Yes, let's talk about secure e-mail. If you're talking about "platforms" you're doing it wrong because secure e-mail should be done within the e-mail client, not by using some kind of proprietary "secure-messaging" service.
A good e-mail client supports both gpg and S/MIME encryption.
You seem to be making up stories and deciding to believe them.
Metaphor? Figure of speech? A fictional example of what could be, like most SciFi? Stop being such a literal-minded aspie-libertarian stereotype.
But if I wanted to, why wouldn't I make up a story where everything turns out fine, and decide to believe that? It's more consistent with how things have gone the last 500 years or so.
Hypocrite, YOU are the one who brought up the Nazi's!
But again, hydrocarbons/fossil fuels are a FINITE resource, don't you want to use them more responsibly and try to make them last as long as possible?
You assholes rail about giant corporations and then extol the virtues of giant governments..
Unlike the corporation, the government works for me because WE are the government through our elected representatives. And what is the only thing that has a chance of stopping egregious behavior of corporations?
We haven't had a decade yet, in this country, where the constitution was actually obeyed.
Don't be a fool, the Constitution isn't infallible, being written by people with faults and axes to grind. You're sounding more and more like one of those "Sovereign Citizen" crackpots out in Idaho or Montana.
THE FEDERAL FUCKING GOVERNMENT POISONED AND KILLED 20,000 AMERICAN CITIZENS FOR DRINKING ALCOHOL DURING PROHIBITION.
It did? citation needed.
The Supreme Court upheld SLAVERY.
Why yes it did, because the Constitution you worship didn't outlaw it from the start. And it didn't do so because there wer too many wealthy slaveowners writing the thing! Which again makes my point that it is a FLAWED document that shouldn't be treated as infallible
It was the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that forced FREE STATES to send runaway slaves BACK to SLAVE STATES.
yes, because the Constitution set things up to favor the south. It still does you know, especially since the size of the House was limited to 435 members instead of growing with population as it did before the freeze.
But your precious CENTRAL GOVERNMENT forced them to support slavery (return of slaves) against their will and against their morals. Slavery is EVIL and IMMORAL.
The central government set up by the Constitution that you worship which was written by people who knew slavery was immoral but didn't have the guts to outlaw something that made them more money than paying wages.
The Fed was designed to be WEAK, but with some very specific powers.. Common defense.. Interstate trade... International Relations... etc.
Yes, and it turned out a nation that grows in size and population doesn't work very well with a weak government that can't get shit done. Practically from the beginning they KNEW that they had fucked up and just shoved off the consequences of their bad decisions for a few decades because a bunch of rich guys didn't want to pay taxes for the central government the country really needed, just some kind of weak confederacy of sovereign states.
Quit obsessing over the Constitution. You're not going to get the weak government you want because we live in the real world here. with a nation of over 350 million people. You can't run a nation like that in the way you want, it would fall apart. Just live with the fact that the federal government is the real power, and has been for a looong time.
The Constitution isn't Holy writ. it is a FLAWED human document written by people (a bunch of whom wanted to favor wealthy plantation owners in the rural south) who couldn't see what people might need in the future. It isn't infallible.
How the fuck did we end up with the FBI (for example)? The constitution gives absolutely no police powers to the federal government.
We have the FBI because we NEEDED it. We needed a central Federal law enforcement agency. But as an aside there have been federal marshals long before there was an FBI.
Don't give me the rationale for it, give me the legal argument for how the FBI can exist when it's in conflict with the 10th amendment..
Child, the legal argument doesn't matter. It really doesn't. We needed an FBI so we have one. That is one of the many things the founders didn't forsee because they were men of their time living in the nation of their time. You are doing that libertarian-adolescent-randroid thing of being literal in regards to the Constitution, just like Biblical literalists are.
You're wrong in the same way they are. You may want a literal interpretation, but that horse left the barn many many years ago.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
My argument to that would be to make the countries smaller. Strong central governments are not the solution to anything.. Well, they can be the FINAL solution.. if you catch my drift..
that is one of the stupidest things I've read today because you are, right now, using a communications network that has it's origins in a Government project of the USA. And what did it take to stop the Final Solution? Did the netherlands belgium and luxembourg destroy the Third Reich? No, it was a bunch of POWERFUL strong Central governments with vast resources. UK and the Commonwealth, the US and the former Soviet Union.
Do you think some tiny little country like montenegro could put a man on the moon? What happens if some smaller country gets invaded by another and it's other small neighbors don't care or are too afraid to get involved?
Your anti-government bias is blinding you to reality.
It's not like we have a shitload of evidence (along with hundreds of millions of bodies) that strong central governments are a bad idea..
Really, there are millions of people living in strong central governments that work. No government is perfect, but there are many strong central governments that are nice places to live. Some of the worst places on this planet are places without strong central governments, or those that are young and haven't worked out the kinks yet. (and are dealing with the legacy of colonization/imperialism)
I want a WEAK central government.. One that is tasked with a select list of things to do.. Like... Maybe... Regulate interstate commerce, common defense... stuff like that..
Articles of Confederation...it didn't work.
Everything that wasn't implicitly listed was supposed to belong to the states or the people. Then, if you don't like how some asshole is running a state, you can drive an hour and live in a state that is less assholish.
The US is not a confederacy. Why should say a gay man in California be able to marry and one in Georgia not? Because that's what you're basically advocating. "States Rights".... if we had what you want, Jim crow would still be a thing. We are Americans first. You want a confederacy? Get out. Leave. You don't belong here. We fought a war over that, so get out. Go to some kleptocratic shithole where a "great man" like yourself isn't restricted by SJW's or government or whatever collectivist boogeyman you see. Except you'll have to deal with the mobsters who ARE the government who will kill you if you get in their way.
The only thing worse than neckbeards is assholes who want strong central governments.. But hey, you're smarter than Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, etc..
They weren't infallible, they were men of their time with the faults and foibles and mindsets of their time and we have learned much from the things they did wrong. They were wrong on many things. They intentionally created the Senate as a pseudo-aristocracy. They believed that the senate would actually run things and act as a check on what they considered the "rabble" Really, they, even Franklin were rabid plutocrats. They didn't really believe in democracy for everyone, just for the "right sort of people"
The founders shouldn't be worshiped as inerrant holy leaders who could do no wrong. They made a LOT of mistakes that we are still paying for (figuratively AND literally) hundreds of years later. And those mistakes were compounded by later mistakes and so on.
Quoting John Rogers: There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
The experts DO know more than the masses, it's what makes them experts. Your problem isn't experts, because ALL of us rely on various experts in modern society. It's just that you just don't like what the experts are saying about climate because of your socio-political bias so you denigrate the experts.
I'm from Illinois. We know climate change is a thing, even the conservative farmers know it's starting to affect their crops. Long heat waves, less moisture in the ground, all sorts of things. For goodness sake the range of armadillos has moved north into Illinois! Kudzu is coming north. The range of African-ized bees keeps spreading north because the north is warmer than it used to be.
If they look at a function and say "hey, how is that bounds-checked"?
A real amateur like I described isn't going to know what "bounds" are! The code will be as much gibberish as ancient egyption would be to them.
Are you intentionally being obtuse?
You are not john galt
you are not lazarus long
you are not some great man held down by idiot sheeple who needs to protest against the "collectivist boogeyman" you'd see at a John Birch meeting. You are Eddie Deezen in Wargames.
Forcing? No one is forcing anyone. There's encouragement but not forcing.
Fossil fuels are a FINITE resource and they're used for things other than fuels. We need to be making the amount left, last as long as we can. Non-carbon energy is one of the ways we will do that.
Yes, it will be disruptive, but it's positive disruption that actually improves things in the long term. Really, do you want the resource wars of Fallout to become reality? Do you? No?
Then quit your "no-ones-going-to-tell-me-what-to-do-climate-change-isn't-a-problem" bitchin.
Lessee Belgium.... I enjoy a nice Belgium ale a few times a year - but people can become alcoholics. Should we ban alcoholic beverages?
We did, for a while, did you forget Prohibition? Did you know that per capita alcohol consumption in the United States is STILL below pre-prohibition levels. Abuse of Alcohol was a serious socio-economic problem pre-prohibition, and while it still is, it isn't as bad as it was before.
Alcohol is still HEAVILY regulated. There's rules about who can buy it, rules about where and when it can be sold and consumed, and a lot more cultural censure on those who overuse it.
And if the EU is nannying it's citizens, why not ban gambling in all th eplaces that have casinos in the EU - I'd bet my life that those Casinos have ruiuned many more lives than loot boxes.
Gambling is HEAVILY regulated and you know it. There are limits on who, where and when. Things were worse before it was regulated.
Oh really, then you're okay with someone who's never written code in their live commenting on the Linux Kernel mailing list?
You'd be okay with some contractor from fiji doing surgery on you?
Expertise matters! Data does NOT stand on it's own. You know as well as I do that non-experts can misinterpret things because they don't have the expertise to understand basic concepts of the field. You know how the masses confuse the web with the internet in general? That's the same thing with Climate and weather.
Besides, right-wing anti-government cranks are quite capable of misquoting, misinterpreting or being selective on data.
Yes, people can do different things, but realize that warm weather crops might not grow well int he midwest even if it is warmer. (and most likely drier) And where will you go to get the massive amounts of corn and soybeans. Lower yields or fewer food animals will lead to higher prices.
It's disruptive and will cause problems, that can't be shrugged off with "adapt". Even small changes can cause major socio-economic disruption. Examples? Boll Weevil, Dust bowl. Little Ice Age.
And in the past climatic changes were sometimes dealt with by mass migration! That's part of the reason for increases in immigration from Central America.
I swear, some slashdot nerds are so ignorant of things other than programming or Star Trek, that they should just shut the hell up about any topic other than code or Star Trek.
In my cases since 1960 the number of days of temperatures over 90 degrees has risen by exactly one - from six to seven. The graph shows a wildly wandering line just to get there.
The interior of the country is more strongly effected, it's how climate works. So ask somebody from say Illinois or Iowa if they see more days with over 90 temps in recent years than say in the 70's.
By the way...I'm from Illinois...and yes. And by the way the range of armadillos now extends to Illinois...and southern pest species....like kudzu...have been moving north as the climate has become more warm.
While I agree in not living in fear, your arguments are similar to those who say we don't need to do anything.
Willis Eisenbach? He's not a "climate scientist" His BA is in Psychology. He's just some upper class twit who's bummed around the south pacific on the family money.
He even puts "worked on my fathers Summer house" on the CV as experience! Basically he's a humped up building contractor with an overly high opinion of himself.
Willis Eisenbach? Where do you find these crackpots with a high opinion of themselves. He's not a scientist! His BA is in Psychology. He's just some upper class twit who's bummed around the south pacific on the family money.
but no way can the corn farmers switch and grow soybeans as it gets warmer. You'd think people might adapt, but no, apparently they can't.
Dude, do you even understand farming? Soils VARY! A soil good for corn isn't necessarily one that's good for Rice or whatever.
Here in Illinois we have BOTH corn and beans, and if it's too warm to grow one, it'll be too warm to grow the other too. It's not about adaption, there are physical limits to what can be grown. and it's not just heat, it's about rain, humidity, soil composition, local parasites, local pollinators, drainage, etc etc.
So people like you saying, "well they can just start growing oranges up in the midwest" are ignorant and are a part of pthe problem.
Dude, your sig shows that your sources are probably not unbiased since you're basically saying "anyone who wants stronger regulations on business, some kind of nationalized healthcare and gun regulation is a Nazi!" You're basically saying "Liberals are Nazi's Nyah nyah nyah"
Well the Nazi's were also Kinder, Küche, Kirche, which describes your average evangelical as well.
But getting back to your links, D Roy Spencer's book was published by Encounter books: Encounter Books is an American conservative book publisher. It draws its name from Encounter, the now defunct literary magazine founded by Irving Kristol and Stephen Spender.[1]
Also D Roy Spencer has said this: In the book The Evolution Crisis, Spencer wrote, "I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world. [...] Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."[45]
So your source is a SINGLE Conservative Creationist.
I didn't call YOU alt-right, I'm saying that because you are crying "Nanny State", you're falling into the trap of doing the same anti-government all-government-is-collectivism shit that the usual alt-right/randroid suspects do.
Right off, your concept of "everyone must think the same is a little disturbing. No, they don't, and there is no reason that they should.
I didn't say everyone needs to think the same. What I'm saying is that WE as citizens have to decide what we want to do about this. We can't have it both ways.
It makes me exceptionally nervous when I see Europeans start talking about strong central governments. This trait pops up every once in a while, and the results are usually pretty bad.
I'm in the US and Nazi Germany wasn't all of Europe. Neither was the old Soviet Union. Both are gone. And the UK, France, Spain, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, etc have strong central governments.
Strong central governments aren't a negative. In the Real World we need such things to do things that people want governments to do. A strong central government put men on the moon. A strong central government created the internet. Money from strong central governments wiped out smallpox.
And a strong central government is the ONLY thing that really has any chance at all of putting megacorps to heel.
Why yes, I have been to post offices, never had bad service. Do you go in ranting about collectivists or big government or something? Or did you make up a strawman to promote your usual randroid/alt-right/all-government-is-evil-collectivism rantings.
Slashdot Neckbeards need to figure out what they want.
You and probably some of the libertarian/alt-right/randroid/all-government-is-collectivism types say:
"Nanny State"
Then someone else says:
"Loot boxes and microtransactions are anti-consumer and EVIL and should be banned"
Look, Self-regulation isn't working, this is when government needs to step up and lay down some consumer-friendly ground rules.
Besides, you can't run countries with millions of people like some tiny village with a few selectmen, you need strong central governments because too many are working cross-purposes and causing harm to the nation as a whole.
They stopped doing it because demand dropped. Demand dropped because the post office wasn't allowed to offer OTHER banking services. For example, the interstate highway system and post WW2 affluence meant more travel, which meant that personal checks became useful for the masses. Also mail-order retailers began using no-cash policies and stopping cash-on-delivery, again making personal checks more useful when filling out a Sears/Montgomery Ward/JC Penney order form.
Also many blue collar people took advantage of the "float" involved with checking accounts, to manage their limited funds. The disappearance of the float has hurt low income people.
I personally think that the Post Office should get into small personal banking services, to help reduce the percentage of the unbanked and to combat these megacorps trying to pass themselves as "upstart small banks", for example the "upstart" Marcus is Goldman Sachs.
And again, I think the Post Office is the perfect place to offer SMIME certs.
Yes, with V2.00 of the PS4's system software, released 4 years ago. Didn't you get the memo?
More seriously didn't you check out the new stuff in the updates?
FYI the PS4 has TWO media players.
One is just the simple USB music player, that's the simple unobtrusive one that works best while playing games. That one only does music and only MP3's/AAC. You will only see it's icon pop up if you plug in a USB storage device. With that one you can change folders and whatnot without suspending the game.
The second is the Media Player, that's the one that also can play FLAC, video, phots and does DLNA. That one always has the icon visible. It doesn't work as well while playing games.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, let's talk about secure e-mail. If you're talking about "platforms" you're doing it wrong because secure e-mail should be done within the e-mail client, not by using some kind of proprietary "secure-messaging" service.
A good e-mail client supports both gpg and S/MIME encryption.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
GPG and S/MIME encryption is a thing that exists.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEzBAEBAgAdFiEE0YU0isbenb1PGb7IaCsut4kt6eEFAlwOoLwACgkQaCsut4kt
6eH+5Af8CvAPqfbIMUt7dxCgECFrzweDYo641tDoD1eW0AUrCC25+Aiy9x98zJyZ
KV2EjL9TGCtrq83z5mJlwCd3mXXCGpcLp1nMG9Pi7X0ddXEdN2XQWlkvzpCIeygx
I/AKbY9foiKQ6YsrUS7GtKR7ErN5QaooGKFGciAa4a5pZHdDBqDwTehC8blkGyHI
S1RDIGUJpqIKT+wVPHdMoPj6TEJBy+S0AvKX/trBd+EqYOYF4OU9vWncKLYnFxDT
cFqDcICSoCyxFLQBlsz/P0mlycx76yFY3/UBSjHXhaYlUsmibtf3LwIasDzA4CEp
cgE479UjnmDficc59xt8tNCAm7cFVA==
=zWYp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
You seem to be making up stories and deciding to believe them.
Metaphor? Figure of speech? A fictional example of what could be, like most SciFi?
Stop being such a literal-minded aspie-libertarian stereotype.
But if I wanted to, why wouldn't I make up a story where everything turns out fine, and decide to believe that? It's more consistent with how things have gone the last 500 years or so.
Hypocrite, YOU are the one who brought up the Nazi's!
But again, hydrocarbons/fossil fuels are a FINITE resource, don't you want to use them more responsibly and try to make them last as long as possible?
You assholes rail about giant corporations and then extol the virtues of giant governments..
Unlike the corporation, the government works for me because WE are the government through our elected representatives. And what is the only thing that has a chance of stopping egregious behavior of corporations?
We haven't had a decade yet, in this country, where the constitution was actually obeyed.
Don't be a fool, the Constitution isn't infallible, being written by people with faults and axes to grind. You're sounding more and more like one of those "Sovereign Citizen" crackpots out in Idaho or Montana.
THE FEDERAL FUCKING GOVERNMENT POISONED AND KILLED 20,000 AMERICAN CITIZENS FOR DRINKING ALCOHOL DURING PROHIBITION.
It did? citation needed.
The Supreme Court upheld SLAVERY.
Why yes it did, because the Constitution you worship didn't outlaw it from the start. And it didn't do so because there wer too many wealthy slaveowners writing the thing! Which again makes my point that it is a FLAWED document that shouldn't be treated as infallible
It was the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that forced FREE STATES to send runaway slaves BACK to SLAVE STATES.
yes, because the Constitution set things up to favor the south. It still does you know, especially since the size of the House was limited to 435 members instead of growing with population as it did before the freeze.
But your precious CENTRAL GOVERNMENT forced them to support slavery (return of slaves) against their will and against their morals. Slavery is EVIL and IMMORAL.
The central government set up by the Constitution that you worship which was written by people who knew slavery was immoral but didn't have the guts to outlaw something that made them more money than paying wages.
The Fed was designed to be WEAK, but with some very specific powers.. Common defense.. Interstate trade... International Relations... etc.
Yes, and it turned out a nation that grows in size and population doesn't work very well with a weak government that can't get shit done. Practically from the beginning they KNEW that they had fucked up and just shoved off the consequences of their bad decisions for a few decades because a bunch of rich guys didn't want to pay taxes for the central government the country really needed, just some kind of weak confederacy of sovereign states.
Quit obsessing over the Constitution. You're not going to get the weak government you want because we live in the real world here. with a nation of over 350 million people. You can't run a nation like that in the way you want, it would fall apart. Just live with the fact that the federal government is the real power, and has been for a looong time.
The Constitution isn't Holy writ. it is a FLAWED human document written by people (a bunch of whom wanted to favor wealthy plantation owners in the rural south) who couldn't see what people might need in the future. It isn't infallible.
How the fuck did we end up with the FBI (for example)? The constitution gives absolutely no police powers to the federal government.
We have the FBI because we NEEDED it. We needed a central Federal law enforcement agency. But as an aside there have been federal marshals long before there was an FBI.
Don't give me the rationale for it, give me the legal argument for how the FBI can exist when it's in conflict with the 10th amendment..
Child, the legal argument doesn't matter. It really doesn't. We needed an FBI so we have one. That is one of the many things the founders didn't forsee because they were men of their time living in the nation of their time. You are doing that libertarian-adolescent-randroid thing of being literal in regards to the Constitution, just like Biblical literalists are.
You're wrong in the same way they are. You may want a literal interpretation, but that horse left the barn many many years ago.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
My argument to that would be to make the countries smaller. Strong central governments are not the solution to anything.. Well, they can be the FINAL solution.. if you catch my drift..
that is one of the stupidest things I've read today because you are, right now, using a communications network that has it's origins in a Government project of the USA. And what did it take to stop the Final Solution? Did the netherlands belgium and luxembourg destroy the Third Reich? No, it was a bunch of POWERFUL strong Central governments with vast resources. UK and the Commonwealth, the US and the former Soviet Union.
Do you think some tiny little country like montenegro could put a man on the moon? What happens if some smaller country gets invaded by another and it's other small neighbors don't care or are too afraid to get involved?
Your anti-government bias is blinding you to reality.
It's not like we have a shitload of evidence (along with hundreds of millions of bodies) that strong central governments are a bad idea..
Really, there are millions of people living in strong central governments that work. No government is perfect, but there are many strong central governments that are nice places to live. Some of the worst places on this planet are places without strong central governments, or those that are young and haven't worked out the kinks yet. (and are dealing with the legacy of colonization/imperialism)
I want a WEAK central government.. One that is tasked with a select list of things to do.. Like... Maybe... Regulate interstate commerce, common defense... stuff like that..
Articles of Confederation...it didn't work.
Everything that wasn't implicitly listed was supposed to belong to the states or the people. Then, if you don't like how some asshole is running a state, you can drive an hour and live in a state that is less assholish.
The US is not a confederacy. Why should say a gay man in California be able to marry and one in Georgia not? Because that's what you're basically advocating. "States Rights".... if we had what you want, Jim crow would still be a thing. We are Americans first. You want a confederacy? Get out. Leave. You don't belong here. We fought a war over that, so get out. Go to some kleptocratic shithole where a "great man" like yourself isn't restricted by SJW's or government or whatever collectivist boogeyman you see. Except you'll have to deal with the mobsters who ARE the government who will kill you if you get in their way.
The only thing worse than neckbeards is assholes who want strong central governments.. But hey, you're smarter than Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, etc..
They weren't infallible, they were men of their time with the faults and foibles and mindsets of their time and we have learned much from the things they did wrong. They were wrong on many things. They intentionally created the Senate as a pseudo-aristocracy. They believed that the senate would actually run things and act as a check on what they considered the "rabble" Really, they, even Franklin were rabid plutocrats. They didn't really believe in democracy for everyone, just for the "right sort of people"
The founders shouldn't be worshiped as inerrant holy leaders who could do no wrong. They made a LOT of mistakes that we are still paying for (figuratively AND literally) hundreds of years later. And those mistakes were compounded by later mistakes and so on.
Quoting John Rogers: There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
The experts DO know more than the masses, it's what makes them experts. Your problem isn't experts, because ALL of us rely on various experts in modern society. It's just that you just don't like what the experts are saying about climate because of your socio-political bias so you denigrate the experts.
I'm from Illinois. We know climate change is a thing, even the conservative farmers know it's starting to affect their crops. Long heat waves, less moisture in the ground, all sorts of things. For goodness sake the range of armadillos has moved north into Illinois! Kudzu is coming north. The range of African-ized bees keeps spreading north because the north is warmer than it used to be.
If they look at a function and say "hey, how is that bounds-checked"?
A real amateur like I described isn't going to know what "bounds" are! The code will be as much gibberish as ancient egyption would be to them.
Are you intentionally being obtuse?
You are not john galt
you are not lazarus long
you are not some great man held down by idiot sheeple who needs to protest against the "collectivist boogeyman" you'd see at a John Birch meeting. You are Eddie Deezen in Wargames.
Forcing? No one is forcing anyone. There's encouragement but not forcing.
Fossil fuels are a FINITE resource and they're used for things other than fuels. We need to be making the amount left, last as long as we can. Non-carbon energy is one of the ways we will do that.
Yes, it will be disruptive, but it's positive disruption that actually improves things in the long term. Really, do you want the resource wars of Fallout to become reality? Do you? No?
Then quit your "no-ones-going-to-tell-me-what-to-do-climate-change-isn't-a-problem" bitchin.
Lessee Belgium.... I enjoy a nice Belgium ale a few times a year - but people can become alcoholics. Should we ban alcoholic beverages?
We did, for a while, did you forget Prohibition? Did you know that per capita alcohol consumption in the United States is STILL below pre-prohibition levels. Abuse of Alcohol was a serious socio-economic problem pre-prohibition, and while it still is, it isn't as bad as it was before.
Alcohol is still HEAVILY regulated. There's rules about who can buy it, rules about where and when it can be sold and consumed, and a lot more cultural censure on those who overuse it.
And if the EU is nannying it's citizens, why not ban gambling in all th eplaces that have casinos in the EU - I'd bet my life that those Casinos have ruiuned many more lives than loot boxes.
Gambling is HEAVILY regulated and you know it. There are limits on who, where and when. Things were worse before it was regulated.
Oh really, then you're okay with someone who's never written code in their live commenting on the Linux Kernel mailing list?
You'd be okay with some contractor from fiji doing surgery on you?
Expertise matters! Data does NOT stand on it's own. You know as well as I do that non-experts can misinterpret things because they don't have the expertise to understand basic concepts of the field. You know how the masses confuse the web with the internet in general? That's the same thing with Climate and weather.
Besides, right-wing anti-government cranks are quite capable of misquoting, misinterpreting or being selective on data.
Yes, people can do different things, but realize that warm weather crops might not grow well int he midwest even if it is warmer. (and most likely drier) And where will you go to get the massive amounts of corn and soybeans. Lower yields or fewer food animals will lead to higher prices.
It's disruptive and will cause problems, that can't be shrugged off with "adapt". Even small changes can cause major socio-economic disruption. Examples? Boll Weevil, Dust bowl. Little Ice Age.
And in the past climatic changes were sometimes dealt with by mass migration! That's part of the reason for increases in immigration from Central America.
I swear, some slashdot nerds are so ignorant of things other than programming or Star Trek, that they should just shut the hell up about any topic other than code or Star Trek.
In my cases since 1960 the number of days of temperatures over 90 degrees has risen by exactly one - from six to seven. The graph shows a wildly wandering line just to get there.
The interior of the country is more strongly effected, it's how climate works. So ask somebody from say Illinois or Iowa if they see more days with over 90 temps in recent years than say in the 70's.
By the way...I'm from Illinois...and yes. And by the way the range of armadillos now extends to Illinois...and southern pest species....like kudzu...have been moving north as the climate has become more warm.
While I agree in not living in fear, your arguments are similar to those who say we don't need to do anything.
Willis Eisenbach? He's not a "climate scientist" His BA is in Psychology. He's just some upper class twit who's bummed around the south pacific on the family money.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uqnh...
He even puts "worked on my fathers Summer house" on the CV as experience! Basically he's a humped up building contractor with an overly high opinion of himself.
Willis Eisenbach? Where do you find these crackpots with a high opinion of themselves. He's not a scientist! His BA is in Psychology. He's just some upper class twit who's bummed around the south pacific on the family money.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uqnh...
He even puts "worked on my fathers Summer house" on the CV as experience!
but no way can the corn farmers switch and grow soybeans as it gets warmer. You'd think people might adapt, but no, apparently they can't.
Dude, do you even understand farming? Soils VARY! A soil good for corn isn't necessarily one that's good for Rice or whatever.
Here in Illinois we have BOTH corn and beans, and if it's too warm to grow one, it'll be too warm to grow the other too. It's not about adaption, there are physical limits to what can be grown. and it's not just heat, it's about rain, humidity, soil composition, local parasites, local pollinators, drainage, etc etc.
So people like you saying, "well they can just start growing oranges up in the midwest" are ignorant and are a part of pthe problem.
Dude, your sig shows that your sources are probably not unbiased since you're basically saying "anyone who wants stronger regulations on business, some kind of nationalized healthcare and gun regulation is a Nazi!" You're basically saying "Liberals are Nazi's Nyah nyah nyah"
Well the Nazi's were also Kinder, Küche, Kirche, which describes your average evangelical as well.
But getting back to your links, D Roy Spencer's book was published by Encounter books:
Encounter Books is an American conservative book publisher. It draws its name from Encounter, the now defunct literary magazine founded by Irving Kristol and Stephen Spender.[1]
Also D Roy Spencer has said this: In the book The Evolution Crisis, Spencer wrote, "I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world. [...] Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."[45]
So your source is a SINGLE Conservative Creationist.
I didn't call YOU alt-right, I'm saying that because you are crying "Nanny State", you're falling into the trap of doing the same anti-government all-government-is-collectivism shit that the usual alt-right/randroid suspects do.
Right off, your concept of "everyone must think the same is a little disturbing. No, they don't, and there is no reason that they should.
I didn't say everyone needs to think the same. What I'm saying is that WE as citizens have to decide what we want to do about this. We can't have it both ways.
It makes me exceptionally nervous when I see Europeans start talking about strong central governments. This trait pops up every once in a while, and the results are usually pretty bad.
I'm in the US and Nazi Germany wasn't all of Europe. Neither was the old Soviet Union. Both are gone. And the UK, France, Spain, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, etc have strong central governments.
Strong central governments aren't a negative. In the Real World we need such things to do things that people want governments to do. A strong central government put men on the moon. A strong central government created the internet. Money from strong central governments wiped out smallpox.
And a strong central government is the ONLY thing that really has any chance at all of putting megacorps to heel.
Why yes, I have been to post offices, never had bad service. Do you go in ranting about collectivists or big government or something? Or did you make up a strawman to promote your usual randroid/alt-right/all-government-is-evil-collectivism rantings.
Slashdot Neckbeards need to figure out what they want.
You and probably some of the libertarian/alt-right/randroid/all-government-is-collectivism types say:
"Nanny State"
Then someone else says:
"Loot boxes and microtransactions are anti-consumer and EVIL and should be banned"
Look, Self-regulation isn't working, this is when government needs to step up and lay down some consumer-friendly ground rules.
Besides, you can't run countries with millions of people like some tiny village with a few selectmen, you need strong central governments because too many are working cross-purposes and causing harm to the nation as a whole.
They stopped doing it because demand dropped. Demand dropped because the post office wasn't allowed to offer OTHER banking services. For example, the interstate highway system and post WW2 affluence meant more travel, which meant that personal checks became useful for the masses. Also mail-order retailers began using no-cash policies and stopping cash-on-delivery, again making personal checks more useful when filling out a Sears/Montgomery Ward/JC Penney order form.
Also many blue collar people took advantage of the "float" involved with checking accounts, to manage their limited funds. The disappearance of the float has hurt low income people.
I personally think that the Post Office should get into small personal banking services, to help reduce the percentage of the unbanked and to combat these megacorps trying to pass themselves as "upstart small banks", for example the "upstart" Marcus is Goldman Sachs.
And again, I think the Post Office is the perfect place to offer SMIME certs.
Weird Al's White and Nerdy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Yes, with V2.00 of the PS4's system software, released 4 years ago. Didn't you get the memo?
More seriously didn't you check out the new stuff in the updates?
FYI the PS4 has TWO media players.
One is just the simple USB music player, that's the simple unobtrusive one that works best while playing games. That one only does music and only MP3's/AAC. You will only see it's icon pop up if you plug in a USB storage device. With that one you can change folders and whatnot without suspending the game.
https://manuals.playstation.ne...
The second is the Media Player, that's the one that also can play FLAC, video, phots and does DLNA. That one always has the icon visible. It doesn't work as well while playing games.
https://manuals.playstation.ne...