Oh you forgot an item between 3 and 4, "Degrade the performance and stability of existing products gradually with updates, so that people decide it's time for a switch."
Yeah, but their revenue is not my concern. I give shitall of a damn about it. My concern is having an OS that I can install on systems and have it run reliably and securely.
Matters are further complicated by the fact that what Vista actually is, isn't what they marketed. At least not initially, when they were marketing the beta for apparent years before the actual release. WinFS? And all those other features that'd have made Vista functional? Yeah, they don't exist.
Here's the thing I don't get about that. My school uses Blackboard, and Firefox doesn't work properly with it. Most of it does, but uploading files doesn't work because the JVM (granted, Sun fault) locks up while using the upload dialog. IE works fine, however.
However, it most certainly is a hotcake: people can't get rid of it fast enough.:)
Vista is a solution looking for a problem. Or maybe a problem looking for a solution - it's difficult to say, really. The fact is that Vista is not the OS that people have been waiting for from Microsoft since the inception of Windows 2000.
People don't want more bling in their OS. They are, in almost every subset of user, wanting something which Just Works. Since 1995, we've been bombarded with bling widget after bling widget - multimedia this, multimedia that. Even the candy-ass Fischer Price default theme of Windows XP was too much for most people. Most people are just fine with the Windows interface - and, if they're not (a characteristic usually shared with the ability to do something about it) there are plenty of shell replacements to chose from.
Yet, that is principally what Vista offers: more bling. It does not deliver on any of its meritous promises. It does not improve the underlying operating system to any significant degree. They've crawled out onto a massive monolythic limb and have decided to start chopping firewood by destroying the one thing that has made Windows dominant: its highly marketed user interface. People do not want to learn new things, as a rule, when it's useless to do so. In a way, this is an example of them being an enemy of their own success: the Windows interface has been so widely accepted that it's become standard and expected, and with it installed on the vast majority of machines, why change?
Techies, on the other hand, do not have such a luxury, as it is our job to learn these new things and make them work for everyone else. If they'd only promised on half of the underlying technologies (just fix the infrastructure and security/defaults, thanks), it would've captured the Windows XP market by storm.
Similarly, techies view Vista as just as much of a change to another OS, like MacOS or Linux, without having any of the benefits. What would you get? New incompatibilities and technology without any inherrent gain by switching operating systems. This is Microsoft's own fault - not only for ignoring what people (techies and users) want in their OS, but also for building up a single, monolythic product, unable to be disassociated from any of its individual components and accessories. Where would Linux be if, for every minor kernel release, there was an associated base distro, X, and wm release? Nowhere - probably stuck somewhere around 2.0 still.
I hate that by Kathy's own words, she isn't the same person, she'll never be the same person. It's a crime this happens to the good guys.
That's why "retreating" is the absolute last thing she should be doing. It will do her more emotional harm in the long run; its more than likely that no threat is actually intended, it's just meant to terrorize her and make her submit, anyway (why issue a death threat if you're planning to carry it out?).
The first thing I thought of when reading this was, "how are these people making the threats any different than the people issuing fatwahs against 'enemies of Islam'? I thought of a friend blogger, Anarchangel, who's had a fatwah issued against him.
His solution? Tell 'em off and make it known he's packing pistols. Over a year later and he's fine. I'd suggest she do the same, for her own safety. And don't back down, for goodness sake! That's what they're after - terroristic behavior is done to make you back down and give ground.
Apparently there are some folks out there who really don't like Java. I mean, I dislike the damn stuff myself, but I'm not crazy about it or anything...
There's nothing really strange at all about that loss of prestige. If you're required to report the minute-by-minute actions of your day to get paid for work you did, then you're being micro-managed. It is a demotion. It should pay more as a result; it's one more responsibility the employee has to base his or her day around, regardless how small it is.
For a 'professional' job, reporting your hours CAN be quite stifling to your work flow, particularly if it's a job where you perform creative tasks - like programming or design.
Yep, precisely. It'd be more accurate to conclude that MacOS and Linux distros are better at finding the problems - as indicative by a lower percentage being severe, and by a better (smaller) ratio of found/time to patch.
Nevermind that MS is now taking twice as long per vulnerability to patch than they were in the previous 6 month period.
I'm guessing this has nothing to do with the fact that Antivirus software, as it exists today, has little to no place on the Mac or Linux desktop, simply because the relative need is negated by those systems' inherently superior security mechanisms. By this I mean user accounts without world-write access that aren't completely disabled by default.
I'm really, really tired of this nonsense. Quite simply, these studies aren't conducted in a scientific manner. While they assess Microsoft's Windows' vulnerabilities, they don't take into account the vulnerabilities in things like ISS, MS SQL, et cetera, because they do not ship with Windows and are reported on forums such as SecurityFocus as different products. Meanwhile, they're including the vulnerabilities of the sum of the components on RedHat and using the same metrics for assessment. I suspect they're doing the exact same for MacOS - granted, I have no personal knowledge of whether or not Apple ships Apache, mysql, and the like with their OS, but I'd give the probability as High - at least significantly more software than is available from Microsoft. Assessing the vulnerability of their respective whole product, without adjusting for the product with the least common denominator (in terms of included software and ability) is, quite simply, dishonest.
The end result is that this is bad press for pretty much everyone but Microsoft. I imagine Apple and the various linux distributions could benefit greatly by making a 'core OS' release, while at the same time including their applications under the same warranty/service agreement, or marketing them as separate products unshackled from the OS, which you could then purchase bundled. IE, "RedHat Server" and "RedHat Desktop", and then you could bolt on "RedHat Web Server", "RedHat Database", etc. so that they could be assessed fairly in these 'studies'.
Question: why was Debian not on the top of that list? From everything I've seen, Debian has the fastest turnaround for patches for system-integral software, or close to it. They easily trump Microsoft in this regard. Yet, their software repository is massive, including most known open source software.
Aside from shooting the lawyers, the best way to mitigate the lawyers, I think, would be to get rid of the "MS GUI". That is, abstract it a little bit and make it an API-compatible theme engine, with the default looking different.
Furthermore, overpopulation isn't a problem (to say the least) in the 1st world; it's only a problem in 3rd world countries. Population levels in the 1st world are on the decline, not including the influx from immigration. Of course, the West sees fit to give massive handouts to these third world problems, extenuating the problem. You can not 'fix' over-population; it has to fix itself through a die out. Of course, the culture would need to right itself to support for further economic growth at that point, and it might be reasonable to step in and help them then, but not until.
The US has the most forrested land of any nation - or something like that. It is similar for countries such as Britain. If we can increase the standard of living world-wide (depopulation of over-populated areas being a necessary prerequisite), we can preseve more of the ecology. Western countries - the rich ones - have many, many more efforts to preserve plant and animal wildlife. In a country where surviving is a priority, they don't really care if they just ate the last Whatchamacallit.
Granted, some concensus would need to be made in the West to not consume as much; it would likely occur naturally as the worldwide economic level improves; I see this preferable to trying to alter the behavior of the West first (ie socialist manipulaiton), as its just asking for 3rd world countries to take advantage of the resulting economic depression. As an additional side-benefit, Western nations would become more self-sustaining, producing their necessary produce locally when the environment allows for it, decreasing international conflict.
FWIW, I think the "CO2 is cooking the earth" people are nuts. I've seen no substantial, let alone conclusive, evidence to support this claim.
Before a culture must change for the positive again, it must see the greivious errors in its ways from the top down - meaning, academics who teach about how to work within those cultures - elsewise the culture will continue to stagnate indefinately. This would probably be a cataclysmic failure in the industry, I'd guess - though we could get lucky and simply change our ways of operation through happenstance.
60% of the US?! I find that VERY hard to believe, given both how quickly CHina has been expanding and how extensive the pollution distributions I've seen have been over China. All those new 2-stroke scooter engines are somewhat more offensive in terms of CO2 than even my 8-cyl towncar.
The rate of carbon dioxide release is inconsequential. A single volcanic erruption releases more CO2 than humanity has since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
If you believe so strongly in decreasing CO2 release, then just don't drive your car. Don't eat meat (and go crazy as a result). Don't exercise too much, because that involves breathing - and that produces CO2 as well. YOu should also only eat raw, unprocessed foods, because the burning of wood to create heat (to cook your foods) will only result in more CO2 production. When you come down to it, the best solution for someone about CO2 prevailance would be to kill themselves shortly after reproduction - or before, if they've no concern for the longevity or variety of the human race.
Also, you're forgetting one important little fact: transference of energy. The earth does not perpetually warm. It loses heat through the various layers of the atmosphere into outter space, further contributing to the heat death of the universe.
In the history of climate research, scientists have seriously warned about global warming only once so far. The evidence is strong, the consequences are potentially devastating, and it appears to be happening faster than anybody initially thought.
Not so. My parents' generation (now 50) was told that if they didn't stop driving their gas guzzling cars NOW, the majority of the world would be desert by the time their children (me) reached 20. I'm a bit over 20 now, and the precipitation levels in the semi-arid area in which I live have been, while not record highs, quite a bit higher than in the previous decade.
Do you have any idea how many times the 'earth doomers' have said we were going to kill ourseles off? If not global warming, then global cooling, over-population, thermonuclear war, genetic (plant) modification, etc. - and all their projected times for extinction or some other cataclysmic life-ending event are well in the past. For instance, I distinctly recall hearing in elementary school that by the year 2000, the world would be too over-populated to feed itself. This, to gullible and impressionable kids! That's reprehensible.
So what if we've just had the warmest winter in years? That means absolutely nothing on its own, particularly when you consider the fact thta it's an El Nino (El Nina? I forget wihch is wihch) year, and that the respective seasons are going to be less severe. Maybe some people remember how mild last summer was? I don't believe there was a single day last summer when I didn't feel comfortable to wear long sleeves.
The reason global warming has no credibility is because of reactionaries, yes, but also because the arguments made have not been internally or scientificially consistent for 30 years. You cry wolf long enough bolstering your points with manipulated data, and nobody is going to believe a word you say. Whether it's 'global cooling' from 30 years ago, 'global warming' a year ago, or what they're calling 'global climate change' today (yeah, apparently calling it global warming or cooling doesn't work anymore, because nobody believes a word of it), it doesn't matter the slightest.
It's inconsequential to most people, in no small part to the fact that we've passed a dozen 'population extinction' dates for not only Earth becoming a huge desert, ocean, or desert, but claims that the world's population is going to surpass what the planet can provide (claims which often go hand-in-hand with the global warming hysteria). Nevermind the readily observeable information that while not only Earth's climate is getting warmer, so is Mar's - due to the rotational temperature changes in the Sun. IE, there's not a fucking thing we can do about it, and worrying about it, let alone doing anything for it, is just reactionary fear mongering.
"Global warming" is the Left's "imminent emergency" scenario which they utilize to the greatest political end economic manipulation as possible - just like the Right's "war on terror" is its "imminent emergency".
Freedom isn't an illusion; it is, however, relative to security.
Ask yourself this: will you feel comfortable with this level of surveilance when (not if) corporate interests start shaping your domestic policy? With 50 of the most powerful 100 economies being corporations, it's only a matter of time.
What I find interesting is that this is a bit of a novel way to circumvent sales tax. If you pay with a credit card at the register, you pay the local state sales tax (here it's 5.6% or something like that), but if you pay for it at the computer 5 feet away with your credit card and then pick it up from the front desk, somehow you don't have to pay that sales tax.
I wonder if sales tax somehow requires them to charge more locally, due to the need to make more per sale due to make the same amount.
I should note I've not bought anything online myself for quite some time - am I talking out of my ass due to sales tax legislation requiring online sales to be taxed now?
You're incorrect. According to wikipedia, Islamic/Arabic satan (not Iranian - the Iranians/Persians speak Farsi and other regional languages):
While the shayn (, from the root sn ) is a noun and an adjective as well. As a noun and as an adjective it means "the adversary" or "the enemy" or "the opponent" and just as an adjective it means "evil". This can be applied to both Human ("al-Ins", ) and Jinn ("al-Jinn", ).
I worked with a guy once who called "et see" instead of the historical "et cetera". Ironically, he'd supposedly (I doubted the veracity of his claims based on his relative level of knowledge - or lack thereof) been working with Linux/Unix for longer than I.
The first time he said "et see" it took him a good five minutes to explain to me what he was talking about, because he lacked the verbal skill required for sentences. And I eventually gave up saying "et cetera" in preference over "et see" - because he would ask me what I was talking about almost every single time.
This is the "no shit" moment where everyone who has been saying that the "sky is falling, and it's your fault" proponents are out of their minds.
I'm not denying that burning carbon-based fuels is bad for the ecology. I'm not denying that polution sucks, and that we over-consume. I accept all these things - but they aren't causing any sort of significant climate change. There simply isn't any correlation between temperature and CO2/etc. production.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh you forgot an item between 3 and 4, "Degrade the performance and stability of existing products gradually with updates, so that people decide it's time for a switch."
Yeah, but their revenue is not my concern. I give shitall of a damn about it. My concern is having an OS that I can install on systems and have it run reliably and securely.
Matters are further complicated by the fact that what Vista actually is, isn't what they marketed. At least not initially, when they were marketing the beta for apparent years before the actual release. WinFS? And all those other features that'd have made Vista functional? Yeah, they don't exist.
Here's the thing I don't get about that. My school uses Blackboard, and Firefox doesn't work properly with it. Most of it does, but uploading files doesn't work because the JVM (granted, Sun fault) locks up while using the upload dialog. IE works fine, however.
Granted, not with Vista - with XP.
However, it most certainly is a hotcake: people can't get rid of it fast enough. :)
Vista is a solution looking for a problem. Or maybe a problem looking for a solution - it's difficult to say, really. The fact is that Vista is not the OS that people have been waiting for from Microsoft since the inception of Windows 2000.
People don't want more bling in their OS. They are, in almost every subset of user, wanting something which Just Works. Since 1995, we've been bombarded with bling widget after bling widget - multimedia this, multimedia that. Even the candy-ass Fischer Price default theme of Windows XP was too much for most people. Most people are just fine with the Windows interface - and, if they're not (a characteristic usually shared with the ability to do something about it) there are plenty of shell replacements to chose from.
Yet, that is principally what Vista offers: more bling. It does not deliver on any of its meritous promises. It does not improve the underlying operating system to any significant degree. They've crawled out onto a massive monolythic limb and have decided to start chopping firewood by destroying the one thing that has made Windows dominant: its highly marketed user interface. People do not want to learn new things, as a rule, when it's useless to do so. In a way, this is an example of them being an enemy of their own success: the Windows interface has been so widely accepted that it's become standard and expected, and with it installed on the vast majority of machines, why change?
Techies, on the other hand, do not have such a luxury, as it is our job to learn these new things and make them work for everyone else. If they'd only promised on half of the underlying technologies (just fix the infrastructure and security/defaults, thanks), it would've captured the Windows XP market by storm.
Similarly, techies view Vista as just as much of a change to another OS, like MacOS or Linux, without having any of the benefits. What would you get? New incompatibilities and technology without any inherrent gain by switching operating systems. This is Microsoft's own fault - not only for ignoring what people (techies and users) want in their OS, but also for building up a single, monolythic product, unable to be disassociated from any of its individual components and accessories. Where would Linux be if, for every minor kernel release, there was an associated base distro, X, and wm release? Nowhere - probably stuck somewhere around 2.0 still.
Dude, you're hillarious. I almost fell out of my chair reading that!
I hate that by Kathy's own words, she isn't the same person, she'll never be the same person. It's a crime this happens to the good guys.
That's why "retreating" is the absolute last thing she should be doing. It will do her more emotional harm in the long run; its more than likely that no threat is actually intended, it's just meant to terrorize her and make her submit, anyway (why issue a death threat if you're planning to carry it out?).
The first thing I thought of when reading this was, "how are these people making the threats any different than the people issuing fatwahs against 'enemies of Islam'? I thought of a friend blogger, Anarchangel, who's had a fatwah issued against him.
His solution? Tell 'em off and make it known he's packing pistols. Over a year later and he's fine. I'd suggest she do the same, for her own safety. And don't back down, for goodness sake! That's what they're after - terroristic behavior is done to make you back down and give ground.
Apparently there are some folks out there who really don't like Java. I mean, I dislike the damn stuff myself, but I'm not crazy about it or anything...
There's nothing really strange at all about that loss of prestige. If you're required to report the minute-by-minute actions of your day to get paid for work you did, then you're being micro-managed. It is a demotion. It should pay more as a result; it's one more responsibility the employee has to base his or her day around, regardless how small it is.
For a 'professional' job, reporting your hours CAN be quite stifling to your work flow, particularly if it's a job where you perform creative tasks - like programming or design.
Yep, precisely. It'd be more accurate to conclude that MacOS and Linux distros are better at finding the problems - as indicative by a lower percentage being severe, and by a better (smaller) ratio of found/time to patch.
Nevermind that MS is now taking twice as long per vulnerability to patch than they were in the previous 6 month period.
I'm guessing this has nothing to do with the fact that Antivirus software, as it exists today, has little to no place on the Mac or Linux desktop, simply because the relative need is negated by those systems' inherently superior security mechanisms. By this I mean user accounts without world-write access that aren't completely disabled by default.
Would that be a string primitive or a String object?
I'm really, really tired of this nonsense. Quite simply, these studies aren't conducted in a scientific manner. While they assess Microsoft's Windows' vulnerabilities, they don't take into account the vulnerabilities in things like ISS, MS SQL, et cetera, because they do not ship with Windows and are reported on forums such as SecurityFocus as different products. Meanwhile, they're including the vulnerabilities of the sum of the components on RedHat and using the same metrics for assessment. I suspect they're doing the exact same for MacOS - granted, I have no personal knowledge of whether or not Apple ships Apache, mysql, and the like with their OS, but I'd give the probability as High - at least significantly more software than is available from Microsoft. Assessing the vulnerability of their respective whole product, without adjusting for the product with the least common denominator (in terms of included software and ability) is, quite simply, dishonest.
The end result is that this is bad press for pretty much everyone but Microsoft. I imagine Apple and the various linux distributions could benefit greatly by making a 'core OS' release, while at the same time including their applications under the same warranty/service agreement, or marketing them as separate products unshackled from the OS, which you could then purchase bundled. IE, "RedHat Server" and "RedHat Desktop", and then you could bolt on "RedHat Web Server", "RedHat Database", etc. so that they could be assessed fairly in these 'studies'.
Question: why was Debian not on the top of that list? From everything I've seen, Debian has the fastest turnaround for patches for system-integral software, or close to it. They easily trump Microsoft in this regard. Yet, their software repository is massive, including most known open source software.
Aside from shooting the lawyers, the best way to mitigate the lawyers, I think, would be to get rid of the "MS GUI". That is, abstract it a little bit and make it an API-compatible theme engine, with the default looking different.
Furthermore, overpopulation isn't a problem (to say the least) in the 1st world; it's only a problem in 3rd world countries. Population levels in the 1st world are on the decline, not including the influx from immigration. Of course, the West sees fit to give massive handouts to these third world problems, extenuating the problem. You can not 'fix' over-population; it has to fix itself through a die out. Of course, the culture would need to right itself to support for further economic growth at that point, and it might be reasonable to step in and help them then, but not until.
The US has the most forrested land of any nation - or something like that. It is similar for countries such as Britain. If we can increase the standard of living world-wide (depopulation of over-populated areas being a necessary prerequisite), we can preseve more of the ecology. Western countries - the rich ones - have many, many more efforts to preserve plant and animal wildlife. In a country where surviving is a priority, they don't really care if they just ate the last Whatchamacallit.
Granted, some concensus would need to be made in the West to not consume as much; it would likely occur naturally as the worldwide economic level improves; I see this preferable to trying to alter the behavior of the West first (ie socialist manipulaiton), as its just asking for 3rd world countries to take advantage of the resulting economic depression. As an additional side-benefit, Western nations would become more self-sustaining, producing their necessary produce locally when the environment allows for it, decreasing international conflict.
FWIW, I think the "CO2 is cooking the earth" people are nuts. I've seen no substantial, let alone conclusive, evidence to support this claim.
Before a culture must change for the positive again, it must see the greivious errors in its ways from the top down - meaning, academics who teach about how to work within those cultures - elsewise the culture will continue to stagnate indefinately. This would probably be a cataclysmic failure in the industry, I'd guess - though we could get lucky and simply change our ways of operation through happenstance.
I don't think it likely.
60% of the US?! I find that VERY hard to believe, given both how quickly CHina has been expanding and how extensive the pollution distributions I've seen have been over China. All those new 2-stroke scooter engines are somewhat more offensive in terms of CO2 than even my 8-cyl towncar.
The rate of carbon dioxide release is inconsequential. A single volcanic erruption releases more CO2 than humanity has since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
If you believe so strongly in decreasing CO2 release, then just don't drive your car. Don't eat meat (and go crazy as a result). Don't exercise too much, because that involves breathing - and that produces CO2 as well. YOu should also only eat raw, unprocessed foods, because the burning of wood to create heat (to cook your foods) will only result in more CO2 production. When you come down to it, the best solution for someone about CO2 prevailance would be to kill themselves shortly after reproduction - or before, if they've no concern for the longevity or variety of the human race.
Also, you're forgetting one important little fact: transference of energy. The earth does not perpetually warm. It loses heat through the various layers of the atmosphere into outter space, further contributing to the heat death of the universe.
In the history of climate research, scientists have seriously warned about global warming only once so far. The evidence is strong, the consequences are potentially devastating, and it appears to be happening faster than anybody initially thought.
Not so. My parents' generation (now 50) was told that if they didn't stop driving their gas guzzling cars NOW, the majority of the world would be desert by the time their children (me) reached 20. I'm a bit over 20 now, and the precipitation levels in the semi-arid area in which I live have been, while not record highs, quite a bit higher than in the previous decade.
Do you have any idea how many times the 'earth doomers' have said we were going to kill ourseles off? If not global warming, then global cooling, over-population, thermonuclear war, genetic (plant) modification, etc. - and all their projected times for extinction or some other cataclysmic life-ending event are well in the past. For instance, I distinctly recall hearing in elementary school that by the year 2000, the world would be too over-populated to feed itself. This, to gullible and impressionable kids! That's reprehensible.
So what if we've just had the warmest winter in years? That means absolutely nothing on its own, particularly when you consider the fact thta it's an El Nino (El Nina? I forget wihch is wihch) year, and that the respective seasons are going to be less severe. Maybe some people remember how mild last summer was? I don't believe there was a single day last summer when I didn't feel comfortable to wear long sleeves.
The reason global warming has no credibility is because of reactionaries, yes, but also because the arguments made have not been internally or scientificially consistent for 30 years. You cry wolf long enough bolstering your points with manipulated data, and nobody is going to believe a word you say. Whether it's 'global cooling' from 30 years ago, 'global warming' a year ago, or what they're calling 'global climate change' today (yeah, apparently calling it global warming or cooling doesn't work anymore, because nobody believes a word of it), it doesn't matter the slightest.
It's inconsequential to most people, in no small part to the fact that we've passed a dozen 'population extinction' dates for not only Earth becoming a huge desert, ocean, or desert, but claims that the world's population is going to surpass what the planet can provide (claims which often go hand-in-hand with the global warming hysteria). Nevermind the readily observeable information that while not only Earth's climate is getting warmer, so is Mar's - due to the rotational temperature changes in the Sun. IE, there's not a fucking thing we can do about it, and worrying about it, let alone doing anything for it, is just reactionary fear mongering.
"Global warming" is the Left's "imminent emergency" scenario which they utilize to the greatest political end economic manipulation as possible - just like the Right's "war on terror" is its "imminent emergency".
Freedom isn't an illusion; it is, however, relative to security.
Ask yourself this: will you feel comfortable with this level of surveilance when (not if) corporate interests start shaping your domestic policy? With 50 of the most powerful 100 economies being corporations, it's only a matter of time.
What I find interesting is that this is a bit of a novel way to circumvent sales tax. If you pay with a credit card at the register, you pay the local state sales tax (here it's 5.6% or something like that), but if you pay for it at the computer 5 feet away with your credit card and then pick it up from the front desk, somehow you don't have to pay that sales tax.
I wonder if sales tax somehow requires them to charge more locally, due to the need to make more per sale due to make the same amount.
I should note I've not bought anything online myself for quite some time - am I talking out of my ass due to sales tax legislation requiring online sales to be taxed now?
You're incorrect. According to wikipedia, Islamic/Arabic satan (not Iranian - the Iranians/Persians speak Farsi and other regional languages):
While the shayn (, from the root sn ) is a noun and an adjective as well. As a noun and as an adjective it means "the adversary" or "the enemy" or "the opponent" and just as an adjective it means "evil". This can be applied to both Human ("al-Ins", ) and Jinn ("al-Jinn", ).
I worked with a guy once who called "et see" instead of the historical "et cetera". Ironically, he'd supposedly (I doubted the veracity of his claims based on his relative level of knowledge - or lack thereof) been working with Linux/Unix for longer than I.
The first time he said "et see" it took him a good five minutes to explain to me what he was talking about, because he lacked the verbal skill required for sentences. And I eventually gave up saying "et cetera" in preference over "et see" - because he would ask me what I was talking about almost every single time.
God I'm glad I don't work with him anymore.
This is the "no shit" moment where everyone who has been saying that the "sky is falling, and it's your fault" proponents are out of their minds.
I'm not denying that burning carbon-based fuels is bad for the ecology. I'm not denying that polution sucks, and that we over-consume. I accept all these things - but they aren't causing any sort of significant climate change. There simply isn't any correlation between temperature and CO2/etc. production.