The image in TFA also shows a sign next to the signal lights. Note that information on the sign is barely visible through the thinner layer of snow near the bottom of the sign, but not near the top.
What's the TCO of that free shirt? Will the company require the employees to launder that shirt on a regular basis on their own time and monetary expense? What's the expected duty cycle? How will spares be allocated and managed?
TFA explains the change and its context in a much better way, without simultaneously assuming that the reader is both technologically illiterate and sufficiently knowledgeable about the concept of low-level storage units.
Having been in management on two sides of the news factory (it's like the sausage factory or the democracy factory in the total annihilation of future appetite kind of way), I prefer to view the interwebs not as destroying or lowering the quality of the new knowledge distributed, but as a game changer in how knowledge (old and new) are aggregated.
Google gives us national and international wire stories and news releases for free, in a manner still economically efficient for the wire services and their affiliates. Local experts who individually blog on narrow topics cover the standard news gamut with greater diversity and efficiency than old print or broadcast media ever could. So, what's left for traditional broadcast and print media to do?
They still service the non-Internet-connected population, and they're good at collecting rare and high-level experts. But their role as aggregators and distributors of local news has been yielded to the semi-pro bloggers who, for the most part, have no bandwidth constraints in pages or air time, and who don't economically depend on ad sales volume. Traditional media still finds PSAs and news releases easy to read and write, and they're still bound by limits imposed by sales of mass market advertising targeted at increasingly fragmented audiences. (Hey, properly written PSAs and news releases appeal to mass market audiences, and cost nothing to produce...) If you're so inclined, it's easy to aggregate your own high quality custom news publication through careful use of an RSS reader. I find this particularly exciting since it uses the same information resources as the traditional publications, but non-destructively augments the existing news aggregates with high value, relevant, new knowledge. Non-selective readers who accept the standard mass market packages will either find higher quality aggregates (e.g. The Economist, PBS, WSJ, Nature, the local editions of the ethnic network publication), or age off the demographics.
Have a look Three Quarks Daily and such other blogs if you want to see the state of modern science and technology policy journalism. Some of the old list runners keep blogs which offer expert analysis (e.g. NNSquad by Lauren Weinstein), so all is not lost.
Also, slashdot less a blog than a socially liberal-minded IT lounge, so of course it news and analysis in environmental economics would not be expected to be not be top notch. And yet, (HINT TO OLD PUSH MEDIA) knowing this, you and I both keep coming back for the ability to engage in meaningful dialog with other stakeholders from around the block, or across the world, despite the atrocities we commit against the subs with each posted item.
Those would be interesting to try, but not from his stated position.
He could try to claim all that if that was documented SOP for this type of event and could demonstrate the resources to actually perform all that professional work. However, unless it already is SOP, even if those actions are reasonable under the circumstances, purposely incurring those costs for the sake of increasing the potential damages will be rightly frowned upon harshly as a form of ambulance-chasing.
I would conclude that a reasonable professional skilled in the art do the things specified in your list since such a person would no longer continue to trust the security of the physical environment. That the OP continues to do so after at least three known perceived violations of physical security indicates that he is not acting in the manner of a reasonable professional skilled in the art of computer security (or, he's being a poser at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1363231&cid=29374941). I would posit that OP doesn't even know the hosting market very well based on the fact that he's asking about a technical hack, as opposed to providers who don't provide invasive support in the way he complains about (slashdot posts front page stories about bullet-proof hosting several times a year).
Also, if he had the resources to execute on your list or was making any real money on sales of open source software or ad impressions, he would not reasonably be complaining about weirdness on slashdot over one hosted box since a properly resourced IT and business infrastructure to support those revenue-generating activities would tolerate more than a single point of failure.
Industrializing elephants wouldn't work out so well for the creatures we know as elephants today. 10 of the 12 Bovini are either entirely domesticated or highly endangered, and the Bos taurus of which we have a billion are not viable outside of highly controlled artificial conditions which optimize for milk and steak. For related reasons, the species of chicken and swine which we have in abundance wouldn't be worthwhile to preserve if our primary concern is ecological health or diversity.
If your TOU do not explicitly allow your hosting provider to stop a DoS against your site (most do not), you would still expect the provider to take appropriate measures in the infrastructure to keep your site alive. Similarly, if your neighbor at the provider is over consuming a shared resource which has the effect of degrading access to your site, you would expect to deal with the neighbor so that the provider's agreement with you would be honoured.
What kinds of damages could he convincingly demonstrate for the several minutes of downtime due to unauthorized access? If the lost ad impressions or professional revenue were significant enough to offset the 4-5 figure cost of a lawsuit, he'd be able to afford better hosting/SLA on networks which don't go down frequently in the first place.
Content is becoming cheaper for publishers to buy as the market for content aggregates due to consolidation. Freelancers and line staff complain all the time about the expectation to deliver hundreds of digital stills options, rewriting news release and wire content, etc. as a result of perceived efficiencies promised by ENG but finally brought about by the Interwebs some 20 years later. Even for subject matter experts, producing a basic piece of worthwhile and value-added content should take the better part of a morning or afternoon. But when the expectation is that random staff reporter has to research, interview and write four or five items a day (since there are plenty of freelancers and bloggers who are eager and waiting to do more for less), quality has to suffer. The same limits of human productivity hold true for blogs, which is evidenced in the good blogs where no single regular writer contributes more than two or three substantial original items per day.
Google expresses little understanding of editorial quality but much understanding about keywords and phrases on new content pages. If I'm a publisher being paid by CPM or CPC, I'll optimize for a large number of small content items (page views) with a high density of valuable keywords to draw in the page views.
As an explicitly interdisciplinary scholar, I do not take issue with the behaviour you describe since the highly cited paper will be cited frequently among in the derivative works and will show up in a proper literature review. Also, perhaps the field has moved on since the highly cited original paper. I don't want to see Watson and Crick or Darwin at the top of searches about anything modern in the genetics of evolution, nor do I expect to see Schumpeter alongside von Hippel in results for industrial change.
Lazy and uncritical scholarship pre-dates Google, but institutionalized habits like coasting on citations for old papers during faculty promotions may be difficult to break.
Shh! Don't discuss broader strategic business needs, objectives and strategies in front of the IT grunts. That's like talking about hygiene and intercourse with WoW players.
My most emergent gripe with GPL is that it seems like a non-starter for modern public dataflow implementations. To what extent is an interactive public Internet applet an API, a system library, an interactive application, or other? To what extent would the generated code which runs on the client app be characterised as source code, object code or program output?
Both GPL2 and GPL3 reference to program linking in terms of the classic von Neumann architecture (GPL3 seems to go out of its way to refer to code which runs on a single machine), with little reference to where computing was headed, and where it is today. If I release an app which depends on a combination of Internet applets, generated code, non-compiled micro-format libraries, executable data, and some mechanism to choose from providers of such potentially free or non-free options at run-time, I would anticipate some difficulty in determining how such a thing would fit into the elaborate universe defined by GPL, whereas it would not seem exceptional BSD/MIT licenses.
SharePoint and "wiki" are different scopes of things.
Wikis are a class of content management system, some of which (like MediaWiki) can run on Apache httpd, others of which do not. SharePoint is an implementation of a CMS can be configured to provide the common set of wiki functions, and thus could replace a wiki in $CMS running on $brand httpd.
(short of the machine being physically stolen or my house burning down), it would take a lot of things failing all at once to take it out.
I've encountered the following in the last 18 months: - Six drives on an el cheapo PSU which could barely power two. Lasted approximately a month while providing generous quantities of data errors. - Four SATA drives on the same controller in RAID 10. Planar controller freaks out and provides too much current on the data lines. - Five SATA drives in a "RAID 6" mounted in adjacent bays in a tower case. Middle drive fails from heat failure, while two others become obscene with SMART notifications and irrecoverable data errors. - Six high RPM drives without staggered power on, on a day with abnormally high draw on other circuits, receive just enough power to start spinning up as the mainboard gets sufficiently underpowered to trigger a hard reset, and then the drives receive just enough power to start spinning up... - mdadm error messages e-mailed to non-monitored account for several months on end
rsync to different off-site servers works fine for me.
From my experiences triple-booting on a hackintosh, MacFUSE is sufficient, but the usual hibernate and clean unmounting disclaimers apply. Fun things happen when OS X or Windows decide that a previous version of the file system is the correct one, and then proceed to attempt writes. Also, OS X ownership/permissions, and NTFS alternative data streams will not work as expected.
I personally appreciate that 4 GB memory cards will remain available for $5 each or less for at least the next decade for all of my new and legacy SD devices through a socket adapter, but I can also see how not being able to choke a new device on a craptastically slow and small but expensive 1 MB card from 2000 could be annoying.
You must openly build on standards as the need arises, e.g. SD -> mini SD -> Micro SD
With respect to batteries, there are already de-facto standards on the manufacturing side for certification and testing. My cell phone, digital camera and WiMo PDA of the same era (2006) but different manufacturers all have the same form factor (5 mm x 40 mm x 45 mm, 3.7 V, 1100-1400 mAh) internally, but wrapped in slightly different plasticy bits with contacts in different positions. Remarkably, since our hands are not sufficiently dextrous to manipulate significantly smaller gadgets the same batteries with different connector placements should fit in a modern iPhone or other smart phones. Standardization enables the part to be sold for less than $10 at retail as a generic, while the official branded part demands $40 or more.
Of course, market disaggregation is good for the vendors (who simultaneously enjoy low costs by being able to source a standard part from China), so they will not choose to aggregate for consumers.
Climate changes four times in a lifetime if you're a butterfly.
To claim that either the IPCC or the climategate email exposer is, or is not, meaningfully manipulating the research or the data to achieve a specific policy outcome implies that someone has an understanding of the mechanisms between an action on the local landscape or environment, and some change in the global climate.
At this point, our understanding of human-constructed global-scale systems, in which the number of kinds of variables is finite and their relationships are relatively well understood. Yet, we routinely see disruptions in parts of the Internet and telecom systems, contaminated food supplies, and volatile manufactured commodities prices, which are all managed according to our supposedly comprehensive understandings of those systems.
I'm not personally convinced that we have the intellectual sophistication to throughly understand such complex systems, even though we're able to see broad and sometimes very specific correlations among some inputs and outputs. Let's certainly make policy to minimize the local damage and negative impacts of our activities (and hope that the effects add up in the way we would like), but perhaps assume less that we know enough about the relevant systems to make policy specifically achieving a specific state in the system. The Western electrical and health systems are both policyed to a great extent, and yet they do not consistently achieve the desired policy outcomes.
(If I had sufficient knowledge to make the global climate do adverse thing X and had the backing of a global-scale cartel, I would consider making a device to do X, and also offering a range of products and services at extortionate prices to mitigate the effects of X, all instead of defending massively long, capital- and labour- intensive, and fragile supply chains against angry dudes with improvised sabotage tools.)
Climate change is responsible for the presence of fossil fuels in the first place through displacement of non-suitable biomes for the physical parameters of particular locales. This is (in part) why we find former swamps and lakebeds in the middle of forests and deserts, and why river valleys are available for human habitation. The plant fossil evidence is rich with examples of adaptations to varying atmospheric gas content, temperature, etc. through leaf physiology and size. The mammalian metabolism would not be well sustained in the period before plants.
More broadly, the difference between weather and climate appears to depend on how the system box is drawn. For humans, drawing a box around the system known to living memory results in surprise when a place named "High River" gets flooded. For your gut flora, a complete weather season probably lasts 24 hours with 3-5 intermediate large fluctuations in weather per day. For the 2,000 year old giant redwood, the once every 100 years fires might have the selection effect of weather or climate (or both!) as you've defined them.
Since most of nature by volume or numbers does not make the distinction between weather and climate, I personally choose not to privilege the anthro-centric perspective with respect to drawing the system box. Even within our own lifetimes, we've discovered cycles of environmental variation such as El Nino/La Nina which certainly affect conditions over a longer term than seasons and years, but perhaps not over centuries.
But as I am a scientist, but not a geophysicist, the best I can do for now is to spot and point out inconsistencies within arguments presented. In your case, tracking an arbitrary coordinate on the earth's surface over any 100 million years (my arbitrary choice since "long-term" is ill-defined) would result in either a series of periods where that point is alternatively ocean, plains, icebergs mountains, etc with drastic climate variations over that time passing through several stable equilibria; or one climate with an average altitude of 0 ft (+/- 20,000 ft), 10 degrees Celsius (+/- 25 degrees C) but remarkably consistent sunlight.
If you want to define earth's climate as the average or all measurable features over the last 4.5 billion years, then yes, you would be correct since by definition, the climate has not changed because the system would expand to encompass everything, sampled exactly once. I do not find that to be an analytically compelling definition since that data setup makes AGW untestable as a hypothesis. If weather is not at least a function of climate (howsoever climate is defined) then measuring weather would tell us nothing at all about climate, let alone any changes to it over any time period.
And that was my point: "Climate change" happens every time we raze or fertilize a field or erect a building, but is mostly uninteresting to me with respect to the human and environmental issues raised. We already know that it sucks (displacement/death/extinction) when one's local environment ceases to support the desired or required activities, and that other stuff often moves in to exploit the opportunity. (This broadly defined problem may be solved by implementing the broadly defined solution specified in the Bruntland report 20 years ago, namely conduct your activities in the strong sense of "sustainable" by leaving the condition with better opportunities than you found it.) "Global warming" at least posits a relationship between the rise in non-sustainable human practices (e.g. around deforestation and fossil fuel use) and the rise in temperatures, and defines a manageable problem to be addressed.
Slashdot Mirror
The image in TFA also shows a sign next to the signal lights. Note that information on the sign is barely visible through the thinner layer of snow near the bottom of the sign, but not near the top.
A mix of different polo's and dress shirts wouldn't feel "like a clown suit".
Then you're not using enough parallelism and/or concurrency.
What's the TCO of that free shirt? Will the company require the employees to launder that shirt on a regular basis on their own time and monetary expense? What's the expected duty cycle? How will spares be allocated and managed?
TFA explains the change and its context in a much better way, without simultaneously assuming that the reader is both technologically illiterate and sufficiently knowledgeable about the concept of low-level storage units.
But thanks for the link spam.
But I like 255. It keeps my white page backgrounds white.
Base 1.
Having been in management on two sides of the news factory (it's like the sausage factory or the democracy factory in the total annihilation of future appetite kind of way), I prefer to view the interwebs not as destroying or lowering the quality of the new knowledge distributed, but as a game changer in how knowledge (old and new) are aggregated.
Google gives us national and international wire stories and news releases for free, in a manner still economically efficient for the wire services and their affiliates. Local experts who individually blog on narrow topics cover the standard news gamut with greater diversity and efficiency than old print or broadcast media ever could. So, what's left for traditional broadcast and print media to do?
They still service the non-Internet-connected population, and they're good at collecting rare and high-level experts. But their role as aggregators and distributors of local news has been yielded to the semi-pro bloggers who, for the most part, have no bandwidth constraints in pages or air time, and who don't economically depend on ad sales volume. Traditional media still finds PSAs and news releases easy to read and write, and they're still bound by limits imposed by sales of mass market advertising targeted at increasingly fragmented audiences. (Hey, properly written PSAs and news releases appeal to mass market audiences, and cost nothing to produce...) If you're so inclined, it's easy to aggregate your own high quality custom news publication through careful use of an RSS reader. I find this particularly exciting since it uses the same information resources as the traditional publications, but non-destructively augments the existing news aggregates with high value, relevant, new knowledge. Non-selective readers who accept the standard mass market packages will either find higher quality aggregates (e.g. The Economist, PBS, WSJ, Nature, the local editions of the ethnic network publication), or age off the demographics.
Have a look Three Quarks Daily and such other blogs if you want to see the state of modern science and technology policy journalism. Some of the old list runners keep blogs which offer expert analysis (e.g. NNSquad by Lauren Weinstein), so all is not lost.
Also, slashdot less a blog than a socially liberal-minded IT lounge, so of course it news and analysis in environmental economics would not be expected to be not be top notch. And yet, (HINT TO OLD PUSH MEDIA) knowing this, you and I both keep coming back for the ability to engage in meaningful dialog with other stakeholders from around the block, or across the world, despite the atrocities we commit against the subs with each posted item.
Those would be interesting to try, but not from his stated position.
He could try to claim all that if that was documented SOP for this type of event and could demonstrate the resources to actually perform all that professional work. However, unless it already is SOP, even if those actions are reasonable under the circumstances, purposely incurring those costs for the sake of increasing the potential damages will be rightly frowned upon harshly as a form of ambulance-chasing.
I would conclude that a reasonable professional skilled in the art do the things specified in your list since such a person would no longer continue to trust the security of the physical environment. That the OP continues to do so after at least three known perceived violations of physical security indicates that he is not acting in the manner of a reasonable professional skilled in the art of computer security (or, he's being a poser at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1363231&cid=29374941). I would posit that OP doesn't even know the hosting market very well based on the fact that he's asking about a technical hack, as opposed to providers who don't provide invasive support in the way he complains about (slashdot posts front page stories about bullet-proof hosting several times a year).
Also, if he had the resources to execute on your list or was making any real money on sales of open source software or ad impressions, he would not reasonably be complaining about weirdness on slashdot over one hosted box since a properly resourced IT and business infrastructure to support those revenue-generating activities would tolerate more than a single point of failure.
Industrializing elephants wouldn't work out so well for the creatures we know as elephants today. 10 of the 12 Bovini are either entirely domesticated or highly endangered, and the Bos taurus of which we have a billion are not viable outside of highly controlled artificial conditions which optimize for milk and steak. For related reasons, the species of chicken and swine which we have in abundance wouldn't be worthwhile to preserve if our primary concern is ecological health or diversity.
That's naive.
If your TOU do not explicitly allow your hosting provider to stop a DoS against your site (most do not), you would still expect the provider to take appropriate measures in the infrastructure to keep your site alive. Similarly, if your neighbor at the provider is over consuming a shared resource which has the effect of degrading access to your site, you would expect to deal with the neighbor so that the provider's agreement with you would be honoured.
What kinds of damages could he convincingly demonstrate for the several minutes of downtime due to unauthorized access? If the lost ad impressions or professional revenue were significant enough to offset the 4-5 figure cost of a lawsuit, he'd be able to afford better hosting/SLA on networks which don't go down frequently in the first place.
The joke is about wikis, which anyone can edit. Reverting is a common action of contention on Wikipedia, hence revert wars, 3RR and all that jazz.
Why is the default reaction to assume racist intent?
Change the files to install malware to collect a list of potential troublemakers?
Content is becoming cheaper for publishers to buy as the market for content aggregates due to consolidation. Freelancers and line staff complain all the time about the expectation to deliver hundreds of digital stills options, rewriting news release and wire content, etc. as a result of perceived efficiencies promised by ENG but finally brought about by the Interwebs some 20 years later. Even for subject matter experts, producing a basic piece of worthwhile and value-added content should take the better part of a morning or afternoon. But when the expectation is that random staff reporter has to research, interview and write four or five items a day (since there are plenty of freelancers and bloggers who are eager and waiting to do more for less), quality has to suffer. The same limits of human productivity hold true for blogs, which is evidenced in the good blogs where no single regular writer contributes more than two or three substantial original items per day.
Google expresses little understanding of editorial quality but much understanding about keywords and phrases on new content pages. If I'm a publisher being paid by CPM or CPC, I'll optimize for a large number of small content items (page views) with a high density of valuable keywords to draw in the page views.
As an explicitly interdisciplinary scholar, I do not take issue with the behaviour you describe since the highly cited paper will be cited frequently among in the derivative works and will show up in a proper literature review. Also, perhaps the field has moved on since the highly cited original paper. I don't want to see Watson and Crick or Darwin at the top of searches about anything modern in the genetics of evolution, nor do I expect to see Schumpeter alongside von Hippel in results for industrial change.
Lazy and uncritical scholarship pre-dates Google, but institutionalized habits like coasting on citations for old papers during faculty promotions may be difficult to break.
Shh! Don't discuss broader strategic business needs, objectives and strategies in front of the IT grunts. That's like talking about hygiene and intercourse with WoW players.
My most emergent gripe with GPL is that it seems like a non-starter for modern public dataflow implementations. To what extent is an interactive public Internet applet an API, a system library, an interactive application, or other? To what extent would the generated code which runs on the client app be characterised as source code, object code or program output?
Both GPL2 and GPL3 reference to program linking in terms of the classic von Neumann architecture (GPL3 seems to go out of its way to refer to code which runs on a single machine), with little reference to where computing was headed, and where it is today. If I release an app which depends on a combination of Internet applets, generated code, non-compiled micro-format libraries, executable data, and some mechanism to choose from providers of such potentially free or non-free options at run-time, I would anticipate some difficulty in determining how such a thing would fit into the elaborate universe defined by GPL, whereas it would not seem exceptional BSD/MIT licenses.
SharePoint and "wiki" are different scopes of things.
Wikis are a class of content management system, some of which (like MediaWiki) can run on Apache httpd, others of which do not. SharePoint is an implementation of a CMS can be configured to provide the common set of wiki functions, and thus could replace a wiki in $CMS running on $brand httpd.
(short of the machine being physically stolen or my house burning down), it would take a lot of things failing all at once to take it out.
I've encountered the following in the last 18 months:
- Six drives on an el cheapo PSU which could barely power two. Lasted approximately a month while providing generous quantities of data errors.
- Four SATA drives on the same controller in RAID 10. Planar controller freaks out and provides too much current on the data lines.
- Five SATA drives in a "RAID 6" mounted in adjacent bays in a tower case. Middle drive fails from heat failure, while two others become obscene with SMART notifications and irrecoverable data errors.
- Six high RPM drives without staggered power on, on a day with abnormally high draw on other circuits, receive just enough power to start spinning up as the mainboard gets sufficiently underpowered to trigger a hard reset, and then the drives receive just enough power to start spinning up...
- mdadm error messages e-mailed to non-monitored account for several months on end
rsync to different off-site servers works fine for me.
From my experiences triple-booting on a hackintosh, MacFUSE is sufficient, but the usual hibernate and clean unmounting disclaimers apply. Fun things happen when OS X or Windows decide that a previous version of the file system is the correct one, and then proceed to attempt writes. Also, OS X ownership/permissions, and NTFS alternative data streams will not work as expected.
Logged in users already have this option for their own search results. It's unclear how personal choices affect search results for everyone else.
I personally appreciate that 4 GB memory cards will remain available for $5 each or less for at least the next decade for all of my new and legacy SD devices through a socket adapter, but I can also see how not being able to choke a new device on a craptastically slow and small but expensive 1 MB card from 2000 could be annoying.
You must openly build on standards as the need arises, e.g. SD -> mini SD -> Micro SD
With respect to batteries, there are already de-facto standards on the manufacturing side for certification and testing. My cell phone, digital camera and WiMo PDA of the same era (2006) but different manufacturers all have the same form factor (5 mm x 40 mm x 45 mm, 3.7 V, 1100-1400 mAh) internally, but wrapped in slightly different plasticy bits with contacts in different positions. Remarkably, since our hands are not sufficiently dextrous to manipulate significantly smaller gadgets the same batteries with different connector placements should fit in a modern iPhone or other smart phones. Standardization enables the part to be sold for less than $10 at retail as a generic, while the official branded part demands $40 or more.
Of course, market disaggregation is good for the vendors (who simultaneously enjoy low costs by being able to source a standard part from China), so they will not choose to aggregate for consumers.
Climate changes four times in a lifetime if you're a butterfly.
To claim that either the IPCC or the climategate email exposer is, or is not, meaningfully manipulating the research or the data to achieve a specific policy outcome implies that someone has an understanding of the mechanisms between an action on the local landscape or environment, and some change in the global climate.
At this point, our understanding of human-constructed global-scale systems, in which the number of kinds of variables is finite and their relationships are relatively well understood. Yet, we routinely see disruptions in parts of the Internet and telecom systems, contaminated food supplies, and volatile manufactured commodities prices, which are all managed according to our supposedly comprehensive understandings of those systems.
I'm not personally convinced that we have the intellectual sophistication to throughly understand such complex systems, even though we're able to see broad and sometimes very specific correlations among some inputs and outputs. Let's certainly make policy to minimize the local damage and negative impacts of our activities (and hope that the effects add up in the way we would like), but perhaps assume less that we know enough about the relevant systems to make policy specifically achieving a specific state in the system. The Western electrical and health systems are both policyed to a great extent, and yet they do not consistently achieve the desired policy outcomes.
(If I had sufficient knowledge to make the global climate do adverse thing X and had the backing of a global-scale cartel, I would consider making a device to do X, and also offering a range of products and services at extortionate prices to mitigate the effects of X, all instead of defending massively long, capital- and labour- intensive, and fragile supply chains against angry dudes with improvised sabotage tools.)
Climate change is responsible for the presence of fossil fuels in the first place through displacement of non-suitable biomes for the physical parameters of particular locales. This is (in part) why we find former swamps and lakebeds in the middle of forests and deserts, and why river valleys are available for human habitation. The plant fossil evidence is rich with examples of adaptations to varying atmospheric gas content, temperature, etc. through leaf physiology and size. The mammalian metabolism would not be well sustained in the period before plants.
More broadly, the difference between weather and climate appears to depend on how the system box is drawn. For humans, drawing a box around the system known to living memory results in surprise when a place named "High River" gets flooded. For your gut flora, a complete weather season probably lasts 24 hours with 3-5 intermediate large fluctuations in weather per day. For the 2,000 year old giant redwood, the once every 100 years fires might have the selection effect of weather or climate (or both!) as you've defined them.
Since most of nature by volume or numbers does not make the distinction between weather and climate, I personally choose not to privilege the anthro-centric perspective with respect to drawing the system box. Even within our own lifetimes, we've discovered cycles of environmental variation such as El Nino/La Nina which certainly affect conditions over a longer term than seasons and years, but perhaps not over centuries.
But as I am a scientist, but not a geophysicist, the best I can do for now is to spot and point out inconsistencies within arguments presented. In your case, tracking an arbitrary coordinate on the earth's surface over any 100 million years (my arbitrary choice since "long-term" is ill-defined) would result in either a series of periods where that point is alternatively ocean, plains, icebergs mountains, etc with drastic climate variations over that time passing through several stable equilibria; or one climate with an average altitude of 0 ft (+/- 20,000 ft), 10 degrees Celsius (+/- 25 degrees C) but remarkably consistent sunlight.
If you want to define earth's climate as the average or all measurable features over the last 4.5 billion years, then yes, you would be correct since by definition, the climate has not changed because the system would expand to encompass everything, sampled exactly once. I do not find that to be an analytically compelling definition since that data setup makes AGW untestable as a hypothesis. If weather is not at least a function of climate (howsoever climate is defined) then measuring weather would tell us nothing at all about climate, let alone any changes to it over any time period.
And that was my point: "Climate change" happens every time we raze or fertilize a field or erect a building, but is mostly uninteresting to me with respect to the human and environmental issues raised. We already know that it sucks (displacement/death/extinction) when one's local environment ceases to support the desired or required activities, and that other stuff often moves in to exploit the opportunity. (This broadly defined problem may be solved by implementing the broadly defined solution specified in the Bruntland report 20 years ago, namely conduct your activities in the strong sense of "sustainable" by leaving the condition with better opportunities than you found it.) "Global warming" at least posits a relationship between the rise in non-sustainable human practices (e.g. around deforestation and fossil fuel use) and the rise in temperatures, and defines a manageable problem to be addressed.