Warming of the atmosphere and ocean system is unequivocal. Many of the associated impacts such as sea level change (among other metrics) have occurred since 1950 at rates unprecedented in the historical record.
There is a clear human influence on the climate
It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report.
IPCC pointed out that the longer we wait to reduce our emissions, the more expensive it will become
It means slightly warmer but the major issue is the economic consequences of this slight warmth. It is cheaper to lower our CO2 emissions now than to do nothing and live with the consequences.
I totally agree. They should stop focusing on display outputs. If you want a device to attach to your TV, a chromecast or Roku sticks are better suited anyways.
Otherwise you're making an argument that every time you exhale, you're polluting the air.
You are. However, all the CO2 you exhale comes either from the air itself (you inhale a lot of CO2) or from food. The food comes from the plants (either directly or indirectly if you eat meat), which captured CO2 from the air. So the total net emission is 0. The same apply for burning wood.
When a car emit CO2, it comes from petroleum. If we were burning petroleum at the same rate as it was forming (thousands or millions of years) it wouldn't be an issue. But we burn it much faster, therefore it is adding CO2 to the atmosphere. And that is pollution.
CO2 emissions are proportional to fuel consumption, so I guess there's no point measuring that figure; the fuel efficiency of vehicles is a known quantity.
But are these vehicule really causing 90% of the pollution? Maybe it's only 35% when you count CO2 who knows?
Maybe because California is out of water... But Quebec is not going to run out of water any time soon. It has 3% of the world freshwater, which is a lot given that it's only 0,1% of the world population.
I am pretty sure at least one person in England owned land and/or businesses in the USA.
However I was talking about people living in the USA, not in England, but forced to emigrate because of the war. All those loyalists didn't keep their stuff (try bringing a land with you to Canada or England). Just like Americans who fled Cuba during Casto's takeover left a lot of belongings behind.
Some would say they choose to leave, others would say they were forced. The result is the same. They left some belongings and the revolutionary Cubans/Americans took over.
and in 1996 by the Cuban Liberty and Democracy Solidarity Act (known as the Helms–Burton Act) which penalizes foreign companies that do business in Cuba by preventing them from doing business in the U.S.
False problem. If having 2 millions more tourists is bad for Cuba, then they could just double the price of their resorts, make more money, and discourage many tourists from going there. Supply and demand.
Have the Brits been compensated? No? Then it doesn't matter if they are dead. Their great great grand children might be alive and would gladly accept compensation, along with interest over 250 years of course.
Are you saying we should just wait until these people die and then lift the embargo? War is war. If you are on the losing side chances are someone else will take ownership of your stuff if you flee to another country. And anyways people who owned stuff got stolen during the Cuban revolution no matter if they fled to the USA or stayed in Cuba.
Contributors mostly contribute for their own reasons, and *nix versions with low numbers of contributors are still doing fine.
It depends what you consider "fine". They lack a lot of hardware support. For various reasons.
And click around on github if you think that BSD-licensed projects get less return contribution. License might be a factor determining what software people use, but the same person will usually contribute their changes back regardless of which license it is.
For a person maybe, or maybe not. To each their own. However a corporation will contribute a lot more if the product is GPL than if it is BSD. The Linux Kernel is successful in part because of contributors from various large corporations.
BSD operating systems get less contributions because there is less thrash. They're not cool or trendy, and they discourage rapid feature thrash, so they're basically useless for youths to use to "cut their chops." The code quality won't be high enough for them to get included, and there just isn't demand for "new" stuff at the OS level.
Yeah, as if drivers from the 90s were still enough. As if there was no new hardware to support. With a lot of work I could probably run BSD on my ARM cell phone or my MIPS router. Or you know, I could use Linux that just works on them and have support for stuff such as wireless and touch screen.
Linux was already fully successful 15 years ago. It isn't any more successful now, because it isn't any more or less free, or libre, or available. We could already do "everything" other than run specific proprietary apps, something still true.
It is a lot more successfull. It is used a lot more in stuff such as phones and routers.
Apple is a good example. They could have contributed everything back upstream. Instead they forked and created Darwin/OS X/iOS. To their defense Darwin is open source too but no one really use this OS as it has no special feature or advantage over *BSD or Linux.
It was good for Apple, but not that much for FreeBSD, which basically lost to Linux in pretty much every market (phones, servers, home routers, supercomputers, desktop).
It's exactly by being more "permissive" that users of BSD software do not contribute back to the upstream project. GPL kind of forces them to do so (if they want to distribute their modified software, they have to release the sources, so you might as well contribute to upstream). It's part of the reason why Linux succeeded even though many BSD alternatives were viable at the time.
Slashdot Mirror
It also has not been demonstrated, that another degree or 2 would be a problem either.
It's not a problem. It will only be costlier to mankind than if we avoid it, by lowering our CO2 emissions.
Warming of the atmosphere and ocean system is unequivocal. Many of the associated impacts such as sea level change (among other metrics) have occurred since 1950 at rates unprecedented in the historical record. There is a clear human influence on the climate It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report. IPCC pointed out that the longer we wait to reduce our emissions, the more expensive it will become
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
It depends where you live. Globally, a warming is not a good thing (deserts, polar ice melt, pacific islands disappear, etc.)
It means slightly warmer but the major issue is the economic consequences of this slight warmth. It is cheaper to lower our CO2 emissions now than to do nothing and live with the consequences.
I totally agree. They should stop focusing on display outputs. If you want a device to attach to your TV, a chromecast or Roku sticks are better suited anyways.
Yeah, as if the oil industry wasn't giving a shitload of money to "scientists" for proving global warming is not happening.
It means a lot that the Earth is warming and that human activity is the cause.
CO2 is not a pollutant but a greenhouse gas.
Otherwise you're making an argument that every time you exhale, you're polluting the air.
You are. However, all the CO2 you exhale comes either from the air itself (you inhale a lot of CO2) or from food. The food comes from the plants (either directly or indirectly if you eat meat), which captured CO2 from the air. So the total net emission is 0. The same apply for burning wood.
When a car emit CO2, it comes from petroleum. If we were burning petroleum at the same rate as it was forming (thousands or millions of years) it wouldn't be an issue. But we burn it much faster, therefore it is adding CO2 to the atmosphere. And that is pollution.
CO2 emissions are proportional to fuel consumption, so I guess there's no point measuring that figure; the fuel efficiency of vehicles is a known quantity.
But are these vehicule really causing 90% of the pollution? Maybe it's only 35% when you count CO2 who knows?
90% is as long as you don't count CO2 I guess?
Maybe because California is out of water... But Quebec is not going to run out of water any time soon. It has 3% of the world freshwater, which is a lot given that it's only 0,1% of the world population.
I am pretty sure at least one person in England owned land and/or businesses in the USA.
However I was talking about people living in the USA, not in England, but forced to emigrate because of the war. All those loyalists didn't keep their stuff (try bringing a land with you to Canada or England). Just like Americans who fled Cuba during Casto's takeover left a lot of belongings behind.
Some would say they choose to leave, others would say they were forced. The result is the same. They left some belongings and the revolutionary Cubans/Americans took over.
I'm not sure why (nearly) the rest of the world can't satisfy their needs
Because of this:
and in 1996 by the Cuban Liberty and Democracy Solidarity Act (known as the Helms–Burton Act) which penalizes foreign companies that do business in Cuba by preventing them from doing business in the U.S.
Land, businesses, houses, horses, anything valuable at the time.
False problem. If having 2 millions more tourists is bad for Cuba, then they could just double the price of their resorts, make more money, and discourage many tourists from going there. Supply and demand.
This is another good one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
Have the Brits been compensated? No? Then it doesn't matter if they are dead. Their great great grand children might be alive and would gladly accept compensation, along with interest over 250 years of course. Are you saying we should just wait until these people die and then lift the embargo? War is war. If you are on the losing side chances are someone else will take ownership of your stuff if you flee to another country. And anyways people who owned stuff got stolen during the Cuban revolution no matter if they fled to the USA or stayed in Cuba.
Yeah and the US stole stuff from the British in their revolutionary war.
It requires congress approbation. I don't think it happened yet.
Time to end that ridiculous embargo.
Contrary to the fact that there are several major BSDs that survive off contributions from people using their software.
They "survive off" however they all lost the war against Linux in pretty much all markets.
Even commercial libraries that matter don't require you to give them all your code.
Neither does the GPL.
Contributors mostly contribute for their own reasons, and *nix versions with low numbers of contributors are still doing fine.
It depends what you consider "fine". They lack a lot of hardware support. For various reasons.
And click around on github if you think that BSD-licensed projects get less return contribution. License might be a factor determining what software people use, but the same person will usually contribute their changes back regardless of which license it is.
For a person maybe, or maybe not. To each their own. However a corporation will contribute a lot more if the product is GPL than if it is BSD. The Linux Kernel is successful in part because of contributors from various large corporations.
BSD operating systems get less contributions because there is less thrash. They're not cool or trendy, and they discourage rapid feature thrash, so they're basically useless for youths to use to "cut their chops." The code quality won't be high enough for them to get included, and there just isn't demand for "new" stuff at the OS level.
Yeah, as if drivers from the 90s were still enough. As if there was no new hardware to support. With a lot of work I could probably run BSD on my ARM cell phone or my MIPS router. Or you know, I could use Linux that just works on them and have support for stuff such as wireless and touch screen.
Linux was already fully successful 15 years ago. It isn't any more successful now, because it isn't any more or less free, or libre, or available. We could already do "everything" other than run specific proprietary apps, something still true.
It is a lot more successfull. It is used a lot more in stuff such as phones and routers.
Apple is a good example. They could have contributed everything back upstream. Instead they forked and created Darwin/OS X/iOS. To their defense Darwin is open source too but no one really use this OS as it has no special feature or advantage over *BSD or Linux.
It was good for Apple, but not that much for FreeBSD, which basically lost to Linux in pretty much every market (phones, servers, home routers, supercomputers, desktop).
It's exactly by being more "permissive" that users of BSD software do not contribute back to the upstream project. GPL kind of forces them to do so (if they want to distribute their modified software, they have to release the sources, so you might as well contribute to upstream). It's part of the reason why Linux succeeded even though many BSD alternatives were viable at the time.