In case a "clueless user" yanks it "without unmounting properly?" Excuse me, but I don't think that's a matter of the user being clueless. If I have a removable drive, I don't think it's unreasonable to be able to remove it at any time--the OS should expect that. If the OS is still writing data to the drive and there's some kind of window open to that effect, then I'm stupid for disconnecting it in the middle of the process. If I "finished" copying three minutes ago, I don't think it's unreasonable for me to be able to disconnect the drive.
This is why Linux is a great OS for a server but not so hot for the desktop. Write-caching for a USB drive might make sense on a server, but not so much on the desktop.
This is why so many people are pissed off at attempts to teach Intelligent Design in our schools, it's a philosophy diametrically opposed to Science.
No, it's not. It's a philosophy that is diametrically opposed to that of some people who claim science as their religion. But ID is not diametrically opposed to science itself.
A lot of anti-religious people have latched on to science and attempted to use it in an attempt to further their anti-religion agenda. They forward the false premise that religion and science can't both be right when in fact, they can.
Conflict between Christianity and science only exists when it is created by people that are ignorant of one topic or the other... or both.
ID does not say that we shouldn't determine how the universe works. ID doesn't have a problem with science at all. It's *some* scientists that have a problem with ID. In practice, it's normally not the scientists that have problems with ID--it's people on sites like this, most of whom aren't scientists, that have problems with ID.
Ssh, don't tell anyone! There are too many people here with preconceived agendas wherein science and religion are in conflict. It's going to disrupt their world view if they find out that, no, religion is not opposed to science and is in no way threatened by it. The reverse should also be true.
And the mercury that those bulbs release into the environment is less than the amount released by generating the additional electricity required for an incandescent. You're still ahead of the game.
Great! So I assume that means I can just throw the bulb away into the trash when I'm done if I want to?
I probably should buy a 10-pack of incandescents every time I go to the supermarket between now and 2012. That way I'll have a stock of them available when they are no longer available.
Granted, the cost of disposal eats into those savings, but you're still ahead of the game in the long run.
Especially since most (yes, most) people will dispose of those bulbs by throwing them in the garbage like a normal bulb. Legislate all you want, that's what's going to happen. Switching to CFLs is only a no-brainer when you consider part of the costs. But you're going to have billions of these bulbs ending up in landfills which ultimately could end up being far more expensive both economically and environmentally.
At present they don't work quite as well as incandescents for dimming applications but they do exist and work acceptably for many applications. They typically cannot dim all the way to no light, with most stopping at about 20%. Many are reported to buzz when dimmed as well though I've not experienced this myself yet.
Yep, it sure seems like that technology is sufficiently advanced for the government to mandate the elimination of bulbs that actually work.
I'm sick of people telling me that the government should eliminate technology they don't like when a suitable replacement technology is not yet ready.
I used to live in Mexico and our entire apartment used Phillips CFLs. We lived there for 6 years and bought new Phillips CFLs when we moved in. Not a single one burned out. I don't know if they were made in Mexico, but they were purchased in Mexico.
I recently bought a CFL for my basement office when I had to replace a burned out bulb. I guess it's ok but I really prefer the light quality of incandescent bulbs. I also like the fact that incandescent bulbs turn on 100% immediately whereas the CFLs take awhile to get up to full intensity.
In a true free market, people would weigh the costs and benefits of each purchase both to themselves and to the society in general.
Nonsense! In a free market, everyone is free to use whatever criteria they wish to weigh the costs and benefits. While some may want to factor in the cost/benefit to society in general, that's not an inherent requirement of a free market.
When a specialty brand that I have invested in sells to Amazon or Target, I can no longer sell the product, because they discount....
Then don't sell that product anymore.
When Target, for example, comes in, woos a brand, buys their product, and then discounts the crap out of it, I lose, the manufacturer loses, and the consumers win - for a few months. Then, the brand goes out of business...
No, most like only you lose. Most manufacturers aren't going to be so stupid to discount their product to Target enough to kill themselves. There might be a few that stupid, but as a general rule a manufacturer discounts their product in return for sales volume which is in their interest.
Personally, it's not my problem whether you can hire 15 or 12 people. To suggest that that's a good reason for maintaining high prices is basically forcing me to be charitable with my purchasing dollars against my will. I expect products to be priced competitively and if Target can sell the same product as you for 15% less, yes, I'm going to buy it at Target. A small shop can't compete on price, it must compete on service or something else. And even then, you might still lose. Such is life.
Artificially pumping up prices might be great for you and the manufacturers but it is NOT great for the customers. Saying that a $5000 Rolex could be "undersold" for $1250 and that's somehow some kind of travesty is nonsense. It means that Rolex is way overvalued an the consumers are being duped. Of course we know that, it's no secret. But there's certainly no reason to defend the practice.
Like I said, I honestly don't care who modifies what on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is what it is and I have seen some nonsense posted on both sides of many issues. That's just what you're going to get in an open depository for information.
I don't know what the government is modifying in Wikipedia, nor do I care. But the government is in a position to know more about certain things than some people that take the opposite as gospel truth. Whether or not their contributions are just B.S. or are a legitimate opposing viewpoint is something that can only be determined by looking at specifics. However, I'd definitely venture to say that there is a lot of stuff that could be added to Wikipedia that could be entirely legitimate but would be written off as "propaganda" by many of the people monitoring the articles.
People underestimate their own bias and objectivity and how it effects their observations.
When it is a government employee doing this, on the clock, paid for by tax dollars, as part of their official duties... well that is what propaganda is. Why the hell are we paying for "mass communications officers" in the first place?
I don't particularly care who modifies Wikipedia or why. If you have an open information depository that can be modified by anyone, expect it to be modified by anyone... including people with vested interests on both sides of any issue. One person's spin is another person's fact, and if there is any strength to Wikipedia is that "fact" can be hashed out between two opposing viewpoints that, hopefully, eventually settle on a neutral and factual view.
If the government were not providing information (regardless of whether or not some people call that "propaganda"), the articles in question would be potentially very one-sided and lack balance. Kind of like Slashdot, actually.
In this day and age, there is a decidedly anti-government and anti-Bush perspective that is promoted by many in the mainstream media and, often, in places like Slashdot and Wikipedia. Some would call that justified, but the skeptic would realize that any viewpoint that is overly dominant is dangerous when other viewpoints don't get a fair shake or are openly ridiculed. I don't doubt the government feels the need to employ people to rebut some nonsense and, in many cases, put different spin on acknowledged facts.
"You will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view."
Hardly. The data show a warming trend 1999-2004, and cooling from 2004-2007; a 4 year trend. If you look at the MSU data more closely, there have been several 3-year "cooling trends" of larger magnitude just over the past 25 years. The latest 4 years is hardly even at the level of "reasonable doubt".
For about 7 there is no discernible rise. Yes, it went up a bit and then came down. But if you draw your little slope from about 2000 or 2001 to the present, you will find that slope to be rather flat. That is what I'm getting at. That's about a 7-year trend.
Wait 4 more years and you might start to build a case.
I'd be happy to wait 4 more years. As long as everyone is willing to wait 4 more years before enacting a bunch of policies.
I do because it is. But even if it isn't, the case should be made on the merits of wealth distribution... not hidden behind supposed environmental concerns. If your goal is to redistribute wealth, just say so and let's discuss the merits of your wealth redistribution plan rather than trying to hide your plans behind environmentalism.
The fact of the matter is, though, that if we can do *anything* to help slow global warming, why shouldn't we?
Because we'd be arrogant to say we know with any precision whether global warming is really a bad thing to start with. In honesty, we don't really have a firm and conclusive understanding of what's going to happen and how fast or how slow--to presume that we know how those changes (if they happen when and how we currently expect) would actually impact our wellbeing is laughable. The level of uncertainty in our predictions are far larger than the changes we are forecasting.
Not only would getting rid of our need for oil help global climate (even if it is inevitable that there isn't anything we can do), but it could help us become economically independent as well. And why is that bad?
I'm absolutely in favor of nuclear energy. I'm in favor of solar energy to the extent it can be done efficiently without having to cover entire states with solar panels. I'm in favor of reducing and eliminating our dependence on foreign oil. And to the extent we can, lowering unnecessary emissions is not a bad goal. However, making economic sacrifices to achieve these things before the technologies are ready is counterproductive. And if we are going to have those goals, let's be honest about the reasons for having those goals.
I'd be happy to pay an extra $1/gallon for gas if it made us 100% energy independent. I'd probably pay twice as much money for a car that was 100% solar powered and never required a stop at a filling station (even though my gas, over the life of the car, doesn't cost that much). But I'd be paying more money to solve a real problem. However, if you tell me I need to pay even an extra penny/gallon of gas to buy carbon credits to address a "problem" I personally am not convinced exists, no, I won't pay it.
There are a lot of you folks, NateTech, trying to smear science so that their rhetoric can have free reign. It is an analogue of the folks who try to smear "the media" (as opposed to the mainstream media). It's one of those "who are you gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes?" strategies often used to fool the unschooled, and downright ignorant.
Science shouldn't need these kinds of attacks. Science stands on its own two feet. Skeptics can argue gravity until the cows come home but nobody cares because the science is clear. As much as global warming activists want to claim otherwise, the science on global warming is orders of magnitude less certain and there is doubt and a heck of a lot more to learn. A 90%+ probability that humans are the cause of global warming? Please. That's utter nonsense and you know it. With as many variables as there are in climate and climate change, a claim of 90% probability that any given variable being certain is very, very questionable.
Unfortunately, the debate has now been framed that we "contribute" to "climate change." Well, yeah, we always have. So do cows. But any confidence that we are significantly contributing to climate change in any way that significantly impacts what climate would do all by itself? I'm still not seeing the cold hard science to back it up. I'm seeing a lot of hand-waving, a lot of scaremongering, and Nobel Prizes going to political activists... but cold hard science uninfluenced by politics? Not so much.
Once the chief proponent of an allegedly scientific theory is a politician, you have to ask twice as many questions and be twice as skeptical. Seriously. Certain politicians and political ideologies attached themselves to the "science" of global warming way, way, way too early because they saw it as an opportunity to pass legislation they liked; and the other political ideology urged caution because it was clear--especially at the time--that the other side was proposing draconian legislation with science that was far too uncertain to justify the action they were proposing, and because the action they were proposing (Kyoto) would not make much of a difference in global emissions but rather just relocate emissions to developing countries: global wealth redistribution. Both sides now have a political stake in the science. And that's just a recipe for bad science regardless of what the science ultimately concludes. Both sides are going to stall conclusions far longer than they would have if the science had been allowed to more fully develop before politicians decided to jump into the pool.
Once science marries politics, it's damned near impossible to get a divorce.
Skeptics like to cherry pick the year 1998, because it had an exceptionally strong El Nino which raised global temperatures that year; compare to it, the following years don't look as warm. But if you look at the overall trend, the pre-1998 trend has largely continued post-1998. It certainly has not turned negative.
That "overall trend" sure seems to be diverging from the actual measured temperature, especially near the end. Granted, not enough to say "case closed" against global warming, but definitely enough to put some claims in the area of "reasonable doubt." There is certainly no major discernible trend in either direction since about 2000 or 2001.
Doing a straight-line trend based on this dataset from 1980 to the present definitely generates a nice upward slope, but 27 years is hardly a good dataset--and if you're going to use a dataset only 27 years long, it's not appropriate to ignore a 7-year trend that seems decidedly more flat than the rest of it.
"... so a short downward trend doesn't necessarily prove anything."
If that same statistical caution were exercised to both sides of the global warming debate, the debate would be a lot more rational.
I just tend to dismiss that as a cynical point of view. Many products on the market fail despite "rampant commercialism" and "consumerism." People buy things they want because they want them, not because they're obsessed with having everything. While the movie was funny from a cynical point of view, I don't find any meaningful commentary in the movie as to how we're supposed to be enlightened by the movie.
Rather than funny cynicism with the idea of enlightening society to make reasonable changes, it just seems to be a funny exercise in taking things to an illogical extreme. Funny, but not very helpful, nor very damning of "commercialism."
Slashdot Mirror
Oh come on. By now you should know the only deadly gas is CO2.
Probably. They've been saying it for years. :)
Uhh... CNN? CBS? ABC? You know, news sources that non-geeks visit?
Linux? :)
PS--I'm only half joking.
In case a "clueless user" yanks it "without unmounting properly?" Excuse me, but I don't think that's a matter of the user being clueless. If I have a removable drive, I don't think it's unreasonable to be able to remove it at any time--the OS should expect that. If the OS is still writing data to the drive and there's some kind of window open to that effect, then I'm stupid for disconnecting it in the middle of the process. If I "finished" copying three minutes ago, I don't think it's unreasonable for me to be able to disconnect the drive.
This is why Linux is a great OS for a server but not so hot for the desktop. Write-caching for a USB drive might make sense on a server, but not so much on the desktop.
No, it's not. It's a philosophy that is diametrically opposed to that of some people who claim science as their religion. But ID is not diametrically opposed to science itself.
A lot of anti-religious people have latched on to science and attempted to use it in an attempt to further their anti-religion agenda. They forward the false premise that religion and science can't both be right when in fact, they can.
Conflict between Christianity and science only exists when it is created by people that are ignorant of one topic or the other... or both.
ID does not say that we shouldn't determine how the universe works. ID doesn't have a problem with science at all. It's *some* scientists that have a problem with ID. In practice, it's normally not the scientists that have problems with ID--it's people on sites like this, most of whom aren't scientists, that have problems with ID.
Ssh, don't tell anyone! There are too many people here with preconceived agendas wherein science and religion are in conflict. It's going to disrupt their world view if they find out that, no, religion is not opposed to science and is in no way threatened by it. The reverse should also be true.
ID does not suggest that we not use science to understand our environment.
Great! So I assume that means I can just throw the bulb away into the trash when I'm done if I want to?
So there should be no problem if we just throw CFL bulbs in the landfill, right?
I probably should buy a 10-pack of incandescents every time I go to the supermarket between now and 2012. That way I'll have a stock of them available when they are no longer available.
Especially since most (yes, most) people will dispose of those bulbs by throwing them in the garbage like a normal bulb. Legislate all you want, that's what's going to happen. Switching to CFLs is only a no-brainer when you consider part of the costs. But you're going to have billions of these bulbs ending up in landfills which ultimately could end up being far more expensive both economically and environmentally.
Yep, it sure seems like that technology is sufficiently advanced for the government to mandate the elimination of bulbs that actually work.
I'm sick of people telling me that the government should eliminate technology they don't like when a suitable replacement technology is not yet ready.
I used to live in Mexico and our entire apartment used Phillips CFLs. We lived there for 6 years and bought new Phillips CFLs when we moved in. Not a single one burned out. I don't know if they were made in Mexico, but they were purchased in Mexico.
I recently bought a CFL for my basement office when I had to replace a burned out bulb. I guess it's ok but I really prefer the light quality of incandescent bulbs. I also like the fact that incandescent bulbs turn on 100% immediately whereas the CFLs take awhile to get up to full intensity.
Nonsense! In a free market, everyone is free to use whatever criteria they wish to weigh the costs and benefits. While some may want to factor in the cost/benefit to society in general, that's not an inherent requirement of a free market.
Then don't sell that product anymore.
No, most like only you lose. Most manufacturers aren't going to be so stupid to discount their product to Target enough to kill themselves. There might be a few that stupid, but as a general rule a manufacturer discounts their product in return for sales volume which is in their interest.
Personally, it's not my problem whether you can hire 15 or 12 people. To suggest that that's a good reason for maintaining high prices is basically forcing me to be charitable with my purchasing dollars against my will. I expect products to be priced competitively and if Target can sell the same product as you for 15% less, yes, I'm going to buy it at Target. A small shop can't compete on price, it must compete on service or something else. And even then, you might still lose. Such is life.
Artificially pumping up prices might be great for you and the manufacturers but it is NOT great for the customers. Saying that a $5000 Rolex could be "undersold" for $1250 and that's somehow some kind of travesty is nonsense. It means that Rolex is way overvalued an the consumers are being duped. Of course we know that, it's no secret. But there's certainly no reason to defend the practice.
Like I said, I honestly don't care who modifies what on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is what it is and I have seen some nonsense posted on both sides of many issues. That's just what you're going to get in an open depository for information.
I don't know what the government is modifying in Wikipedia, nor do I care. But the government is in a position to know more about certain things than some people that take the opposite as gospel truth. Whether or not their contributions are just B.S. or are a legitimate opposing viewpoint is something that can only be determined by looking at specifics. However, I'd definitely venture to say that there is a lot of stuff that could be added to Wikipedia that could be entirely legitimate but would be written off as "propaganda" by many of the people monitoring the articles.
People underestimate their own bias and objectivity and how it effects their observations.
I don't particularly care who modifies Wikipedia or why. If you have an open information depository that can be modified by anyone, expect it to be modified by anyone... including people with vested interests on both sides of any issue. One person's spin is another person's fact, and if there is any strength to Wikipedia is that "fact" can be hashed out between two opposing viewpoints that, hopefully, eventually settle on a neutral and factual view.
If the government were not providing information (regardless of whether or not some people call that "propaganda"), the articles in question would be potentially very one-sided and lack balance. Kind of like Slashdot, actually.
In this day and age, there is a decidedly anti-government and anti-Bush perspective that is promoted by many in the mainstream media and, often, in places like Slashdot and Wikipedia. Some would call that justified, but the skeptic would realize that any viewpoint that is overly dominant is dangerous when other viewpoints don't get a fair shake or are openly ridiculed. I don't doubt the government feels the need to employ people to rebut some nonsense and, in many cases, put different spin on acknowledged facts.
"You will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view."
For about 7 there is no discernible rise. Yes, it went up a bit and then came down. But if you draw your little slope from about 2000 or 2001 to the present, you will find that slope to be rather flat. That is what I'm getting at. That's about a 7-year trend.
I'd be happy to wait 4 more years. As long as everyone is willing to wait 4 more years before enacting a bunch of policies.
I do because it is. But even if it isn't, the case should be made on the merits of wealth distribution... not hidden behind supposed environmental concerns. If your goal is to redistribute wealth, just say so and let's discuss the merits of your wealth redistribution plan rather than trying to hide your plans behind environmentalism.
Because we'd be arrogant to say we know with any precision whether global warming is really a bad thing to start with. In honesty, we don't really have a firm and conclusive understanding of what's going to happen and how fast or how slow--to presume that we know how those changes (if they happen when and how we currently expect) would actually impact our wellbeing is laughable. The level of uncertainty in our predictions are far larger than the changes we are forecasting.
I'm absolutely in favor of nuclear energy. I'm in favor of solar energy to the extent it can be done efficiently without having to cover entire states with solar panels. I'm in favor of reducing and eliminating our dependence on foreign oil. And to the extent we can, lowering unnecessary emissions is not a bad goal. However, making economic sacrifices to achieve these things before the technologies are ready is counterproductive. And if we are going to have those goals, let's be honest about the reasons for having those goals.
I'd be happy to pay an extra $1/gallon for gas if it made us 100% energy independent. I'd probably pay twice as much money for a car that was 100% solar powered and never required a stop at a filling station (even though my gas, over the life of the car, doesn't cost that much). But I'd be paying more money to solve a real problem. However, if you tell me I need to pay even an extra penny/gallon of gas to buy carbon credits to address a "problem" I personally am not convinced exists, no, I won't pay it.
Science shouldn't need these kinds of attacks. Science stands on its own two feet. Skeptics can argue gravity until the cows come home but nobody cares because the science is clear. As much as global warming activists want to claim otherwise, the science on global warming is orders of magnitude less certain and there is doubt and a heck of a lot more to learn. A 90%+ probability that humans are the cause of global warming? Please. That's utter nonsense and you know it. With as many variables as there are in climate and climate change, a claim of 90% probability that any given variable being certain is very, very questionable.
Unfortunately, the debate has now been framed that we "contribute" to "climate change." Well, yeah, we always have. So do cows. But any confidence that we are significantly contributing to climate change in any way that significantly impacts what climate would do all by itself? I'm still not seeing the cold hard science to back it up. I'm seeing a lot of hand-waving, a lot of scaremongering, and Nobel Prizes going to political activists... but cold hard science uninfluenced by politics? Not so much.
Once the chief proponent of an allegedly scientific theory is a politician, you have to ask twice as many questions and be twice as skeptical. Seriously. Certain politicians and political ideologies attached themselves to the "science" of global warming way, way, way too early because they saw it as an opportunity to pass legislation they liked; and the other political ideology urged caution because it was clear--especially at the time--that the other side was proposing draconian legislation with science that was far too uncertain to justify the action they were proposing, and because the action they were proposing (Kyoto) would not make much of a difference in global emissions but rather just relocate emissions to developing countries: global wealth redistribution. Both sides now have a political stake in the science. And that's just a recipe for bad science regardless of what the science ultimately concludes. Both sides are going to stall conclusions far longer than they would have if the science had been allowed to more fully develop before politicians decided to jump into the pool.
Once science marries politics, it's damned near impossible to get a divorce.
That "overall trend" sure seems to be diverging from the actual measured temperature, especially near the end. Granted, not enough to say "case closed" against global warming, but definitely enough to put some claims in the area of "reasonable doubt." There is certainly no major discernible trend in either direction since about 2000 or 2001.
Doing a straight-line trend based on this dataset from 1980 to the present definitely generates a nice upward slope, but 27 years is hardly a good dataset--and if you're going to use a dataset only 27 years long, it's not appropriate to ignore a 7-year trend that seems decidedly more flat than the rest of it.
If that same statistical caution were exercised to both sides of the global warming debate, the debate would be a lot more rational.
I just tend to dismiss that as a cynical point of view. Many products on the market fail despite "rampant commercialism" and "consumerism." People buy things they want because they want them, not because they're obsessed with having everything. While the movie was funny from a cynical point of view, I don't find any meaningful commentary in the movie as to how we're supposed to be enlightened by the movie.
Rather than funny cynicism with the idea of enlightening society to make reasonable changes, it just seems to be a funny exercise in taking things to an illogical extreme. Funny, but not very helpful, nor very damning of "commercialism."