The people who worry about EM exposure have actually given a lot of thought to CRT radiation. I remember reading how they were advising people to sit a few feet further away from their monitors.
I personally think that non-ionizing EM is probably safe (at the levels ordinary folks are exposed to), and that supposedly EM-sensitive people are feeling some sort of inverse of the placebo effect. But I think the low-level panic over EM exposure is just one facet of an overall concern about the downsides of industrialization, which is a bandwagon I'm happy to be riding.
Would you care to explain to me why growing billions of additional tons of plant matter for biofuels isn't going to increase the demand for farmland? We're already seeing the effects in rising corn prices.
Or are you one of those "environmentalists are lying hypocrites who fly around on their private jets while lecturing the rest of us and the world is huge and mankind is puny and global warming is good for us but the point is, don't worry because everything is good" types? If so, I'll probably regret trying to discuss evidence with you.
Not an unreasonable question. Mostly I thought I could get higher specs for a lower price this way. I can generally troubleshoot any "Linux problems" myself, so having my OS supported by the manufacturer wasn't a concern to me, so long as I could get all the important hardware working.
Microsoft isn't paying Dell to put their OS on Dell computers. But they might be paying for the free 60 day trial of Microsoft Money and MS Office. Meanwhile, Norton is paying to have their AV software available "out of the box". The laptop manufacturer might also install its own software in the hopes of convincing you to send them more money (trial versions of their games and whatnot).
I just got a new lappy486 and I was horrified to see all the trialware/crapware they'd installed. Gigs and gigs of it, each item taking up twice the HDD space it ought to. The entire install (crapware and all) was mirrored onto a restore partition, which I nuked in frustration while installing Ubuntu. I don't think I'll use Windows enough for that to really come back and bite me.
The point is, it does make some sense for a Windows PC to be priced the same as a Linux PC.
I am a fanboy. But Dell was a week late. I'd been in the market for a new laptop (old one tended to overheat, bad battery, slow, possessed of daemons of the underworlde). But asking around, I couldn't figure out when I'd actually be able to buy such a Linux laptop from Dell. I soon broke down and bought a refurbished HP from Costco.
It came with XP, plus gigs and gigs of crapware (which were mirrored onto a restore partition for my convenience). Resize, add Ubuntu, figure out why the hell it doesn't support the laptop's wide screen....
Wait, this wasn't supposed to be a product review. The point is, had this story come through a week ago, I might have snagged me a Dell. Given how unlikely I am to part with money, I'm sure there is a small but healthy market for it.
That's why it's time for your generation to quit your jobs, head to Florida, and leave the work to the youngsters. You insist on conflating boredom and drudgery with usefulness, and the sooner you turn the reins of power over to people who can see the difference, the happier everyone will be.
I've been looking into getting an electric bicycle. It seems like a great way to increase my range, reduce the sweat factor, speed up transit time, etc. My biggest fear is that it'll get stolen.
I would argue that "the snobbery" is what keeps most transit systems chronically underfunded in the first place. It's really a chicken/egg conundrum. People see mass transit as an inferior good because it's far less convenient than cars for most trips. Since those who can afford to drive opt out, transit systems can't rake in the money needed to expand service. Then fiscally conservative types ask why we should put more money into a system that nobody is using.
It's a reasonable question. I think mass transit should be the backbone of our transportation infrastructure, because it will be easier on our wallets and our environment. But you have to put more money into transit to overcome the entrenched advantages cars have, and it's more than a lot of people want to shell out.
I highly doubt that there are no other jobs within a hundred miles of your current job. Moving closer to your current job usually means moving closer to dozens of other jobs as well.
If you and your wife have chosen to structure your lives so that you each have a hundred mile commute in opposite directions, then it's very likely you've done something amazingly stupid. Or you just enjoy spending time as far away from each other as possible, in which case a divorce is an environmentally friendly option.
Every indication is that we are already above the planet's carrying capacity, and if we try to bring the rest of the world up to a European lifestyle (or godforbid, an American one), we'll have to set our human ingenuity to the task of reducing the number of ingenious humans.
Anyhow, most of what people describe as 'the good life' means jack all to me.
I see how your comparison would be accurate... if carmax.com was the only place in the world to find used cars. And calling the single most expensive options package for the Prius "decently equipped"? The only difference between the package you selected and the $1000 cheaper package is... leather seats and steering wheel.
So, either you consider a leather interior a necessity, or you only chose it to make the price comparison turn out worse. Either way, that's just pathetic.
The $2500 you're claiming you'd have to plunk down to get the 6 CD changer, integrated bluetooth, and "a voice activated DVD navigation system" doesn't make you look much better. Try dumping the DVD player altogether, and actually engaging your passengers in some sort of conversation.
It would be highly unlikely that every application would be written in Javascript. In fact, the only reason for doing so would be the sheer novelty of it.
Only the GUI toolkit would really rely on Javascript. Server side, you'd have whatever language you wanted.
Python does make an excellent shell scripting language, and while it's annoying to do much from the standard "Python command line", there are Pythonesque shells that work nicely (and don't suffer from the "you can't type in a program's name" objection).
Finally, I would say that the point of open source software is to deliver whatever is required. For some people, (especially the less tech savvy) there are some intriguing advantages to a web based OS.
All I'm saying is, keep an open mind. There may be a place for this.
The total energy coming from the Sun only varies by about 0.1% over each 11-year cycle. For a long time scientists didn't notice it either, which is why the Sun's intensity is called, ironically, the "solar constant."
The graph looks like it has all these wild spikes and dips, but when you look at the overall difference between the highs and lows, it's the difference between 1369W/m and 1363W/m, which is tiny. Plus there is no overall increase in solar intensity in the last thirty years, so there is no way you can ascribe the current warming trend to it.
2) But as I pointed out in #1, the most obvious shared influence between the two planets (the intensity of the sun) isn't changing, and can't explain any warming trend we may be seeing on either planet. In short, if global warming is occurring on Mars, it has absolutely nothing to do with global warming on Earth.
3) Now, certainly there are regional variations in the amount of global warming we're seeing on Earth. But that's tangential to my point. For Earth, we have an excellent record of the global temperature, and we know that the average is going up. For Mars, the evidence of the local change is all we've got.
I read somewhere that kidneys cannot possibly have a big effect on the ammonia levels in your body, because they make up less than 2% of your body weight.
But hey, we've known for years that the medical establishment was lying to us.
Apparently, you couldn't be bothered to go read the rest of the Wikipedia entry on the documentary you found so very convincing. I strongly urge that you do so now, because it's damning in a hundred ways.
If you can't be bothered to do so, then allow me to quote the considered, measured response of the "neutral" creator of The Great Global Warming Swindle, Martin Durkin: "Don't be a daft cock."
So, if you ignore everything else I said, and rely only on a professionally edited documentary by a neutral organization featuring dozens of professional climatologists, data which nobody has claimed is false and observations that nobody has claimed to have specific fault with, this is, what, supposed to be inferior to your well thought out opinion or something?
You can't possibly mean The Great Global Warming Swindle, can you?
I've discussed the data and the theories with a number of people. It's useful to remember that global warming caused by CO2 is just a theory, based on two observations: First, the world is warming up. Second: observations of prior world temperature changes commensurate with observations of CO2 levels, and notably higher CO2 with higher temperatures. There is some evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, however there are much stronger greenhouse gases (i.e. methane) which we now produce at industrial levels.
Let's add a couple of observations to your "Big Two":
3) We know that humans are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. stonecypher has been drastically misinforming you about the entire volcano non-issue.
4) It is indisputable that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We've known at least that much for 150 years. It's disingenuous to portray this as a mere correlation, since the mechanism driving the correlation is well understood.
5) We know that solar flux has been basically steady since we started getting satellite data, so the most obvious alternative ("The sun is just warmer") is untenable.
6) We know that objections to the "consensus position" are surprisingly rare within the scientific community. A bit argument ad populum, but at least the populum in question knows what it's talking about. That's the sort of evidence that laypersons (who are notoriously bad at complex scientific issues) should be able to appreciate.
Regarding methane: First, we produce a helluva lot more CO2, which hurts the "maybe it's methane" picture you're trying to paint. Second, anthropogenic methane gets broken down relatively quickly, certainly when compared to CO2 levels. Methane concentrations have arguably stopped rising, so controls on methane are probably not our highest priority. More here.
The consequences are numerous. First, we may not address the actual problem that is causing global warming. Second, we may cause huge social and economic consequences for no benefit. Third, if there is no benefit, any future notion of relying upon "scientific evidence" may be viewed skeptically by the masses.
What, exactly, are these "huge social and economic consequences?" If the recently released IPCC report is to be believed, an aggressive anti-CO2 campaign would "cost" about 3% of the expected economic growth between now and 2030 (I put the term "cost" in quotes, because this statistic ignores the cost of doing nothing). So, when we get to 2030, an aggressive climate change action plan will relegate us to the brutish, barbaric lifestyle of... 2028.
Also, you have to recognize that many of the proposed solutions have all manner of environmental and economic benefits that have absolutely nothing to do with global warming. CFLs, solar power, electric cars, reduced reliance on oil imports, smarter electric grids, kickass mass transit systems, localized food production... every one of them delivers benefits above and beyond reduced CO2 emissions. I believe that the economic "doomsday scenarios" of the climate skeptics are pure bunk.
Dude, do you see ANY dinosaurs around here, saying, "Global warming will be just great for us, so bring it on?"
No. To put it bluntly, those creatures that were adapted to such warm weather have all gone extinct. The ecosystems that exist now will not be able to adjust to such a warming spike easily. Some won't be able to adapt at all.
By the way, for future reference: the whole "we can't be altering the planet because insects outweigh us" is just about the dumbest argument I've ever heard. That's about like saying "Bush can't be harming the country. In fact, he can't affect the country at all. He's just one guy, compared to five million homeless people! You want to blame somebody? Blame the hobos!"
Slashdot Mirror
The people who worry about EM exposure have actually given a lot of thought to CRT radiation. I remember reading how they were advising people to sit a few feet further away from their monitors.
I personally think that non-ionizing EM is probably safe (at the levels ordinary folks are exposed to), and that supposedly EM-sensitive people are feeling some sort of inverse of the placebo effect. But I think the low-level panic over EM exposure is just one facet of an overall concern about the downsides of industrialization, which is a bandwagon I'm happy to be riding.
Would you care to explain to me why growing billions of additional tons of plant matter for biofuels isn't going to increase the demand for farmland? We're already seeing the effects in rising corn prices.
Or are you one of those "environmentalists are lying hypocrites who fly around on their private jets while lecturing the rest of us and the world is huge and mankind is puny and global warming is good for us but the point is, don't worry because everything is good" types? If so, I'll probably regret trying to discuss evidence with you.
But with XML for a configuration file, you have the option of using a simple XSLT doc to do nifty things like... turn it into a .ini file?
Hmmm.... never mind.
Not an unreasonable question. Mostly I thought I could get higher specs for a lower price this way. I can generally troubleshoot any "Linux problems" myself, so having my OS supported by the manufacturer wasn't a concern to me, so long as I could get all the important hardware working.
s/my\ generation\ was\ good\ enough/the\ Internet\ was\ crappy\ enough/
Microsoft isn't paying Dell to put their OS on Dell computers. But they might be paying for the free 60 day trial of Microsoft Money and MS Office. Meanwhile, Norton is paying to have their AV software available "out of the box". The laptop manufacturer might also install its own software in the hopes of convincing you to send them more money (trial versions of their games and whatnot).
I just got a new lappy486 and I was horrified to see all the trialware/crapware they'd installed. Gigs and gigs of it, each item taking up twice the HDD space it ought to. The entire install (crapware and all) was mirrored onto a restore partition, which I nuked in frustration while installing Ubuntu. I don't think I'll use Windows enough for that to really come back and bite me.
The point is, it does make some sense for a Windows PC to be priced the same as a Linux PC.
I am a fanboy. But Dell was a week late. I'd been in the market for a new laptop (old one tended to overheat, bad battery, slow, possessed of daemons of the underworlde). But asking around, I couldn't figure out when I'd actually be able to buy such a Linux laptop from Dell. I soon broke down and bought a refurbished HP from Costco.
It came with XP, plus gigs and gigs of crapware (which were mirrored onto a restore partition for my convenience). Resize, add Ubuntu, figure out why the hell it doesn't support the laptop's wide screen....
Wait, this wasn't supposed to be a product review. The point is, had this story come through a week ago, I might have snagged me a Dell. Given how unlikely I am to part with money, I'm sure there is a small but healthy market for it.
That's why it's time for your generation to quit your jobs, head to Florida, and leave the work to the youngsters. You insist on conflating boredom and drudgery with usefulness, and the sooner you turn the reins of power over to people who can see the difference, the happier everyone will be.
I've been looking into getting an electric bicycle. It seems like a great way to increase my range, reduce the sweat factor, speed up transit time, etc. My biggest fear is that it'll get stolen.
I would argue that "the snobbery" is what keeps most transit systems chronically underfunded in the first place. It's really a chicken/egg conundrum. People see mass transit as an inferior good because it's far less convenient than cars for most trips. Since those who can afford to drive opt out, transit systems can't rake in the money needed to expand service. Then fiscally conservative types ask why we should put more money into a system that nobody is using.
It's a reasonable question. I think mass transit should be the backbone of our transportation infrastructure, because it will be easier on our wallets and our environment. But you have to put more money into transit to overcome the entrenched advantages cars have, and it's more than a lot of people want to shell out.
I highly doubt that there are no other jobs within a hundred miles of your current job. Moving closer to your current job usually means moving closer to dozens of other jobs as well.
If you and your wife have chosen to structure your lives so that you each have a hundred mile commute in opposite directions, then it's very likely you've done something amazingly stupid. Or you just enjoy spending time as far away from each other as possible, in which case a divorce is an environmentally friendly option.
Mars is irrelevant.
Every indication is that we are already above the planet's carrying capacity, and if we try to bring the rest of the world up to a European lifestyle (or godforbid, an American one), we'll have to set our human ingenuity to the task of reducing the number of ingenious humans.
Anyhow, most of what people describe as 'the good life' means jack all to me.
I see how your comparison would be accurate... if carmax.com was the only place in the world to find used cars. And calling the single most expensive options package for the Prius "decently equipped"? The only difference between the package you selected and the $1000 cheaper package is... leather seats and steering wheel.
So, either you consider a leather interior a necessity, or you only chose it to make the price comparison turn out worse. Either way, that's just pathetic.
The $2500 you're claiming you'd have to plunk down to get the 6 CD changer, integrated bluetooth, and "a voice activated DVD navigation system" doesn't make you look much better. Try dumping the DVD player altogether, and actually engaging your passengers in some sort of conversation.
Two solutions:
1) Get yourself the latest album from "Vroom-o and the Amazingly Loud Engine Noises". Play it full blast.
2) Make the vrooming noises yourself. And the squealing tire noises when you go around corners.
Isn't the solution obvious? Just fill the tank until it overflows.
It would be highly unlikely that every application would be written in Javascript. In fact, the only reason for doing so would be the sheer novelty of it.
Only the GUI toolkit would really rely on Javascript. Server side, you'd have whatever language you wanted.
Python does make an excellent shell scripting language, and while it's annoying to do much from the standard "Python command line", there are Pythonesque shells that work nicely (and don't suffer from the "you can't type in a program's name" objection).
Finally, I would say that the point of open source software is to deliver whatever is required. For some people, (especially the less tech savvy) there are some intriguing advantages to a web based OS.
All I'm saying is, keep an open mind. There may be a place for this.
2) But as I pointed out in #1, the most obvious shared influence between the two planets (the intensity of the sun) isn't changing, and can't explain any warming trend we may be seeing on either planet. In short, if global warming is occurring on Mars, it has absolutely nothing to do with global warming on Earth.
3) Now, certainly there are regional variations in the amount of global warming we're seeing on Earth. But that's tangential to my point. For Earth, we have an excellent record of the global temperature, and we know that the average is going up. For Mars, the evidence of the local change is all we've got.
I read somewhere that kidneys cannot possibly have a big effect on the ammonia levels in your body, because they make up less than 2% of your body weight.
But hey, we've known for years that the medical establishment was lying to us.
Global warming on Mars? No.
A few points that the simplistic "orb o' fire" theory overlooks:
1) Total solar irradiation hasn't increased noticeably since we started taking satellite measurements.
2) Mars is not Earth.
2a) We don't understand Martial climate nearly as well as Earth climate.
2b) We don't have global temperature measurements or global CO2 measurements for Mars.
2c) Martian atmosphere is much thinner than Earth atmosphere, leading to lower thermal inertia.
3) Regional changes (in this case at the poles) do not necessarily reflect global changes.
This is not a good talking point to be flinging about.
Apparently, you couldn't be bothered to go read the rest of the Wikipedia entry on the documentary you found so very convincing. I strongly urge that you do so now, because it's damning in a hundred ways.
If you can't be bothered to do so, then allow me to quote the considered, measured response of the "neutral" creator of The Great Global Warming Swindle, Martin Durkin: "Don't be a daft cock."
Now I know you're just trolling.
Let's add a couple of observations to your "Big Two":
3) We know that humans are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. stonecypher has been drastically misinforming you about the entire volcano non-issue.
4) It is indisputable that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We've known at least that much for 150 years. It's disingenuous to portray this as a mere correlation, since the mechanism driving the correlation is well understood.
5) We know that solar flux has been basically steady since we started getting satellite data, so the most obvious alternative ("The sun is just warmer") is untenable.
6) We know that objections to the "consensus position" are surprisingly rare within the scientific community. A bit argument ad populum, but at least the populum in question knows what it's talking about. That's the sort of evidence that laypersons (who are notoriously bad at complex scientific issues) should be able to appreciate.
Regarding methane: First, we produce a helluva lot more CO2, which hurts the "maybe it's methane" picture you're trying to paint. Second, anthropogenic methane gets broken down relatively quickly, certainly when compared to CO2 levels. Methane concentrations have arguably stopped rising, so controls on methane are probably not our highest priority. More here.
What, exactly, are these "huge social and economic consequences?" If the recently released IPCC report is to be believed, an aggressive anti-CO2 campaign would "cost" about 3% of the expected economic growth between now and 2030 (I put the term "cost" in quotes, because this statistic ignores the cost of doing nothing). So, when we get to 2030, an aggressive climate change action plan will relegate us to the brutish, barbaric lifestyle of... 2028.
Also, you have to recognize that many of the proposed solutions have all manner of environmental and economic benefits that have absolutely nothing to do with global warming. CFLs, solar power, electric cars, reduced reliance on oil imports, smarter electric grids, kickass mass transit systems, localized food production... every one of them delivers benefits above and beyond reduced CO2 emissions. I believe that the economic "doomsday scenarios" of the climate skeptics are pure bunk.
Dude, do you see ANY dinosaurs around here, saying, "Global warming will be just great for us, so bring it on?"
No. To put it bluntly, those creatures that were adapted to such warm weather have all gone extinct. The ecosystems that exist now will not be able to adjust to such a warming spike easily. Some won't be able to adapt at all.
By the way, for future reference: the whole "we can't be altering the planet because insects outweigh us" is just about the dumbest argument I've ever heard. That's about like saying "Bush can't be harming the country. In fact, he can't affect the country at all. He's just one guy, compared to five million homeless people! You want to blame somebody? Blame the hobos!"
Rising CO2 is mankind's fault. Case closed.