*Tubby little six year old kid walks into a bodybuilder gym and tries to run through a workout designed for a guy who's big enough to be five of him and has been working at his physique for a decade or more*
And as to my subject. GAH! What a moronic non-argument.
Instead of saying "I don't like you method but yeah, you're right." he sits there and tries to verbally strip the humanity from Michael.
Why?
Because it's MUCH easier to hate someone and steal what is theirs when they're not human. They don't, then, have the same rights or privileges as as "us real humans".
Yet again, a major figure in the free software movement making a complete and utter jackass spectacle of himself in public.
Google "Great Global Warming Swindle". Watch the program.
That's about the fastest way to expose you to this.
And nothing about my responses are "knee-jerk".
And, as I've said, I'm not suggesting NOTHING be done. I'm in favor of action. Carefully considered and planned. With implementations that we KNOW will work. Not simple running around with our heads cut off in the effort to "do SOMETHING!!!!"
And, again, instead of attacking what I'm saying and providing proof that I'm wrong, you're attacking ME.
Debatable, and probably false. As explained above, variations of CO2 and temperature are expected to be mutually re-inforcing, in a positive feedback loop (together with some as yet unknown additional processes). The timing (phasing) of changes in such a system may provide important information about how the system works. However, the timing of changes in CO2 (which is measured in the gas bubbles) and of temperature (measured in the ice) in ice core data must be treated with caution, because there is an offset in their ages. This arises because the air bubbles do not close off immediately after deposition, but only as the snow becomes sufficiently compacted. A timescale correction for this effect (which causes the air to be "younger" than the ice) needs to be applied, and this has to be estimated from models, and is not precisely known. Any error in this correction may cause the timing information to be unreliable."
In essence, all he's saying "trust us, don't trust them".
If it's debateable DEBATE it like he did in other areas. Provide facts and figures. Why did he simply slur it?
"Please propose a scientifically reasonable solution as to what is causing global warming if it's not human based"
Natural event?
What about stuff like the evidence that the CO2 levels TRAIL the warming trend, as opposed to PRECEDING it.
And, apparently one of my addendum posts somehow didn't make it through. Funny how that happens I'll reiterate.
1: I'm not against cleaning up after ourselves. It's simple good ecology.
2: I'm not against moving to cleaner, renewable energy sources.
What I AM against is the radical notion that we can simply go cold-turkey on cessation of industrial and agriculture-based pollutants.
Well, at the ultimate extreme, we COULD. However, we'd destroy the global economy and likely pull down civilization as we know it.
Now the rabid anti-capitalist/anti-industrialist looks at this and goes "Good!"
Those with more mundane agendas (living to old age, having enough to eat, not having to kill off marauders to protect what's yours...) this is a rotten fucking idea.
This change is going to have to be gradual if we want to preserve our way of life.
And, as it wouldn't make any difference (as to environmental impact) if we DID go cold-turkey or not, we are under a civil obligation to make the transition in a way that the transition itself hurts as few people as possible.
And no. I'm REALLY not surprised that my post was modded down to zero.
A lot of people really don't want to hear this stuff. So they'll do anything they can to make sure they don't.
"This is another wake up call for governments, industry and individuals. We now have a clearer indication of the potential impact of global warming, some of which is already inevitable,"
Okay, first off, I'll pretend I fully buy into the "human-caused global warming" schtick. I don't. We may be CONTRIBUTORS, but not the root cause. But anyhoo, I'll bite in the "human-caused" thing for the sake of argument.
Even if the human race were to cease all industrial and agricultural output of greenhouse gas NOW (this very second), it wouldn't make a bit of difference in the warming trend. The material we've put in the atmosphere will continue this trend for at least the next century. So what exactly do they expect people to do?
People are going to have to do what they've always done when their environment gets hostile. Adapt.
"Here's the problem with that: even if we started cutting back our CO2 output (disregarding all of the other pollution we put out that's causing us problems now) by 1% cumulative per year it would still be a long time before we stopped putting out more CO2 than the system can ordinarily handle."
Considering that nobody knows what "ordinary" is, it's kinda hyperbolic of you to put this forth.
Also there's the fact that its quite possible that the CO2 levels are actually an effect of global warming and not vice versa. You know, the planet warms up, the oceans (think BIG CO2 sink) release more CO2.
Oh wait. I can't talk about that! Taboo! Must silence me because I don't scream doom about global warming! I must be a global warming denier.
Sorry to say, I'm not. I believe global warming is happening. I just don't believe the radical view that humans are the primary cause.
"Even if we stopped emitting CO2 today, aside from that which is absolutely necessary, there would still be too much CO2 for quite some time to come."
Especially since it's still being released by sources outside of our control.
"but coral reefs have been hurting badly and the acidification of the ocean due to CO2 gas exchange is implicated."
Please tell me you have some cockeyed plan for cooling the oceans to slow down the CO2 release from the gradual warming.
God I need a laugh.
"CO2 is also toxic and even small increments in the percentage of the atmosphere it makes up causes health problems including dizziness, nausea, and general malaise."
Small increments? The concentrations you're talking about are so far in excess of where even catastrophic CO2 scenarios place levels that we'd need several HUNDRED years of ever increasing CO2 output (and sustained, spiked warming trending) to reach that level.
"The point is that we really needed this technology decades ago, and we're already late on getting started using it. "
Just like we "needed" asbestos for a flame retardant. Just like we "needed" lead in gas and paint. Just like we needed thalidomide as a sleep aid for pregnant women.
Or do you mean "like we needed 45 nanometer IC technology back in the 50's"?
You can't rush materials technology. Developing useful technologies takes lots of time, money, and effort. Trying to force a "breakthrough" just winds up sending you down dead ends. In some cases, "dead" is more than just a euphemistic turn of phrase.
"I cannot disagree strongly enough."
But strength of conviction doesn't equal strength of argument.
"If we could actually follow the so-called radical agenda, which I like to call the rational agenda"
Radicals always do...
You said it yourself. Completely turning off consumption of fossil fuels and other pollutants isn't going to fix this problem now. Or even in the near future. Or even in most people's lifetimes.
BUT, going cold-turkey on it right now would have one major effect. It'd destroy civilization as we know it. There are NO viable replacements IN PLACE RIGHT NOW.
Yeah, it's every anti-capitalist, anti-corporate, anti-industrialist's dream. But for just about everyone else who's taken at least two seconds to look at it OBJECTIVELY, the very idea SUCKS. And there's no government in the world, no matter HOW crazy, that'd go for it. And since it'd take government intervention to stop the private sector...
"since we all live in the atmosphere and we will all suffer if it becomes less hospitable to human life"
IF.
Howsabout this?
""Since we all live in the atmosphere and we will suffer if an asteroid crashes into the planet.""
"But without them asking for a certain level of change, we would be unlikely to have even the positive change we are currently implementing."
Don't have a very high opinion of your fellow man do you?
Again, what does Microsoft care about the HARDWARE sales?
Again, you still have an XP license that was somehow PAID FOR. And you bought a couple of Windows-only apps to run inside of Parallels.
MOREOVER, you're one of the group of people for whom Microsoft doesn't work. Fine, cool, good for you!
You're STILL in the minority. I'm not saying that to attack you or impugn your choice. I'm merely quoting statistical reality.
"How are they going to win me back?"
Did you miss the part where I said they don't give a shit?
You're already a converted Mac faithful and anti-Windows already from poor past experience.
Granted, they'd LIKE to win you over. But their efforts are better spent sucking cash out of a few thousand newbs who don't have your negative experiences.
Translation: You MIGHT equate out to a few thousand dollars in software sales...personally. With a thousand new customers, they recoup that cost several times over.
Again, running Windows XP/etc in Parallels and using Windows apps on the Parallels install doesn't hurt Microsoft AT ALL. The products were already bought and paid for.
I really don't have a problem with anything you're saying. You went Mac, found you liked could use the environment, and transitioned. Additionally, you were coming from a Linux background and could more fully utilize the system than some of the "It playz my em-pee-trees bettah" crowd.
I'm just sick and tired of people characterizing this situation (where you could find both systems and their apps) on a single machine as some huge dicksizing match between Microsoft and Apple.
"If people moves to Apple, then they will also start buying OS-X apps, and thus the Windows market will get smaller."
Additionally, the market isn't a stagnant number. It's certainly not shrinking. Would you really care about the one that go away if you had ten or a hundred more just like them knocking on your door?
If people move to Apple, they start buying OS-X apps. Win for Apple. It doesn't necessarily follow that they stop buying Windows apps. ESPECIALLY if they have a "rescue copy" of Windows installed in Parallels.
"In time they might even drop parallels"
MIGHT. But, on the front end, Microsoft's already got their money.
"And they for sure will not buy the big Windows"
This is your supposition, nothing more.
"They just need it for a few apps."
And if they're core apps that they're using regularly, they'll still wind up spending more time in Windows than in OS-X. What's Apple going to do when they want Office. Sell them ANOTHER copy of Office that runs on OS-X? Wow. Microsoft just made money for the same product twice!
"And MS makes lots of money on server products."
However, their bread and butter is still Office.
"If more people are on OS-X desktops, then the servers will soon fall as well."
Yeah. Whole chunks of the IT sector are just going to give up their choice of multiple servers (hardware and software) to step down to an X-Serve.
You bought something MacOS. Yay for you! YOU REBEL!
Now you use Parallels and buy a copy of Windows to put in there.
GAME OVER.
*MICROSOFT* doesn't care what HARDWARE you run their OS on. Running Parallels on a Mac doesn't hurt MICROSOFT in the slightest.
Both Apple AND Microsoft pull a profit off this. Microsoft even moreso, since Mac heads are likely to buy a RETAIL copy of the OS, meaning higher margins for Redmond than they'd get from a traditional OEM copy.
Who it's a mark against? The other PC vendors.
Seriously. Why does everyone turn stupid non-issues like this into a zip-gun fight between Redmond and Cupertino?
Well. My system, a Latitude 120L has had the shitty Broadcom "AirForce One" wireless mini-PCI card pulled out. I replaced it with an Intel 2200BG. On Feisty it just worked straight out. After all the pain in the butt I went through with getting it working on 6.06 and 6.10, I was practically spooging my pants when wireless just came straight up and I got a list of APs to connect to.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, that's not true at all. You just aren't familiar with the competition.
Yup. That guy and his peashooter are a major threat to me and my Abrams tank!
Hmm. Machine gun (.50 cal or one of the two 7.62mm) or the M256?
Bah! Waste of ammo.
*Rolls over the top of popgun-boy at 60mph*
*Tubby little six year old kid walks into a bodybuilder gym and tries to run through a workout designed for a guy who's big enough to be five of him and has been working at his physique for a decade or more*
"Sub reactors are tiny."
Okay then. What about the reactors in some of our Navy's aircraft carriers?
They sure as hell aren't "tiny" by any stretch of the imagination.
I agree with you.
And as to my subject. GAH! What a moronic non-argument.
Instead of saying "I don't like you method but yeah, you're right." he sits there and tries to verbally strip the humanity from Michael.
Why?
Because it's MUCH easier to hate someone and steal what is theirs when they're not human. They don't, then, have the same rights or privileges as as "us real humans".
Yet again, a major figure in the free software movement making a complete and utter jackass spectacle of himself in public.
Google "Great Global Warming Swindle". Watch the program.
That's about the fastest way to expose you to this.
And nothing about my responses are "knee-jerk".
And, as I've said, I'm not suggesting NOTHING be done. I'm in favor of action. Carefully considered and planned. With implementations that we KNOW will work. Not simple running around with our heads cut off in the effort to "do SOMETHING!!!!"
And, again, instead of attacking what I'm saying and providing proof that I'm wrong, you're attacking ME.
That, in and of itself, speaks volumes.
From your own link.
Debatable, and probably false. As explained above, variations of CO2 and temperature are expected to be mutually re-inforcing, in a positive feedback loop (together with some as yet unknown additional processes). The timing (phasing) of changes in such a system may provide important information about how the system works. However, the timing of changes in CO2 (which is measured in the gas bubbles) and of temperature (measured in the ice) in ice core data must be treated with caution, because there is an offset in their ages. This arises because the air bubbles do not close off immediately after deposition, but only as the snow becomes sufficiently compacted. A timescale correction for this effect (which causes the air to be "younger" than the ice) needs to be applied, and this has to be estimated from models, and is not precisely known. Any error in this correction may cause the timing information to be unreliable."
In essence, all he's saying "trust us, don't trust them".
If it's debateable DEBATE it like he did in other areas. Provide facts and figures. Why did he simply slur it?
I don't disagree that we should begin lowering the emissions we produce. I never HAVE disagreed with that.
Yes. You've seen "Al Gore Goes To Hollywood".
What about the evidence that the CO2 levels actually TRAIL the warming trend as opposed to heralding it?
"Please propose a scientifically reasonable solution as to what is causing global warming if it's not human based"
Natural event?
What about stuff like the evidence that the CO2 levels TRAIL the warming trend, as opposed to PRECEDING it.
And, apparently one of my addendum posts somehow didn't make it through. Funny how that happens I'll reiterate.
1: I'm not against cleaning up after ourselves. It's simple good ecology.
2: I'm not against moving to cleaner, renewable energy sources.
What I AM against is the radical notion that we can simply go cold-turkey on cessation of industrial and agriculture-based pollutants.
Well, at the ultimate extreme, we COULD. However, we'd destroy the global economy and likely pull down civilization as we know it.
Now the rabid anti-capitalist/anti-industrialist looks at this and goes "Good!"
Those with more mundane agendas (living to old age, having enough to eat, not having to kill off marauders to protect what's yours...) this is a rotten fucking idea.
This change is going to have to be gradual if we want to preserve our way of life.
And, as it wouldn't make any difference (as to environmental impact) if we DID go cold-turkey or not, we are under a civil obligation to make the transition in a way that the transition itself hurts as few people as possible.
And no. I'm REALLY not surprised that my post was modded down to zero.
A lot of people really don't want to hear this stuff. So they'll do anything they can to make sure they don't.
"This is another wake up call for governments, industry and individuals. We now have a clearer indication of the potential impact of global warming, some of which is already inevitable,"
Okay, first off, I'll pretend I fully buy into the "human-caused global warming" schtick. I don't. We may be CONTRIBUTORS, but not the root cause. But anyhoo, I'll bite in the "human-caused" thing for the sake of argument.
Even if the human race were to cease all industrial and agricultural output of greenhouse gas NOW (this very second), it wouldn't make a bit of difference in the warming trend. The material we've put in the atmosphere will continue this trend for at least the next century. So what exactly do they expect people to do?
People are going to have to do what they've always done when their environment gets hostile. Adapt.
"Here's the problem with that: even if we started cutting back our CO2 output (disregarding all of the other pollution we put out that's causing us problems now) by 1% cumulative per year it would still be a long time before we stopped putting out more CO2 than the system can ordinarily handle."
Considering that nobody knows what "ordinary" is, it's kinda hyperbolic of you to put this forth.
Also there's the fact that its quite possible that the CO2 levels are actually an effect of global warming and not vice versa. You know, the planet warms up, the oceans (think BIG CO2 sink) release more CO2.
Oh wait. I can't talk about that! Taboo! Must silence me because I don't scream doom about global warming! I must be a global warming denier.
Sorry to say, I'm not. I believe global warming is happening. I just don't believe the radical view that humans are the primary cause.
"Even if we stopped emitting CO2 today, aside from that which is absolutely necessary, there would still be too much CO2 for quite some time to come."
Especially since it's still being released by sources outside of our control.
"but coral reefs have been hurting badly and the acidification of the ocean due to CO2 gas exchange is implicated."
Please tell me you have some cockeyed plan for cooling the oceans to slow down the CO2 release from the gradual warming.
God I need a laugh.
"CO2 is also toxic and even small increments in the percentage of the atmosphere it makes up causes health problems including dizziness, nausea, and general malaise."
Small increments? The concentrations you're talking about are so far in excess of where even catastrophic CO2 scenarios place levels that we'd need several HUNDRED years of ever increasing CO2 output (and sustained, spiked warming trending) to reach that level.
"The point is that we really needed this technology decades ago, and we're already late on getting started using it. "
Just like we "needed" asbestos for a flame retardant. Just like we "needed" lead in gas and paint. Just like we needed thalidomide as a sleep aid for pregnant women.
Or do you mean "like we needed 45 nanometer IC technology back in the 50's"?
You can't rush materials technology. Developing useful technologies takes lots of time, money, and effort. Trying to force a "breakthrough" just winds up sending you down dead ends. In some cases, "dead" is more than just a euphemistic turn of phrase.
"I cannot disagree strongly enough."
But strength of conviction doesn't equal strength of argument.
"If we could actually follow the so-called radical agenda, which I like to call the rational agenda"
Radicals always do...
You said it yourself. Completely turning off consumption of fossil fuels and other pollutants isn't going to fix this problem now. Or even in the near future. Or even in most people's lifetimes.
BUT, going cold-turkey on it right now would have one major effect. It'd destroy civilization as we know it. There are NO viable replacements IN PLACE RIGHT NOW.
Yeah, it's every anti-capitalist, anti-corporate, anti-industrialist's dream. But for just about everyone else who's taken at least two seconds to look at it OBJECTIVELY, the very idea SUCKS. And there's no government in the world, no matter HOW crazy, that'd go for it. And since it'd take government intervention to stop the private sector...
"since we all live in the atmosphere and we will all suffer if it becomes less hospitable to human life"
IF.
Howsabout this?
""Since we all live in the atmosphere and we will suffer if an asteroid crashes into the planet.""
"But without them asking for a certain level of change, we would be unlikely to have even the positive change we are currently implementing."
Don't have a very high opinion of your fellow man do you?
The thing is, some people can get away with that.
But, if everyone waited a year, or until SP1, all we'd do is time-shift when the majority of the bugs were actually found.
It's real easy to test a few dozen, a few hundred, sometimes even a few thousand machines.
But releasing to the public is releasing to millions of machines. Each, ostensibly, with it's own unique configuration and configuration issues.
Even if Microsoft shipped Vista on two HD-DVDs, they still couldn't encompass EVERYTHING.
Again, what does Microsoft care about the HARDWARE sales?
Again, you still have an XP license that was somehow PAID FOR. And you bought a couple of Windows-only apps to run inside of Parallels.
MOREOVER, you're one of the group of people for whom Microsoft doesn't work. Fine, cool, good for you!
You're STILL in the minority. I'm not saying that to attack you or impugn your choice. I'm merely quoting statistical reality.
"How are they going to win me back?"
Did you miss the part where I said they don't give a shit?
You're already a converted Mac faithful and anti-Windows already from poor past experience.
Granted, they'd LIKE to win you over. But their efforts are better spent sucking cash out of a few thousand newbs who don't have your negative experiences.
Translation: You MIGHT equate out to a few thousand dollars in software sales...personally. With a thousand new customers, they recoup that cost several times over.
Again, running Windows XP/etc in Parallels and using Windows apps on the Parallels install doesn't hurt Microsoft AT ALL. The products were already bought and paid for.
I really don't have a problem with anything you're saying. You went Mac, found you liked could use the environment, and transitioned. Additionally, you were coming from a Linux background and could more fully utilize the system than some of the "It playz my em-pee-trees bettah" crowd.
I'm just sick and tired of people characterizing this situation (where you could find both systems and their apps) on a single machine as some huge dicksizing match between Microsoft and Apple.
"Everybody knows" isn't a valid legal argument.
It's a shame Mark has to make such an ass of himself simply to take a swipe at Google.
"If people moves to Apple, then they will also start buying OS-X apps, and thus the Windows market will get smaller."
Additionally, the market isn't a stagnant number. It's certainly not shrinking. Would you really care about the one that go away if you had ten or a hundred more just like them knocking on your door?
If people move to Apple, they start buying OS-X apps. Win for Apple. It doesn't necessarily follow that they stop buying Windows apps. ESPECIALLY if they have a "rescue copy" of Windows installed in Parallels.
"In time they might even drop parallels"
MIGHT. But, on the front end, Microsoft's already got their money.
"And they for sure will not buy the big Windows"
This is your supposition, nothing more.
"They just need it for a few apps."
And if they're core apps that they're using regularly, they'll still wind up spending more time in Windows than in OS-X. What's Apple going to do when they want Office. Sell them ANOTHER copy of Office that runs on OS-X? Wow. Microsoft just made money for the same product twice!
"And MS makes lots of money on server products."
However, their bread and butter is still Office.
"If more people are on OS-X desktops, then the servers will soon fall as well."
Yeah. Whole chunks of the IT sector are just going to give up their choice of multiple servers (hardware and software) to step down to an X-Serve.
This is a standup routine. Right?
Microsoft got their money out of you.
And while YOU may be one of the ones who fully migrates, I'm willing to bet that others still go running back to Windows.
Okay! So you bought a Mac!
You bought something MacOS. Yay for you! YOU REBEL!
Now you use Parallels and buy a copy of Windows to put in there.
GAME OVER.
*MICROSOFT* doesn't care what HARDWARE you run their OS on. Running Parallels on a Mac doesn't hurt MICROSOFT in the slightest.
Both Apple AND Microsoft pull a profit off this. Microsoft even moreso, since Mac heads are likely to buy a RETAIL copy of the OS, meaning higher margins for Redmond than they'd get from a traditional OEM copy.
Who it's a mark against? The other PC vendors.
Seriously. Why does everyone turn stupid non-issues like this into a zip-gun fight between Redmond and Cupertino?
I want one of the Artoo mailboxes!
A couple I've seen say "shipped". Some say "sold".
And again, how are the numbers arrived at for "shipped"?
10 licenses with every Action Pack x How many Action Packs?
I'm willing to bet that they're counting all the upgrade coupons as "sales" as well.
Like how they count their MS CRM software.
Basically anyone who has an Action Pack is counted as an MS CRM user.
That we call BUDGET.
I'd make a funny about "In Soviet Amerika", but it just ain't funny anymore.
We need to step on these bastards necks NOW.
I have the exact same wireless card you do.
I dicked around with WPA on my local network under 6.06 and 6.10.
With Feisty, it just works. Straight out. And connecting to an AP, regardless of type, is as simple as choosing the AP and clicking on it.
Well. My system, a Latitude 120L has had the shitty Broadcom "AirForce One" wireless mini-PCI card pulled out. I replaced it with an Intel 2200BG. On Feisty it just worked straight out. After all the pain in the butt I went through with getting it working on 6.06 and 6.10, I was practically spooging my pants when wireless just came straight up and I got a list of APs to connect to.
And which mouse issue?