Who's long and short term survival? Yours specifically or the entire human races?
Both my survival and the survival of the race.
People live in depths of Siberia. People live in the Sahara.
Good for them. Their lives tend to suck though.
Now there'll probably be a reduction in the population of the planet, but in reality it will be offset by the new farming prospects opened up in the colder areas. Like now it's possible to grow wheat in areas around my region that were never able to grow wheat before about 1998 due to the long bitter winters.
You neglect the corresponding growth in desert areas. It's unlikely that a net gain is on the cards.
And *us* specifically, we will barely see the consequences of it in our lifetimes which is something that's always conveniently forgotten by doomsayers.
We're already seeing some consequences, which is what this article is about. Get a brain, moran.
Rational people should openly reject such lunacy as it will create a public backlash when nothing "bad" happens in that timeframe.
Rational people should look at it rationally, which is what I was doing. You've come in with assumptions, assertions and prejudices and added NOTHING of value.
I didn't bother to post my references originally because these are pretty widely known facts, at least in the UK. It only really seems to be the USA where there is this phobia of "paying for the other guy" where the myth continues and is often used to back up the "keep medicine private" argument.
I realise I'm making a big assumption about your nationality here.
Also, I've never really bothered about karma here on/.
"A phone is the piece of tech that you can never really own."
Not really.
I mean, theoretically anyway. The Neo Freerunner was a tragically badly run project with old technology, a huge price tag and general stink of FAIL. That said, it was a fully programmable phone that you owned and could be used just fine with a base station. Hell, dev models of the android phones are also like this.
Built in obsolescence is only a problem because the state of the art is advancing so rapidly. Like PCs in the late 90s and early 00s. Now you don't care if a machine is two years old. Back then that made it useless.
Well, I likewise don't see why you would go for an ubuntu server over a debian one:)
Ubuntu has a six monthly release cycle with yearly LTS IIRC?
Debian is effectively always LTS, when it's released. When you release every two years and provide patches and updates for the oldstable as well as the stable branch you effectively have a 4 year support cycle anyway.
Also, Ubuntu is *so* x86 and whilst I know this is changing slowly I have three headless ARM based servers running debian right now. Err... For me, Ubuntu didn't get on very well with my laptop and debian does. YMMV, obviously, and we've strayed out of serverland now. I know Ubuntu has advantages, but debian is my distro of choice.
There have been "studies" by ASH, the anti-smoking group in the UK to show it is higher, but they used spurious figures such as the loss of future tax revenue from people who die early to stack their side, and ignored the corresponding lack of pension etc. in those cases.
Smokers basically pay for their own costs twice over, even at the higher end of these figures.
This stuff has been shown over and over again. The "I'm paying for your treatment" argument is totally and utterly invalid in the UK.
There have been "studies" by ASH, the anti-smoking group in the UK to show it is higher, but they used spurious figures such as the loss of future tax revenue from people who die early to stack their side, and ignored the corresponding lack of pension etc. in those cases.
Smokers basically pay for their own costs twice over, even at the higher end of these figures.
The questions are how much is man made, what are the consequences for our long and short term survival prospects and what actions to take if these consequences are unacceptable.
Smokers pay 11 billion pounds a year in taxes in the UK. They cost the health service around 5 billion. We're subsidising you to the tune of 6 billion pounds a year.
I work from home on occasion. My employer (I'm not going to say who as I don't speak for them, but they are a very large business) is generally pretty good about flexible working patterns, so long as you're productive.
Some of my team-mates work from home more often than not. I only do it when I need to stay at home for some reason (packages arriving, heating engineer, that sort of stuff).
I have worked from the pub. One of our team had a family emergency and went to canada for several months and worked as usual from there.
1) There is an option on *some* games for PS3, and no games for the Wii. Downloadable is all stored on built in memory. Please explain how this affects the issue that all PC games need to be installed and many come with crippling DRM, as compared to "put in and play".
3) The PC will become stable slower if at all. It remains that a single set of target hardware and OS/firmware is a lot easier to test.
4) You clearly never played Spore.
5) and 6) What am I ignoring? That he can use a big screen? I know that.
It doesn't change that the console has many better options for casual, relaxed gaming. The input methods pretty mush ensure it, along with local multiplayer.
And the further points:
1) Dedicated to gaming means dedicated to gaming. My laptop is not dedicated to gaming, it does not live by the tv and wait to be used as a console, it is not wired in to the tv. I would have to make an effort to do so and getting something simple like a dock for it would cost as much as an xbox or wii.
2) Your PC doesn't boot in the time it takes a console to get into the game, and it costs 4-10x as much.
Shall I rephrase that for those that prefer long form?
2. What bearing does that have on the argument at hand? I contend that this point is of minimal relevance.
4. I accept wholeheartedly that graphics card drivers on the PC platform have become more stable in recent years. This point is conceded but it does not comprise the entire argument. I am ebullient, for your sake, that this impasse is cleared. Conversely however, this does not mean the original expostulation is invalid.
6. Not only do I find point six banal, but I also dispute its relevance.
1. No they don't, only a small minority of games do that. Even so it doesn't negate the original point, that it's not "does it work with my hardware", "have I got a good enough gfx card", it just works and is a damn sight cheaper than a PC.
2. So what?
3. It only has one set of hardware to target. It'll be much more stable and much better tested on my hardware than yours.
4. Good, glad for you.
5. Call me when PC games routinely have multi-player through a single machine.
6. Sure, whatever.
I'm not trying to say that PC gaming is "inferior" in any way, it's just not the same. There's no technical reason why the cool console stuff with multiplayer local co-op etc couldn't run on my PC either. But it doesn't and there is a huge appeal to having a machine that is dedicated to gaming, comes on in seconds and is (mostly) guaranteed not to choke on the games you feed it.
The corporations are owned by investment funds which in invest money for investors. Everyone from you or me and out pensions up to the big fish with their hundreds of millions.
I'm not complaining that the evil corporations are hoarding the money away from the common man (man), I'm just wondering why the average Joe has to work as hard as ever and still has a struggle to provide for his (ever retreating) retirement, when traders trade in more than enough for everyone.
I often do wonder how we ended up here. Most of the wealth of the world is held not by its citizens, but by corporations. Corporations are owned by funds, which are owned by investors which... and by the time you drill through the obfuscation there seems to be nobody that actually accounts for most of the wealth created by the people that actually produce stuff.
And then you have the wall street leeches who juggle numbers around and suck millions out of... what exactly? The world is not richer for them in any material sense.
All the while I'm wondering why the day I can retire seems further and further away despite massive advances in technology. Shouldn't we all be creatures of (comparative) leisure by now?
When you see me recommend linux to total fscking idiots then you can have ago at me about whether your retarded grandmother can use it. Until then I suggest you go fuck yourself.
Frankly, if granny wants two monitors (and why the hell would she?) she gets her grandson around to make it work. At that point grandson's favourite OS is what works best, regardless of what it is.
Plug in extra screen, run xrandr to list displays and modes. Then run it again to switch on the new monitor at a chosen resolution and relative position.
If you've got nvidia then the nvidia-settings applet will do the same (and don't tell me that's "hard", you do the same in windows for nVidia and ATI)
I'm sure there are windowed versions, but this works perfectly for me.
Black server - server using encrypted comms that is not publicly know Darknet - layer on top of internet that uses encryption, multiple hop routing and other techniques to disguise nodes activity from each other
That's my understanding of it anyhow. I2P and freenet are the only darknets I know about. I wouldn't go near 'em, personally.
"Taking an absolute stand on theism OR atheism requires that you take as much evidence as there is into account, and then assume the rest."
Which is why you get 5 buck if you spot an someone taking an absolute stand on atheism and not saying they are simply a functional agnostic atheist because there is no evidence is available.
I saw one of those once, they came across as utterly crazy.
Agnosticism and atheism are not incompatible, and you're probably both if you're either (though agnostic theists do exist, they're weird).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, so all the standard (rubbish) arguments people make about linux apply equally here.
Oh but I can't run $software_2_people_use! It's useless!
Only pity and exasperation so far I'm afraid. I'd feel compassion if they were less determined to screw themselves and everyone else over.
Couldn't agree more.
That and all the chemically dependant "fast-grow, high-yield" fruits and vegetables taste like arse compared to the more traditional ones.
Going for higher, cheaper yield is not always good.
Less humans = better for the environment.
"That is technological improvement, so there's no really any reason why technologically made or improved food would be more riskier."
Utter Horsepuckey.
So because technological improvement has helped us get where we are now, it can do no wrong at all?
What nonsense. Look at the whole trans-fat thing for an example. Carcinogens added technologically as a preservative.
Who's long and short term survival? Yours specifically or the entire human races?
Both my survival and the survival of the race.
People live in depths of Siberia.
People live in the Sahara.
Good for them. Their lives tend to suck though.
Now there'll probably be a reduction in the population of the planet, but in reality it will be offset by the new farming prospects opened up in the colder areas. Like now it's possible to grow wheat in areas around my region that were never able to grow wheat before about 1998 due to the long bitter winters.
You neglect the corresponding growth in desert areas. It's unlikely that a net gain is on the cards.
And *us* specifically, we will barely see the consequences of it in our lifetimes which is something that's always conveniently forgotten by doomsayers.
We're already seeing some consequences, which is what this article is about. Get a brain, moran.
Rational people should openly reject such lunacy as it will create a public backlash when nothing "bad" happens in that timeframe.
Rational people should look at it rationally, which is what I was doing. You've come in with assumptions, assertions and prejudices and added NOTHING of value.
I didn't bother to post my references originally because these are pretty widely known facts, at least in the UK. It only really seems to be the USA where there is this phobia of "paying for the other guy" where the myth continues and is often used to back up the "keep medicine private" argument.
I realise I'm making a big assumption about your nationality here.
Also, I've never really bothered about karma here on /.
"A phone is the piece of tech that you can never really own."
Not really.
I mean, theoretically anyway. The Neo Freerunner was a tragically badly run project with old technology, a huge price tag and general stink of FAIL. That said, it was a fully programmable phone that you owned and could be used just fine with a base station. Hell, dev models of the android phones are also like this.
Built in obsolescence is only a problem because the state of the art is advancing so rapidly. Like PCs in the late 90s and early 00s. Now you don't care if a machine is two years old. Back then that made it useless.
This is just pure apple fear-mongering.
Well, I likewise don't see why you would go for an ubuntu server over a debian one :)
Ubuntu has a six monthly release cycle with yearly LTS IIRC?
Debian is effectively always LTS, when it's released. When you release every two years and provide patches and updates for the oldstable as well as the stable branch you effectively have a 4 year support cycle anyway.
Also, Ubuntu is *so* x86 and whilst I know this is changing slowly I have three headless ARM based servers running debian right now. Err...
For me, Ubuntu didn't get on very well with my laptop and debian does. YMMV, obviously, and we've strayed out of serverland now. I know Ubuntu has advantages, but debian is my distro of choice.
Screwed up my tags in that last one, let's try this again:
Tobacco revenues in excise duty and VAT
BBC article from last year quoting a cost of around 3 billion to the NHS from a study by ASH, the anti-smoking group
BBC article from last month claiming the figure had been underestimated previously and is now 5 billion
There have been "studies" by ASH, the anti-smoking group in the UK to show it is higher, but they used spurious figures such as the loss of future tax revenue from people who die early to stack their side, and ignored the corresponding lack of pension etc. in those cases.
Smokers basically pay for their own costs twice over, even at the higher end of these figures.
This stuff has been shown over and over again. The "I'm paying for your treatment" argument is totally and utterly invalid in the UK.
Tobacco revenues in excise duty and VAT
BBC article from last year quoting a cost of around 3 billion to the NHS from a study by ASH, the anti-smoking group
BBC article from last month claiming the figure had been underestimated previously and is now 5 billion
There have been "studies" by ASH, the anti-smoking group in the UK to show it is higher, but they used spurious figures such as the loss of future tax revenue from people who die early to stack their side, and ignored the corresponding lack of pension etc. in those cases.
Smokers basically pay for their own costs twice over, even at the higher end of these figures.
Eh, no.
The questions are how much is man made, what are the consequences for our long and short term survival prospects and what actions to take if these consequences are unacceptable.
Erm, what about us adults who are angry about the state of the world, act like they know everything, smoke chemicals and think it's good thing etc?
I mean, just because I can make it in the world doesn't mean I have to like the reality I see and the dumb apes that inhabit it, does it?
Hi, light smoker here.
Smokers pay 11 billion pounds a year in taxes in the UK. They cost the health service around 5 billion. We're subsidising you to the tune of 6 billion pounds a year.
STFU now.
I work from home on occasion. My employer (I'm not going to say who as I don't speak for them, but they are a very large business) is generally pretty good about flexible working patterns, so long as you're productive.
Some of my team-mates work from home more often than not. I only do it when I need to stay at home for some reason (packages arriving, heating engineer, that sort of stuff).
I have worked from the pub. One of our team had a family emergency and went to canada for several months and worked as usual from there.
It's good to be a software engineer :)
1) There is an option on *some* games for PS3, and no games for the Wii. Downloadable is all stored on built in memory. Please explain how this affects the issue that all PC games need to be installed and many come with crippling DRM, as compared to "put in and play".
3) The PC will become stable slower if at all. It remains that a single set of target hardware and OS/firmware is a lot easier to test.
4) You clearly never played Spore.
5) and 6) What am I ignoring? That he can use a big screen? I know that.
It doesn't change that the console has many better options for casual, relaxed gaming. The input methods pretty mush ensure it, along with local multiplayer.
And the further points:
1) Dedicated to gaming means dedicated to gaming. My laptop is not dedicated to gaming, it does not live by the tv and wait to be used as a console, it is not wired in to the tv. I would have to make an effort to do so and getting something simple like a dock for it would cost as much as an xbox or wii.
2) Your PC doesn't boot in the time it takes a console to get into the game, and it costs 4-10x as much.
3) Again, you clearly never played Spore.
Shall I rephrase that for those that prefer long form?
2. What bearing does that have on the argument at hand? I contend that this point is of minimal relevance.
4. I accept wholeheartedly that graphics card drivers on the PC platform have become more stable in recent years. This point is conceded but it does not comprise the entire argument. I am ebullient, for your sake, that this impasse is cleared. Conversely however, this does not mean the original expostulation is invalid.
6. Not only do I find point six banal, but I also dispute its relevance.
Better?
1. No they don't, only a small minority of games do that. Even so it doesn't negate the original point, that it's not "does it work with my hardware", "have I got a good enough gfx card", it just works and is a damn sight cheaper than a PC.
2. So what?
3. It only has one set of hardware to target. It'll be much more stable and much better tested on my hardware than yours.
4. Good, glad for you.
5. Call me when PC games routinely have multi-player through a single machine.
6. Sure, whatever.
I'm not trying to say that PC gaming is "inferior" in any way, it's just not the same. There's no technical reason why the cool console stuff with multiplayer local co-op etc couldn't run on my PC either. But it doesn't and there is a huge appeal to having a machine that is dedicated to gaming, comes on in seconds and is (mostly) guaranteed not to choke on the games you feed it.
The corporations are owned by investment funds which in invest money for investors. Everyone from you or me and out pensions up to the big fish with their hundreds of millions.
I'm not complaining that the evil corporations are hoarding the money away from the common man (man), I'm just wondering why the average Joe has to work as hard as ever and still has a struggle to provide for his (ever retreating) retirement, when traders trade in more than enough for everyone.
I guess that makes me a socialist or something.
Lol.
I often do wonder how we ended up here. Most of the wealth of the world is held not by its citizens, but by corporations. Corporations are owned by funds, which are owned by investors which... and by the time you drill through the obfuscation there seems to be nobody that actually accounts for most of the wealth created by the people that actually produce stuff.
And then you have the wall street leeches who juggle numbers around and suck millions out of... what exactly? The world is not richer for them in any material sense.
All the while I'm wondering why the day I can retire seems further and further away despite massive advances in technology. Shouldn't we all be creatures of (comparative) leisure by now?
When you see me recommend linux to total fscking idiots then you can have ago at me about whether your retarded grandmother can use it. Until then I suggest you go fuck yourself.
Frankly, if granny wants two monitors (and why the hell would she?) she gets her grandson around to make it work. At that point grandson's favourite OS is what works best, regardless of what it is.
Oh bullcrap. just use xrandr.
Plug in extra screen, run xrandr to list displays and modes. Then run it again to switch on the new monitor at a chosen resolution and relative position.
If you've got nvidia then the nvidia-settings applet will do the same (and don't tell me that's "hard", you do the same in windows for nVidia and ATI)
I'm sure there are windowed versions, but this works perfectly for me.
"What's wrong with freenet?"
Uh, it's full of child porn. I'm not handing over part of my hard drive to help propagate that stuff.
Black server - server using encrypted comms that is not publicly know
Darknet - layer on top of internet that uses encryption, multiple hop routing and other techniques to disguise nodes activity from each other
That's my understanding of it anyhow. I2P and freenet are the only darknets I know about. I wouldn't go near 'em, personally.
"Taking an absolute stand on theism OR atheism requires that you take as much evidence as there is into account, and then assume the rest."
Which is why you get 5 buck if you spot an someone taking an absolute stand on atheism and not saying they are simply a functional agnostic atheist because there is no evidence is available.
I saw one of those once, they came across as utterly crazy.
Agnosticism and atheism are not incompatible, and you're probably both if you're either (though agnostic theists do exist, they're weird).