The planet will be fine. It's actually the humans on it I'm most worried about. The humans will survive, of course, being very adaptable, but I'm interested in their quality of life.
Of course the most dramatic predictions probably won't come to pass. The less dramatic ones are bad enough.
We have consistently rising temperatures, increasing amounts of CO2 in the air, records of burning enough fossil fuels to more than account for the CO2 increase, isotopic analysis of CO2 in the atmosphere indicating that a lot of it comes from fossil fuels, and the knowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I'd say that's enough to point out that AGW is happening. There's still a lot of debate and observation on the details.
I am taking the best information I can from the best scientists I can. I take it on faith partly because I can't possibly verify everything myself and partly because, whenever I do try to verify something that's agreed on by virtually all scientists in a field, it checks out.
If you actually look at something like the IPCC report, you'll see that the predictions are of ranges with confidence levels. You'll also notice that it's virtually certain that bad things will happen.
You're claiming that going on the best available information is tantamount to taking it on faith. I'd say it requires more blind faith to deny the science.
Yup, and if we're going to try to reduce the CO2 emissions we need to figure out where it's easiest to reduce. If there's a thousand people in group A with a per capita emission level a thousand times the million people in group B, they produce the same amount of greenhouse gas but cutting emissions from group A is probably a lot easier.
Developed nations generally got where they are by raping the environment and not giving much thought to the consequences. Telling developing nations to fend for themselves under the environmental regs of the developed nations is a pretty good case of "I've got mine, Jack!".
1. Only hire admins I feel comfortable absolutely trusting.
I know people I absolutely trust. I also know they're going to screw up now and then. I'm also aware that I can be mistaken in my absolute trust, but I'm willing to take the chance.
So, what do you do with the CTO that doesn't involve firing? All other appropriate responses I can think of are illegal.
What happened here is that a junior dev wiped the production database and there was no usable backup. That indicates gross incompetence in more than one area. If the CTO was even slightly competent, this would not have happened.
Some British cities were pretty hard-hit by the Luftwaffe. More German cities were much harder hit by Bomber Command. Britain was never in serious danger of successful invasion. By the time US forces arrived in strength in Europe and the Med, the Axis was losing.
After the National Socialists rose to power they began collaborating with the Communists in the Soviet Union. They signed a non-aggression treaty, conspired in the invasion of Poland and the splitting of its territory, exchanged political prisoners of interest to each other. When the National Socialists invaded France, the French Communist party applauded their actions and worked with them.
After the Nazis came to power they cut a lot of collaboration with the Soviet Union. Previously, the German Army had been doing a lot of covert deals with the Soviet Army to get around Versailles restrictions, but that stopped with Hitler. They formed the Anti-Comintern Pact.
In 1939, they made a deal with the Soviet Union as a matter of realpolitik, always intending to attack them whenever convenient (which turned out to be June 22, 1941, less than two years of pretense). This allowed them to overrun Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, and much of France including the main industrial areas and the Atlantic coast, securing their western border, and Yugoslavia and Greece, securing the southern part of Europe.
The Soviets wanted an alliance with Britain and France instead of Germany, but Britain and France weren't particularly interested. They then supported Germany outwardly, while creeping up to war (not very successfully, as it happens). As an example, they told Communists to support Germany, which lost the party a lot of credibility in the West.
The short-lived relationship was one of expediency only. Germany wanted a free hand to attack elsewhere, and the Soviets wanted to avoid fighting a war with Germany without effective Western help. There was no ideological friendliness.
The yellow dots identify the printer that printed the document. If you hand something over to a newspaper and they print it on their color printer, the dots will identify the newspaper's printer.
In addition, anybody who actually decides to learn about voting machines will learn about their insecurity and why many or most of them should never be used, without Winner's input.
Today, we live in an age where pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo is placed on equal footing with real, established science. Where rumors and hearsay gain as much notoriety as researched fact.
Do you think this is something unusual about today and the internet? People have been buying unscientific mumbo-jumbo for a lot longer than I've been around, and rumors and hearsay have been excellent ways to influence things for a long, long time.
You can set up a server with a static IP address reasonably cheaply on Amazon Web Services, as long as it isn't too popular. If it becomes popular, it will cost more, just like anywhere else, but you can start out with a solid setup without spending much money.
We're talking about people who voted for him for the Republican nomination and then for President, and sit around like little snowflakes whining that the Democrats didn't stop them.
I'm going with the idea that Trump voters are actually fully human, and therefore are personally responsible for their actions.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt most dog owners here in flyover country actually carry guns.
Sure it is. It's a very simple climate model, but it's a climate model.
We're getting more total energy in the atmosphere.
The planet will be fine. It's actually the humans on it I'm most worried about. The humans will survive, of course, being very adaptable, but I'm interested in their quality of life.
Of course the most dramatic predictions probably won't come to pass. The less dramatic ones are bad enough.
We have consistently rising temperatures, increasing amounts of CO2 in the air, records of burning enough fossil fuels to more than account for the CO2 increase, isotopic analysis of CO2 in the atmosphere indicating that a lot of it comes from fossil fuels, and the knowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I'd say that's enough to point out that AGW is happening. There's still a lot of debate and observation on the details.
I am taking the best information I can from the best scientists I can. I take it on faith partly because I can't possibly verify everything myself and partly because, whenever I do try to verify something that's agreed on by virtually all scientists in a field, it checks out.
If you actually look at something like the IPCC report, you'll see that the predictions are of ranges with confidence levels. You'll also notice that it's virtually certain that bad things will happen.
You're claiming that going on the best available information is tantamount to taking it on faith. I'd say it requires more blind faith to deny the science.
Yup, and if we're going to try to reduce the CO2 emissions we need to figure out where it's easiest to reduce. If there's a thousand people in group A with a per capita emission level a thousand times the million people in group B, they produce the same amount of greenhouse gas but cutting emissions from group A is probably a lot easier.
Developed nations generally got where they are by raping the environment and not giving much thought to the consequences. Telling developing nations to fend for themselves under the environmental regs of the developed nations is a pretty good case of "I've got mine, Jack!".
That's why you keep local copies.
I know people I absolutely trust. I also know they're going to screw up now and then. I'm also aware that I can be mistaken in my absolute trust, but I'm willing to take the chance.
If everyone is doing the job they're supposed to do, and a disaster like this happens, fire the person who assigned the job roles.
That's what the /usr directory is for now. Back when I started using Unix, we had /usr/home rather than /home.
To be precise, I need read access to the prod database to do my job. I don't WANT write access.
So, what do you do with the CTO that doesn't involve firing? All other appropriate responses I can think of are illegal.
What happened here is that a junior dev wiped the production database and there was no usable backup. That indicates gross incompetence in more than one area. If the CTO was even slightly competent, this would not have happened.
Perhaps you could add the "none of the above left" and capture the vast majority of leftists, because there's darn few in any category you cited.
You might also want to learn some economics sometime, although that might endanger your ability to mock sensible economic measures.
Sigh.
Some British cities were pretty hard-hit by the Luftwaffe. More German cities were much harder hit by Bomber Command. Britain was never in serious danger of successful invasion. By the time US forces arrived in strength in Europe and the Med, the Axis was losing.
There's lots of good encryption software out there already. All you have to do is compile.
Sure. Totalitarian right-wing regimes and totalitarian left-wing regimes have a lot in common. That doesn't include socialism.
After the Nazis came to power they cut a lot of collaboration with the Soviet Union. Previously, the German Army had been doing a lot of covert deals with the Soviet Army to get around Versailles restrictions, but that stopped with Hitler. They formed the Anti-Comintern Pact.
In 1939, they made a deal with the Soviet Union as a matter of realpolitik, always intending to attack them whenever convenient (which turned out to be June 22, 1941, less than two years of pretense). This allowed them to overrun Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, and much of France including the main industrial areas and the Atlantic coast, securing their western border, and Yugoslavia and Greece, securing the southern part of Europe.
The Soviets wanted an alliance with Britain and France instead of Germany, but Britain and France weren't particularly interested. They then supported Germany outwardly, while creeping up to war (not very successfully, as it happens). As an example, they told Communists to support Germany, which lost the party a lot of credibility in the West.
The short-lived relationship was one of expediency only. Germany wanted a free hand to attack elsewhere, and the Soviets wanted to avoid fighting a war with Germany without effective Western help. There was no ideological friendliness.
Splitter!
The yellow dots identify the printer that printed the document. If you hand something over to a newspaper and they print it on their color printer, the dots will identify the newspaper's printer.
In addition, anybody who actually decides to learn about voting machines will learn about their insecurity and why many or most of them should never be used, without Winner's input.
Do you think this is something unusual about today and the internet? People have been buying unscientific mumbo-jumbo for a lot longer than I've been around, and rumors and hearsay have been excellent ways to influence things for a long, long time.
You can set up a server with a static IP address reasonably cheaply on Amazon Web Services, as long as it isn't too popular. If it becomes popular, it will cost more, just like anywhere else, but you can start out with a solid setup without spending much money.
If you can get entirely off grid electricity, fine. If you aren't going to, you're still costing the company money to keep your connection maintained.
This is Microsoft. They don't care. They don't have to.
We're talking about people who voted for him for the Republican nomination and then for President, and sit around like little snowflakes whining that the Democrats didn't stop them.
I'm going with the idea that Trump voters are actually fully human, and therefore are personally responsible for their actions.