'The climate' is a complex system. Of course it's changing. Constantly. And of course there are trends in those changes. We get hung up arguing about how much the numbers are changing, when that's not even the interesting question.
The reason people take this issue so seriously is the idea that the system will run out of control if/when things get 'bad enough'.... That there's some sort of tipping point, after which things will somehow run wildly out of control. This is what we ought to be discussing. Instead we're yelling at one another about how much change we've seen and what it might mean.
We ought to be discussing things like positive vs negative feedback loops.
Instead, we've bickering over the numbers that people have seen on various gauges.
Linux runs on nearly everything, from micro controllers to super computers. The only place it isn't dominating the landscape is on the PC desktop, which is becoming less relevant with ubiquitous computing everywhere. People are carrying around multiple devices that each have more computing power than a desktop from 10 years ago, and this pattern is likely to continue. Linux doesn't appear to be in any danger of going away. Why should we be concerned if people want to keep using the same old operating systems that they've grown used to?
I meant it to be a real question. How does it impact your life if the people around you are using Windows, or Mac, or Linux operating systems? What options are closed to you because of their choices?
You might as well ask what it would take to get people to switch from religion A to religion B. You could point out all the similar features, and all the potential advantages to having more people use the same religious services, but it wouldn't help, and it's simply not going to happen.
People prefer the things they know, and regardless of everything else, change involves effort, so if there's not a really clear and significant benefit, why would anyone bother, just so you can be happier? Why do you care what religion or operating system someone else uses? How does it impact your life? Why does it matter to you?
Figure that out, and you can focus on the issues that are important to you.
Climatology has a bad reputation in part because there is the appearance of secrecy and insufficiently rigorous methodology, but also because there is self-evident inconsistent behaviour. We're told that there is a world-wide consensus among climatologists about how horrible this problem is, how we're all doomed, and how urgent it is to take immediate action. However, it's clear that they don't think it's serious enough to justify showing their work, warts and all. This leads people to conclude that they aren't all that serious about their soothsaying. They are still putting their own interests first, just like everyone else.
The world is full of people who say false things, why should we believe these claims? If their actions are inconsistent with their words, so much more reason to dismiss them. It's easy to dismiss climatologists as yet another false voice screaming for our attention. This is the age of scepticism.
If there were really a true consensus among tens of thousands of scientists, all in agreement that this was the single most important issue facing humanity, if they really all thought it needed immediate attention, they could pool their money, and walk us through the data on national television, graphs and all, like Ross Perot. If they were sure of their data, they could offer it up for free, beg us to look at it, and hold workshops every week at the public library to explain it, all in a selfless effort to bring climate literacy to the world. That's not happening, so it's natural to doubt the sincerity of their alleged consensus, and the claims that immediate action must be taken. Yeah yeah, we've heard it all before. Next?
Also, nature is full of self-regulating systems. Negative feedback cycles dominate all around us. Claims about runaway climate change or tipping points are extraordinary. Where is the extraordinary proof? If it is possible for the sky to fall, why didn't it happen some time millions of years ago? What makes right now so damned special?
Then there's all the abuse heaped on sceptics. If the climatologists are so damned sure of their science, why do they respond with such hate?
If the climatologists want to be taken seriously, they need to understand that doubt is natural, and act accordingly. This means they would need to hold themselves to a higher standard then those they disagree with, and avoid the damned shouting matches. If the issue is important to them, that's the cost of entry. We aren't going to retool the world economy overnight without getting massive bye-in, and that's not happening with the methods that have been attempted so far. What they propose would require widespread culture shift, which cannot be force.
"Pretty much all theoretical and observational evidence supports climate sensitivities larger than the no-feedback sensitivity, i.e., a positive feedback."
But only in the short term. This is like an eddy in the river. Sometimes water does flow uphill, but the general trend is that the river flows downhill and stays within the riverbanks. Over time, the river might shift, but rarely by accident.
Similarly, the climate changes, ice ages occur, droughts occur, but it tends to stay within certain bands.
"It's true that the climate system doesn't have a runaway positive feedback: when the response is large enough, the positive feedbacks weaken and the negative feedbacks strengthen."
Right, so the negative feedbacks are dominant. We all agree that climates change, that's obvious. It's also clear that they can change in ways we won't enjoy. The problem is when people claim to KNOW that there's a tipping point, and that they know where it is, and what causes it. This is just doomsday cultism, plain and simple.
The big question is "how much impact have we had on the climate?"
Rational discussion of that question is routinely sidelined.
"I've never understood why the group that believes we didn't do it think that means we can continue being oblivious."
That's because you haven't been listening. They don't think we "can continue being oblivious". They think something more like "our influence on the situation is insignificant" or "you there, with the ego, you're very funny".
All those ships we put in the ocean, they impact the tides, right? I mean, obviously, they displace water. Some of them displace many tons of water. Eek! High Tide! No shipping for a while! Hey, the tide went down, looks like we fixed it!
The alarm of climate change is based on the idea that positive feedback mechanisms will cause the climate to spin wildly out of control, that there's some "tipping point", and doom, doom, doom!
This is inconsistent with everything we know. Climate is dominated by negative feedback mechanisms. If you don't understand what I'm saying here, you don't deserve to participate in the conversation until you've come up to speed.
As for solar shades and other ideas.... Suppose we somehow managed to pull off something like that, and created a situation in which we have significant impact on climate. Who runs the thing? Politicians? A corporation? Majority vote, like the thermostat in the office? How secure is the system? What about maintenance?
"I'm a Project Manager who recently decided that I want/need to get my dev skills more up-to-date... Should I buy a number of cheaper PC's, or should I buy one monster machine and leverage virtual machine technology?"
You'll end up splitting your time between PM and development tasks, so you'll be coming up to speed for at least a year, and you simply won't need as much hardware as your developers. You won't be stressing your system as much as they stress theirs. With that in mind, consider spending the money on upgrading one of their systems, and using their old system for yourself. Ask them, they will know which of them could most use an upgrade.
If you end up with the best development system, you'll be seen as a pompous ass who thinks he's a developer, and you'll never get the support necessary to improve your skills.
So are programmers. And System Administrators. We've all colluded to drive up the price for our services, but it doesn't make any sense, because anyone could write their own software and maintain their own hardware. Right?;-}
"Can someone explain to me how this obvious conflict of interest has persisted for so long?"
A. It isn't that obvious.
B. Sales occur more quickly when they are facilitated, specifically when the buyer and the seller do not interact directly. Because people get emotional and stupid.
"Realtors either should be liable for doing a lot more, or they need to be paid a lot less."
You paint a rosy picture, but it misses the human interactions. If things were that simple we would see most sales occur without a Realtor involved. Part of the explanation is that the formalized process and intermediaries serve to insulate the buyer and seller, so they don't interact directly. Frequently when they do interact one or both will get emotional, say stupid things and the sale won't occur. As an example, a buyer will point out every little flaw they see in a house and the seller will say "Well, I won't sell to _them_ at any price!"
It isn't that the Realtor is necessary to the transaction, you've pointed out the obvious: transactions occur without them. It is that they facilitate the process, and these transactions are more likely to occur when they are facilitated. Most people find that this is worth paying for. For the sellers each month is another mortgage payment, and the buyers obviously want to move or they wouldn't be looking.
Technically, the seller isn't paying the buyer's agent. The seller pays the seller's agent, and the seller's agent pays the buyer's agent, as specified in the listing agreement. The seller's agent was free to offer a lower percentage in the listing agreement, but that tends to reduce the number of showings.
Things are never so clear cut that a buyer's agent could say "Well these two houses are completely equivalent except that one of them is offering me less commission, and they've dropped the price by the difference, so it looks like a better deal for you, but I'd get paid less." Instead, the buyer's agents are likely to have a large number of houses to show, and they'll just filter out anything that offers a low non-standard commission. Why cut their own pay?
As for liability, that's in the mix already, even if you aren't aware of it.
"Why the hell should we provide them with mandated customers that have no choice but to buy from them?"
Indeed. Most of the states have been requiring mandatory (universal) liability insurance for automobiles for ages. Look how well that's turned out. The insurance companies have done pretty well. Prices have gone up considerably. And we still don't have universal coverage.
If they were actually serious about getting universal coverage for auto liability, they could just calculate (total payout/total fuels costs), attach insurance to the cost of fuel and solve it overnight. If you have fuel to drive, you're insured, the more you drive the more you pay, and there's yet another incentive to drive more fuel efficient cars. But this would not help the insurance companies at all.
Mandatory auto liability insurance was never about universal coverage. Mandatory health insurance is not the same as universal health care. It's about creating a mandatory customer base for the insurance companies.
"Paul:
Positives: Libertarian platform generally makes sense
Negatives: Way, way, way wrong on the war in Iraq, and therefore unelectable. Also many other unworkable and/or dangerous ideas"
I'm so curious to know what you think Paul's position was regarding the war in Iraq, and what makes it so wrong.
I'm also curious to know about these nameless other "unworkable and/or dangerous ideas".
You seem to be having trouble articulating the details. Are these your own thoughts, or has someone else put these ideas in your head?
Apple has gone out of their way to make sure you can no longer replace the OS on the newer models. If they'd support ogg, they'd have a great product. As it is, there is a whole market segment that finds the iPod completely useless.
I switched from MP3 to ogg in 2003, and I'm not about to reburn hundreds of CDs just because Apple can't be bothered to include ogg support. They should have been supporting ogg years ago.
Jim Whitehurst is on the right side of this issue, and Apple would do well to pay attention.
"Second is it reasonable for a company to specify in their warranty that the OS shall be the installed OS and no-other than what they designate?"
It doesn't matter if they could have specified the OS, unless they actually did specify it.
Ask the manager to show you the portion of the warranty that imposes this restriction, or the portion that gives him freedom to impose arbitrary restrictions after the sale.
Prepare a document with your understanding of the situation, and the reasons your warranty claim is being denied.
Take the laptop, the document and a witness (and potentially an audio recorder) with you to the store.
Ask about the warranty claim again. Be sure you talk to the store manager. Show the manager the physical problem with the laptop. Explain that there is a physical problem with the laptop, and that the software is not involved.
Offer to retain the disk drive and get a replacement that doesn't have a disk drive.
Ask the manager to review your document, and tell you if you've got the details right. Correct the document as necessary so you can agree on the details.
Tell the manager that you intend to pursue your warranty claim.
Ask the manager to sign your document.
If the manager refuses to sign the document, have your witness sign it instead, stating that he observed the manager's refusal to sign.
I completely agree. Between home and work, I'm typically at my desk for 6-12 hours per day. I've been using a Logitech Trackman Marble or Marble+ for over ten years, without any trouble.
The ergonomics are great. When I stop moving the cursor, or finish clicking a button my hand is in a neutral position. I don't have to do anything to start using it again. With a mouse, I have to squeeze the sides then release it every time I move the cursor. If I use a mouse I find it really annoying, and notice my shoulder gets sore and my hand clinches up.
Nothing else compares. This is the one peripheral I take with me when I use a laptop. If I ever hear that Logitech is discontinuing the model I'll immediately track down a few spares to put in the closet.
"As we make Solaris more familiar to Linux users, we don't [want to] lose what makes it more compelling and competitive."
For those of us that missed the memo, what was it that made Solaris "compelling and competitive"?
Suggestion for your next version:
Once the laptop is identified as missing, the website answers with a trigger that enables audio recording and keysniffing. Instead of simply checking in every hour, it starts uploading recorded data.
"I'd love to marry a smart girl, but frankly they've been absolute bitches or completely uninterested in any male or female companionship."
The only common element to all your problems... is you.
You say that as if it doesn't already happen.
Other countries already have their own strict tabboos in place, with filtering. Child pornography, for instance.
"But I thought that in the eyes of the Federal Government we were all guilty of a crime anyway?"
Convenient that. Just like Original Sin, it means we all start off begging forgiveness.
Assumption: The company has plans to grow at the new location (else why did they move?)
If you take this job, say goodbye to programming for the duration. Maybe not right away, but eventually, you will have no time left to program at all.
As the company grows, the system administration tasks will grow. And you will always be the guy that knows the most about the systems.
Contextual knowledge will lock you into the role, because you know the system, and there isn't ever time to transfer all that knowledge to someone else, even if they do eventually hire a full time system administrator. There will still be things about the system setup where you are the most knowledgable person.
If you want to switch careers to system administration, this is your chance.
Slashdot Mirror
'The climate' is a complex system. Of course it's changing. Constantly. And of course there are trends in those changes. We get hung up arguing about how much the numbers are changing, when that's not even the interesting question.
The reason people take this issue so seriously is the idea that the system will run out of control if/when things get 'bad enough'.... That there's some sort of tipping point, after which things will somehow run wildly out of control. This is what we ought to be discussing. Instead we're yelling at one another about how much change we've seen and what it might mean.
We ought to be discussing things like positive vs negative feedback loops.
Instead, we've bickering over the numbers that people have seen on various gauges.
Linux runs on nearly everything, from micro controllers to super computers. The only place it isn't dominating the landscape is on the PC desktop, which is becoming less relevant with ubiquitous computing everywhere. People are carrying around multiple devices that each have more computing power than a desktop from 10 years ago, and this pattern is likely to continue. Linux doesn't appear to be in any danger of going away. Why should we be concerned if people want to keep using the same old operating systems that they've grown used to?
I meant it to be a real question. How does it impact your life if the people around you are using Windows, or Mac, or Linux operating systems? What options are closed to you because of their choices?
You might as well ask what it would take to get people to switch from religion A to religion B. You could point out all the similar features, and all the potential advantages to having more people use the same religious services, but it wouldn't help, and it's simply not going to happen.
People prefer the things they know, and regardless of everything else, change involves effort, so if there's not a really clear and significant benefit, why would anyone bother, just so you can be happier? Why do you care what religion or operating system someone else uses? How does it impact your life? Why does it matter to you?
Figure that out, and you can focus on the issues that are important to you.
Climatology has a bad reputation in part because there is the appearance of secrecy and insufficiently rigorous methodology, but also because there is self-evident inconsistent behaviour. We're told that there is a world-wide consensus among climatologists about how horrible this problem is, how we're all doomed, and how urgent it is to take immediate action. However, it's clear that they don't think it's serious enough to justify showing their work, warts and all. This leads people to conclude that they aren't all that serious about their soothsaying. They are still putting their own interests first, just like everyone else.
The world is full of people who say false things, why should we believe these claims? If their actions are inconsistent with their words, so much more reason to dismiss them. It's easy to dismiss climatologists as yet another false voice screaming for our attention. This is the age of scepticism.
If there were really a true consensus among tens of thousands of scientists, all in agreement that this was the single most important issue facing humanity, if they really all thought it needed immediate attention, they could pool their money, and walk us through the data on national television, graphs and all, like Ross Perot. If they were sure of their data, they could offer it up for free, beg us to look at it, and hold workshops every week at the public library to explain it, all in a selfless effort to bring climate literacy to the world. That's not happening, so it's natural to doubt the sincerity of their alleged consensus, and the claims that immediate action must be taken. Yeah yeah, we've heard it all before. Next?
Also, nature is full of self-regulating systems. Negative feedback cycles dominate all around us. Claims about runaway climate change or tipping points are extraordinary. Where is the extraordinary proof? If it is possible for the sky to fall, why didn't it happen some time millions of years ago? What makes right now so damned special?
Then there's all the abuse heaped on sceptics. If the climatologists are so damned sure of their science, why do they respond with such hate?
If the climatologists want to be taken seriously, they need to understand that doubt is natural, and act accordingly. This means they would need to hold themselves to a higher standard then those they disagree with, and avoid the damned shouting matches. If the issue is important to them, that's the cost of entry. We aren't going to retool the world economy overnight without getting massive bye-in, and that's not happening with the methods that have been attempted so far. What they propose would require widespread culture shift, which cannot be force.
"Pretty much all theoretical and observational evidence supports climate sensitivities larger than the no-feedback sensitivity, i.e., a positive feedback."
But only in the short term. This is like an eddy in the river. Sometimes water does flow uphill, but the general trend is that the river flows downhill and stays within the riverbanks. Over time, the river might shift, but rarely by accident.
Similarly, the climate changes, ice ages occur, droughts occur, but it tends to stay within certain bands.
"It's true that the climate system doesn't have a runaway positive feedback: when the response is large enough, the positive feedbacks weaken and the negative feedbacks strengthen."
Right, so the negative feedbacks are dominant. We all agree that climates change, that's obvious. It's also clear that they can change in ways we won't enjoy. The problem is when people claim to KNOW that there's a tipping point, and that they know where it is, and what causes it. This is just doomsday cultism, plain and simple.
The big question is "how much impact have we had on the climate?"
Rational discussion of that question is routinely sidelined.
"I've never understood why the group that believes we didn't do it think that means we can continue being oblivious."
That's because you haven't been listening. They don't think we "can continue being oblivious". They think something more like "our influence on the situation is insignificant" or "you there, with the ego, you're very funny".
All those ships we put in the ocean, they impact the tides, right? I mean, obviously, they displace water. Some of them displace many tons of water. Eek! High Tide! No shipping for a while! Hey, the tide went down, looks like we fixed it!
The alarm of climate change is based on the idea that positive feedback mechanisms will cause the climate to spin wildly out of control, that there's some "tipping point", and doom, doom, doom!
This is inconsistent with everything we know. Climate is dominated by negative feedback mechanisms. If you don't understand what I'm saying here, you don't deserve to participate in the conversation until you've come up to speed.
As for solar shades and other ideas.... Suppose we somehow managed to pull off something like that, and created a situation in which we have significant impact on climate. Who runs the thing? Politicians? A corporation? Majority vote, like the thermostat in the office? How secure is the system? What about maintenance?
"I'm a Project Manager who recently decided that I want/need to get my dev skills more up-to-date... Should I buy a number of cheaper PC's, or should I buy one monster machine and leverage virtual machine technology?"
You'll end up splitting your time between PM and development tasks, so you'll be coming up to speed for at least a year, and you simply won't need as much hardware as your developers. You won't be stressing your system as much as they stress theirs. With that in mind, consider spending the money on upgrading one of their systems, and using their old system for yourself. Ask them, they will know which of them could most use an upgrade.
If you end up with the best development system, you'll be seen as a pompous ass who thinks he's a developer, and you'll never get the support necessary to improve your skills.
So are programmers. And System Administrators. We've all colluded to drive up the price for our services, but it doesn't make any sense, because anyone could write their own software and maintain their own hardware. Right? ;-}
A. It isn't that obvious.
B. Sales occur more quickly when they are facilitated, specifically when the buyer and the seller do not interact directly. Because people get emotional and stupid.
You paint a rosy picture, but it misses the human interactions. If things were that simple we would see most sales occur without a Realtor involved. Part of the explanation is that the formalized process and intermediaries serve to insulate the buyer and seller, so they don't interact directly. Frequently when they do interact one or both will get emotional, say stupid things and the sale won't occur. As an example, a buyer will point out every little flaw they see in a house and the seller will say "Well, I won't sell to _them_ at any price!"
It isn't that the Realtor is necessary to the transaction, you've pointed out the obvious: transactions occur without them. It is that they facilitate the process, and these transactions are more likely to occur when they are facilitated. Most people find that this is worth paying for. For the sellers each month is another mortgage payment, and the buyers obviously want to move or they wouldn't be looking.
Technically, the seller isn't paying the buyer's agent. The seller pays the seller's agent, and the seller's agent pays the buyer's agent, as specified in the listing agreement. The seller's agent was free to offer a lower percentage in the listing agreement, but that tends to reduce the number of showings.
Things are never so clear cut that a buyer's agent could say "Well these two houses are completely equivalent except that one of them is offering me less commission, and they've dropped the price by the difference, so it looks like a better deal for you, but I'd get paid less." Instead, the buyer's agents are likely to have a large number of houses to show, and they'll just filter out anything that offers a low non-standard commission. Why cut their own pay?
As for liability, that's in the mix already, even if you aren't aware of it.
More details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listing_contract
"Why the hell should we provide them with mandated customers that have no choice but to buy from them?"
Indeed. Most of the states have been requiring mandatory (universal) liability insurance for automobiles for ages. Look how well that's turned out. The insurance companies have done pretty well. Prices have gone up considerably. And we still don't have universal coverage.
If they were actually serious about getting universal coverage for auto liability, they could just calculate (total payout/total fuels costs), attach insurance to the cost of fuel and solve it overnight. If you have fuel to drive, you're insured, the more you drive the more you pay, and there's yet another incentive to drive more fuel efficient cars. But this would not help the insurance companies at all.
Mandatory auto liability insurance was never about universal coverage. Mandatory health insurance is not the same as universal health care. It's about creating a mandatory customer base for the insurance companies.
Positives: Libertarian platform generally makes sense
Negatives: Way, way, way wrong on the war in Iraq, and therefore unelectable. Also many other unworkable and/or dangerous ideas"
I'm so curious to know what you think Paul's position was regarding the war in Iraq, and what makes it so wrong.
I'm also curious to know about these nameless other "unworkable and/or dangerous ideas".
You seem to be having trouble articulating the details. Are these your own thoughts, or has someone else put these ideas in your head?
We get corruption either way. The trick is to minimize it.
Right now we have secret voting and secret counting, and that doesn't seem to be working too well.
I switched from MP3 to ogg in 2003, and I'm not about to reburn hundreds of CDs just because Apple can't be bothered to include ogg support. They should have been supporting ogg years ago.
Jim Whitehurst is on the right side of this issue, and Apple would do well to pay attention.
It doesn't matter if they could have specified the OS, unless they actually did specify it.
Ask the manager to show you the portion of the warranty that imposes this restriction, or the portion that gives him freedom to impose arbitrary restrictions after the sale.
Advice:
The ergonomics are great. When I stop moving the cursor, or finish clicking a button my hand is in a neutral position. I don't have to do anything to start using it again. With a mouse, I have to squeeze the sides then release it every time I move the cursor. If I use a mouse I find it really annoying, and notice my shoulder gets sore and my hand clinches up.
Nothing else compares. This is the one peripheral I take with me when I use a laptop. If I ever hear that Logitech is discontinuing the model I'll immediately track down a few spares to put in the closet.
"As we make Solaris more familiar to Linux users, we don't [want to] lose what makes it more compelling and competitive." For those of us that missed the memo, what was it that made Solaris "compelling and competitive"?
It's even easier than that. Ctrl-Alt-Up / Ctrl-Alt-Down.
Suggestion for your next version: Once the laptop is identified as missing, the website answers with a trigger that enables audio recording and keysniffing. Instead of simply checking in every hour, it starts uploading recorded data.
Let me know when they add support for SELinux.
"I'd love to marry a smart girl, but frankly they've been absolute bitches or completely uninterested in any male or female companionship." The only common element to all your problems... is you.
You say that as if it doesn't already happen. Other countries already have their own strict tabboos in place, with filtering. Child pornography, for instance.
"But I thought that in the eyes of the Federal Government we were all guilty of a crime anyway?" Convenient that. Just like Original Sin, it means we all start off begging forgiveness.
Assumption: The company has plans to grow at the new location (else why did they move?)
If you take this job, say goodbye to programming for the duration. Maybe not right away, but eventually, you will have no time left to program at all.
As the company grows, the system administration tasks will grow. And you will always be the guy that knows the most about the systems.
Contextual knowledge will lock you into the role, because you know the system, and there isn't ever time to transfer all that knowledge to someone else, even if they do eventually hire a full time system administrator. There will still be things about the system setup where you are the most knowledgable person.
If you want to switch careers to system administration, this is your chance.
Quick, someone tell the government that the people don't like being taxed, maybe they will stop that too.