It's also old old OLD. It is absolutely *perfect* for, say, a server, but as a desktop OS, it leaves a lot to be desired (I would know, I was a Debian users for years).
If Debian is so worried about their marketshare they'd adopt some of the things Ubuntu is doing. ie, provide a more cutting edge version of their product that has more polish and functionality. If they choose not to do that because its contrary to their philosophy, thats their choice, but they shouldn't begrudge Ubuntu's success.
Dude... you're making no god damned sense. You said:
Unfortunately, he's essentially killed the Debian project, and the rest of Free Software is not far behind as we realize the futility of making ourselves his unpaid employees.
So you're saying you only contributed to Debian to line your pockets? Really?
Frankly, you sound like an incredible hypocrite. RedHat has been praised for *years* for building a Linux distribution that's built upon the free efforts of thousands of free software developers. But suddenly Shuttleworth is at fault because the Debian guys give away their product under a license that allows Ubuntu to use their output?
Please.
If you give away your product under the GPL, you have no one to blame but yourself if someone manages to profit off that work by packaging it up in a nice shiny wrapper and offering a support contract. Christ, this is the dream of the GPL come true: open source software thats profitable, using a business model that doesn't take away from the freedoms of its users. But now its bad because you're not getting your share? Talk about bullshit.
Do you think that the rules of arithmetic come out of nowhere?
Of course not. But just like a carpenter doesn't need to know rigid body physics in order to frame up a wall, your average person doesn't need to know abstract algebra in order to perform basic arithmetic.
No, the GP is quite right. Math and arithmetic are very very different skillsets, when it comes right down to it. And for most, arithmetic is *far* more useful day-to-day (most people never see an algebraic equation after they graduate high school).
If I had one (I don't, I can't justify the cost for what is, as you say, really a toy), basically all the things I do idly on my laptop today: checking email, reading my RSS feeds, browsing Wikipedia, looking at stuff on Google Maps, etc.
And, as it turns out, that's a pretty good chunk of what I'd break out my laptop for (I spent a good chunk of last night watching TV and browsing the web... I live a thrilling life;). Being able to do all that without having to tote around a cumbersome laptop and a power cord would actually be pretty nice. And as a companion to my laptop, it'd make a great tool for keeping reference material visible while I code (rather than having to switch windows/desktops all the time).
'course, it'd be a hell of a lot nicer if it had a Pixel Qi-like display, so I could browse the web on my porch without squinting. Which is, as it happens, one reason I might hold off... the prospect of a transflective display on a decent tablet-like device intrigues me quite a bit.
Improve water supplies to drought prone areas, or better still, make sure people don't LIVE in drought prone areas to begin with.
Wow, you just completely ignored my post. Like, literally completely missed the entire point.
So, here, I'll just reproduce it for you in its entirety, and follow with a little summary. Maybe you'll get my point this time:
Okay, sure, let's do that.
Wait, first, *who* is going to do that?
Next, who is going to pay for doing that?
Third, how do you convince them to do that when it's very likely a good portion of their people a) don't believe GW is happening at all, or b) think it's a good thing because, hey, they get to play in their Phoenix swimming pool for a little while longer!
The point is, I don't disagree with you. Not at all. We *should* be doing all we can to mitigate the effects of GW before it really screws with us. But there's simply *no political will to do anything about GW*. Which is why a report like this is import. It flat out points out that a) GW is happening, and b) it's gonna fuck people up. And that includes catastrophic drought, *unless we do something about it*, either to deal with GW itself (alas, probably too late for that), or to deal with the effects (as you propose).
Now that I've reproduced my post, and you've hopefully actually read it this time, why don't I explicitly outline my point, since you seem incapable of grasping it: Dealing with the consequences of global warming is expensive. The poorest people are the most adversely affected. The richest people, who could help the poorest people, don't believe it's happening, don't give a crap if it is or not, or worse, *think its a good thing*.
So, sure, you could "Improve water supplies to drought prone areas, or better still, make sure people don't LIVE in drought prone areas to begin with.", except the people who can afford to "Improve water supplies to drought prone areas" *won't do it*, and the people who currently live in those areas can't afford to move because they're dirt poor subsistence farmers who have nowhere to go.
Here, let me be more blunt, just in case you can't get it yet: The people who are fucked by GW will be fucked because they have no other choice, and the rich rest will fiddle while Rome burns, because they're blind, self-centered assholes.
It's funny that every discussion about climate, pollution, Mother Earth etc., ultimately comes down to the money, and not about the humans themselves. Makes you wonder what is more important in the grand scale of things.
Why is that funny? People, in the abstract, are driven by one thing: selfish greed. It's why conservatives are so bloody scared of carbon taxes, as it might affect *their* bottom lines. If we *really* cared about the human race as a species, we'd be doing everything we could to move away from carbon-based fuel sources, simply because they're finite and will run out eventually. But we don't, because people are selfish assholes who, by and large, believe what they need to believe to stay fat and happy. These days, that means deny GW is happening at all, or assuming it'll be a good thing, so hey, no big deal, now fuck off I need to drive my Hummer to Wal-mart.
How about either finding a way to MOVE those people to a place where their yearly food supply WON'T be wiped out in 5 minutes during a drought, or alternatively build serious water pipelines to mitigate the problems in those areas.
Okay, sure, let's do that.
Wait, first, *who* is going to do that?
Next, who is going to pay for doing that?
Third, how do you convince them to do that when it's very likely a good portion of their people a) don't believe GW is happening at all, or b) think it's a good thing because, hey, they get to play in their Phoenix swimming pool for a little while longer!
The point is, I don't disagree with you. Not at all. We *should* be doing all we can to mitigate the effects of GW before it really screws with us. But there's simply *no political will to do anything about GW*. Which is why a report like this is import. It flat out points out that a) GW is happening, and b) it's gonna fuck people up. And that includes catastrophic drought, *unless we do something about it*, either to deal with GW itself (alas, probably too late for that), or to deal with the effects (as you propose).
So, there were never any volcanic events (incredibly large scale volcanic events that lasted years upon years) that distributed additional CO2?
Those events come no where near releasing the amount of CO2 we, as a species, have released in the last 100+ years.
And how would the CO2 know that it was *caused* by warming rather than it needed to cause more warming?
Huh? a) I never said it "knew" anything, and b) your question makes no sense.
Here, let me try and explain this again, slowly. Read carefully now, you seem easily confused:
In the ice cores, the globe started warming, which triggered the release of CO2. The CO2 then reinforced the warming trend, leading to more warming.
Today, we released CO2. That triggered a warming trend, which has been further reinforced by our continuing to release more CO2 (probably also triggering the release of natural CO2 reservoirs, thus compounding the issue further), leading to more warming.
Do you get it now? Is that simple enough for you to understand?
If CO2 is a unlimited positive feedback mechanism...
Nice strawman, and you beat it with alacrity. Well done!
When the rains increase, you build the dams to mitigate the flooding, the result is more available water. If one area needs water, you build canals and pipelines to move it there.
Dude, this isn't the world of Harry Potter. You can't just wave a magic wand and suddenly create pipelines for moving millions of liters of water hundreds or thousands of kilometers. It takes money and time, of which you likely have neither if you're living in a place where catastrophic drought due to GW is an issue.
Every single post you've made has been to trot out the claim that the globe is warming simply because we're rolling out of an ice age.
But hey, let me rephrase. It's extremely ironic that you, an *anthropogenic* global warming denier, should take on a nickname coined by an extremely active environmentalist.
I don't think it makes sense to claim that global warming will lead to water shortages, since it will mean increased precipitation.
Because the rain doesn't magically fall in the reservoirs people would build. It would evaporate from one place and fall in another. The result is water shortages in some places, and floods in others.
I'm sorry, I have to provide "piercing insight" to explain why the claim "due to certain physical limitations, there is a near-zero chance of discovering a more efficient form of energy" is just flat out absurd right on its face?
What, do I next have to use the Peano Axioms to explain to you why one plus one does not, in fact, equal three?
Not initially, no. After all, in the past, there didn't exist a species who decided to release CO2 for kicks. Rather, CO2 emissions were a consequence of warming triggered by other means, and the CO2 then served to reinforce the warming cycle.
But nice try.
Maybe next time, try and learn you some science first.
We cannot subsist without the technology, and due to certain physical limitations, there is a near-zero chance of discovering a more efficient form of energy.
Ironic that you should refer to excrement in the same post where you shat out that little turd...
I'd love for it to be about 3-4 degrees warmer in the 'winter' here, and extend my pool season.
And the subsequent 3-4 degrees warmer in the summer, too? Yeah, genius.
Now, I don't want to be too harsh here, but, well, you're a bit of an idiot.
The human species is *adapted the climate we have today*. It's impossible to say one climate regime is objectively bad and one is objectively good. But what you *can* say is that one climate regime is what we, as a human species, have adapted to. That means we do all our farming where breadbaskets are *today*. We've built cities where there's ample fresh water *today*. We've settled on coastlines that exist *TODAY*.
Now suppose you're right. Suppose growing regions move, rain belts shift, and previous non-arable regions become arable. Well guess what? That *also* means that existing arable land becomes non-arable. Will humanity adapt? Of course. We'll move our farms, abandon unsupportable cities, migrate away from eroding coastlines. But *while* that's happening, we'll experience terrible hardships. You know, drought, starvation, that kind of thing.
So, yeah, you enjoy your extra few weeks motorcycling. But I suspect those who would starve in the meantime might tend to disagree with your rather rosy picture regarding the consequences of GW (whether anthropogenic or not).
OTOH the damn blackberry bushes and ivy that, despite my best efforts, have been infesting my property for years keep reminding me that nature is often far more powerful than man. Being out on the open seas in a small sail-boat gives me a similar feeling.
Then you're taking the wrong lesson from your experiences. Is "nature...far more powerful than" *a* man? Absolutely. Unquestionably. But man? Hardly. We've created dead zones around major estuaries. We've almost wiped out entire species with fun things like DDT. Hell, we've *made rivers combustible*, ffs. No, man has plenty of power to serious fuck with nature.
Now, are we going to wipe out the planet? Make it uninhabitable for any form of life? Almost certainly not. Life is, after all, tenacious. But we *certainly* have the power to fuck it up for ourselves, and have been exercising that power with great abandon for as long as we've been around (for an amusing example, go learn about what happened to the inhabitants of Easter Island when they took it up on themselves to deforest their habitat).
The Daily Show isn't an example of journalism, it is an example of editorialism.
I'd say they do both. Obviously they editorialize. But, as an example, when McCain says "I never said I was a maverick" (to pick a silly, obvious example), and they dig up a bunch of clips where he says "I'm a maverick", how is that anything but journalism? They take claims, do research, and present the results. Sounds pretty "journalism-y" to me. Heck, the show is basically founded on doing the same thing with the media at large: illustrating biases, yellow journalism, and the cozy relationship between media and government, supported by extensive research.
Don't say that like it's a bad thing. It's not. I'm a home owner, and I'll be the first to say that home ownership should *not* be a goal in and of itself. It's not for everyone, and it's not a measure of success by any means (in fact, for many, it's quite the opposite, considering how many out there are house poor).
I didn't get the memo that said I had to explain myself, or that opinion wasn't allowed without permission.
Oh, quit being a defensive little bitch. Your original post was a contentless dismissal of the original study with absolutely no evidence to back your claim. You were rightly attacked for making such a stupid remark, and so were forced to actually provide some evidence. If you can't handle that, honestly, piss off, we have enough contentless posts around here, thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
By the way, Debian stable just plain works
It's also old old OLD. It is absolutely *perfect* for, say, a server, but as a desktop OS, it leaves a lot to be desired (I would know, I was a Debian users for years).
If Debian is so worried about their marketshare they'd adopt some of the things Ubuntu is doing. ie, provide a more cutting edge version of their product that has more polish and functionality. If they choose not to do that because its contrary to their philosophy, thats their choice, but they shouldn't begrudge Ubuntu's success.
Dude... you're making no god damned sense. You said:
So you're saying you only contributed to Debian to line your pockets? Really?
Frankly, you sound like an incredible hypocrite. RedHat has been praised for *years* for building a Linux distribution that's built upon the free efforts of thousands of free software developers. But suddenly Shuttleworth is at fault because the Debian guys give away their product under a license that allows Ubuntu to use their output?
Please.
If you give away your product under the GPL, you have no one to blame but yourself if someone manages to profit off that work by packaging it up in a nice shiny wrapper and offering a support contract. Christ, this is the dream of the GPL come true: open source software thats profitable, using a business model that doesn't take away from the freedoms of its users. But now its bad because you're not getting your share? Talk about bullshit.
Do you think that the rules of arithmetic come out of nowhere?
Of course not. But just like a carpenter doesn't need to know rigid body physics in order to frame up a wall, your average person doesn't need to know abstract algebra in order to perform basic arithmetic.
No, the GP is quite right. Math and arithmetic are very very different skillsets, when it comes right down to it. And for most, arithmetic is *far* more useful day-to-day (most people never see an algebraic equation after they graduate high school).
Also known as the C++ of editors. ie, making an octopus by nailing more legs to a dog. ;)
God damn it, I thought you said "Mickey", which changes the nature of the joke... so, yes, in short, *woosh*.
For the sake of brevity, let's just say that the Minnie Mouse character is NOT anatomically correct.
From that I'm going to assume you were charged as a sex offender shortly thereafter...
Call me when it can accurately decide when I meant when typing commands using vi or emacs.
I'm calling bullshit.
There's no way you use both Vi *and* Emacs.
So what is this thing, exactly?
If I had one (I don't, I can't justify the cost for what is, as you say, really a toy), basically all the things I do idly on my laptop today: checking email, reading my RSS feeds, browsing Wikipedia, looking at stuff on Google Maps, etc.
And, as it turns out, that's a pretty good chunk of what I'd break out my laptop for (I spent a good chunk of last night watching TV and browsing the web... I live a thrilling life ;). Being able to do all that without having to tote around a cumbersome laptop and a power cord would actually be pretty nice. And as a companion to my laptop, it'd make a great tool for keeping reference material visible while I code (rather than having to switch windows/desktops all the time).
'course, it'd be a hell of a lot nicer if it had a Pixel Qi-like display, so I could browse the web on my porch without squinting. Which is, as it happens, one reason I might hold off... the prospect of a transflective display on a decent tablet-like device intrigues me quite a bit.
Improve water supplies to drought prone areas, or better still, make sure people don't LIVE in drought prone areas to begin with.
Wow, you just completely ignored my post. Like, literally completely missed the entire point.
So, here, I'll just reproduce it for you in its entirety, and follow with a little summary. Maybe you'll get my point this time:
Now that I've reproduced my post, and you've hopefully actually read it this time, why don't I explicitly outline my point, since you seem incapable of grasping it: Dealing with the consequences of global warming is expensive. The poorest people are the most adversely affected. The richest people, who could help the poorest people, don't believe it's happening, don't give a crap if it is or not, or worse, *think its a good thing*.
So, sure, you could "Improve water supplies to drought prone areas, or better still, make sure people don't LIVE in drought prone areas to begin with.", except the people who can afford to "Improve water supplies to drought prone areas" *won't do it*, and the people who currently live in those areas can't afford to move because they're dirt poor subsistence farmers who have nowhere to go.
Here, let me be more blunt, just in case you can't get it yet: The people who are fucked by GW will be fucked because they have no other choice, and the rich rest will fiddle while Rome burns, because they're blind, self-centered assholes.
It's funny that every discussion about climate, pollution, Mother Earth etc., ultimately comes down to the money, and not about the humans themselves. Makes you wonder what is more important in the grand scale of things.
Why is that funny? People, in the abstract, are driven by one thing: selfish greed. It's why conservatives are so bloody scared of carbon taxes, as it might affect *their* bottom lines. If we *really* cared about the human race as a species, we'd be doing everything we could to move away from carbon-based fuel sources, simply because they're finite and will run out eventually. But we don't, because people are selfish assholes who, by and large, believe what they need to believe to stay fat and happy. These days, that means deny GW is happening at all, or assuming it'll be a good thing, so hey, no big deal, now fuck off I need to drive my Hummer to Wal-mart.
How about either finding a way to MOVE those people to a place where their yearly food supply WON'T be wiped out in 5 minutes during a drought, or alternatively build serious water pipelines to mitigate the problems in those areas.
Okay, sure, let's do that.
Wait, first, *who* is going to do that?
Next, who is going to pay for doing that?
Third, how do you convince them to do that when it's very likely a good portion of their people a) don't believe GW is happening at all, or b) think it's a good thing because, hey, they get to play in their Phoenix swimming pool for a little while longer!
The point is, I don't disagree with you. Not at all. We *should* be doing all we can to mitigate the effects of GW before it really screws with us. But there's simply *no political will to do anything about GW*. Which is why a report like this is import. It flat out points out that a) GW is happening, and b) it's gonna fuck people up. And that includes catastrophic drought, *unless we do something about it*, either to deal with GW itself (alas, probably too late for that), or to deal with the effects (as you propose).
So, there were never any volcanic events (incredibly large scale volcanic events that lasted years upon years) that distributed additional CO2?
Those events come no where near releasing the amount of CO2 we, as a species, have released in the last 100+ years.
And how would the CO2 know that it was *caused* by warming rather than it needed to cause more warming?
Huh? a) I never said it "knew" anything, and b) your question makes no sense.
Here, let me try and explain this again, slowly. Read carefully now, you seem easily confused:
In the ice cores, the globe started warming, which triggered the release of CO2. The CO2 then reinforced the warming trend, leading to more warming.
Today, we released CO2. That triggered a warming trend, which has been further reinforced by our continuing to release more CO2 (probably also triggering the release of natural CO2 reservoirs, thus compounding the issue further), leading to more warming.
Do you get it now? Is that simple enough for you to understand?
If CO2 is a unlimited positive feedback mechanism...
Nice strawman, and you beat it with alacrity. Well done!
When the rains increase, you build the dams to mitigate the flooding, the result is more available water. If one area needs water, you build canals and pipelines to move it there.
Dude, this isn't the world of Harry Potter. You can't just wave a magic wand and suddenly create pipelines for moving millions of liters of water hundreds or thousands of kilometers. It takes money and time, of which you likely have neither if you're living in a place where catastrophic drought due to GW is an issue.
Every single post you've made has been to trot out the claim that the globe is warming simply because we're rolling out of an ice age.
But hey, let me rephrase. It's extremely ironic that you, an *anthropogenic* global warming denier, should take on a nickname coined by an extremely active environmentalist.
There, better now?
I don't think it makes sense to claim that global warming will lead to water shortages, since it will mean increased precipitation.
Because the rain doesn't magically fall in the reservoirs people would build. It would evaporate from one place and fall in another. The result is water shortages in some places, and floods in others.
I'm sorry, I have to provide "piercing insight" to explain why the claim "due to certain physical limitations, there is a near-zero chance of discovering a more efficient form of energy" is just flat out absurd right on its face?
What, do I next have to use the Peano Axioms to explain to you why one plus one does not, in fact, equal three?
I find it deeply ironic that you, a global warming denier, should take on a nickname coined by an extremely active environmentalist...
Not initially, no. After all, in the past, there didn't exist a species who decided to release CO2 for kicks. Rather, CO2 emissions were a consequence of warming triggered by other means, and the CO2 then served to reinforce the warming cycle.
But nice try.
Maybe next time, try and learn you some science first.
We cannot subsist without the technology, and due to certain physical limitations, there is a near-zero chance of discovering a more efficient form of energy.
Ironic that you should refer to excrement in the same post where you shat out that little turd...
But the thing is, in order to justify creating the global socialist utopia which is the true goal of the "warmers"...
Holy shit you're a moron. Just... wow...
I'd love for it to be about 3-4 degrees warmer in the 'winter' here, and extend my pool season.
And the subsequent 3-4 degrees warmer in the summer, too? Yeah, genius.
Now, I don't want to be too harsh here, but, well, you're a bit of an idiot.
The human species is *adapted the climate we have today*. It's impossible to say one climate regime is objectively bad and one is objectively good. But what you *can* say is that one climate regime is what we, as a human species, have adapted to. That means we do all our farming where breadbaskets are *today*. We've built cities where there's ample fresh water *today*. We've settled on coastlines that exist *TODAY*.
Now suppose you're right. Suppose growing regions move, rain belts shift, and previous non-arable regions become arable. Well guess what? That *also* means that existing arable land becomes non-arable. Will humanity adapt? Of course. We'll move our farms, abandon unsupportable cities, migrate away from eroding coastlines. But *while* that's happening, we'll experience terrible hardships. You know, drought, starvation, that kind of thing.
So, yeah, you enjoy your extra few weeks motorcycling. But I suspect those who would starve in the meantime might tend to disagree with your rather rosy picture regarding the consequences of GW (whether anthropogenic or not).
OTOH the damn blackberry bushes and ivy that, despite my best efforts, have been infesting my property for years keep reminding me that nature is often far more powerful than man. Being out on the open seas in a small sail-boat gives me a similar feeling.
Then you're taking the wrong lesson from your experiences. Is "nature...far more powerful than" *a* man? Absolutely. Unquestionably. But man? Hardly. We've created dead zones around major estuaries. We've almost wiped out entire species with fun things like DDT. Hell, we've *made rivers combustible*, ffs. No, man has plenty of power to serious fuck with nature.
Now, are we going to wipe out the planet? Make it uninhabitable for any form of life? Almost certainly not. Life is, after all, tenacious. But we *certainly* have the power to fuck it up for ourselves, and have been exercising that power with great abandon for as long as we've been around (for an amusing example, go learn about what happened to the inhabitants of Easter Island when they took it up on themselves to deforest their habitat).
The Daily Show isn't an example of journalism, it is an example of editorialism.
I'd say they do both. Obviously they editorialize. But, as an example, when McCain says "I never said I was a maverick" (to pick a silly, obvious example), and they dig up a bunch of clips where he says "I'm a maverick", how is that anything but journalism? They take claims, do research, and present the results. Sounds pretty "journalism-y" to me. Heck, the show is basically founded on doing the same thing with the media at large: illustrating biases, yellow journalism, and the cozy relationship between media and government, supported by extensive research.
although I still rent
Totally off topic, but...
Don't say that like it's a bad thing. It's not. I'm a home owner, and I'll be the first to say that home ownership should *not* be a goal in and of itself. It's not for everyone, and it's not a measure of success by any means (in fact, for many, it's quite the opposite, considering how many out there are house poor).
You could say the same thing about Mercedes automobiles.
Or a PS3.
Or a large screen HDTV.
Or a new gaming PC rig.
Whoops, that sounds like an average Slashdotter to me...
I did offer evidence
Not in your original post, you didn't.
I didn't get the memo that said I had to explain myself, or that opinion wasn't allowed without permission.
Oh, quit being a defensive little bitch. Your original post was a contentless dismissal of the original study with absolutely no evidence to back your claim. You were rightly attacked for making such a stupid remark, and so were forced to actually provide some evidence. If you can't handle that, honestly, piss off, we have enough contentless posts around here, thanks.