Hmmm... it would seem your intelligence is only matched by your politeness. Steady on, mate! Why you responded with such vehemence I have no idea, but let's go through your points one by one...
"Now, are you seriously going to sit there and suggest that we should just keep on pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere until we know exactly how things work?"
Did I say that? No I didn't, so why are you resorting to straw men? Why are you putting words in my mouth?
Actually, you did indeed say that. Your post to which I was replying, and indeed, quoted, stated:
Can you bear to read all the "We must get rid of fossil fuels/SUV's/coal RIGHT NOW!!!!" posts, because there will be just as many of those. And they're just as ignorant.
What this study, and many others, actually show is that we have a primitive understanding of what is happening in the atmosphere. Trying to fix it without understanding it is a bad idea, but seemingly a very common bad idea.
Of course, now I'll get the "You're one of those wackos that don't believe in global warming" response. Nope, I'm one of thos wackos who believe in knowing what the hell you're doing and not making assumptions based on incomplete information.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to expressing the following viewpoint: that we shouldn't stop greenhouse gas production (that's the "We must get rid of fossil fuels/SUV's/coal RIGHT NOW!!!!" viewpoint which you so strongly object to) until we know "what the hell [we]'re doing and not making assumptions based on incomplete information". Care to tell me how that's a straw man??
You're the classic example of the wrong person to discuss this. Someone who has made up their mind. You think that you know the answer to the problem, but you don't, you're just incredibly fucking arrogant and assume you do.
Actually, the only person who's being arrogant is you. I don't know the answer to or the cause of the problem, but I would suggest that if there's the risk that we're making things worse via greenhouse gas production, isn't it worthwhile to remove that risk while we check? Consider that on the basis of the current evidence, the simplest explanation is that increases in greenhouse gasses are causing global warming. This may be incorrect, but it's the most likely suggestion at this point. Now, by all means let's do more research into atmospheric conditions and climate change, but while we do it, why not stop one huge potential cause of the problem. Because if we don't and it turns out that greenhouse gasses do cause global warming, then it's going to be a little bit too late to do anything about it. Playing safe is always a good idea!
Incidentally, please note that swear words don't make your point any stronger... There's really no need to resort to offensive language.
The fact is that we have an incomplete understanding of what is happening with our atmosphere.
Absolutely. I completely agree. Did you even read my post? All I was pointing out is that we are currently putting a lot of things into our atmosphere which we don't understand what they do. You see - I agree with you! So I was suggesting that we stop putting things into the atmosphere until we do understand what they do. Because whether or not you like it, burning vast amounts of fossil fuels is not a standard condition for our atmosphere.
But if you can't see this, then I can't really argue with you.
Can you bear to read all the "We must get rid of fossil fuels/SUV's/coal RIGHT NOW!!!!" posts, because there will be just as many of those. And they're just as ignorant.... What this study, and many others, actually show is that we have a primitive understanding of what is happening in the atmosphere. Trying to fix it without understanding it is a bad idea, but seemingly a very common bad idea.
It depends what you term as "trying to fix it". The whole point with global dimming is that we've completely underestimated the rapidity of global warming, because it's been partially counteracted by global dimming. The fact that air polution is now decreasing means that previous climate models are inaccurate, but only in so far as they grossly underestimated the result.
Now, are you seriously going to sit there and suggest that we should just keep on pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere until we know exactly how things work? Maybe you should think about it the other way: that we should stop pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere until we know how it works!
You may not comprehend this, but increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses is not maintaining the atmospheric status quo...
a) if the gov't wants to read your email, they ain't gonna knock. You'll get no warning, no chance to delete anything.
b) even if you *do* get the chance to delete or encrypt, it will be considered a criminal offence and evidence of guilt, and you'll probably end up in a lot more trouble than you would have if you'd left your data alone (unless you were up to serious trouble in the first place, but I'm assuming that you're not the type!:)
Re:Nothing beats yahoo and mutt
on
Gmail vs Pine
·
· Score: 1
Mutt is superior (as is yahoo mail -except when it comes to pop3 access which is becoming less and less relevent every day)!
I'm seriously lost here - are you suggesting that yahoo mail is open source? Otherwise you seem to be making a non-sequitur...
Whereas your own personal mail server is secure from the police??!! How, exactly?
Re:One Point For Gmail
on
Gmail vs Pine
·
· Score: 1
I would love to RTFA but it has melted down, I hope it isnt hosted in the same place as someones PINE based email, because I dont think they will be able to check their email for a while.
*grin*... you really should have been modded up more. Great post!:)
Re:One more key point - lack of security
on
Gmail vs Pine
·
· Score: 1
Which interface would that be?
The one the parent post referred to. If you actually used Gmail, you'd find out too.
Gmail's behaviour is exactly like Yahoo's - if the browser doesn't support javascript, you're automatically switched to the HTML only interface. You can quite happily fire up lynx pointed to https://gmail.google.com/ and read your Gmail...
Furthermore, your concerns about being able to read the source of PINE but not Gmail are unfounded: you can actually view the entire Gmail client-side javascript if you want (which is exactly how the libgmail and gmail-API projects were developed...)
Re:One Point For Gmail
on
Gmail vs Pine
·
· Score: 1
I don't need a client with Pine -- Pine is the client, and it runs on my home machine, no matter where I access it from.
However, you do need to have your home box running 24/7 and pay for a domain name, which is wasteful at best. And typing an email over a slow ssh/telnet connection seriously sucks...
Personally, I was a PINE junkie until I started using Gmail. One of things I immediately liked about it was the fact that I could operate the interface by the keyboard alone, just like PINE. Both are great email clients...:)
What's loony about the Greens? They have the most credible social and economic policies for the mid to long term
Well, their complete refusal to consider nuclear power as an alternative energy source comes to mind as a seriously loony policy...
and Bob Brown is probably the only really honest politician on earth. How can anyone not admire Bob Brown? He's a pillar of integrity and sanity, amidst a sea of crackpot, corrupt bastards.
You're absolutely right - Bob Brown is one of the few people in the parliament with integrity and honesty. The Greens are the party the ALP used to be in the 70s, pretty much, before the party got trashed by right-wing conservative leaders...
I mean, I myself think blogs are idiotic with rare exceptions, but his choosing of the medium is entertaining.
I think his point was that blogs have no role in Amazon's business model - which appears fairly obvious to me.
The place blogs generally seem to occupy in the internet is the "having a big whinge" category, and that's exactly what he's doing on his blog, in reply to the book's authors' whinge on their blog. Probably after this/. article, lots of other bloggers will get whinging about the fact that these guys a whinging, the internet will implode, and then we can all leave our terminals and go and have a beer at the pub.
But not anymore. Now, even if I explicitly type "www.google.com" in my address bar (firefox, in English, with locale set to US), the stupid server hands me back a google.de redirect
So just block all cookies from google.com - you'll never have any problems again. You should be blocking the cookies anyway - if you don't, google stores your search history on their server, which isn't exactly my idea of privacy...
If you want a proper house of review (and you should) then you bloody well elect one. It should be elected in a different way to the House of Commons, in a way that enables greater influence by minor parties and reduces the chance of the government holding an outright majority, but it should be elected.
If you believe that a democracy works. Perhaps User24 doesn't. Before you start anymore swearing, consider that most democracies resolve themselves quickly into a two-party system. Members are elected not on the basis of local politics or individual characteristics, but on the basis of party politics. Most political parties require their members in parliament to tow the party line - very few allow conscience votes as a general rule. As such, democracy in practice is a far cry from a representation of the people's ideas - and, in fact, the ruling government in a democracy often brings in individual policies that have the support of only a tiny minority of the people.
So the HoL is not an attempt at a democratic check, but rather a meritocratic check - the idea presumably being that peerages represent people of reason and good commonsense, and as such they can provide an independent, balanced assessment of controversial legislation. Of course, it's not a meritocracy in practice, but rather an plutocracy, but at least it's a reasonably independent one. Whether or not you think that this is the best solution to the problem of keeping a check on government legislation, it's still a perfectly acceptable alternative.
Especially if a lot of people don't immediately opt out of the censorship, it becomes more stigmatizing; the smaller the number of people on the list, the more of an oddity it becomes and the more people will want to avoid being on there.
You hit the nail on the head - the only acceptable response, if this legislation ever comes into force, is to immediately request removal of the filter. That way, your response was based not on the need for pornography or violence, but on your moral views on internet censorship.
In any case, I doubt that there will be some big, giant database of who's on the pr0n list - it will be a per-ISP thing, and even your ISP will probably not keep a dedicated database.
Weasel Reader?? Have a look at PalmFiction (Russian website, but you can always use the fish if necessary).
It's also opensource, but it supports beautiful anti-aliased fonts (included, and also has Windows software to make your own) and, best of all, reads text, gzipped text, zip files containing text, whatever, directly from your SD card! No need to convert them into some crazy format, just throw the files on your card and away you go. It's fantastic...
How about they stop being self-rightous assholes and include MP3 support in their releases.
Eh? I'm using Ubuntu Breezy, and the xmms package contains the mpg123 decoder plugin - i.e. it can play mp3s right out of the box. Has anyone got the xmms package installed without mp3 support??
Lyx comes with good document types for theses and academic papers. However for most kinds of business writing tasks it's hopeless.
I think it's fair to say that LyX is only useful for academic writing; but for that form of writing, it's unbeatable. The bibliographic functions are just incredible these days, and combined with JabRef it's far superior to anything that MS Office + EndNote has ever come up with. I've written several papers and a book chapter with it, and am currently writing my thesis with it.
Just what is the command line not suited for? Drawing, photo retouching.... anything else?
Instances of file operations for which a CLI interface is not suited:
Previewing folders of graphics (thumbnails are useful things!)
Browsing dir trees quickly (faster than tab completion when you don't know the exact folder you're looking for)
Copying/moving/linking many individual, unrelated files to a new directory
Instances of file operations for which a GUI file manager is not suited:
Batch operations on multiple files
Quickly navigating to a particular known directory
Copying/moving/linking related files of a single type to a new directory
Answer: both CLIs and file managers are useful in different ways. A real power-user knows how to use both, and when to use both...
(One of the reasons I use ROX as my file manager is that it's got a built-in CLI, and a command to bring up a terminal in the specified directory - you get the best of both worlds...)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you did indeed say that. Your post to which I was replying, and indeed, quoted, stated:
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to expressing the following viewpoint: that we shouldn't stop greenhouse gas production (that's the "We must get rid of fossil fuels/SUV's/coal RIGHT NOW!!!!" viewpoint which you so strongly object to) until we know "what the hell [we]'re doing and not making assumptions based on incomplete information". Care to tell me how that's a straw man??
Actually, the only person who's being arrogant is you. I don't know the answer to or the cause of the problem, but I would suggest that if there's the risk that we're making things worse via greenhouse gas production, isn't it worthwhile to remove that risk while we check? Consider that on the basis of the current evidence, the simplest explanation is that increases in greenhouse gasses are causing global warming. This may be incorrect, but it's the most likely suggestion at this point. Now, by all means let's do more research into atmospheric conditions and climate change, but while we do it, why not stop one huge potential cause of the problem. Because if we don't and it turns out that greenhouse gasses do cause global warming, then it's going to be a little bit too late to do anything about it. Playing safe is always a good idea!
Incidentally, please note that swear words don't make your point any stronger
Absolutely. I completely agree. Did you even read my post? All I was pointing out is that we are currently putting a lot of things into our atmosphere which we don't understand what they do. You see - I agree with you! So I was suggesting that we stop putting things into the atmosphere until we do understand what they do. Because whether or not you like it, burning vast amounts of fossil fuels is not a standard condition for our atmosphere.
But if you can't see this, then I can't really argue with you.
Can you bear to read all the "We must get rid of fossil fuels/SUV's/coal RIGHT NOW!!!!" posts, because there will be just as many of those. And they're just as ignorant .... What this study, and many others, actually show is that we have a primitive understanding of what is happening in the atmosphere. Trying to fix it without understanding it is a bad idea, but seemingly a very common bad idea.
...
It depends what you term as "trying to fix it". The whole point with global dimming is that we've completely underestimated the rapidity of global warming, because it's been partially counteracted by global dimming. The fact that air polution is now decreasing means that previous climate models are inaccurate, but only in so far as they grossly underestimated the result.
Now, are you seriously going to sit there and suggest that we should just keep on pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere until we know exactly how things work? Maybe you should think about it the other way: that we should stop pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere until we know how it works!
You may not comprehend this, but increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses is not maintaining the atmospheric status quo
The problem is that:
:)
a) if the gov't wants to read your email, they ain't gonna knock. You'll get no warning, no chance to delete anything.
b) even if you *do* get the chance to delete or encrypt, it will be considered a criminal offence and evidence of guilt, and you'll probably end up in a lot more trouble than you would have if you'd left your data alone (unless you were up to serious trouble in the first place, but I'm assuming that you're not the type!
Mutt is superior (as is yahoo mail -except when it comes to pop3 access which is becoming less and less relevent every day)!
...
I'm seriously lost here - are you suggesting that yahoo mail is open source? Otherwise you seem to be making a non-sequitur
in addition to had over upon subpoena.
Whereas your own personal mail server is secure from the police??!! How, exactly?
I would love to RTFA but it has melted down, I hope it isnt hosted in the same place as someones PINE based email, because I dont think they will be able to check their email for a while.
... you really should have been modded up more. Great post! :)
*grin*
Which interface would that be?
...
...)
The one the parent post referred to. If you actually used Gmail, you'd find out too.
Gmail's behaviour is exactly like Yahoo's - if the browser doesn't support javascript, you're automatically switched to the HTML only interface. You can quite happily fire up lynx pointed to https://gmail.google.com/ and read your Gmail
Furthermore, your concerns about being able to read the source of PINE but not Gmail are unfounded: you can actually view the entire Gmail client-side javascript if you want (which is exactly how the libgmail and gmail-API projects were developed
I don't need a client with Pine -- Pine is the client, and it runs on my home machine, no matter where I access it from.
...
... :)
However, you do need to have your home box running 24/7 and pay for a domain name, which is wasteful at best. And typing an email over a slow ssh/telnet connection seriously sucks
Personally, I was a PINE junkie until I started using Gmail. One of things I immediately liked about it was the fact that I could operate the interface by the keyboard alone, just like PINE. Both are great email clients
What's loony about the Greens? They have the most credible social and economic policies for the mid to long term
...
...
Well, their complete refusal to consider nuclear power as an alternative energy source comes to mind as a seriously loony policy
and Bob Brown is probably the only really honest politician on earth. How can anyone not admire Bob Brown? He's a pillar of integrity and sanity, amidst a sea of crackpot, corrupt bastards.
You're absolutely right - Bob Brown is one of the few people in the parliament with integrity and honesty. The Greens are the party the ALP used to be in the 70s, pretty much, before the party got trashed by right-wing conservative leaders
How come with all this cuteness you guys still aren't celebrating the cutest thing of all, Hello Kitty?
...
Yeah, Hello Kitty's definitely got my vote
Do you guys celebrate AFD down in Australia?
...
No. The current gov't outlawed it last year as part of the anti-terror legislation.
But don't worry - you yanks are going to have it outlawed too, thanks to the FTA
I mean, I myself think blogs are idiotic with rare exceptions, but his choosing of the medium is entertaining.
/. article, lots of other bloggers will get whinging about the fact that these guys a whinging, the internet will implode, and then we can all leave our terminals and go and have a beer at the pub.
I think his point was that blogs have no role in Amazon's business model - which appears fairly obvious to me.
The place blogs generally seem to occupy in the internet is the "having a big whinge" category, and that's exactly what he's doing on his blog, in reply to the book's authors' whinge on their blog. Probably after this
But since when has mathematical truth interfered with policy making?
Hey, leave maths out of it! Since when has truth interfered with policy making??
But not anymore. Now, even if I explicitly type "www.google.com" in my address bar (firefox, in English, with locale set to US), the stupid server hands me back a google.de redirect
...
So just block all cookies from google.com - you'll never have any problems again. You should be blocking the cookies anyway - if you don't, google stores your search history on their server, which isn't exactly my idea of privacy
If you want a proper house of review (and you should) then you bloody well elect one. It should be elected in a different way to the House of Commons, in a way that enables greater influence by minor parties and reduces the chance of the government holding an outright majority, but it should be elected.
If you believe that a democracy works. Perhaps User24 doesn't. Before you start anymore swearing, consider that most democracies resolve themselves quickly into a two-party system. Members are elected not on the basis of local politics or individual characteristics, but on the basis of party politics. Most political parties require their members in parliament to tow the party line - very few allow conscience votes as a general rule. As such, democracy in practice is a far cry from a representation of the people's ideas - and, in fact, the ruling government in a democracy often brings in individual policies that have the support of only a tiny minority of the people.
So the HoL is not an attempt at a democratic check, but rather a meritocratic check - the idea presumably being that peerages represent people of reason and good commonsense, and as such they can provide an independent, balanced assessment of controversial legislation. Of course, it's not a meritocracy in practice, but rather an plutocracy, but at least it's a reasonably independent one. Whether or not you think that this is the best solution to the problem of keeping a check on government legislation, it's still a perfectly acceptable alternative.
Especially if a lot of people don't immediately opt out of the censorship, it becomes more stigmatizing; the smaller the number of people on the list, the more of an oddity it becomes and the more people will want to avoid being on there.
You hit the nail on the head - the only acceptable response, if this legislation ever comes into force, is to immediately request removal of the filter. That way, your response was based not on the need for pornography or violence, but on your moral views on internet censorship.
In any case, I doubt that there will be some big, giant database of who's on the pr0n list - it will be a per-ISP thing, and even your ISP will probably not keep a dedicated database.
In Ubuntu, I used "sudo su"
Just "sudo passwd" and you'll have a password for your root account, and can su at will. If you're a competent linux user, both have their uses.
Weasel Reader?? Have a look at PalmFiction (Russian website, but you can always use the fish if necessary).
...
It's also opensource, but it supports beautiful anti-aliased fonts (included, and also has Windows software to make your own) and, best of all, reads text, gzipped text, zip files containing text, whatever, directly from your SD card! No need to convert them into some crazy format, just throw the files on your card and away you go. It's fantastic
What can be done with Ubuntu that I can't do with Debian?
...
The installation is easier, for one. And it incorporates more up-to-date packages than Debian stable, yet is still stable.
Other than that, not much. Use whatever works for you
How about they stop being self-rightous assholes and include MP3 support in their releases.
Eh? I'm using Ubuntu Breezy, and the xmms package contains the mpg123 decoder plugin - i.e. it can play mp3s right out of the box. Has anyone got the xmms package installed without mp3 support??
Lyx comes with good document types for theses and academic papers. However for most kinds of business writing tasks it's hopeless.
I think it's fair to say that LyX is only useful for academic writing; but for that form of writing, it's unbeatable. The bibliographic functions are just incredible these days, and combined with JabRef it's far superior to anything that MS Office + EndNote has ever come up with. I've written several papers and a book chapter with it, and am currently writing my thesis with it.
Sheesh, can you all just stop clouding the issue??
Xtree, MC and the like are far better file managers than anything I've ever seen running under X, Windows, etc.
... :)
Have you ever looked at ROX? Personally, I'd rather use a win32 shell than midnight-commander, but maybe that's just me
Which is more successful, simple nematodes or complex humans ?
:)
Which would a human have more chance of designing from scratch and making it work, The 1000 celled nematode or the 10 trillion celled human ?
Some people have forgotten what the Unix philosophy is and why, or never knew what it was.
So are you suggesting that firefox should be implemented as several thousand small applications joined together with pipes??
Instances of file operations for which a CLI interface is not suited:
Instances of file operations for which a GUI file manager is not suited:
Answer: both CLIs and file managers are useful in different ways. A real power-user knows how to use both, and when to use both
(One of the reasons I use ROX as my file manager is that it's got a built-in CLI, and a command to bring up a terminal in the specified directory - you get the best of both worlds