Thanks, you've found the blog post that I was talking about. I'm happy to read that there are mechanisms to get around it and that I was mistaking. However, if then LXC doesn't provide sysfs access to its containers, it's really not convenient. Is that mandatory to make it secured? Or are there ways to still provide sysfs in a safe way?
While those mechanisms may sound complex, may happen to be buggy, and are surrounded by all kinds of disclaimers, same applies in spades to virtualization implementation
I can't agree with this. Please give me a link to where there was a hole in Xen for example, allowing to gain access to the dom0 from a domU (note: PCI pass-through issues don't count, because you don't need them, and if you do, it's on your own Desktop, and we're talking about servers here). To the best of what I know, this never happened yet with Xen (it did with KVM though). I'm not saying that the software is perfect, or that it will never happen, but it just didn't (yet?). But anyways, there would be a lot of nice feature you'd like about LXC, even without it to be 100% safe.
If LXC implementation is fundamentally insecure as you claim, it's supposed to be treated as broken, and it should not be available in any "stable" version of anything.
Well, first of all, I'm not working on the kernel stuff in Debian. If I was and had time to work on it, probably I would have kept the VZ feature patch for the next release, until LXC became more mature in Wheezy+1. Unfortunately, I am listed as maintainer or uploader for 82 packages already, and I think that's enough work.:)
Referring to some mythical mailing list messages about other products and features without such reference amounts to FUD-mongering
No, it's because I didn't know enough. It happens to all of us, and I'm ok to admit my mistake. Please keep your tone lower, there's no need to use such wording. I have read the debian-devel list, and nobody cared or knew this was wrong, which is quite surprising. Or are you saying that I shouldn't trust other Debian developers and the kernel team, maybe? Sorry, but even after your post, I'll continue to trust them! There's no collaborative work without trust.
I'm not going to do the homework for you, I don't have the blog entry handy, but I for sure tested it myself (hint: this has been discussed in debian-devel@l.d.o when Ben announced that Vserver and OpenVZ patches would be dropped from Wheezy because nobody has time to maintain it). It's a public fact, and known by everyone. So go and find your citation yourself, then you can click the edit button and fill the citation...:)
Just load the javascript that you get when you download the page, and stop wondering!
By the way, how is this news? I mean, the password haystack page has been around since at least 02 Jun 2011 (date of the podcast talking about it, also available from grc.com).
If this happens, then we'll have a lot of fun: we'll be able to request data in order to have our competitors die out of taxation.
Seriously, taxing the Internet is a very dangerous idea, and I would put it side by side with censorship. In fact, one could see it as a disguised censorship...
Yes, hearing that kind of loonie conspiracy theory presented with a straight face does bother me very much.
Where do you see a conspiracy theory here? There's no theory, it's real, it's in your face, in the news, and nobody is denying the facts. TFA really is all about this. The UN willing to regulate Internet at large isn't theory either.
You must have spent too much time on another planet and didn't see what was happening over the last few years.
Right. And so does XCP. They are now very comparable and competitive products.
If you want to come and show us why your chosen OSS solution is better, feel free. I can setup a time to meet with my boss.
Wow, will you pay for the plane ticket across the Pacific ocean?:) Seriously, what VMWare has that XCP doesn't?
If you just want to scream about OSS because you like it, then I'm disinterested in listening further.
No, what I'm saying is that what was right a year ago isn't the same today, and things are moving fast. You may want to re-evaluate. I was really amazed at XCP, and didn't think it was that good. It's fast, nicely integrated with the OS now that it's packaged, and knowing that it's the Xen hypervisor behind all this nice GUI is simply fantastic. When I hear about ESXi, I know that there's going to be an opaque Linux running in the background for which I'll have no access and wont ever know what's running on it: very scary in terms of security, which is about 2 decades away from what I would expect from a modern software, especially knowing that this is all based on open source technology (I mean, the ESXi stack), in order to run some open source VMs mostly. And this has nothing to do with being an OSS "zealot" as you say.
The only issue is that LXC is currently borken in the kernel, because you can easily escape from the chroot that it provides. So no, LXC isn't for the moment the key feature, but we do expect it will.
OpenStack is the answer to CPanel or Plesk, nothing more.
They have absolutely nothing to share. If you are saying this because of the Horizon dashboard, then you are mistaking. IaaS has all to do with API, using it like you would with a web interface is stupid, in this case, you need VPSes, not cloud computing.
So where you might only need one highly-tuned VM, you need instead 10 poorly tuned VM's to get the same performance. This allows Amazon and other Cloud providers to charge you by the hour at 10 times the amount.
Exactly for what reason you would spend some time to highly-tune a VM not in the cloud, while you would when it is in a IaaS? It doesn't make sense. In both situations, you can skip the tuning if you are lazy and have enough money to buy computing power. Also, what allowed AWS to have such an expensive pricing model is just the fact that their was very few competitors, and Openstack is changing this.
One bad sector on any hard drive= all virtual machines lost.
WHAT??? Come on, you clearly didn't understand what it was about. On the cloud, you'd be storing stuff on highly redundant storage. Like, your images would be stored with Swift (with glance using it), meaning that you'd get at least 3 copies of all files. And your instances would be disposable (eg: if one crash, it's not a problem, just fire-up another one stored in Swift). So no reason to loose anything if only one HDD crashes...
So I don't understand why anyone would use Virtualization at all.
Indeed, you don't understand...
The only proper way to setup cloud infrastructure requires a much larger investment:
2 NAS+2VM hosts, so 4 physical machines.
Nobody pretended that you could start with very few investment. The model only works when you have the need for a lot. BTW, Openstack doesn't use NAS, it has nothing to do with it. The whole point of Openstack is to use "commodity" cheap hardware. Typically, you'd setup Swift WITHOUT RAID for example.
The rest of our hardware assumptions are just wrong (you're talking about iSCSI, NAS and so on, when, again, Openstack doesn't need them...).
Well, it seems indeed, you'd need a little bit more knowledge. Yes, there's "the cloud" (as in: stupid marketing journalistic word), and real IaaS. Openstack is the later, and there's nothing dirty here. The moron might not be the one you think.
I have read many of the same kind of statements. Mostly, it's from people who don't understand what's going on (and you're of course one of them). No, "the cloud" isn't just a marketing word. It's a reality, and it has features which real people use to do real things. Do you want a simple example? Rebuilding all of the Debian packages at once in less than few hours, and sending out report to every package maintainer when there's a FTBFS (Fail To Buid From Source).
Saying that VMWare is the only solution means you didn't even have a look at the OpenXenManager screenshots. It does exactly the same stuff as VMWare, has a nice GUI, but uses only open source stuff (eg: XCP). It's not about being "cool" to prefer such tool, it's all about not being vendor-locked-in, and have freedom (do I have to state all the Stallman freedoms I'm talking about?).
Please stop shouting "marketing buzz" each time you see the word, instead, start doing your homework, and try to understand why everyone is shifting to IaaS.
Rackspace is a major sponsor of the project, and eats their own dog food.
That's only right for Swift, not for Nova. Rackspace has yet to do the switch, because they don't have good enough guys to do the packaging on Debian stable, which is their target. I believe that by this time, they must have more or less stopped the effort, and will be waiting Wheezy (just a guess here based on previous packages I saw).
Nova is the VM side, and supports (to varying degrees) pretty much every hypervisor.
That's "pretty much" what they want to let you believe. The reality is harsher than this. For real, Nova supports KVM and XCP (Xen Cloud Platform). The later pushed me to work with Citrix to have it in Debian (it's available in SID/testing right now). If one tells you that you can run Xen with libvirt, reply to him that nobody does this, and that the support must be broken, and anyway, there's so little documentation about it. As for LXC, well, the container itself is broken (eg: you can escape from the chroot), so nobody is fool enough to put that in production for serious use. Then there's UML and QEMU, but I don't think I have to even explain why nobody would want to run that as an hypervisor.
Then, as not supported, there is: VMWare, Hyper-V, Virtualbox (some got removed recently because its driver was crap and didn't support enough feature to make it useful). Alltogether, that's not "pretty much every hypervisor" in my book...
This should not be compared to kernels, Linux or anything of the sort. "...a major threat to VMware, Citrix and Parallels datacenter management products" would be a lot better.
I fully agree with that! But not the Citrix part. Citrix is an active contributor, and one of the reasons why they built a packaged version of XCP is because it made sense when playing with Openstack.
It's not a distribution, it's just that stupid marketing people call it "operating system for the cloud", which adds lots of confusion. They do that also because "Open Stack" can be shortened into OS (which is same as operating system). But in fact, Openstack isn't an operating system, nor a distribution, it's just a bunch of Python scripts which are, by the way, pretty hard to ship into decent packages (I can tell because I'm partly working, as a Debian Developer, on the Debian packaging myself). Compared to XCP, it's really messy, and you don't have a single upstream contact.
By the way, the original team behind Openstack was coming from the Ubuntu world, so Openstack is a way more focused on Ubuntu than anything else. Even though that starts to become less truth since we're working on having Essex in Debian, all the unstable development is made in Ubuntu, and unit tests with jenkins there runs on that as well.
The difference between mainframes + thin clients and "local clouds" is.... the number of servers?
I don't think this has to do with the number of servers. Typically, a mainframe would be bought from a big vendor (let's say IBM), would have a proprietary API (if there's an API at all), and would run on that vendor's hardware. A "local cloud" would run on commodity hardware (eg: any cheap PC...).
Well, that's the whole point of it. Previously, we had stuff like AWS, where you had nothing but an API to play with, and everything else was closed source. Now, we do have Openstack, and you aren't forced to run your stuff on someone's else hardware. Moreover, if you still don't want to use a public cloud, but don't want to be locked-in, you will be free to move from one provider to another, and it's going to be easy to do so, because everyone will be using the same cloud core. So yes, it's very open, and it's hugely important that it is. This is why Debian, Citrix and the Openstack project made a common press release after Openstack reached Debian in a usable form, and after I finished polishing Xen Cloud Platform in Debian as well (both will be in Debian Wheezy).
Also, I dislike the fact that others are painting Openstack as a rackspace only product. Reality: it's not. Read the "AUTHORS" file of the project, and you'll see that it's simply not the case. Read who's got the most commits, and it's not the case again. Last, read how Openstack has open governance, and you'll realize it once more.
I'd like to know who's the users in China with IPv6. There's no provider, ADSL or otherwise, that provides IPv6. The only place where you could find IPv6 would be universities. And what's funny with it, is that it shows that the Great Firewall of China doesn't cope with v6 at all. All sites that would normally be blocked are wide open. So until the GFW is "patched", I don't think IPv6 will come. That's quite a shame, because I've read multiple times that the big ISPs backbones are already IPv6 capable.
Well, it's not Conficker or Flame that is bad here... I had very low trust in windows, now it's down to an absolute zero. How can it be THAT bad, seriously? How can people accept to use such a toy OS?
calling me a cunt was about as subtle as one can get
If you don't want to get it, don't start with: "i didn't realize you were ignorant enough". That's not very subtle either... Gosh, I'd better stop, it seems nobody understand sarcasms in here... Sheldon Cooper, I know it's you!
actually the jornos that take an internal scientific correspondence not intended for public consumption (ie intended audience is expected to have a scientific background to be able to correctly interpret its context), take said email way out of context
I didn't need to read the emails. I had a look to the pascal code for drawing the East Anglia curve, and saw the way they did their "fudge factor". For that, I have an expertise, and I can tell that this is crap. This pascal code was not science, but hacking to get the expected result.
damaging campaign of mistrust in proper scientific process
On a normal scientific process, we wouldn't have need a weasel blower to get the above pascal code. It would have been published, together with the data. This is simply not what happened, they have been hiding behind copyright to refuse to publish it.
and the positive trend in temperature would seem to indicate global warming
Citation needed...
not quite as silly as believing moron journos whose hype has no scientific merit.
Well, I've been reading M. Vicent Courtillot. He's not a moron, he's a real scientific. Well, of course, not a "climatologist" (but a geologist), because those are all paid for alarming you about the warming, so they are in direct conflict of interest.
it's just a pity that more people (including politicians and business leaders) read their rubbish
Luckily, the people are reading the scientific studies as well, which influences our politics, and there are enough people with scientific knowledge to understand what is being said. Lucky, many don't believe the lie that it's too complicated and that it cannot be understood. Luckily, there are people smart enough to explain in a simple way things that others are trying to make complicated on purpose. Luckily, there are still some politicians that are against the CO2 taxes against the poor, and in favor of Al Gore and friends who got some shares in the CO2 market. Luckily, there's still some people that believe a curve is a curve, and that even a 10 years old can understand an up or a down trend. Luckily, there's still some scientific doing real analysis, doing some conferences freely available on the Internet, and which (almost) everyone can understand (of course, you need to make the effort to read them...), and luckily, it's not all about scoop and big titles.
yeah cos calling someone a cunt is nowhere near as bad as calling someone ignorant.
It's not any better, I'm just making the point that my opponent had no point calling me ignorant. But maybe that's too subtle for you.
so what about them? do you think they indicate global warming isn't occurring? where do they say that (with any scientific credibility)? you and i probably wouldn't have the expertise to interpret said data even if we had access to it all.
So, I don't have the expertise to read a curve, and say if it goes up or down? COME ON !!!
the problem is that you have been told by someone (likely a moron journo)...
Right. So everyone that do not agree with you is a moron. This goes in the right direction!
...that the last 10 years of temperature records indicates that global warming isn't occurring
I just read the curve of the last 10 years. I don't care if you don't believe it, but the fact is that it's not going up!
in reality you have absolutely no clue what temperature records indicate, because the amount of data that implies is enormous, and 10 years isn't likely even enough time to indicate anything about the global temperature trend any more than summer temperatures are generally warmer than winter ones.
Well, that's the problem. Everyone is using the scale that they like to prove a point. If we take the last 10 years, then it's not enough. If we take 1000 years, then we are told that it's too much. Of course, if you take exactly 30 years, you'll have a trend that shows an increase. All this is silly...
even if i knew you were still a gullible slave to corporate mass media
What do you know of me? Nothing. What do you know about who I read / watch? Nothing as well. So please don't make such assumptions.
of course i didn't realize you were ignorant enough
Shit, I didn't realize you were a cunt... The discussion can stop here at this point, if you use such language.
Slashdot Mirror
While those mechanisms may sound complex, may happen to be buggy, and are surrounded by all kinds of disclaimers, same applies in spades to virtualization implementation
I can't agree with this. Please give me a link to where there was a hole in Xen for example, allowing to gain access to the dom0 from a domU (note: PCI pass-through issues don't count, because you don't need them, and if you do, it's on your own Desktop, and we're talking about servers here). To the best of what I know, this never happened yet with Xen (it did with KVM though). I'm not saying that the software is perfect, or that it will never happen, but it just didn't (yet?). But anyways, there would be a lot of nice feature you'd like about LXC, even without it to be 100% safe.
If LXC implementation is fundamentally insecure as you claim, it's supposed to be treated as broken, and it should not be available in any "stable" version of anything.
Well, first of all, I'm not working on the kernel stuff in Debian. If I was and had time to work on it, probably I would have kept the VZ feature patch for the next release, until LXC became more mature in Wheezy+1. Unfortunately, I am listed as maintainer or uploader for 82 packages already, and I think that's enough work. :)
Referring to some mythical mailing list messages about other products and features without such reference amounts to FUD-mongering
No, it's because I didn't know enough. It happens to all of us, and I'm ok to admit my mistake. Please keep your tone lower, there's no need to use such wording. I have read the debian-devel list, and nobody cared or knew this was wrong, which is quite surprising. Or are you saying that I shouldn't trust other Debian developers and the kernel team, maybe? Sorry, but even after your post, I'll continue to trust them! There's no collaborative work without trust.
I'm not going to do the homework for you, I don't have the blog entry handy, but I for sure tested it myself (hint: this has been discussed in debian-devel@l.d.o when Ben announced that Vserver and OpenVZ patches would be dropped from Wheezy because nobody has time to maintain it). It's a public fact, and known by everyone. So go and find your citation yourself, then you can click the edit button and fill the citation... :)
Just load the javascript that you get when you download the page, and stop wondering!
By the way, how is this news? I mean, the password haystack page has been around since at least 02 Jun 2011 (date of the podcast talking about it, also available from grc.com).
If this happens, then we'll have a lot of fun: we'll be able to request data in order to have our competitors die out of taxation.
Seriously, taxing the Internet is a very dangerous idea, and I would put it side by side with censorship. In fact, one could see it as a disguised censorship...
Yes, hearing that kind of loonie conspiracy theory presented with a straight face does bother me very much.
Where do you see a conspiracy theory here? There's no theory, it's real, it's in your face, in the news, and nobody is denying the facts. TFA really is all about this. The UN willing to regulate Internet at large isn't theory either.
You must have spent too much time on another planet and didn't see what was happening over the last few years.
VMWare gets shit done
Right. And so does XCP. They are now very comparable and competitive products.
If you want to come and show us why your chosen OSS solution is better, feel free. I can setup a time to meet with my boss.
Wow, will you pay for the plane ticket across the Pacific ocean? :) Seriously, what VMWare has that XCP doesn't?
If you just want to scream about OSS because you like it, then I'm disinterested in listening further.
No, what I'm saying is that what was right a year ago isn't the same today, and things are moving fast. You may want to re-evaluate. I was really amazed at XCP, and didn't think it was that good. It's fast, nicely integrated with the OS now that it's packaged, and knowing that it's the Xen hypervisor behind all this nice GUI is simply fantastic. When I hear about ESXi, I know that there's going to be an opaque Linux running in the background for which I'll have no access and wont ever know what's running on it: very scary in terms of security, which is about 2 decades away from what I would expect from a modern software, especially knowing that this is all based on open source technology (I mean, the ESXi stack), in order to run some open source VMs mostly. And this has nothing to do with being an OSS "zealot" as you say.
The only issue is that LXC is currently borken in the kernel, because you can easily escape from the chroot that it provides. So no, LXC isn't for the moment the key feature, but we do expect it will.
OpenStack is the answer to CPanel or Plesk, nothing more.
They have absolutely nothing to share. If you are saying this because of the Horizon dashboard, then you are mistaking. IaaS has all to do with API, using it like you would with a web interface is stupid, in this case, you need VPSes, not cloud computing.
So where you might only need one highly-tuned VM, you need instead 10 poorly tuned VM's to get the same performance. This allows Amazon and other Cloud providers to charge you by the hour at 10 times the amount.
Exactly for what reason you would spend some time to highly-tune a VM not in the cloud, while you would when it is in a IaaS? It doesn't make sense. In both situations, you can skip the tuning if you are lazy and have enough money to buy computing power. Also, what allowed AWS to have such an expensive pricing model is just the fact that their was very few competitors, and Openstack is changing this.
One bad sector on any hard drive= all virtual machines lost.
WHAT??? Come on, you clearly didn't understand what it was about. On the cloud, you'd be storing stuff on highly redundant storage. Like, your images would be stored with Swift (with glance using it), meaning that you'd get at least 3 copies of all files. And your instances would be disposable (eg: if one crash, it's not a problem, just fire-up another one stored in Swift). So no reason to loose anything if only one HDD crashes...
So I don't understand why anyone would use Virtualization at all.
Indeed, you don't understand...
The only proper way to setup cloud infrastructure requires a much larger investment: 2 NAS+2VM hosts, so 4 physical machines.
Nobody pretended that you could start with very few investment. The model only works when you have the need for a lot. BTW, Openstack doesn't use NAS, it has nothing to do with it. The whole point of Openstack is to use "commodity" cheap hardware. Typically, you'd setup Swift WITHOUT RAID for example.
The rest of our hardware assumptions are just wrong (you're talking about iSCSI, NAS and so on, when, again, Openstack doesn't need them...).
Maybe if you tried to install Openstack on some hardware, you wouldn't write this.
Well, it seems indeed, you'd need a little bit more knowledge. Yes, there's "the cloud" (as in: stupid marketing journalistic word), and real IaaS. Openstack is the later, and there's nothing dirty here. The moron might not be the one you think.
Well, if you checked last year, then you'll have to check again. Indeed, a lot of work has been done over the last year!
I have read many of the same kind of statements. Mostly, it's from people who don't understand what's going on (and you're of course one of them). No, "the cloud" isn't just a marketing word. It's a reality, and it has features which real people use to do real things. Do you want a simple example? Rebuilding all of the Debian packages at once in less than few hours, and sending out report to every package maintainer when there's a FTBFS (Fail To Buid From Source).
Saying that VMWare is the only solution means you didn't even have a look at the OpenXenManager screenshots. It does exactly the same stuff as VMWare, has a nice GUI, but uses only open source stuff (eg: XCP). It's not about being "cool" to prefer such tool, it's all about not being vendor-locked-in, and have freedom (do I have to state all the Stallman freedoms I'm talking about?).
Please stop shouting "marketing buzz" each time you see the word, instead, start doing your homework, and try to understand why everyone is shifting to IaaS.
Rackspace is a major sponsor of the project, and eats their own dog food.
That's only right for Swift, not for Nova. Rackspace has yet to do the switch, because they don't have good enough guys to do the packaging on Debian stable, which is their target. I believe that by this time, they must have more or less stopped the effort, and will be waiting Wheezy (just a guess here based on previous packages I saw).
Nova is the VM side, and supports (to varying degrees) pretty much every hypervisor.
That's "pretty much" what they want to let you believe. The reality is harsher than this. For real, Nova supports KVM and XCP (Xen Cloud Platform). The later pushed me to work with Citrix to have it in Debian (it's available in SID/testing right now). If one tells you that you can run Xen with libvirt, reply to him that nobody does this, and that the support must be broken, and anyway, there's so little documentation about it. As for LXC, well, the container itself is broken (eg: you can escape from the chroot), so nobody is fool enough to put that in production for serious use. Then there's UML and QEMU, but I don't think I have to even explain why nobody would want to run that as an hypervisor.
Then, as not supported, there is: VMWare, Hyper-V, Virtualbox (some got removed recently because its driver was crap and didn't support enough feature to make it useful). Alltogether, that's not "pretty much every hypervisor" in my book...
This should not be compared to kernels, Linux or anything of the sort. "...a major threat to VMware, Citrix and Parallels datacenter management products" would be a lot better.
I fully agree with that! But not the Citrix part. Citrix is an active contributor, and one of the reasons why they built a packaged version of XCP is because it made sense when playing with Openstack.
It's not a distribution, it's just that stupid marketing people call it "operating system for the cloud", which adds lots of confusion. They do that also because "Open Stack" can be shortened into OS (which is same as operating system). But in fact, Openstack isn't an operating system, nor a distribution, it's just a bunch of Python scripts which are, by the way, pretty hard to ship into decent packages (I can tell because I'm partly working, as a Debian Developer, on the Debian packaging myself). Compared to XCP, it's really messy, and you don't have a single upstream contact.
By the way, the original team behind Openstack was coming from the Ubuntu world, so Openstack is a way more focused on Ubuntu than anything else. Even though that starts to become less truth since we're working on having Essex in Debian, all the unstable development is made in Ubuntu, and unit tests with jenkins there runs on that as well.
BTW, owncloud has just made it into Debian, and will be part of Wheezy! :)
The difference between mainframes + thin clients and "local clouds" is.... the number of servers?
I don't think this has to do with the number of servers. Typically, a mainframe would be bought from a big vendor (let's say IBM), would have a proprietary API (if there's an API at all), and would run on that vendor's hardware. A "local cloud" would run on commodity hardware (eg: any cheap PC...).
Well, that's the whole point of it. Previously, we had stuff like AWS, where you had nothing but an API to play with, and everything else was closed source. Now, we do have Openstack, and you aren't forced to run your stuff on someone's else hardware. Moreover, if you still don't want to use a public cloud, but don't want to be locked-in, you will be free to move from one provider to another, and it's going to be easy to do so, because everyone will be using the same cloud core. So yes, it's very open, and it's hugely important that it is. This is why Debian, Citrix and the Openstack project made a common press release after Openstack reached Debian in a usable form, and after I finished polishing Xen Cloud Platform in Debian as well (both will be in Debian Wheezy).
Also, I dislike the fact that others are painting Openstack as a rackspace only product. Reality: it's not. Read the "AUTHORS" file of the project, and you'll see that it's simply not the case. Read who's got the most commits, and it's not the case again. Last, read how Openstack has open governance, and you'll realize it once more.
Maybe for the mobile phones yes, but for ADSL, FTTH, and so on, customers are provided with a public IP address.
I'd like to know who's the users in China with IPv6. There's no provider, ADSL or otherwise, that provides IPv6. The only place where you could find IPv6 would be universities. And what's funny with it, is that it shows that the Great Firewall of China doesn't cope with v6 at all. All sites that would normally be blocked are wide open. So until the GFW is "patched", I don't think IPv6 will come. That's quite a shame, because I've read multiple times that the big ISPs backbones are already IPv6 capable.
Well, it's not Conficker or Flame that is bad here... I had very low trust in windows, now it's down to an absolute zero. How can it be THAT bad, seriously? How can people accept to use such a toy OS?
Not only this. They can't read the 1st amendment. I don't recall that it has anything in it about being anonymous or not ...
I second you on dirvish, this is an excellent software, which we use a lot.
calling me a cunt was about as subtle as one can get
If you don't want to get it, don't start with: "i didn't realize you were ignorant enough". That's not very subtle either... Gosh, I'd better stop, it seems nobody understand sarcasms in here... Sheldon Cooper, I know it's you!
actually the jornos that take an internal scientific correspondence not intended for public consumption (ie intended audience is expected to have a scientific background to be able to correctly interpret its context), take said email way out of context
I didn't need to read the emails. I had a look to the pascal code for drawing the East Anglia curve, and saw the way they did their "fudge factor". For that, I have an expertise, and I can tell that this is crap. This pascal code was not science, but hacking to get the expected result.
damaging campaign of mistrust in proper scientific process
On a normal scientific process, we wouldn't have need a weasel blower to get the above pascal code. It would have been published, together with the data. This is simply not what happened, they have been hiding behind copyright to refuse to publish it.
and the positive trend in temperature would seem to indicate global warming
Citation needed...
not quite as silly as believing moron journos whose hype has no scientific merit.
Well, I've been reading M. Vicent Courtillot. He's not a moron, he's a real scientific. Well, of course, not a "climatologist" (but a geologist), because those are all paid for alarming you about the warming, so they are in direct conflict of interest.
it's just a pity that more people (including politicians and business leaders) read their rubbish
Luckily, the people are reading the scientific studies as well, which influences our politics, and there are enough people with scientific knowledge to understand what is being said. Lucky, many don't believe the lie that it's too complicated and that it cannot be understood. Luckily, there are people smart enough to explain in a simple way things that others are trying to make complicated on purpose. Luckily, there are still some politicians that are against the CO2 taxes against the poor, and in favor of Al Gore and friends who got some shares in the CO2 market. Luckily, there's still some people that believe a curve is a curve, and that even a 10 years old can understand an up or a down trend. Luckily, there's still some scientific doing real analysis, doing some conferences freely available on the Internet, and which (almost) everyone can understand (of course, you need to make the effort to read them...), and luckily, it's not all about scoop and big titles.
yeah cos calling someone a cunt is nowhere near as bad as calling someone ignorant.
It's not any better, I'm just making the point that my opponent had no point calling me ignorant. But maybe that's too subtle for you.
so what about them? do you think they indicate global warming isn't occurring? where do they say that (with any scientific credibility)? you and i probably wouldn't have the expertise to interpret said data even if we had access to it all.
So, I don't have the expertise to read a curve, and say if it goes up or down? COME ON !!!
the problem is that you have been told by someone (likely a moron journo) ...
Right. So everyone that do not agree with you is a moron. This goes in the right direction!
...that the last 10 years of temperature records indicates that global warming isn't occurring
I just read the curve of the last 10 years. I don't care if you don't believe it, but the fact is that it's not going up!
in reality you have absolutely no clue what temperature records indicate, because the amount of data that implies is enormous, and 10 years isn't likely even enough time to indicate anything about the global temperature trend any more than summer temperatures are generally warmer than winter ones.
Well, that's the problem. Everyone is using the scale that they like to prove a point. If we take the last 10 years, then it's not enough. If we take 1000 years, then we are told that it's too much. Of course, if you take exactly 30 years, you'll have a trend that shows an increase. All this is silly...
even if i knew you were still a gullible slave to corporate mass media
What do you know of me? Nothing. What do you know about who I read / watch? Nothing as well. So please don't make such assumptions.
of course i didn't realize you were ignorant enough
Shit, I didn't realize you were a cunt ... The discussion can stop here at this point, if you use such language.