what we can do is to reduce the amount of CO2 produced by rich countries
If every rich country reduced their CO2 to zero it would not solve the problem.
well not sure if it would "solve" it or not but it would be a damn good start. It's not a binary thing which is solved or not. A 5C raise is worse than a 4C raise which is worse than a 3C raise which is, guess what, worse than a 2C raise. So if that reduce the temperature increase from 5 to 3C, it's a very good start.
Not sure why a per capita measure would be relevant/useful when discussing climate change. Especially when you say "you can do something". Nothing I do can affect per capita.
We can stop talking about per capita and talk about your own personal emissions if you prefer. Both are way too high to be sustainable. There are two ways to solve this issue.
1. We forbid you from emitting that much (market planing) 2. We make you pay for your emissions, and let you decide wether it's worth it or not to continue emitting that much
I prefer #2. You prefer to be able to continue to emit as much as you can for free, I get that. You can count yourself lucky the rest of the world allowed you to do that so far. Polluting their air without having any consequence.
reduced our energy demand , the prices would fall
I don't think demand can reasonably go down.
Well of course it can. But you don't want to. You (and others) are not willing to make the sacrifices required voluntarily. That's why we won't solve the problem with good faith. We need to force it.
I want a bigger home. Does that mean I shouldn't get it because my energy usage will go up?
From my point of view, you should only get it if you are willing to pay for the additionnal pollution cost of your new home. Your call.
I have already done what I can afford. I want a better life. It sounds like you are saying that I should forfeit that because I should share in an obscure sense of collective guilt (per capita).
It's not a collective guilt it's a personal guilt. You (as most people on this web site) are likely emitting way to much CO2. That wouldn't be so bad if you were paying for it, but you aren't.
People don't really choose where their power comes from; they just connect to a grid, and the grid is powered by whatever mix of power sources is available.
Of course. But the producers choose from various methods. Some pollute far more than others. If polluting is free, why would they choose the less polluting, more expensive option?
If your goal is to eliminate coal power, then skip the stupid tax and just pass a law banning coal power.
You prefer market planning over free market? The goal is not to eliminate coal. If somehow they can make it clean (say, by capturing the CO2) then why not. Let's have the market find the most optimal solution to the problem. But allowing them to pollute for free is stupid.
It's a lot more honest, and wastes a lot less money than adding more bureaucracy to collect more taxes.
The good news is that you could reduce other taxes instead and reduce bureaucracy instead of increasing it like you are suggesting with your ban.
if there were enough vehicles and infrastructure for people to actually be able to make the switch in huge numbers. Right now there isn't.
And there will never be as long as you can chose a cheaper, but more polluting gasoline car. Let's include the pollution cost in gas and let the market decide whether it's more efficient to use gas or electric cars.
That only works if $Y goes directly into some process that undoes the damage.
Nope. It doesn't even need to. It's more environementally efficient to do it, but it's not required. The added cost alone will discourage some polluters to pollute and that's exactly what we want.
But what we can do is to reduce the amount of CO2 produced by rich countries. As long as we produce more per capita than developing countries, they should even expect us to do so.
Nothing I can do will change the outcome of that fact.
Not technically true. If we drastically reduced our energy demand, the prices would fall, and then the poor could get it for cheaper. So yes, you can do something. Plus, it would reduce greenhouse gases emissions at the same time.
I agree with that, but Apple should at least be forced to allow the convenient installation of Spotify from outside their store. Just like Android does.
The whole point of reducing greenhouse gases emissions is that it is cheaper than the consequences of not doing it. Which will, by the way, affect the poor.
The real poor (as in under developed countries) use very little energy by the way. It's us, the rich (and you don't need to be that rich as long as you live in a rich country), with heated + air conditioned homes, hot water, green lawn, driving 20+ km to work in alone in their SUV and flying for vacations who do.
The problem of meat is not its energy density, but the amount of energy required to grow, especially beef and lamp. Pork and chicken are much better for the environment.
and all applicable state and federal taxes must be paid too
Haha good one. We all know they use loopholes to avoid paying these taxes. The outside customers don't have them on their bills so why would they charge it internally?
The TRUTH is, Spotify is ruining music in many ways by paying fractions of pennies in royalties. Some artists with millions of song plays have received on $80 for a year of royalties. Fix that, then stop trying to side step app store rules. They could be better and should be.
These artists are free NOT to be on Spotify if they think their music is worth more than that. I doubt Google/Deezer/Apple and other competitors are paying much more.
Dropbox integrates very well with several applications. I use it to share my Scrivener documents across platforms, including Linux/Wine, Windows, iOS and MacOS. Support is built into Scrivener to handle this seamlessly and with minimal fuss.
Sounds to me this is the wrong way of doing it. The integration should be at the OS/Virtual filesystem level. This way, any application could save a document to your cloud storage. You wouldn't need all your applications to integrate support for all cloud storage providers. Your document application shouldn't even need Internet access to begin with.
I also have several document viewers for iOS and Android which hook right into Dropbox to view documents of various kinds. Very handy for manuals and reference documents.
you mean as opposed to launching your cloud storage application and clicking the document you want to view, which will launch the associated viewer (in this case likely PDF viewer) automatically?
the fact that it has excellent selective syncing
Aren't they all doing it?
or having my photos overcompressed and stripped from metadata when uploaded
Is there a single competing cloud storage solution doing that? OK Google Photos overcompress (if you choose the unlimited free option) but doesn't strip meta data. Uploading to Google Drive or One Drive definitely don't overcompress and strip any metadata.
Well of course some people (mostly developers who need to compare with vanilla) do it, otherwise they wouldn't bother offering the binaries at all. I perfectly understand that. Some specific users might do it for a few specific programs. But I don't expect the average joe using a cloud drive to do that.
It doesn't try to be more than a cloud file storage, and that's wonderful.
Yes it does. It is a synchronization client, an updater, plus a cloud file storage.
The UNIX philosophy would have separated these 3 functions. You would use your distro's update mechanism (apt-get or other) to update a synchronization client which would support many different cloud file storage providers (dropbox, onedrive, google drive and others, including your own).
Also, to respect the UNIX philosophy, it definitely wouldn't come with a GUI.
OK well then you have no warranty it's going to work well with the other distros than the two officially supported. And it could break anytime in the future even if it works now.
Slashdot Mirror
Scrivener managing syncing is the only way to get reliable functionality
I doubt this claim. The OS could manage having the file off line plus syncing it reliably.
what we can do is to reduce the amount of CO2 produced by rich countries
If every rich country reduced their CO2 to zero it would not solve the problem.
well not sure if it would "solve" it or not but it would be a damn good start.
It's not a binary thing which is solved or not. A 5C raise is worse than a 4C raise which is worse than a 3C raise which is, guess what, worse than a 2C raise. So if that reduce the temperature increase from 5 to 3C, it's a very good start.
Not sure why a per capita measure would be relevant/useful when discussing climate change. Especially when you say "you can do something". Nothing I do can affect per capita.
We can stop talking about per capita and talk about your own personal emissions if you prefer. Both are way too high to be sustainable. There are two ways to solve this issue.
1. We forbid you from emitting that much (market planing)
2. We make you pay for your emissions, and let you decide wether it's worth it or not to continue emitting that much
I prefer #2. You prefer to be able to continue to emit as much as you can for free, I get that. You can count yourself lucky the rest of the world allowed you to do that so far. Polluting their air without having any consequence.
reduced our energy demand , the prices would fall
I don't think demand can reasonably go down.
Well of course it can. But you don't want to. You (and others) are not willing to make the sacrifices required voluntarily.
That's why we won't solve the problem with good faith. We need to force it.
I want a bigger home. Does that mean I shouldn't get it because my energy usage will go up?
From my point of view, you should only get it if you are willing to pay for the additionnal pollution cost of your new home. Your call.
I have already done what I can afford. I want a better life. It sounds like you are saying that I should forfeit that because I should share in an obscure sense of collective guilt (per capita).
It's not a collective guilt it's a personal guilt. You (as most people on this web site) are likely emitting way to much CO2. That wouldn't be so bad if you were paying for it, but you aren't.
People don't really choose where their power comes from; they just connect to a grid, and the grid is powered by whatever mix of power sources is available.
Of course. But the producers choose from various methods. Some pollute far more than others. If polluting is free, why would they choose the less polluting, more expensive option?
If your goal is to eliminate coal power, then skip the stupid tax and just pass a law banning coal power.
You prefer market planning over free market?
The goal is not to eliminate coal. If somehow they can make it clean (say, by capturing the CO2) then why not. Let's have the market find the most optimal solution to the problem. But allowing them to pollute for free is stupid.
It's a lot more honest, and wastes a lot less money than adding more bureaucracy to collect more taxes.
The good news is that you could reduce other taxes instead and reduce bureaucracy instead of increasing it like you are suggesting with your ban.
if there were enough vehicles and infrastructure for people to actually be able to make the switch in huge numbers. Right now there isn't.
And there will never be as long as you can chose a cheaper, but more polluting gasoline car. Let's include the pollution cost in gas and let the market decide whether it's more efficient to use gas or electric cars.
That only works if $Y goes directly into some process that undoes the damage.
Nope. It doesn't even need to. It's more environementally efficient to do it, but it's not required. The added cost alone will discourage some polluters to pollute and that's exactly what we want.
right, so just because we emit CO2 while breathing means we shouldn't tax cars or coal plants emitting many orders of magnitude more, right?
But what we can do is to reduce the amount of CO2 produced by rich countries. As long as we produce more per capita than developing countries, they should even expect us to do so.
Nothing I can do will change the outcome of that fact.
Not technically true. If we drastically reduced our energy demand, the prices would fall, and then the poor could get it for cheaper. So yes, you can do something. Plus, it would reduce greenhouse gases emissions at the same time.
OK it makes more sense. And of course the file might not even be cached yet.
I agree with that, but Apple should at least be forced to allow the convenient installation of Spotify from outside their store. Just like Android does.
Something to consider. If it's free of hard tradeoffs, it's not engineering.
The problem is that many people wants pollution to be free.
It should be a trade off. You emit X tons of CO2. You pay $Y.
The whole point of reducing greenhouse gases emissions is that it is cheaper than the consequences of not doing it. Which will, by the way, affect the poor.
The real poor (as in under developed countries) use very little energy by the way. It's us, the rich (and you don't need to be that rich as long as you live in a rich country), with heated + air conditioned homes, hot water, green lawn, driving 20+ km to work in alone in their SUV and flying for vacations who do.
you mean KDE takes over the file->open menu to offer opening via KIO?
The problem of meat is not its energy density, but the amount of energy required to grow, especially beef and lamp. Pork and chicken are much better for the environment.
and all applicable state and federal taxes must be paid too
Haha good one. We all know they use loopholes to avoid paying these taxes. The outside customers don't have them on their bills so why would they charge it internally?
The TRUTH is, Spotify is ruining music in many ways by paying fractions of pennies in royalties. Some artists with millions of song plays have received on $80 for a year of royalties. Fix that, then stop trying to side step app store rules. They could be better and should be.
These artists are free NOT to be on Spotify if they think their music is worth more than that.
I doubt Google/Deezer/Apple and other competitors are paying much more.
to Apple. Problem solved.
It seems since Gnome 3.18 they support various cloud providers equally (at least google drive).
From what I understand you could either save money or get more storage with Google.
Dropbox integrates very well with several applications. I use it to share my Scrivener documents across platforms, including Linux/Wine, Windows, iOS and MacOS. Support is built into Scrivener to handle this seamlessly and with minimal fuss.
Sounds to me this is the wrong way of doing it. The integration should be at the OS/Virtual filesystem level. This way, any application could save a document to your cloud storage. You wouldn't need all your applications to integrate support for all cloud storage providers. Your document application shouldn't even need Internet access to begin with.
I also have several document viewers for iOS and Android which hook right into Dropbox to view documents of various kinds. Very handy for manuals and reference documents.
you mean as opposed to launching your cloud storage application and clicking the document you want to view, which will launch the associated viewer (in this case likely PDF viewer) automatically?
the fact that it has excellent selective syncing
Aren't they all doing it?
or having my photos overcompressed and stripped from metadata when uploaded
Is there a single competing cloud storage solution doing that? OK Google Photos overcompress (if you choose the unlimited free option) but doesn't strip meta data. Uploading to Google Drive or One Drive definitely don't overcompress and strip any metadata.
If you value your privacy you don't use any of these cloud storage providers to begin with. You roll your own or at least keep the files encrypted.
there is a KIO for google drive in debian (kio-gdrive)
The obvious downside is that it won't work for non-KDE applications, isn't it?
Well of course some people (mostly developers who need to compare with vanilla) do it, otherwise they wouldn't bother offering the binaries at all.
I perfectly understand that. Some specific users might do it for a few specific programs.
But I don't expect the average joe using a cloud drive to do that.
It doesn't try to be more than a cloud file storage, and that's wonderful.
Yes it does. It is a synchronization client, an updater, plus a cloud file storage.
The UNIX philosophy would have separated these 3 functions. You would use your distro's update mechanism (apt-get or other) to update a synchronization client which would support many different cloud file storage providers (dropbox, onedrive, google drive and others, including your own).
Also, to respect the UNIX philosophy, it definitely wouldn't come with a GUI.
well, you are just giving me more reasons for not using hotmail/outlook.com
OK well then you have no warranty it's going to work well with the other distros than the two officially supported. And it could break anytime in the future even if it works now.
wait, is it only the installer/updater or the Dropbox client itself which is open source?
if it's open sourced, why don't they seek integration in Debian and other distros?