regulate the number of children we have. Everyday at work, I see countless examples of people wasting resources, taking the for granted. If people started with little things, a lot could be accomplished. People, like yourself (from what I gather, excuse me if it's a hastily made judgement), are the ones who only see those two options, and would rather stick with (2), the status quo, in fear of moving back to (1).
In short... There are things that each and everyone one of us can do to help our situation, but for some reason (laziness?) do not. I try pretty hard to, and I still live a very luxurious life compared to many throughout the modern and historical world. No use in just dismissing the inbetween like you have in your above analysis.
"One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds ... An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise." -- Aldo Leopold, 1953.
I'd like to note that ecology != environmentalism. Ecology is the study of natural systems, the way the land and the things inhabiting interact. However, the reason that most ecologists also happen to be environmentalists has to do with the fact that through what they know, they can see the problems we're causing for ourselves. Same goes for the majority of climatologists, zoologists and botanists. It's very unfortunate many people, Slashdotters or not, seem to assume that if you're a scientist and have environmental concern, you're automatically a tool of the "Environmental Agenda," whatever that means. While I don't sound just as bad, it's usually the opposite- those "scientists" (usually authors with no related scientific credentials) who deny that there are environmental problems are usually backed financially by those who have an agenda, those for which the status quo of resource usage and waste is profitable, who insist on living off the Earth's capital, instead of the sustainable interest.
Having that said, I have a knowledge of ecology and our environmental condition that is above that of an average American. Unfortunately, that doesn't say much. Having attended a surprisingly unbiased environmental highschool (School of Environmental Studies, Minnesota), I was edumacated on a lot of these issues.
I agree with Aldo Leopold. I am torn between the ignorance of the greater community and watching this community slowly kill itself by power of their denial.
What sort of scientific proof do you have of this? I'd like to quote the parts realted to global warming and seas from the "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity," a document which 1,575 of the world's scientists, including more than half of all living Nobel prize winers:
"Introduction
Human being and the natural world are on a colision course. Human activities influct harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practicesput at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision out present course will bring about.
The Environment
The environment is suffering critical stress:
The Atmopshere
Stratopheric ozone depletion threatens us with enhanced ultraviolet radiation at the earth's sruface, which can be damaging or lethal to many life forms. Air pollution near ground level and acid precipitation, are already causing widespread injury to humans, forests, and crops.
Water Resources
Heedless exploitation of depetable groundwater supplies endangers food production and other essential human systems. Heavy demands on the world's surface waters have resulted in serious shortages in some 80 countries, containing 40 percept of the world's population. Polution of rivers, lakes, and groundwater further limits the supply.
Oceans
Destructive pressure on the oceans is severe, particularly in the costal recions, which produce most of the world's food fish. The total marine catch is now at or above the estimated maximum sustainable yield. Some fisheries have already shown signs of collapse. Rivers carrying heavy burdens of eroded soil into the seas also carry industrial, municipal, agricultural, and livestock waste- some of it toxic."
I'm sorry, but you're opinion of the condition is shortsighted and is too dependnent on the "oh, if there's a problem, technology will fix it someday" mentality. Unless we change our ways and reverse that mentality, we're going to end up going the way of the dodo, and taking quite a few other species of plants and animals down with us.
Perhaps that is just natural selection at work- wiping outselves out with the power of our own ignorance. But as intelligent beings, we have the ability to keep ourselves in check, sustaining our own lives.
Water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas, and as parts of usually frozen ice, like the north pole in today's story, start to melt, it enforces a positive feed back loop, releasing more water vapor (as well as greenhouse gases like methane trapped in the ice), thereby causing higher temperatures, and thus leading to the ice melting even more.
It's not far fetched that once this has been kicked off, there's not much we can do to stop it before even the glaciers of Greenland and Antarctica start melting.
While it is true that one eruption of a volcano can produce well over the amount of greenhouse gases that humans do over the course of a year, decade, or more, that doesn't mean that volcano eruptions contribute to global warming. Your assumption is false, and illogical.
"The chlorine containing compounds released by volcanoes do not contribute much to ozone breakdown in the stratosphere because they don't end up there." -- Paul and Anne Ehrlich
However, the scientific consensus is that the greenhouse gases we produce end up in the stratosphere where they do contribute to ozone depletion and global warming. The chemicals and dust released with the eruption of a volcano are confined to the troposphere.
Yup, that's exactly what I'm proposing. Ideally, I'd junk most of userland Linux as well- all you would need to put Squeak on a PDA would be the kernel, Squeak, and maybe some other utils that Linux needs to get Squeak running. Squeak would run directly on the framebuffer- why bother using X or W if you're using a hosted windowing environment like Squeak?
PDA apps should be fairly easily built for Squeak in Smalltalk as well, especially with the newly released GUI builder. There would be a lot of technical points which wouldn't need to be addressed, like file format for syncing- just serialize the objects and send them down the serial port.
This device looks very promising as a Linux PDA. While I've seen plenty of posts from people whining about it's specs (66MHz CPU, 8MB RAM/2MB ROM, 16 shade greyscale screen at 240x160), they seem to be missing the point. The base model will cost $149! The iPAQ, Yopy, and other Linux-capable WinCE machines cost an order of magnitude more than $149.
That's it's strength, to me. I'd much rather have a small, cheap unit like this with OK battery life than an expensive, big (size and weight) and battery eating hog.
It's also as cheap as Palm and Visors cheapest offerings, but with a considerably faster CPU, more RAM and a bigger screen. Such is my argument (sans bigger screen) for another Linux capable PDA, the Helio.
I think it's pretty silly to put X on it, but I wouldn't call it a mistake, per se. Why? Because you can always take X off and put in Nano-X, Squeak, W, or Microwindows in instead.
Now, does anyone want to help me port Squeak to the Linux framebuffer for use on a PDA like this, so we can dump X?
Music will be provided by San 'NeTTwerk' Mehat DJing and featuring Jon 'CowboyNeal' Pater scratching.
Perhaps this "NeTTwerk" nickname was a joke, I fear it's not. Perhaps someone at the party should inform him that he ripped off the name of a record label which used to carry Skinny Puppy and some other cool projects, and politely change his name out of respect for the greatness of Skinny Puppy, or perhaps the Nettwerk label in general.
One of the original design intentions of Smalltalk was to create a language which resembled english more than other programming languages of the day, but remaining terse and effecient enough. While Smalltalk doesn't look exactly like english, it follows a similar syntax as basic english sentences- noun verb and noun verb noun.
To me, I see Smalltalk as resembling the language of the Ojibwe people, a Native American tribe which lived in parts of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Canada. While I'm not an expert in Ojibwe (having only one semester worth), I have a basic understanding of the general mechanisms of it. Ojibwe is very modular and simply sytactically, much like Smalltalk, whereas english is simple sometimes, but there are many gotchas even in simple constructs.
Ojibwe has the concepts of a pre-verb, that is, a one syllabal modifier of the verb, to change context. They declare future and past tenses, as the desire-to-perform-the-verb, the probability-the-verb-will-happen and others. It'd be an interesting idea to introduce to a language- small messages to an object to change context it's recieving it. Perhaps something like "(anObject become: somethingElse) doThis". Currently not used often, using them as a fundament of design might develop a new way of solving problems and coding the solution.
Nindigoo ojibwemong Enigoons. Giga-waabamin!
An interesting paper about this can be found here. While it doesn't address the what-ifs asked about, it's an interesting look at at least the english side of it. Not surprisingly, Smalltalk is a big example throughout.
This summer, I'm interning in a state different than the one I live and go to school in. Naturally, I needed internet access. I thought I'd try an AOL free month-long trial, just to get me started, and switch later to a local ISP after doing research online. My last experience with AOL was a number of years ago, before the WWW existed and gopher reigned supreme.
It was disapointing. Keywords are one-word "addresses," if you will, to content on AOL. I tried a few- all of them pointed to websites! Ones accessible by anyone with a browser and internet access. As another experiement, i tried out a couple chatrooms- all cheezy sex. Perhaps the christian singles rooms are better (ha!), but this was far below the quality of IRC. Also, the built-in Instant Messanging client was years behind the one you can download seperately from AOL.
The only real difference I saw between AOL and a regular ISP is that when I logged on, it flashed some adds before letting me do anything, asking if I wanted to buy.
The AOL client made my computer extremely unstable. I have a Mac, and was used to crashing about once a week. AOL installed and required a background application, which appeared to be some IPRouter, that would crash randomly, when I was on- and off-line. I had to reboot once, twice, or three times a day. It was absurd. And when I was on-line I would get kicked off randomly, even whilst active, with the helpful error that someone picked up the phone, or the phone plug fell out of the wall (!). I'm sure glad that this was only a trial- who would pay $20/month for this garbage when other quality ISPs charge far less?
Needless to day, I dumped AOL before my month was up and found some schmucky AltaVista free access. Yes, I have to look at adverts, but I had to do that on AOL, and now I get faster more stable connections. And the client doesn't happily bring my computer to it's knees.
And AOL isn't the only way for people new to computers to get on-line. I think the only reason it stays in business is that centiment is commonly circulated. My grandmother, completely new to computers, got an old pentium for last christmas. With the help of her also-new-to-computers neighbor (who's also an older lady), she was on-line with one of those free ISPs, sending me goofy e-cards.
A lot of people seem to be under the impression that C# is only available to those who went to the PDC. Nope. For a couple days, it's been available at Microsoft's site, and according to them, it's the same "sample bits" distributed at PDC.
Get it here. It does require Windows 2000 though.
Perhaps the more fatal flaw is that you refuse to touch it because of that attribute (significant whitespace). While Python isn't my favorite language (for other reasons), the whitespace-as-syntax has never been a problem for me or the other Python programmers out there. In fact, I've yet to talk to someone that hates the whitespace-as-syntax whose actually done more than go through the tutorial and a couple trivial scripts. Try it out for a while before you write it off as a design flaw.
I wonder this very same thing everytime I start up a Smalltalk image to get some work done. So many of the "innovations" of Java and C# are naught but features of Smalltalk with C's nasty syntax applied. Then you have abonomations like C++. I'll never understand the motivation behind that. I usually chalk it up to the fact that the average programmer's brain isn't flexible enough to look at non-BCPL/Algol syntax. Sounds elitist, but I'm at a loss for any other explanation.
:)
Thanks for the pointer to Cugar- I've not looked at it yet, but hopefully I can use it to escape the hell known as C++ this coming school year... Bloody professors won't let me use Objective-C or Smalltalk, but I'll show them!
Exactly. :) At first, I didn't like Aqua either, thought it looked annoying. I didn't like (and still don't) using Aqua themes for Mac OS 8+ and GTK+/Enlightenment/Sawmill. They're annoying. But having used both DP3 and DP4 a fair amount, I find it fine to use, and not distracting.
Doesn't Omni have a couple of the frameworks on which OmniWeb is dependent available, open-source style? Perhaps if someone ported those first to GNUstep, OmniWeb would be willing to do a port (or allow someone, under NDA) of OmniWeb, which is a great browser. Or would that violate the license of GNUstep? I cannot recall if it's GPL or LGPL.
Nope. While OpenStep is still in use, and people still develop for it, it doesn't run (nor did it ever, with the exception of within Apple) on PPC hardware. It runs on Intel and NeXT hardware (m68k - but *not* Macs!). NeXTSTEP 3.3 ran on NeXT hardware, Intel, HP PA-RISC, and Sun SPARC.
According to the NeXT newsgroups, they're still doing the y2k upgrades. The cool thing about it is that it's not just a patch CD... When I requested an OpenStep upgrade for my cube, I got: OpenStep 4.2/Mach for m68k and Intel, OpenStep 4.2 y2k Upgrade Patch CD, OpenStep Enterprise for Windows, and Enterprise Objects Framework. It was a pretty sweet deal, seeing how I actually run NeXTSTEP 3.3 on my cube, and I simply had to fill an email form with my cube's serial number and tell them I wanted OpenStep 4.2. :)
Another interesting tidbit about the Ross Perot/NeXT relationship goes thusly:
One of the reasons Perot bought into NeXT because NeXT was doing all of their manufacturing in house, or more importantly, in the USA. Perot, as many can remember, was against NAFTA and is a big advocate of keeping business in America. He got really excited about a computer company that was making it's boards and boxes in the US, not some country in Asia.
What's even more interesting is that when NeXT was not making any money making hardware, Perot, Mr. USA himself, advised that NeXT move their manufacturing operation overseas, to cut on costs.
Dude, have you ever actually used Aqua? It looks awfully tacky in GTK+/Sawmill themes, but the look and feel of it is, in my experience, not a hinderance whatsoever. Nor is it annoying.
Also, deleting Extras.rsrc (the file to which you refer) makes is schizofrenic, not just revert back to a Mac OS X Server-esque platinum. But, have no fear! An Apple rep at MacHack (I believe) during a Q&A session confirmed that there will be some fascility for themeing in Mac OS X.
I'm surprised I've not heard anyone else mention this yet. The original NeXT cube came with no hard drive- only an optical drive, which could handle 256 and 512 MB disks. Then they started coming with the OD for data and apps and 100 MB harddrives for the OS. Then they gave up on that and went just with harddrives.
:)
My cube has a working OD. Loud little sucker, it is. And slow, hence the move to harddrives. Just another bit of NeXT history for all you ignorant kiddies out there.
Yes, the hype of Java has won out in WebObjects. As of WebObjects 5 (not released yet), WO will be "100% Pure Java." In the past, Java relied on a Java Objective-C bridge to use WebObjects, which was written all in Objective-C. Apple decided to rewrite WebObjects in Java so they could have the marketing markee "100% Java." It's a shame, but at least they're keeping Objective-C around for Mac OS X programming.