Trolling, or a real question? Oh well, in any case, this is about sea ice. Floating ice. Floating ice melting will not raise sea level, the melted water takes exactly as much volume as the submerged part of floating ice, per Archimedes's Law.
Also, sea ice is thin, measured in meters or at most tens of meters. The sea level rise problem comes from land ice, which is not floating and which has thickness measured in hundreds or thousands of meters. It'll take time for that to melt, so people living in places like large parts of Florida have time to move elsewhere, possibly even without creating a US internal refugee problem, much.
I for one am rather happy with Ubuntu. Can't stand Unity of course, and KDE has never been my cup of tea (have given it a few tries, given up every time, it just didn't do what I wanted). I was really happy when we got Ubuntu Mate, that just does what I want, and gets out of the way.
But with Ubuntu 16.10 I'm really looking forward to try Lubuntu again. The old LXDE is a bit too... lacking in small convenience features. I hope LXQt will improve on that (plus, I'm a Qt fan in general). If it's a let-down (beta 1 still has LXDE, I believe, so not trying it out yet), I suppose Ubuntu Mate will continue to give me the naughties UX.
It also paves the way for solar satellites to harvest solar power and send it to non-polluting power stations on Earth, which can provide far more energy than is available from fossil fuels or fusion, and far more safely than fission.
Uh, solar power is simply redirected fusion. That is, after all, how the sun works.
Everything is redirected fusion, even including geothermal, because fusion is how radioactive elements in Earth were made. Only non-fusion energy production mechanism I can think of is gravity, in other words tidal power (also black hole accretion disks, but we don't have any, yet).
I'd like to be wrong but I don't think humanity will venture as far as Mars, or even back to the Moon. Our adventurous spirit is largely extinguished and replaced with navel-gazing solipsism. We prefer weaponry to spacecraft in any case.
It only takes a tiny part of humanity to retain/rediscover that adventurous spirit. Moon was visited by combined science of nations with... I CBA to check so I'll say well under half a billion people, and with a lot less of accumulated knowledge than today. Humanity is not one collective, and I dare say it'll never be. 90% of people might embed themselves in VR and starve to death, but that still leaves almost a billion people who don't want to. Natural selection FTW.
Lets just say, as a Tech Geek, I get offended / my intelligence gets offended, when eg in this case, a file extension that sounds perfectly benign gets changed for absolutely non-technical reasons but for poltical reasons. Of course I see the irony here, but changing a technical detail for non-technical reasons and not because of a design flaw or whatever just rustles my jimmies.
And that is why geeks rarely make good marketing or management people. Because these soft people things matter, even when it doesn't seem to make logical sense. Things rarely succeed on technical merits, appearances (including such small things like file name extension and mime type) matter too.
Anyway, the cynical me suspects, that the extension was changed just to get publicity for the new format, and political correctness was just an excuse. Still, if this raises awareness of the format, I'm not going to blame them for doing it.
Your understanding is very superficial. There's no irony at all. No one is honestly saying it is only about a technical detail. It's about moral, social and political values for both camps.
You're right, it's worse than just ironical. One camp is saying "we don't like this". Other camp is saying "we want this the way other camp doesn't like". I'm not sure how you go about compromising in a situation like that. So, a hint: When ever you notice the feminist/SJW/PC camp to have the more reasonable position, it's time to re-evaluate the situation. No matter how good "pro-bro movement" sounds, this is not the smartest battle to pick.
So they checked with one subgroup in one 'culture-sphere' - how many more such combinations do I have to check with to ensure that I'm not offending someone somewhere? After all, bisexual Eritrean goat herders shouldn't have to feel bad just because you want to name your files something - it's so easily avoided, just choose another extension...
You don't have to check anything. But if someone does check something with someone, you should have some actual, concrete reason before you criticize them for checking and then changing something.
But if you are creating a word (or acronym/shortening which will be used like a word), which you wish to be universally used, I do think it is wise to think about existing meanings of the new word. Case in point, Gimp has probably suffered from the alternative meaning of the word (just a guess, no reference), with slightly less developers and users and positive publicity. It may be stupid, but it's the world we live in, and martyring oneself as opposer of excessive political correctness doesn't make much business sense.
World is not safe. In particular for women. You can close your eyes and brag like a french rooster without any power as you are used to do, or do something about it. Every bit of change is worth it, even if you are too immature to think about half of your childrens which might statistically be female. You can do everything you like. That' just your choice to give this chance to all of your children. Now you can brag around and get back to SJW bashing.
Um, please re-read what I wrote. Because either you totally misunderstood my post (pointing out the hypocrisy of criticizing the change of extension), or I misunderstand your reply to it.
Fucking fucking hells ass this world where you can't do anything anymore, because some selfish asshole gets offended evey time.
Looking at all the comments, I hope everybody realizes the irony here. You can't even change a file extension without a bunch of people getting their panties in a bunch:D
The rational thing is to change the extension to something neutral. It's just a technical detail and does not matter that much, so it's sensible to just be polite to those idi... humans who feel there is a problem.
Of course once you're polite, you get a bunch of other idi... humans saying they find the change of the extension without a technical reason offensive, and would like it changed back, failing to understand that they want it changed back for an equally non-technical "feel-good" reason.
Oh the irony.
Obviously it would be different if there was a good technical reason to demand just that one particular extension, but there isn't. It'd also be different if the new extension (instead of the act of changing it) was potentially as offensive.
Don't worry, systemd will soon integrate with keylogctl and send all your porn browsing to Pothead.
It's open source and trivial to patch. And a distro which shipped something like that unpatched would be dead in a few days. Also it would result in immediate fork. Just observe what happened to MySQL and especially OpenOffice.
Make that three, m$ finally pushed me over to kubuntu as a primary OS. I still maintain winblows at work, but I do so from my linux desktop (dual boot, but win 7 is way too slow).
I recently switched to running an Ubuntu variant on my old work laptop (top-of-the line from 2013), and running Windows as VirtualBox guest for stuff like MS Office and Windows development. Works very nice, all you need is enough memory and an SSD and a decent processor.
So essentially an elaborate method of sending a clear text sequence of numbers (port numbers) to the server to allow access.
I wouldn't even call it elaborate. But it is different, so it is distinct extra security layer which offers unique protection. Cracking it basically requires that attacker can sniff low level traffic between client and server, and knows to watch for port knocking sequences. The important property of port knocking is, attacker without privileged knowledge doesn't know if server expects port knocking sequence, and attacker doesn't know if they failed critically and got that IP blocked. So it effectively blocks even remote detection of a running ssh server, let alone actually trying to break into one, while still allowing authorized access from everywhere.
A meteorite which does not create a big crater will throw a lot less stuff up into the atmosphere, and will have much less global consequences. Getting a shower of smaller pieces would not be fun, but a single big impact penetrating deep into the crust with equal energy is worse.
while it is the first time its been run to full power, it wasnt for any reason other than calibration
Well, not the only reason. They also wanted to verify it does not trigger destruction of the planet, or a phase change of our universe. No point gathering data, if there's nobody left to examine it, is there?
My greatest disappointment with C++ has to be the QT library. They went ahead and actually changed the language, but kept the most insane parts of it. Let's face it - if your dev environment reads in $FOO source files and spits out C++ source files to a C++ compiler, you may as well make your $FOO language something better than "C++ with extra #defines here and there" . What a missed opportunity by trolltech.
Qt does not change C++ language. Qt application code (C++ side) typically compiles with multiple C++ compilers, so not only is it C++, it is often made very compatible/portable C++.
Qt build process does not read in $FOO source files, it reads in C++ source files, and generates extra source files in addition to the original. The original source file stays there, and can do anything C++ can do. This is a rather critical point, all modern features of C++ are fully usable in Qt apps code, and also support from them tends to be added to Qt (like connecting Qt signals to C++ lambdas). Another very important aspect of being pure C++ is, you can use any C++ tools with Qt C++ code. Debuggers. Static analysis. Any IDE "intellisense" (though Qt Creator does have a few customized features specific to Qt code).
I am not sure what you actually mean when you imply that Qt should have dropped "most insane parts" of C++, but it sounds like you suggest that Qt should not be a UI framework, it should be a new language of its own (which would then be compiled to intermediate C++ code, which would then be compiled by C++ compiler to machine code, unless someone wrote an actual compiler backend for it)? Creating a new language is an order of magnitude bigger undertaking in all fronts, than just writing a framework for existing language. Language design is hard, and getting people to use new languages is hard. Also, Qt was originally "just a library", so if it changed to "not C++ any more" in some version, it wouldn't really be Qt any more anyway, it would need to be called something else (and see the new version not getting adopted, while old GPL code base would be forked).
I've often wanted to have a language that wouldn't compile unless it met my [coding] standards...
Hush! That's how we got Python!
Nah, Python, like any dynamic, duck-typed language, is antithesis of "doesn't compile if not correct". Correctness of Python code rests solely on developers (design of app, reviewing code, having tests, etc), Python itself does not lend a hand in spotting bugs.
If a chainsaw doesn't have all the appropriate modern safety features, and you hurt yourself with it in a way which would have been prevented by these features, then it certainly is the fault of the saw, or rather the person choosing to use it. There certainly are some parallels here to programmers and their choice of programming languages. Perceived efficiency with familiar old "trusty" tools and habits trumps long term gains of more modern tools, or even just using modern practices and extras with the old tool.
You seem to agree with "shove systemd down the admins' throats", you just say it in a more roundabout way. "Open wide or GTFO and switch everything you use to something else."
And I do feel the Linux FOSS community has dropped a ball here a bit, as there doesn't seem to be a good, complete server distro without systemd dependency, even though there seems to be demand for one. I'd have thought somebody would have picked that ball and run with it.
Me, I just expect the Linux distros I use to basically work out of the box, and keep working with minimal hassle. Xubuntu has been doing it for me lately (since Ubuntu switched to Unity), together with Ubuntu Server, mostly using LTS.
Then go ahead and create your own distro free of systemd.
I hope you realize that's exactly the kind of forcing he's talking about? Most users need an OS now. Creating a stable, tested, trustworthy, secure custom distro is beyond resources (be it employers willingness to pay for maintaining an independent Linux distro, or hours per day reserved for maintenance of custom Linux instead of doing what one actually wants to do) of 99% of even those Linux users, to whom systems matters. For them it's basically, use systemd or switch to Windows (not a bad choice, actually, for a modern semi-decent PC with enough RAM to run a few VMs). Ie. showing systemd down their throats.
Yeah, but solar energy itself is free, so conversion ratio in Watts doesn't matter. Only cost per Watt-hour matters. If that can be made cheap enough in money, then the required land area won't be a limiting factor. We'd get a bunch of new oil countries, for example around Sahara, in a matter of decades.
Especially if weather patterns really change and people start believing that elevated CO2 level in the atmosphere is the cause (whether it's true or not doesn't really matter for this purpose), then what ever it takes politically (including extremes like "pacifying" unstable Saharan countries by invading) to get clear synthetic crude flowing, it will get the votes of the masses, as well as lobbying money from those wanting to profit. It wouldn't be a new industry, it would be the old oil industry with a few tweaks, which is a huge factor in favor of this over other solutions.
We still need nuclear for everything that isn't fungible in time, though.
If we ever have a reasonably efficient way of producing hydrocarbons from CO2 with solar energy, we won't have any need for nuclear power for a long time (and by then we might have working fusion). Just burn the hydrocarbons. Using a fuel cell to directly produce electricity might take off, too, if we have process which makes clean hydrocarbons of desired type. We've got most of infrastructure from giant oil tankers and pipelines to distribution and final storage built up, all we need is a synthesizing technology to take place of drilling, pumping and fraking.
additionally, we have been genetically engineering crops for thousands of years. the corn and carrots you eat are freakish artificial monstrosity's that would never survive in the wild
heck look at what we did to the wolf: all those weird mutant dog shapes, sizes, and coats
do you stand agains tthat?
or do you just stand against genetic engineering as we currently practice because you have an ignorant fear of what you don't understand?
Any change in environment puts stress on the species living in it. This results in species adapting through evolution, as well as species going extinct. Every gene transfer and mutation creates this stress, pressure for change, too. Now we are about to start introducing radical genetic changes that are bigger than anything which could happen naturally (nature works through gradual random changes where every generation has to be viable, while we can design bigger changes and retry any alteration until we get it right), at a far more rapid pace than what happens naturally (out alterations don't need to spread through natural population on their own, we can for example produce altered seeds and grow them as much as salesmen can sell them).
This evolutionary pressure, happening in the middle of an already ongoing mass extinction, that's what gives me the creeps.
And no, we do not really understand how the ecosystems will respond to the pressure created by genetic engineering, especially on the scale it is like to be done in a few decades. I bet most (probably not you, but most) proponents of genetic engineering don't even know what "ecology" is as a science, so them saying that opposing genetic engineering is ignorance is kinda ironic.
Slashdot Mirror
Trolling, or a real question? Oh well, in any case, this is about sea ice. Floating ice. Floating ice melting will not raise sea level, the melted water takes exactly as much volume as the submerged part of floating ice, per Archimedes's Law.
Also, sea ice is thin, measured in meters or at most tens of meters. The sea level rise problem comes from land ice, which is not floating and which has thickness measured in hundreds or thousands of meters. It'll take time for that to melt, so people living in places like large parts of Florida have time to move elsewhere, possibly even without creating a US internal refugee problem, much.
I for one am rather happy with Ubuntu. Can't stand Unity of course, and KDE has never been my cup of tea (have given it a few tries, given up every time, it just didn't do what I wanted). I was really happy when we got Ubuntu Mate, that just does what I want, and gets out of the way.
But with Ubuntu 16.10 I'm really looking forward to try Lubuntu again. The old LXDE is a bit too... lacking in small convenience features. I hope LXQt will improve on that (plus, I'm a Qt fan in general). If it's a let-down (beta 1 still has LXDE, I believe, so not trying it out yet), I suppose Ubuntu Mate will continue to give me the naughties UX.
It also paves the way for solar satellites to harvest solar power and send it to non-polluting power stations on Earth, which can provide far more energy than is available from fossil fuels or fusion, and far more safely than fission.
Uh, solar power is simply redirected fusion. That is, after all, how the sun works.
Everything is redirected fusion, even including geothermal, because fusion is how radioactive elements in Earth were made. Only non-fusion energy production mechanism I can think of is gravity, in other words tidal power (also black hole accretion disks, but we don't have any, yet).
I'd like to be wrong but I don't think humanity will venture as far as Mars, or even back to the Moon. Our adventurous spirit is largely extinguished and replaced with navel-gazing solipsism. We prefer weaponry to spacecraft in any case.
It only takes a tiny part of humanity to retain/rediscover that adventurous spirit. Moon was visited by combined science of nations with... I CBA to check so I'll say well under half a billion people, and with a lot less of accumulated knowledge than today. Humanity is not one collective, and I dare say it'll never be. 90% of people might embed themselves in VR and starve to death, but that still leaves almost a billion people who don't want to. Natural selection FTW.
Lets just say, as a Tech Geek, I get offended / my intelligence gets offended, when eg in this case, a file extension that sounds perfectly benign gets changed for absolutely non-technical reasons but for poltical reasons.
Of course I see the irony here, but changing a technical detail for non-technical reasons and not because of a design flaw or whatever just rustles my jimmies.
And that is why geeks rarely make good marketing or management people. Because these soft people things matter, even when it doesn't seem to make logical sense. Things rarely succeed on technical merits, appearances (including such small things like file name extension and mime type) matter too.
Anyway, the cynical me suspects, that the extension was changed just to get publicity for the new format, and political correctness was just an excuse. Still, if this raises awareness of the format, I'm not going to blame them for doing it.
Your understanding is very superficial. There's no irony at all. No one is honestly saying it is only about a technical detail. It's about moral, social and political values for both camps.
You're right, it's worse than just ironical. One camp is saying "we don't like this". Other camp is saying "we want this the way other camp doesn't like". I'm not sure how you go about compromising in a situation like that. So, a hint: When ever you notice the feminist/SJW/PC camp to have the more reasonable position, it's time to re-evaluate the situation. No matter how good "pro-bro movement" sounds, this is not the smartest battle to pick.
So they checked with one subgroup in one 'culture-sphere' - how many more such combinations do I have to check with to ensure that I'm not offending someone somewhere? After all, bisexual Eritrean goat herders shouldn't have to feel bad just because you want to name your files something - it's so easily avoided, just choose another extension...
You don't have to check anything. But if someone does check something with someone, you should have some actual, concrete reason before you criticize them for checking and then changing something.
But if you are creating a word (or acronym/shortening which will be used like a word), which you wish to be universally used, I do think it is wise to think about existing meanings of the new word. Case in point, Gimp has probably suffered from the alternative meaning of the word (just a guess, no reference), with slightly less developers and users and positive publicity. It may be stupid, but it's the world we live in, and martyring oneself as opposer of excessive political correctness doesn't make much business sense.
World is not safe. In particular for women. You can close your eyes and brag like a french rooster without any power as you are used to do, or do something about it. Every bit of change is worth it, even if you are too immature to think about half of your childrens which might statistically be female. You can do everything you like. That' just your choice to give this chance to all of your children. Now you can brag around and get back to SJW bashing.
Um, please re-read what I wrote. Because either you totally misunderstood my post (pointing out the hypocrisy of criticizing the change of extension), or I misunderstand your reply to it.
Fucking fucking hells ass this world where you can't do anything anymore, because some selfish asshole gets offended evey time.
Looking at all the comments, I hope everybody realizes the irony here. You can't even change a file extension without a bunch of people getting their panties in a bunch :D
The rational thing is to change the extension to something neutral. It's just a technical detail and does not matter that much, so it's sensible to just be polite to those idi... humans who feel there is a problem.
Of course once you're polite, you get a bunch of other idi... humans saying they find the change of the extension without a technical reason offensive, and would like it changed back, failing to understand that they want it changed back for an equally non-technical "feel-good" reason.
Oh the irony.
Obviously it would be different if there was a good technical reason to demand just that one particular extension, but there isn't. It'd also be different if the new extension (instead of the act of changing it) was potentially as offensive.
Don't worry, systemd will soon integrate with keylogctl and send all your porn browsing to Pothead.
It's open source and trivial to patch. And a distro which shipped something like that unpatched would be dead in a few days. Also it would result in immediate fork. Just observe what happened to MySQL and especially OpenOffice.
Make that three, m$ finally pushed me over to kubuntu as a primary OS. I still maintain winblows at work, but I do so from my linux desktop (dual boot, but win 7 is way too slow).
I recently switched to running an Ubuntu variant on my old work laptop (top-of-the line from 2013), and running Windows as VirtualBox guest for stuff like MS Office and Windows development. Works very nice, all you need is enough memory and an SSD and a decent processor.
So essentially an elaborate method of sending a clear text sequence of numbers (port numbers) to the server to allow access.
I wouldn't even call it elaborate. But it is different, so it is distinct extra security layer which offers unique protection. Cracking it basically requires that attacker can sniff low level traffic between client and server, and knows to watch for port knocking sequences. The important property of port knocking is, attacker without privileged knowledge doesn't know if server expects port knocking sequence, and attacker doesn't know if they failed critically and got that IP blocked. So it effectively blocks even remote detection of a running ssh server, let alone actually trying to break into one, while still allowing authorized access from everywhere.
A meteorite which does not create a big crater will throw a lot less stuff up into the atmosphere, and will have much less global consequences. Getting a shower of smaller pieces would not be fun, but a single big impact penetrating deep into the crust with equal energy is worse.
Sweden is 14% foreign-born, and has had it's own ethnic minorities for centuries. It's also fine.
Depends on your definition of fine...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Stockholm_riots.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosengård#Violence
while it is the first time its been run to full power, it wasnt for any reason other than calibration
Well, not the only reason. They also wanted to verify it does not trigger destruction of the planet, or a phase change of our universe. No point gathering data, if there's nobody left to examine it, is there?
My greatest disappointment with C++ has to be the QT library. They went ahead and actually changed the language, but kept the most insane parts of it. Let's face it - if your dev environment reads in $FOO source files and spits out C++ source files to a C++ compiler, you may as well make your $FOO language something better than "C++ with extra #defines here and there" . What a missed opportunity by trolltech.
Qt does not change C++ language. Qt application code (C++ side) typically compiles with multiple C++ compilers, so not only is it C++, it is often made very compatible/portable C++.
Qt build process does not read in $FOO source files, it reads in C++ source files, and generates extra source files in addition to the original. The original source file stays there, and can do anything C++ can do. This is a rather critical point, all modern features of C++ are fully usable in Qt apps code, and also support from them tends to be added to Qt (like connecting Qt signals to C++ lambdas). Another very important aspect of being pure C++ is, you can use any C++ tools with Qt C++ code. Debuggers. Static analysis. Any IDE "intellisense" (though Qt Creator does have a few customized features specific to Qt code).
I am not sure what you actually mean when you imply that Qt should have dropped "most insane parts" of C++, but it sounds like you suggest that Qt should not be a UI framework, it should be a new language of its own (which would then be compiled to intermediate C++ code, which would then be compiled by C++ compiler to machine code, unless someone wrote an actual compiler backend for it)? Creating a new language is an order of magnitude bigger undertaking in all fronts, than just writing a framework for existing language. Language design is hard, and getting people to use new languages is hard. Also, Qt was originally "just a library", so if it changed to "not C++ any more" in some version, it wouldn't really be Qt any more anyway, it would need to be called something else (and see the new version not getting adopted, while old GPL code base would be forked).
I've often wanted to have a language that wouldn't compile unless it met my [coding] standards...
Hush! That's how we got Python!
Nah, Python, like any dynamic, duck-typed language, is antithesis of "doesn't compile if not correct". Correctness of Python code rests solely on developers (design of app, reviewing code, having tests, etc), Python itself does not lend a hand in spotting bugs.
If a chainsaw doesn't have all the appropriate modern safety features, and you hurt yourself with it in a way which would have been prevented by these features, then it certainly is the fault of the saw, or rather the person choosing to use it. There certainly are some parallels here to programmers and their choice of programming languages. Perceived efficiency with familiar old "trusty" tools and habits trumps long term gains of more modern tools, or even just using modern practices and extras with the old tool.
You seem to agree with "shove systemd down the admins' throats", you just say it in a more roundabout way. "Open wide or GTFO and switch everything you use to something else."
And I do feel the Linux FOSS community has dropped a ball here a bit, as there doesn't seem to be a good, complete server distro without systemd dependency, even though there seems to be demand for one. I'd have thought somebody would have picked that ball and run with it.
Me, I just expect the Linux distros I use to basically work out of the box, and keep working with minimal hassle. Xubuntu has been doing it for me lately (since Ubuntu switched to Unity), together with Ubuntu Server, mostly using LTS.
I'm tired of systemd being forced down my throat
Then go ahead and create your own distro free of systemd.
I hope you realize that's exactly the kind of forcing he's talking about? Most users need an OS now. Creating a stable, tested, trustworthy, secure custom distro is beyond resources (be it employers willingness to pay for maintaining an independent Linux distro, or hours per day reserved for maintenance of custom Linux instead of doing what one actually wants to do) of 99% of even those Linux users, to whom systems matters. For them it's basically, use systemd or switch to Windows (not a bad choice, actually, for a modern semi-decent PC with enough RAM to run a few VMs). Ie. showing systemd down their throats.
Yeah, but solar energy itself is free, so conversion ratio in Watts doesn't matter. Only cost per Watt-hour matters. If that can be made cheap enough in money, then the required land area won't be a limiting factor. We'd get a bunch of new oil countries, for example around Sahara, in a matter of decades.
Especially if weather patterns really change and people start believing that elevated CO2 level in the atmosphere is the cause (whether it's true or not doesn't really matter for this purpose), then what ever it takes politically (including extremes like "pacifying" unstable Saharan countries by invading) to get clear synthetic crude flowing, it will get the votes of the masses, as well as lobbying money from those wanting to profit. It wouldn't be a new industry, it would be the old oil industry with a few tweaks, which is a huge factor in favor of this over other solutions.
We still need nuclear for everything that isn't fungible in time, though.
If we ever have a reasonably efficient way of producing hydrocarbons from CO2 with solar energy, we won't have any need for nuclear power for a long time (and by then we might have working fusion). Just burn the hydrocarbons. Using a fuel cell to directly produce electricity might take off, too, if we have process which makes clean hydrocarbons of desired type. We've got most of infrastructure from giant oil tankers and pipelines to distribution and final storage built up, all we need is a synthesizing technology to take place of drilling, pumping and fraking.
Lasers are most certainly used to "blast" things. Start reading for example here.
additionally, we have been genetically engineering crops for thousands of years. the corn and carrots you eat are freakish artificial monstrosity's that would never survive in the wild
heck look at what we did to the wolf: all those weird mutant dog shapes, sizes, and coats
do you stand agains tthat?
or do you just stand against genetic engineering as we currently practice because you have an ignorant fear of what you don't understand?
Any change in environment puts stress on the species living in it. This results in species adapting through evolution, as well as species going extinct. Every gene transfer and mutation creates this stress, pressure for change, too. Now we are about to start introducing radical genetic changes that are bigger than anything which could happen naturally (nature works through gradual random changes where every generation has to be viable, while we can design bigger changes and retry any alteration until we get it right), at a far more rapid pace than what happens naturally (out alterations don't need to spread through natural population on their own, we can for example produce altered seeds and grow them as much as salesmen can sell them).
This evolutionary pressure, happening in the middle of an already ongoing mass extinction, that's what gives me the creeps.
And no, we do not really understand how the ecosystems will respond to the pressure created by genetic engineering, especially on the scale it is like to be done in a few decades. I bet most (probably not you, but most) proponents of genetic engineering don't even know what "ecology" is as a science, so them saying that opposing genetic engineering is ignorance is kinda ironic.