In other words applications programmed for GTK or QT may be using X at the moment, but they can be made to use Wayland with no modification.
Here's a little thing to show people if they are clueless fanboys or really understand the Wayland vs X thing: for Wayland to replace X for my workplace would require Wayland working on MS Windows.Confused?
Are we all participants in some global anti-Canonical conspiracy? Are Linus and Kristian Høgsberg and Redhat and Gnome and github.com and the Mint guys and everyone else meeting every second Tuesday to plot the demise of Canonical?
The first rule of the anti-Canonical conspiracy is that we don't talk about the anti-Canonical conspiracy.
It's sexist because it reduces the chances of any woman being there in future, 9 years old or not.
Really? So some idiot pitching an idiotic app about looking at tits causes some sort of wibbly-wobbly time-space anomaly, one that physically prevents members of the female gender from appearing at that location again?
In general people don't go to places where they are made to feel uncomfortable.
Being in the presence of immature morons makes most normal people unconfortable.
I'm not sure whether to take seriously your post or your.sig. The post sounds reasonable enough to me, in that I'd agree carbon taxes would have been a much better alternative than cap and trade. But then your.sig links to a video by pretty much the absolute worst bottom scum of dollar-powered climate denial.
Yes I know.
That's why you have to watch the video, where Scott Denning totaly destroys the denialists from a right wing perspective.
I'm sorry but I don't give a shit WHICH side you are on, if crap and trade didn't cause a giant bullshit sign to appear over your head you frankly haven't been paying attention.
Yes, cap and trade is a pain. Anyone sane would just go for carbon taxes, but cap and trade had to be proposed to keep the Republicans on board. It also has the advantage that when it was used for acid rain control it worked.
Tisdale: Anyone with a little common sense who’s reading the abstract and the hype around the blogosphere and the Meehl et al papers will logically now be asking: if La Niña events can stop global warming, then how much do El Niño events contribute? 50%? The climate science community is actually hurting itself when they fail to answer the obvious questions.
On average (as Xie points out to Curry) La Niña / El Niño contribute nothing to global warming - they can't, they don't make heat, they just move it around.
Also check out what Tamino has to say about Curry's misinterpretation of the results.
And note that, at this time, it's simply a fit of data, it is NOT a model as it is much too new to actually have been used for a prediction. Unlike the other dozens and dozens of studies I linked to further up the chain.
Nope, it's a model.
Kosaka and Xie don’t have a tunable parameter. They used a full-blown coupled ocean-atmosphere climate model (GFDL CM2.1).
Around 1972 some geologists wrote Nixon a letter warning him of the impending ice age.
Ah, geologists.
In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee warned him that by the year 2000, there would be 25 percent more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In the words of the Committee, the continued use of fossil fuels “will modify the heat balance of the atmosphere to such an extent that marked changes in climate, not controllable through local or even national efforts, could occur.”
Show me the detailed worldwide climate model including the future cycles of the Sun before I will consider believing 1 year worth of change is due to any particular cause.
Uh, are you claiming that "cycles of the sun" are caused by climate?
Or do you think that climate models don't take solar activity into account?
Note that your precious government is using the IRS to squelch opposition opinion.
You mean that a republican voting tax inspector decided that "political" groups that that were for reducing taxation might be worth checking to see if their tax declarations were correct. (And, lo and behold, it turned out that they often weren't).
Besides, these government scientists probably couldn't get a real job in industry. Remember, affirmative action is rampant in the government.
Ok, a sociopathic glibertarian and a racist scumbag.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words applications programmed for GTK or QT may be using X at the moment, but they can be made to use Wayland with no modification.
Here's a little thing to show people if they are clueless fanboys or really understand the Wayland vs X thing: for Wayland to replace X for my workplace would require Wayland working on MS Windows.Confused?
No, I'm not confused. Are you?
Are we all participants in some global anti-Canonical conspiracy? Are Linus and Kristian Høgsberg and Redhat and Gnome and github.com and the Mint guys and everyone else meeting every second Tuesday to plot the demise of Canonical?
The first rule of the anti-Canonical conspiracy is that we don't talk about the anti-Canonical conspiracy.
How many applications use X11? How manty use GTK or QT?
I think that's pretty unlikely. Life is constantly adapting to change. That's the whole point.
Mass extinction is unlikely?
You do know we're already in a mass extinction event?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
You're supposed to run the x11 server on those servers and use a single client to access them.
WTF?
The X server runs on the desktop (client) machine. The X clients run on the server machines.
It's sexist because it reduces the chances of any woman being there in future, 9 years old or not.
Really? So some idiot pitching an idiotic app about looking at tits causes some sort of wibbly-wobbly time-space anomaly, one that physically prevents members of the female gender from appearing at that location again?
In general people don't go to places where they are made to feel uncomfortable.
Being in the presence of immature morons makes most normal people unconfortable.
Arrgh, return of the climate zombies.
Zombie #28
Zombie #43
Zombie #92
So, before satellites there was no data?
http://gergs.net/2013/07/more-northern-sea-ice/
when they tell me "yes we're ok with nuke power."
Who is "they"?
Yes, I am ok with nuke power. (80% of my electricity is from nukes).
I'm not sure whether to take seriously your post or your .sig. The post sounds reasonable enough to me, in that I'd agree carbon taxes would have been a much better alternative than cap and trade. But then your .sig links to a video by pretty much the absolute worst bottom scum of dollar-powered climate denial.
Yes I know.
That's why you have to watch the video, where Scott Denning totaly destroys the denialists from a right wing perspective.
It's sexist because it reduces the chances of any woman being there in future, 9 years old or not.
and wtf was 9 year old doing there? it's a fucking pitching gathering.
Showing her app. What do you think she was doing?
Thanks. You've made the only post that this article needs. All the rest is just a waste of time
Would you care to point me to the hoards of level headed climate activists who say this about Hurricane Katrina or Sandy?
Hoards? Hidden in a pirate's chest somewhere?
Maybe hordes? But do level-headed people come in hordes?
I'm sorry but I don't give a shit WHICH side you are on, if crap and trade didn't cause a giant bullshit sign to appear over your head you frankly haven't been paying attention.
Yes, cap and trade is a pain. Anyone sane would just go for carbon taxes, but cap and trade had to be proposed to keep the Republicans on board. It also has the advantage that when it was used for acid rain control it worked.
Yet another unforseen event? No worries, blame it on CO2 and add another complexity layer on the model.
But it wasn't unforseen, it was widely predicted that after the record low of 2012 there would be a "recovery".
What do you mean by "blame it on CO2"? What "complexity layer" has to be added to the model/
Do you have the tiniest clue what random noise imposed on a rising trend would look like?
An interesting take on the Kosaka and Xie study.
Not very interesting:
Tisdale: Anyone with a little common sense who’s reading the abstract and the hype around the blogosphere and the Meehl et al papers will logically now be asking: if La Niña events can stop global warming, then how much do El Niño events contribute? 50%? The climate science community is actually hurting itself when they fail to answer the obvious questions.
On average (as Xie points out to Curry) La Niña / El Niño contribute nothing to global warming - they can't, they don't make heat, they just move it around.
Also check out what Tamino has to say about Curry's misinterpretation of the results.
And note that, at this time, it's simply a fit of data, it is NOT a model as it is much too new to actually have been used for a prediction. Unlike the other dozens and dozens of studies I linked to further up the chain.
Nope, it's a model.
Kosaka and Xie don’t have a tunable parameter. They used a full-blown coupled ocean-atmosphere climate model (GFDL CM2.1).
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2013/08/learning-from-the-hiatus/
http://nomads.gfdl.noaa.gov/nomads/forms/deccen/
Yay for Fortran!
The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain.
High plains drifter.
plain (noun):
a large area of flat land with few trees.
plane (noun)
a flat surface on which a straight line joining any two points on it would wholly lie.
You get plains in geography, planes in geometry.
I guess the ONI will be pissed that the NSA can read their mail.
Around 1972 some geologists wrote Nixon a letter warning him of the impending ice age.
Ah, geologists.
In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee warned him that by the year 2000, there would be 25 percent more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In the words of the Committee, the continued use of fossil fuels “will modify the heat balance of the atmosphere to such an extent that marked changes in climate, not controllable through local or even national efforts, could occur.”
Let's just say it's all true.
Then what? In order to have ANY appreciable effect GLOBAL GDP would have to be rolled back.
that simply aint going to happen.
Why not? GWP fell by -0.5% in 2009.
Not that tackling climate change would cause GWP to fall, but it's insane to believe that it can't fall.
Yes, linking to WhatTheFuckIsHeGoingOnAbout.com is pure, unmitigated bullshit.
What bad climate change that happens 100 or 1000 years being caused by humans is the argument of human caused climate change.
What? Me cannot read!
It could easily be that variations in the Suns output both in the past and in the future totally dominates climate change
It could be, but it isn't.
Just find a correlation between any solar parameter and temperature over the last 100 years - there isn't one.
Show me the detailed worldwide climate model including the future cycles of the Sun before I will consider believing 1 year worth of change is due to any particular cause.
Uh, are you claiming that "cycles of the sun" are caused by climate?
Or do you think that climate models don't take solar activity into account?
Note that your precious government is using the IRS to squelch opposition opinion.
You mean that a republican voting tax inspector decided that "political" groups that that were for reducing taxation might be worth checking to see if their tax declarations were correct. (And, lo and behold, it turned out that they often weren't).
Besides, these government scientists probably couldn't get a real job in industry. Remember, affirmative action is rampant in the government.
Ok, a sociopathic glibertarian and a racist scumbag.