I like how you use the straw man argument: if you don't work for petro-chems, you must agree with me or you're stupid / ignorant.
I'm also rather impressed by your getting sucked into what was known on Art Bell's radio show as "The Quickening", the belief that it's worse now than it's been before and the bad things are happening more and more often.
Every generation has believed that their world is worse than the one their parents grew up in. That's natural, don't worry.
Note that the average temperature in NYC on Dec 24 is between a high of 42 and a low of 30. That means that the vast majority of dates in NYC on Dec 24 over the last hundred+ years have been above freezing. It would seem to me that a cold rain on Dec 24 would not, actually, be all that unusual, considering the AVERAGE daily high... Just because you don't remember any doesn't mean a thing.
But, what do I know, I don't work for the oil companies so I must be stupid. Also note, I'm not an Anonymous Coward, though I will agree with you that most of their attacks are the short, pathetic kind.
A really well-thought out and reasoned response. I'd love to hear anyone debate you on it, just to see the "other side", but I'm not sure I'll find such a debate here.
I just hope you didn't copy that from someone else.:-D
Reading that little bit in the writeup just demonstrates the ignorance of the poster.
Cato is one of the most principled groups I know, which is why I give them money. I don't even agree with all their anti-war statements, but the fact is, they're very self-consistent.
Hmm, fair enough. A worthy nit to pick, and you did it without belittling my point or giving me some new colorful titles. I think I might have to 'fan' you just for that. Thanks for the tidbit, good to know.:)
Don't be silly. Emissions from newer cars is far better than it was 20 years ago, having a bigger effect than fuel economy.
You've let the anti-SUV crowd 0wn you. What would REALLY improve city air quality would be to get rid of stinky diesel buses (replace with natural gas versions, I suppose), and subsidize poor folks so they could get new cars, instead of using the 10+ year old beater with the shitty exhaust system.
Call me too lazy to look it up, but a quantitative study I read (put out by Cato, I believe) said replacing the oldest 5% of cars on the road will do more for air quality than kicking the SUVs off the road.
Re:The unintended benefits of pollution
on
Global Dimming
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Any 3 year old wouldn't have a clue.
Clear skies generally indicate high-pressure systems, usually coming from northern areas over land.
Cloudy skies generally indicate the approach of a differently-pressured system.
Come to the Washington, DC area. Cloudy days mean cooler weather, and usually rain.
If you are speaking of night-time effects, you are right that clear skies will indicate cooler temperatures than cloudy skies, but there is no "INCREASES" going on. The cloudy skies simply trap more of the daytime heat, letting less escape into the upper atmosphere.
I guarantee there was no directive inside the state department stating, "Let's let Halliburton and pals overcharge us because they're friends of Bush and Cheney." That's insulting.
More likely, it was Halliburton and pals who decided themselves, "Hey, let's try to take advantage of the situation." Customers, even the U.S. government, can be convinced to pay much more than something is worth (How much do you pay for bottled water?).
Now sure, political appointees from big business are going to look favorably upon their old friends, but realize that there are thousands of federal employees who are really making these decisions, not just one dude at the top. Those employees can certainly get snowed into overpaying for services from these companies, but they're not doing it on purpose (from the gov't side. From the big corp side, they're trying to make as big a profit as possible).
It occurs to me that as an academic institution, you better be teaching your students how to program, period. As opposed to your plan of "how to program using MS tools".
For CS, a variety of tools, languages and programming styles would seem to be the smartest way of going about it. Then 15 years from now when MS has gone Enron, you can still get a job.
Unless you're at someplace like Devry where they're just trying to give you some job training.
How is that the same problem we have now, or anything even close to it?
99% of my mail comes from people I know and that I've set to "accept". The 1 in 900 chance is pretty freaking low and I'd certainly accept a lot higher than that as a solution.
Or shit, on your "blocked" account, set up a challenge-response system, and when they respond correctly, that server can auto-forward it to my "accept" account.
It's not a broken anything, except that more and more applications must support "it" (the commonly accepted cut/paste method). It's on the application level, really. If you have KDE apps, and Gnome apps, the vast majority of them support and use Ctrl-X/V/C (as if that's somehow intuitive... it's just the commonly accepted use. I, for one, hate that Cut is one key over from Copy. Too easy to miss).
Right now I copy/paste from Kmail into Gedit all day, every day. Even paste into Jedit quite often from KDE and Gnome apps.
Where's the issue? Modern apps are already playing nice together, at least from a Windows-style Ctrl-X/C/V perspective.
I think it'd be pretty darn easy to setup an Opt-In for your private, no-spam address, and leave a regular address out there linked to your webmaster@wherever.com href...
Maybe once a week you go check that address out to see if anything interesting came through.
Is it really that hard to check mail in more than one place? Probably is, I guess. Bah, fuck the average moron user.:)
Hang on a sec. You are making my point for me. I am saying: Now that all the layers, pipes and filters are built, people are building GUI X, and GUI Y.
We (the unix community, I include myself even though I suck:)) need people focused on the end-user to create GUI X. GUI X does not ever need to continue the long chain of layers, pipes and filters. It just has to pull all the good shit together, and make it exceedingly easy to use.
"Windows programmers", to use Spolsky's term, are generally better at the "end-of-the-line" app. It would seem to me that it'd be smart to get more people trained to take existing unix "bits" and make end-user apps out of them...
I think you missed Sposky's point completely, but...
I believe we need to have "end-user focused" programmers, and I think there are a few sneaking into our world (H Pennington, Miguel de Mono come to mind). They'd be folks who know the "unix way" but focus on the "final" solution: The end app that will be used without piping off to other apps, without having to support connections to 15 other things, whatever. Just what the user needs right then and there.
There's a dearth of those kinds of apps now, but they seem to be arriving more and more.
Gotta agree with you here. We don't need to go to Japan to get culture-shocked.
I was in Wales for 6 months. Loved every minute of it. When it was time to go home, I couldn't wait to set foot on the nice wide straight streets, eat cheap burgers and hot dogs, and talk to people who call soccer soccer.:)
There were no certainties concerning a very great many "advances" in history. Could humans travel south of the equator? Early Greeks didn't think so.
Since you can't say that you know what consciousness is, how can you say that it/will/ take anything more than computing power?
I also wonder what you mean by "happier". I've noticed that many people who buy into the wackier bits of sci-fi are perfectly happy: They have hope for better futures. It's the people who are stuck in the misery of their current existance that are miserable.
So the question is, when computing technology reaches the (now mind-boggling) level where it's possible to transfer consciousness to another body... Would it be illegal then?
Just curious what your moral views are about that, because my atheist ass is counting on it happening sometime in the next 60-70 years.:-D
Just want to toss my $.02 in and nod in agreement, because I have no mod points to give. There are jerks using Linux, and there are jerks using Windows. They have nothing to do with corporate adoption. The relative scarcity of Linux specialists (administrators) is more likely a reason.
I'm also not sure why people think Linux should be making any faster inroads into corporate America... Your point on inertia is exactly correct.
Seems to me if you step out of the trees and look at the whole forest, "we're" (the Linux community) doing pretty well.
Well, the only trouble I can see with your proposal is the "reasonable" part: What are reasonable environmental laws for the people of Nicaragua?
The trouble with tariffs is that they hurt the little people on the other end far more than their lack hurts anyone in the U.S...
In theory, your proposal is reasonable (hehe, oops, I said it too:)). In practice, I'm afraid many 3rd world nations won't listen to that sort of thing. I think it's better pragmatically to get money to the working poor.
Granted, business will try to exploit workers. However, get American companies into these countries (Nike, etc), and then harrass Nike into improving the workers conditions... that might work best of all.
Either way, interesting thought, basing a tariff on a human rights declaration...
And unrelated to the rather nice discussion we just had, I'd like to send a big "Fuck You" to the liberal jackass that marked my earlier post (the grandparent to this one) as a troll.:)
I'm not sure how you can say that, given that the average American now make something like 20k per year (I'm too lazy to look it up)?
If you look at the history of the industrial revolution here and in the UK (among every other developed nation), they all go through periods of worker exploitation and environmental degradation, followed by spectacular recoveries of each.
So why not help developing nations make gobs of money so that it WILL filter down to the workers, and move them up to first-world status much faster?
Why do the workers in said countries flock to "sweatshops" like Nike? (Nike already pays much more than average for the area)
There is a definite progression that has to happen in these nations. They cannot, and will never be able to, jump from hunter/gatherer to diamond age in a single generation (hyperbole, of course). So why not encourage them to compete where they are able on the global stage instead of blocking their products and leaving the in the dustbin of history?
Is "the environment" in the U.S. better now than it was during the 1800's? Sure is, and the reason is that we were able to climb up from it. Everyone else has to follow the same path. Maybe there is another path, but noone's found it (or followed it successfully) yet...
Slashdot Mirror
I like how you use the straw man argument: if you don't work for petro-chems, you must agree with me or you're stupid / ignorant.
I'm also rather impressed by your getting sucked into what was known on Art Bell's radio show as "The Quickening", the belief that it's worse now than it's been before and the bad things are happening more and more often.
Every generation has believed that their world is worse than the one their parents grew up in. That's natural, don't worry.
Please look at this: Averages in NYC for Dec
Note that the average temperature in NYC on Dec 24 is between a high of 42 and a low of 30. That means that the vast majority of dates in NYC on Dec 24 over the last hundred+ years have been above freezing. It would seem to me that a cold rain on Dec 24 would not, actually, be all that unusual, considering the AVERAGE daily high... Just because you don't remember any doesn't mean a thing.
But, what do I know, I don't work for the oil companies so I must be stupid. Also note, I'm not an Anonymous Coward, though I will agree with you that most of their attacks are the short, pathetic kind.
A really well-thought out and reasoned response. I'd love to hear anyone debate you on it, just to see the "other side", but I'm not sure I'll find such a debate here.
:-D
I just hope you didn't copy that from someone else.
Thank you.
Reading that little bit in the writeup just demonstrates the ignorance of the poster.
Cato is one of the most principled groups I know, which is why I give them money. I don't even agree with all their anti-war statements, but the fact is, they're very self-consistent.
I personally like how some jackass modded you as a Troll for telling the truth.
Keep repeating it, maybe the stupid sheep will begin to understand: Cato is NOT "right wing". Read any missive from Ed Crane.
Hmm, fair enough. A worthy nit to pick, and you did it without belittling my point or giving me some new colorful titles. I think I might have to 'fan' you just for that. Thanks for the tidbit, good to know. :)
Don't be silly. Emissions from newer cars is far better than it was 20 years ago, having a bigger effect than fuel economy.
You've let the anti-SUV crowd 0wn you. What would REALLY improve city air quality would be to get rid of stinky diesel buses (replace with natural gas versions, I suppose), and subsidize poor folks so they could get new cars, instead of using the 10+ year old beater with the shitty exhaust system.
Call me too lazy to look it up, but a quantitative study I read (put out by Cato, I believe) said replacing the oldest 5% of cars on the road will do more for air quality than kicking the SUVs off the road.
Any 3 year old wouldn't have a clue.
Clear skies generally indicate high-pressure systems, usually coming from northern areas over land.
Cloudy skies generally indicate the approach of a differently-pressured system.
Come to the Washington, DC area. Cloudy days mean cooler weather, and usually rain.
If you are speaking of night-time effects, you are right that clear skies will indicate cooler temperatures than cloudy skies, but there is no "INCREASES" going on. The cloudy skies simply trap more of the daytime heat, letting less escape into the upper atmosphere.
Johnny, seriously, take off the tinfoil hat.
I guarantee there was no directive inside the state department stating, "Let's let Halliburton and pals overcharge us because they're friends of Bush and Cheney." That's insulting.
More likely, it was Halliburton and pals who decided themselves, "Hey, let's try to take advantage of the situation." Customers, even the U.S. government, can be convinced to pay much more than something is worth (How much do you pay for bottled water?).
Now sure, political appointees from big business are going to look favorably upon their old friends, but realize that there are thousands of federal employees who are really making these decisions, not just one dude at the top. Those employees can certainly get snowed into overpaying for services from these companies, but they're not doing it on purpose (from the gov't side. From the big corp side, they're trying to make as big a profit as possible).
Fair enough. Perhaps then it's just an implementation problem, and not the world-wide scourge people are making it out to be? :)
It occurs to me that as an academic institution, you better be teaching your students how to program, period. As opposed to your plan of "how to program using MS tools".
For CS, a variety of tools, languages and programming styles would seem to be the smartest way of going about it. Then 15 years from now when MS has gone Enron, you can still get a job.
Unless you're at someplace like Devry where they're just trying to give you some job training.
Well dang, that's about the most useful way I've seen to think about it. :-P
How is that the same problem we have now, or anything even close to it?
99% of my mail comes from people I know and that I've set to "accept". The 1 in 900 chance is pretty freaking low and I'd certainly accept a lot higher than that as a solution.
Or shit, on your "blocked" account, set up a challenge-response system, and when they respond correctly, that server can auto-forward it to my "accept" account.
It's not a broken anything, except that more and more applications must support "it" (the commonly accepted cut/paste method). It's on the application level, really. If you have KDE apps, and Gnome apps, the vast majority of them support and use Ctrl-X/V/C (as if that's somehow intuitive... it's just the commonly accepted use. I, for one, hate that Cut is one key over from Copy. Too easy to miss).
Right now I copy/paste from Kmail into Gedit all day, every day. Even paste into Jedit quite often from KDE and Gnome apps.
Where's the issue? Modern apps are already playing nice together, at least from a Windows-style Ctrl-X/C/V perspective.
I think it'd be pretty darn easy to setup an Opt-In for your private, no-spam address, and leave a regular address out there linked to your webmaster@wherever.com href...
:)
Maybe once a week you go check that address out to see if anything interesting came through.
Is it really that hard to check mail in more than one place? Probably is, I guess. Bah, fuck the average moron user.
Hang on a sec. You are making my point for me. I am saying: Now that all the layers, pipes and filters are built, people are building GUI X, and GUI Y.
:)) need people focused on the end-user to create GUI X. GUI X does not ever need to continue the long chain of layers, pipes and filters. It just has to pull all the good shit together, and make it exceedingly easy to use.
We (the unix community, I include myself even though I suck
"Windows programmers", to use Spolsky's term, are generally better at the "end-of-the-line" app. It would seem to me that it'd be smart to get more people trained to take existing unix "bits" and make end-user apps out of them...
Fair enough, your description of your property leaves me (in my townhouse on my expansive 1700 sq. ft lot just south of DC) one feeling: jealous. :)
I think you missed Sposky's point completely, but...
I believe we need to have "end-user focused" programmers, and I think there are a few sneaking into our world (H Pennington, Miguel de Mono come to mind). They'd be folks who know the "unix way" but focus on the "final" solution: The end app that will be used without piping off to other apps, without having to support connections to 15 other things, whatever. Just what the user needs right then and there.
There's a dearth of those kinds of apps now, but they seem to be arriving more and more.
Gotta agree with you here. We don't need to go to Japan to get culture-shocked.
:)
I was in Wales for 6 months. Loved every minute of it. When it was time to go home, I couldn't wait to set foot on the nice wide straight streets, eat cheap burgers and hot dogs, and talk to people who call soccer soccer.
Um, the beer was always better over there though.
I just want to know where you live where you can see dozens (meaning at least 24) cell towers...
:)
Of course, I'm a Yankee. We have trees.
There were no certainties concerning a very great many "advances" in history. Could humans travel south of the equator? Early Greeks didn't think so.
/will/ take anything more than computing power?
Since you can't say that you know what consciousness is, how can you say that it
I also wonder what you mean by "happier". I've noticed that many people who buy into the wackier bits of sci-fi are perfectly happy: They have hope for better futures. It's the people who are stuck in the misery of their current existance that are miserable.
So the question is, when computing technology reaches the (now mind-boggling) level where it's possible to transfer consciousness to another body... Would it be illegal then?
:-D
Just curious what your moral views are about that, because my atheist ass is counting on it happening sometime in the next 60-70 years.
Mmm mmm I got hungry just thinking about it. But look, look, I'm not an AC! :)
Sin. Gimme a friggin break. Okay, I'm waiting to be destroyed. Any time now, bring it on, "god"...
Just want to toss my $.02 in and nod in agreement, because I have no mod points to give. There are jerks using Linux, and there are jerks using Windows. They have nothing to do with corporate adoption. The relative scarcity of Linux specialists (administrators) is more likely a reason.
I'm also not sure why people think Linux should be making any faster inroads into corporate America... Your point on inertia is exactly correct.
Seems to me if you step out of the trees and look at the whole forest, "we're" (the Linux community) doing pretty well.
Well, the only trouble I can see with your proposal is the "reasonable" part: What are reasonable environmental laws for the people of Nicaragua?
:)). In practice, I'm afraid many 3rd world nations won't listen to that sort of thing. I think it's better pragmatically to get money to the working poor.
:)
The trouble with tariffs is that they hurt the little people on the other end far more than their lack hurts anyone in the U.S...
In theory, your proposal is reasonable (hehe, oops, I said it too
Granted, business will try to exploit workers. However, get American companies into these countries (Nike, etc), and then harrass Nike into improving the workers conditions... that might work best of all.
Either way, interesting thought, basing a tariff on a human rights declaration...
And unrelated to the rather nice discussion we just had, I'd like to send a big "Fuck You" to the liberal jackass that marked my earlier post (the grandparent to this one) as a troll.
I'm not sure how you can say that, given that the average American now make something like 20k per year (I'm too lazy to look it up)?
If you look at the history of the industrial revolution here and in the UK (among every other developed nation), they all go through periods of worker exploitation and environmental degradation, followed by spectacular recoveries of each.
So why not help developing nations make gobs of money so that it WILL filter down to the workers, and move them up to first-world status much faster?
Why do the workers in said countries flock to "sweatshops" like Nike? (Nike already pays much more than average for the area)
There is a definite progression that has to happen in these nations. They cannot, and will never be able to, jump from hunter/gatherer to diamond age in a single generation (hyperbole, of course). So why not encourage them to compete where they are able on the global stage instead of blocking their products and leaving the in the dustbin of history?
Is "the environment" in the U.S. better now than it was during the 1800's? Sure is, and the reason is that we were able to climb up from it. Everyone else has to follow the same path. Maybe there is another path, but noone's found it (or followed it successfully) yet...