That graph doesn't say anything about anthropegenic effects of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. All it says is, "Hey, CO2 concentrations cycle through the atmosphere with time, and at present we're approaching a peak." What's interesting, if you look at the trend line of CO2 towards time 0, we haven't seen a decline in the CO2 peak in the past 10,000 years. There's what looks to me like oscillations at around (if you translocate) 260 - 280 ppmv. Looking at the earlier historical curves they almost all have a nice exponential decay pattern after a peak. Maybe this is due to data density as time approaches 0, or maybe it's just quality of near-surface ice core data. But if it's not, it'd be interesting to see what causes that...as there's no hardcore industrialization that long ago (though civilization did exist ~7000 BP[Uruk in messopotamia, if you care about details], so there was large-scale burning of biomass, which is a source of CO2 emmissions). All conjecture though. What this plot tells me, once again, is that we're at the peak of a natural CO2 cycle. Ok, cool. We're also emitting CO2 at extremely high rates around the globe. CO2 has a relatively long residence time in the atmosphere (70 - 130 years), which means right now - best case scenario - CO2 that was emitted in 1935 is settling into the ocean and contributing to biomass production. And CO2 emissions will only increase as the third world industrializes. So what? We might just provide enough anthropogenic CO2 to push that natural cycle up far enough to have the highest CO2 concentration in the past 400,000 years. With CO2 comes reradiation of insolation throughout the troposphere. That means atmospheric warming.
In short, does that graph disprove anthropogenic effects on climate cycles? No. Does it disprove that human society is currently exacerbating global CO2 or CH4 concentrations? No. What does is show? That chemical compounds exist in concentrations that oscilate with time. Wow. An accepted scientific idea for quite a long time.
While I agree with your intent, please don't post a link to an article that uses the words "prove" and "science" in the same sentence. This combination only feeds skepticism. Science does not prove, it collects data and abstracts the data into trends and correlations that are then developed into ideas on how nature works. The only thing science can do, in the long run, is provide support for, or disprove, an idea.
Increase in weather fluctuation and intensity. Shifting of the greenbelts north and south, desertification in the old greenbelts, add in increased population density, assuming population growth continues it's general pattern right now, and you're going to see more communicable diseases spring up. Basically, I'd say it's a good time to buy land in Southern Canada and start growing soy, wheat, and corn.
Will it impact us a whole lot? Eh, who knows. It certainly won't be a completely benign situation. Seeing as the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is between 70 and 130 years, the sooner we stop sending that crap out at ever quickening rates, the less severe the situation will be...but i'm pretty sure we're screwed as far as halting anthropogenic global warming. The only thing left is to ride the heatwave, baby.
For one thing "offtopic" becomes a bit of a nebulous concept if it's defined in terms of all of slashdot since forever.
Oooo you mean rules aren't universal?! Whoa! You see, the term "topic" is a moving target. It changes from thread to thread and thus it is logical to mod things offtopic relative to the topic at hand. At the same time, though, I think the off-topic mod is bunk. Slashdot discussion threads evolve over time, topics change, and most off topic posts are more intriguing and insightful than the parrotting that usually goes on, if you ignore the trolls. Apples, oranges, compared.
Redundancy between posts, however, has now become so pervasive here on slashdot that I see no problem with moderating down lame-ass "Free-as-in-Freedom, not Free-as-in-Beer" posts and "lynx makes you l337" posts and so forth - even if they ARE first posts. Most are posted by slashdot newbs simply trying to gain respect in the so-called "community", rather than actually bringing an original idea of value into a discussion. That's all I'm saying.
Oh, and no hyphen[1] in commonplace.
Awww cute, you attacked my syntax! Because, you know, syntax is statically defined in living languages, and all. By the way, that's a setence fragment. You're lacking a verb.
Are you arrogant or just autistic?
Meh, a little of both.
Just because you or some other random apology for a spunkwipe has seen it before doesn't mean everybody has.
Moving from generalities to the actual topic at hand, count how many "Lynx is secure!" posts there were. How informative or interesting were any of them to you? Anyone who even scrolled down through the comments could have seen that lynx is "secure" (which is arguable). And...being in the open source community, how long does it take to know about lynx? And..how much use to get actually get out of lynx functionally? Furthermore, the topic of the original article was security as it relates to the entire web-surfing populace, not just pseudo console jokeys who get both ego and penile size compensation by using lynx on a daily basis. Most people want to use a web browser that takes advantage of things like java, flash, and other embedded media. Lynx is not a viable alternative for most people. Not only are the lynx posts, first and later, redundant, but they bring absolutely nothing to the table.
not everyone has time to read every comment of every thread. Some of us have like jobs and stuff.
So what? People exist in everyday life without reading slashdot at all. Big deal if you miss one out of who-knows-how-many posts about lynx being secure. YOU WILL STILL EXIST TOMORROW! YOUR TIME IS NOT THAT VALUABLE!
Insightful my fat hairy arse.
Fat? Oh...well...maybe you won't exist tomorrow. Disregard everything I wrote. Seize the moment and browse at -1!!! Before you die of congestive heart failure! Unless it's glandular, that is.
Oh, that's an ad hominem. When the public can be made to understand that the issue is the issue is the loss of habitat diversity and its associated genetic information, then we can talk in more sophisticated ways.
Just wanted to say, "word up" to that. There is inherent, long-term societal value in biodiversity. Disregarding the preservation of biodiversity as chicken-little type cries for attention from environmental-wackos is foolish.
you mean frequency of vulnerability exploitation is relative to market share?! NO FUCKING WAY!! Oh man, i'm glad someone pointed this out for me. Very insightful, indeed. I mean, it's only been pointed out a few thousand times before on slashdot.
Well, if you're moderating posts based on the content within the story thread, it seems illogical. However, if you're moderating based on the attitudes prevalent in the community, then it's perfectly reasonable to mod redundant a comment that is so common-place and uninsightful that it is a predictable response, bound to turn up more than 10 times in the thread. I would classify "use lynx!!1!!1one!1" as such a comment. This place is full of parrots, so i'm down with the community-centric moderation model. Plus it's fun to watch people bitch about moderation.
And so, Sandy Dunlop sat idly in his small, cramped cubical in Memex Technology LTD building. His mind wandered from one topic to another - Jim Carey's pert and firm ass, the asshole that cut him off this morning without using his turn signal, the new Metallica CD he bought a few weeks ago. He didn't really like the new CD, he actually thought it was a little trite and heavy handed. But, you see, Metallica is Metallica. They are not a band to be questioned. Hey eyes slowly glazed over as he heard the mindless droning of the secretary two cubicals over. That very same secretary that threw a pint of Guinness in his face at the pub last friday. He had intended to bring her back to his place afterwards, but after she laughed in his face over the idea, he called her an office slut. It really all revolved around his inferiority complex. It's hard growing up with a Girl's name in a man's world whilst having man-parts.
He shifted his attention to his workstation, "AH! Slashdot." He mulled through the text until he found the perfect victim. "Mmm.." he thought, "An outlet for my angst. This log-jammer here couldn't even get this one line post right!" He smashed away at his keyboard, two suscinct lines of pure egotistical arrogance slowly glopped onto the screen. He grabbed his mouse and smashed the submit button, feeling placated.
"That'll show 'em! That'll show all of 'em! But most of all...that'll show Jenny. Stupid office slut."
Definitely go for FreeBSD Then. The only two OS's i settle into after 5 years of extensive experimenting and shuffling are FreeBSD and Gentoo. If you do try FreeBSD, my word of advise is to install all third party apps from the ports tree, and as few from the install CDs as possible. Things just end up cleaner that way.
Oh, and don't listen to the bullshit about portupgrade being a sad excuse for an upgrade mechanism. I kept a production server running for 2 years using cvsup and portupgrade. I actually ran a portupgrade on my box last night after a month or so of stagnation and only had two problems, one of which was solved by deleting a partially downloaded.bz file, while the other was solved by simply running portupgrade again.
FreeBSD is indeed a solid OS, with LOTS of ports in it's ports Tree.
Also, not trying to start a war, but I fail to understand why the six years without a hole in the default install is used so often to promote it..., the default install is essentially useless, as there have been holes in the services that most people would want to enable...
Well, the philosophy is this, "Hey, here's an OS that will be secure out of the box. You don't have to scramble around the default install to lock it down. You are now free to build upon it with the degree of security you wish to implement." So...whats wrong with that? I think it's a good selling point for admins that don't want to deal with bullshit. Whether it's practical or not is moot. They do it because they want to do it, period.
This then ties into your other question - by auditing all of the code in their base system (which another poster has replied with details on) you can be fairly certain that by enabling openbsd's BIND, Xorg, etc you will have a system that runs well-tested, combed-through software.
As far as a comparison betweeen SELinux and RSBAC, i can't go there as i don't have that much expertice.
Wow. What a lame argument, "If GCC didn't exist, BSD wouldn't be where it is today, and you can't say otherwise because otherwise didn't happen!"
The simple fact of open source isn't what gets built, it's the spirit behind it - a spirit that exists without some fat bearded douche bag writing PART of a compiler (which isn't JUST WRITTEN BY RMS, IT'S WRITTEN BY MANY MANY OTHER PEOPLE TO REACH IT'S CURRENT, USEFUL FORM!!! Jeebus people). That spirit would move other people to develop their own compiler, much like the anti-GPL spirit in the BSD community has fostered increasing support for TenDRA. So, to answer your question, what is the greatest contribution to open source? Motivation to write open source software. If GCC didn't exist, that motivation would push coders to develop a different free compiler. To say otherwise is to speak with dogmatic blinders.
It's not as though RMS is the only one who can start a compiler and get it to attain self-sustaining momentum. Any good college CS program involves a class in compilers. A compiler is not some great mystery of comptuers, it just takes a lot of work to get one that works well enough for production use. Once TenDRA becomes stable and feature-rich enough to be used in production, BSD wills switch over to it in droves.
Do you really want three girls? I mean...once they all start getting visits from aunt flo, along with their mother....how could that turn out well? Four girls PMSing. Any way you look at it - either one every week or various permutations of that...that sounds like hell, man.
And think about your poor son! The first half of his life he'd be teased by his sisters(ss) friends, the second half he'd have all the tang he wants right there in front of him during sleep overs, but would be too scared of girls to do anything about it! Oh man...
Personally, I love making the internet a more chaotic place, because then i can go on slashdot and watch more people bitch. Passing of child porn? I have reservations about that. But terrorism?! Psh, just the free spread of ideological information, like right-wing christian sites that post addresses of abortion clinics and of doctors who perform abortions. As for spam, well, I don't get any spam; so it's possible to live in the modern age spam-free. Perhaps those who get swampped by spam are just morons?
Slashdot Mirror
That graph doesn't say anything about anthropegenic effects of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. All it says is, "Hey, CO2 concentrations cycle through the atmosphere with time, and at present we're approaching a peak." What's interesting, if you look at the trend line of CO2 towards time 0, we haven't seen a decline in the CO2 peak in the past 10,000 years. There's what looks to me like oscillations at around (if you translocate) 260 - 280 ppmv. Looking at the earlier historical curves they almost all have a nice exponential decay pattern after a peak. Maybe this is due to data density as time approaches 0, or maybe it's just quality of near-surface ice core data. But if it's not, it'd be interesting to see what causes that...as there's no hardcore industrialization that long ago (though civilization did exist ~7000 BP[Uruk in messopotamia, if you care about details], so there was large-scale burning of biomass, which is a source of CO2 emmissions). All conjecture though. What this plot tells me, once again, is that we're at the peak of a natural CO2 cycle. Ok, cool. We're also emitting CO2 at extremely high rates around the globe. CO2 has a relatively long residence time in the atmosphere (70 - 130 years), which means right now - best case scenario - CO2 that was emitted in 1935 is settling into the ocean and contributing to biomass production. And CO2 emissions will only increase as the third world industrializes. So what? We might just provide enough anthropogenic CO2 to push that natural cycle up far enough to have the highest CO2 concentration in the past 400,000 years. With CO2 comes reradiation of insolation throughout the troposphere. That means atmospheric warming.
In short, does that graph disprove anthropogenic effects on climate cycles? No. Does it disprove that human society is currently exacerbating global CO2 or CH4 concentrations? No. What does is show? That chemical compounds exist in concentrations that oscilate with time. Wow. An accepted scientific idea for quite a long time.
While I agree with your intent, please don't post a link to an article that uses the words "prove" and "science" in the same sentence. This combination only feeds skepticism. Science does not prove, it collects data and abstracts the data into trends and correlations that are then developed into ideas on how nature works. The only thing science can do, in the long run, is provide support for, or disprove, an idea.
Increase in weather fluctuation and intensity. Shifting of the greenbelts north and south, desertification in the old greenbelts, add in increased population density, assuming population growth continues it's general pattern right now, and you're going to see more communicable diseases spring up. Basically, I'd say it's a good time to buy land in Southern Canada and start growing soy, wheat, and corn.
Will it impact us a whole lot? Eh, who knows. It certainly won't be a completely benign situation. Seeing as the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is between 70 and 130 years, the sooner we stop sending that crap out at ever quickening rates, the less severe the situation will be...but i'm pretty sure we're screwed as far as halting anthropogenic global warming. The only thing left is to ride the heatwave, baby.
I totally agree with you.
Oh, and FYI:
extroverted
adj.
1. (Psychol.) directed outward; marked by an interest in other people or concerned primarily with external reality.
Syn: extrovert, extravert, extraverted, extravertive
so vailidity of ideas are directly related to spelling ability? I mean, the ideas were still communicated with the same efficacy.
This is slashdot. Data does not matter.
For one thing "offtopic" becomes a bit of a nebulous concept if it's defined in terms of all of slashdot since forever.
Oooo you mean rules aren't universal?! Whoa! You see, the term "topic" is a moving target. It changes from thread to thread and thus it is logical to mod things offtopic relative to the topic at hand. At the same time, though, I think the off-topic mod is bunk. Slashdot discussion threads evolve over time, topics change, and most off topic posts are more intriguing and insightful than the parrotting that usually goes on, if you ignore the trolls. Apples, oranges, compared.
Redundancy between posts, however, has now become so pervasive here on slashdot that I see no problem with moderating down lame-ass "Free-as-in-Freedom, not Free-as-in-Beer" posts and "lynx makes you l337" posts and so forth - even if they ARE first posts. Most are posted by slashdot newbs simply trying to gain respect in the so-called "community", rather than actually bringing an original idea of value into a discussion. That's all I'm saying.
Oh, and no hyphen[1] in commonplace.
Awww cute, you attacked my syntax! Because, you know, syntax is statically defined in living languages, and all. By the way, that's a setence fragment. You're lacking a verb.
Are you arrogant or just autistic?
Meh, a little of both.
Just because you or some other random apology for a spunkwipe has seen it before doesn't mean everybody has.
Moving from generalities to the actual topic at hand, count how many "Lynx is secure!" posts there were. How informative or interesting were any of them to you? Anyone who even scrolled down through the comments could have seen that lynx is "secure" (which is arguable). And...being in the open source community, how long does it take to know about lynx? And..how much use to get actually get out of lynx functionally? Furthermore, the topic of the original article was security as it relates to the entire web-surfing populace, not just pseudo console jokeys who get both ego and penile size compensation by using lynx on a daily basis. Most people want to use a web browser that takes advantage of things like java, flash, and other embedded media. Lynx is not a viable alternative for most people. Not only are the lynx posts, first and later, redundant, but they bring absolutely nothing to the table.
not everyone has time to read every comment of every thread. Some of us have like jobs and stuff.
So what? People exist in everyday life without reading slashdot at all. Big deal if you miss one out of who-knows-how-many posts about lynx being secure. YOU WILL STILL EXIST TOMORROW! YOUR TIME IS NOT THAT VALUABLE!
Insightful my fat hairy arse.
Fat? Oh...well...maybe you won't exist tomorrow. Disregard everything I wrote. Seize the moment and browse at -1!!! Before you die of congestive heart failure! Unless it's glandular, that is.
Oh, but I do.
Oh, that's an ad hominem. When the public can be made to understand that the issue is the issue is the loss of habitat diversity and its associated genetic information, then we can talk in more sophisticated ways.
Just wanted to say, "word up" to that. There is inherent, long-term societal value in biodiversity. Disregarding the preservation of biodiversity as chicken-little type cries for attention from environmental-wackos is foolish.
you mean frequency of vulnerability exploitation is relative to market share?! NO FUCKING WAY!! Oh man, i'm glad someone pointed this out for me. Very insightful, indeed. I mean, it's only been pointed out a few thousand times before on slashdot.
Well, if you're moderating posts based on the content within the story thread, it seems illogical. However, if you're moderating based on the attitudes prevalent in the community, then it's perfectly reasonable to mod redundant a comment that is so common-place and uninsightful that it is a predictable response, bound to turn up more than 10 times in the thread. I would classify "use lynx!!1!!1one!1" as such a comment. This place is full of parrots, so i'm down with the community-centric moderation model. Plus it's fun to watch people bitch about moderation.
And so, Sandy Dunlop sat idly in his small, cramped cubical in Memex Technology LTD building. His mind wandered from one topic to another - Jim Carey's pert and firm ass, the asshole that cut him off this morning without using his turn signal, the new Metallica CD he bought a few weeks ago. He didn't really like the new CD, he actually thought it was a little trite and heavy handed. But, you see, Metallica is Metallica. They are not a band to be questioned. Hey eyes slowly glazed over as he heard the mindless droning of the secretary two cubicals over. That very same secretary that threw a pint of Guinness in his face at the pub last friday. He had intended to bring her back to his place afterwards, but after she laughed in his face over the idea, he called her an office slut. It really all revolved around his inferiority complex. It's hard growing up with a Girl's name in a man's world whilst having man-parts.
He shifted his attention to his workstation, "AH! Slashdot." He mulled through the text until he found the perfect victim. "Mmm.." he thought, "An outlet for my angst. This log-jammer here couldn't even get this one line post right!" He smashed away at his keyboard, two suscinct lines of pure egotistical arrogance slowly glopped onto the screen. He grabbed his mouse and smashed the submit button, feeling placated.
"That'll show 'em! That'll show all of 'em! But most of all...that'll show Jenny. Stupid office slut."
Wow. You...are a douche. Er, wait, let me put this in terms you might understand:
if( douche )
{
user.setHasLife( false );
user.setRecommendedFuture( 'suicide' );
slashdot_quality--;
}
Definitely go for FreeBSD Then. The only two OS's i settle into after 5 years of extensive experimenting and shuffling are FreeBSD and Gentoo. If you do try FreeBSD, my word of advise is to install all third party apps from the ports tree, and as few from the install CDs as possible. Things just end up cleaner that way.
.bz file, while the other was solved by simply running portupgrade again.
Oh, and don't listen to the bullshit about portupgrade being a sad excuse for an upgrade mechanism. I kept a production server running for 2 years using cvsup and portupgrade. I actually ran a portupgrade on my box last night after a month or so of stagnation and only had two problems, one of which was solved by deleting a partially downloaded
FreeBSD is indeed a solid OS, with LOTS of ports in it's ports Tree.
yeah, i meant specifically through his teen years, when the plumbing starts to work and his sisters friends start to look attractive.
Also, not trying to start a war, but I fail to understand why the six years without a hole in the default install is used so often to promote it..., the default install is essentially useless, as there have been holes in the services that most people would want to enable...
Well, the philosophy is this, "Hey, here's an OS that will be secure out of the box. You don't have to scramble around the default install to lock it down. You are now free to build upon it with the degree of security you wish to implement." So...whats wrong with that? I think it's a good selling point for admins that don't want to deal with bullshit. Whether it's practical or not is moot. They do it because they want to do it, period.
This then ties into your other question - by auditing all of the code in their base system (which another poster has replied with details on) you can be fairly certain that by enabling openbsd's BIND, Xorg, etc you will have a system that runs well-tested, combed-through software.
As far as a comparison betweeen SELinux and RSBAC, i can't go there as i don't have that much expertice.
Wow. What a lame argument, "If GCC didn't exist, BSD wouldn't be where it is today, and you can't say otherwise because otherwise didn't happen!"
The simple fact of open source isn't what gets built, it's the spirit behind it - a spirit that exists without some fat bearded douche bag writing PART of a compiler (which isn't JUST WRITTEN BY RMS, IT'S WRITTEN BY MANY MANY OTHER PEOPLE TO REACH IT'S CURRENT, USEFUL FORM!!! Jeebus people). That spirit would move other people to develop their own compiler, much like the anti-GPL spirit in the BSD community has fostered increasing support for TenDRA. So, to answer your question, what is the greatest contribution to open source? Motivation to write open source software. If GCC didn't exist, that motivation would push coders to develop a different free compiler. To say otherwise is to speak with dogmatic blinders.
It's not as though RMS is the only one who can start a compiler and get it to attain self-sustaining momentum. Any good college CS program involves a class in compilers. A compiler is not some great mystery of comptuers, it just takes a lot of work to get one that works well enough for production use. Once TenDRA becomes stable and feature-rich enough to be used in production, BSD wills switch over to it in droves.
No no, OS X favors girls, Linux/UNIX (excluding OS X) favors boys, windows favors inbreeding.
Do you really want three girls? I mean...once they all start getting visits from aunt flo, along with their mother....how could that turn out well? Four girls PMSing. Any way you look at it - either one every week or various permutations of that...that sounds like hell, man.
And think about your poor son! The first half of his life he'd be teased by his sisters(ss) friends, the second half he'd have all the tang he wants right there in front of him during sleep overs, but would be too scared of girls to do anything about it! Oh man...
Personally, I love making the internet a more chaotic place, because then i can go on slashdot and watch more people bitch. Passing of child porn? I have reservations about that. But terrorism?! Psh, just the free spread of ideological information, like right-wing christian sites that post addresses of abortion clinics and of doctors who perform abortions. As for spam, well, I don't get any spam; so it's possible to live in the modern age spam-free. Perhaps those who get swampped by spam are just morons?
No, tor is for anything you can use a proxy for basically. I use it for IRC, which is think is a larger threat to my privacy than webbrowsing
the SCSI drivers are not completely tweaked, probably because they can't get enough information from the manufacturer.
No, it's obvious from the results that linux coders suck. Like you said, not surprising.
...if i had points.
And then us BSD users will laugh, and slashdot will be ours!! BAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAH
...all three of us.