My guess is not all hardware is exactly identical in every way. Even those that are designed to be exact copies might have slight differences that cause malfunctions. Since Apple didn't test 3rd party displays when testing new software it didn't appear to be a problem.
Remember the outcry a few years back when certain models iPhones had better battery life than others based on who manufactured the A9? The TSMC versions used less battery and ran cooler than the Samsung versions. Now these chips were supposed to be identical but the major difference was that Samsung used a smaller lithography (14nm) than TSMC (16nm) in the manufacturing process. While I haven't seen any thorough explanations one possible reason is that leakage becomes more of an issue as features get smaller and that chip manufacturers have to design around it (See FinFET) . Of course some people were upset at their "defective" A9 chip if they got a Samsung model.
Stop pretending that I didn't mean the entire investigation.
This what you wrote:
"Or it could be that the FBI is investigating trump and the FISA court wants to make damn sure they're on solid ground when they approve an order." You clearly did not write anything of the sort so I am to read your mind and figure out what you meant?
It's a stupid strawman argument that you're using to try and make yourself feel like you were somehow right about wildly misinterpreting what should have been obvious to you. And it's not working. You're just making yourself look worse with every post.
So basically you're blaming someone else when you did not write clearly. Also I addressed your point. How do you answer the fact that in the case of Flynn, a FISA request was not needed as the Russian Ambassador is always under surveillance? Or are you just unwilling to admit that you are making yourself look bad?
And why would you think Trump is the only person who would be surveilled? He's not the entire organization that ran his election. In fact,19 people besides Trump have been indicted so far in the course of the investigation. It's not unlikely that some of the information used to indict them was obtained through FISA orders.
None of which you wrote. You wrote Trump specifically. But to address your point, I bring you the example of Michael Flynn. His downfall was that he failed to disclose communications with a Russian ambassador that were being monitored because ALL communications with a Russian Ambassador are being monitored by the NSA, CIA, etc. For someone asking to be head of the National Security Council, Flynn either disregarded or did not know that.
It does not matter even _one_ bit. In a datacenter we'll just set the standard VM starting disk size to 50+ GB regardless of OS, probably dedupe it all on the array at the block level, and a few tens of GB difference hasn't meant squat for any system with its own local disks in many years.
Linux is used for many things besides data centers.
It's not really worth the effort to trim a default Linux install at any scale unless you are installing it on some old 72 GB SCSI drives, or your toaster.
Again, Linux is used for many things besides data centers. For example, my router runs Tomato which does not have 72GB of space. I have Intel NUC which has 20GB of space which I used as a print server for a while.
Unless you're purchasing an extremely large TV and viewing it from a pretty close distance, 8K TVs will never be worth it, because you won't even see the difference.
Personally I think TVs the size of walls might be cool as they could display high resolution landscape scenes.
When the full numbers are shown, it seems more it's a big bag of nothing. Just like the doomsayers proclaim that on December 21, 2012 there would be the end of the world because of sun and Earth alignment, the doomsayers were right about the alignment. However the same doomsayers either fail to mention or didn't know that the alignment they mention happens every December 21st and 2012 was not different than any other year.
And why would the FBI need FISA requests to record Trump's communications? The President's communications are always being monitored by the government.
doesn't deserve to own one. Turn in your man card immediately.
Anyone who doesn't understand why you shouldn't buy an 8K TV at this time should turn in their brain immediately. Seriously, some broadcast TV signals are not even in 1080p much less 4K. UltraHD Blurays only get up to 4K and you can't get it for every title. Eventually people might get 8K but only after there is considerable content and broadband that can handle it is ubiquitous. I'm going to guess maybe 10 years from now would 8K be worth it.
Podcasts are great for activities where your vision is occupied. Some of us we have long commutes to work. If you are commuting an hour one way either in the car or on mass transit, that's a lot of time to catch up. Also for me, if I need to get some work done, I put on headphones to block the office noise. I could listen to music or podcasts. If I'm cooking I can't or don't watch TV or videos but a podcast is fine.
Also some podcasts are entertainment and in addition to information. If you have a hobby like fly fishing or quilting, there's probably a good podcast. Are you a Star Wars geek that needs to talk about The Last Jedi? There are gads of people who did and have podcasts about it. Do you love movies and don't know what to see this weekend? There's a podcast about that.
I can't believe you FOSS tards still think "bloat" is the problem (as you browse the internets using an i386 compatible kernel).
Bloat is a huge problem for Windows. Unlike Windows, you can customize Linux to work on different devices with varying amounts of resources. For example, you can run RedHat Enterprise 2.3 requires only 4GB of disk space. That's server software. Ubuntu with all the bells and whistles need 25GB but that can be cut down to 5GB. Windows 10 at a minimum currently requires 16GB. That doesn't include all the additional libraries like.NET that you might need to make things work.
MS might be abandoning the strategy of having both Windows Phone 10 and Windows 10 going forward. However that doesn't mean that those who have existing Windows phones will benefit. Well if it has been like every other Windows Phone transition, a lot if not all existing hardware won't work with the newest version and apps. So those who have existing phones may be stuck with a phone that is essentially abandoned. That may not entice existing customers to buy new Windows phones considering MS has abandoned their phones in the past.
MS themselves have announced they are no longer working on new features for Windows Phone 10. Looking at the Windows Store, it looks like very few new developers are creating apps. Those that exist on the store are out of date in terms of features with comparable apps on Android or iOS or they haven't been updated in a long time.
I mean. next they will be going after people accessing broadcast television with an antenna....
Are you equating someone pirating and rebroadcasting content illegally with someone legally receiving broadcast TV programming? Because that's a false equivalence.
Technology incentivized copyright into becoming the legal disaster it is today. It has to evolve with that technology or become more toothless and pointless than it already is.
Er? Every single copyright holder has always had the ability to control their content, and today consumers have multiple technological means to legally get content that we didn't have 20 or sometimes 10 years ago. For example Netflix only started streaming 11 years ago. Before then their predominant delivery was mail. Apple and Amazon certainly didn't stream 20 years ago. These advances have pushed traditional distribution methods to innovate. If you are looking at physical distribution, Redbox has largely replaced Blockbuster. Pay per view purchases now have to compete with other methods.
I wouldn't say "physics is settled" even though a lot of specific questions in physics are settled. What is meant by the climate science is "settled"?
Again no one is saying that but you. What people are saying is that regarding climate change, the science is settled. It seems you are completely ignoring the first part of the sentence when it comes to context.
What we should do to mitigate those effects isn't science. Science provides options. For example, science can tell you your increased risk of cancer if you smoke. It can't tell you whether or not that is more important than the enjoyment you get out of smoking. I know several scientists who do smoke (fully aware of the risks).
This is just like when you tell a doctor, that it hurts when you move your arm in a certain way and he tells you not to move it in that way. Please tell which ways to mitigate are not science?
Its the very vague "science is settled" phrase that I object to.
Again you seem to be ignoring the first part of a sentence and focusing on the second part. When regarding that mass is the source of gravity, the science is settled. Regarding the existence of black holes, the science is settled. No one is saying all of science in those fields is settled.
It feels like a political statement of certainty.
But it's you that is imposing politics into the statement. Science deals with certainty. The speed of light is 299792458 m / s. You can approximate 3.0 x 10^8 if your calculations don't require a high degree of precision. It's not 2.0 x 10^8. It's not 4.0 x 10^8. Scientists are certain about climate change because the vast amount of evidence that has been collected across a number of different fields. They are not certain to piss you off or to make a political statement.
We don't have certainty - and don't need certainty in order to make good policy. We don't have certainty in most other policy inputs.
Yet the vast majority of climate scientists from different countries and cultures disagree with you. The problem isn't that we don't have certainty. The problem is that you don't have certainty.
And you might want to read a dictionary before you feel that you should correct someone on their use of a word.
Definition of incredulous
1 : unwilling to admit or accept what is offered as true : not credulous : skeptical
2 : incredible
3 : expressing incredulity an incredulous stare
I read the article and while it makes the claim about Win95, it doesn't go into detail about it or support it with facts. I find that claim somewhat incredulous as most satellites would never use a GUI based desktop OS. Maybe some control systems on the ground use Win95 and have ever been updated.
I would agree with the basic premise that many satellites especially older ones are not hardened against cyber attacks.
My objection is only to the term "settled" which implies that we know all the answers and there is nothing left o study.
No that's what you are saying. What scientists are saying is that certain questions have been settled. It's settled that mass causes gravity. It's settled that supermassive black holes exist. It's settled that evolution is real. It's settled the earth is not flat. That does not mean all science in those fields stop. It means scientists don't spend resources and time on questions that are settled.
First of all, let me make it clear. I believe in AGW and I advocate policies to limit it that are considered liberal.
I find that to be a label to be a problem. Climate scientists have said that we are altering the world irrevocably to the point where it will be hard to maintain our current lifestyles and that change will be needed. One major change is to limit the pollution we know what are pumping into the air. Somehow that's "liberal" thinking.
Look, I understand that you think you can simply throw science at a problem and it should be solved.
I never said anything to the like. What I said specifically is that any solution to a problem has to be monitored and checked. Agencies like NOAA who monitor atmospheric conditions would be the ones to assess the effectiveness of any solution.
But we tried that and we failed.
And when did this happen? My assessment is the science never failed. Politicians and governments failed to agree on solutions. That had nothing to do with the science.
We did not use the appropriate tactics to persuade a strong majority of the population that we were correct. This isn't a case of science - the science is pretty much proven.
The large majority of the world agrees with AGW. It's just in the US, the amount of propaganda especially by the GOP has been overwhelming.
Actually that's a good analogy. It was the doctors, *not* the scientists that led that policy discussion, and the argument was stronger for it.
What? Medical researchers (scientists) are not always doctors. While doctors had a role in finding links of tobacco to cancer, they were not the only ones behind the research. In the case of AGW, who do you propose should have led the policy discussion?
Why? Because doctors weren't going to benefit ideologically or financially from advocating the banning/discouraging of smoking. Nor would they gain academic reputation by being proved "correct". They were seen as impartial.
First of all this implies that scientists are not impartial and that doctors are always impartial. We all know this is a false dichotomy. Second, you imply that somehow scientists benefit financially or ideologically from AGW and doctors did not from Big Tobacco. That again is false as some doctors were on the payroll of Big Tobacco. Do you have any evidence that the vast majority of climate scientists were benefiting from AGW or do you wish to withdraw your accusation?
And lastly, are you implying that scientists do not wish to be right or correct about science? Are you saying that in the field of science being wrong and incorrect is the goal of scientists? Science at its core principles relies on things being correct. That's why alchemy was abandoned as a science. That's why astrology isn't considered science. That's why something as weird as quantum mechanics which defies common sense at times is the prevailing theory of particle physics. Things are correct in science because there is evidence.
This is so bizarre. Iâ(TM)ve never said that w am opposed to reducing emissions. Iâ(TM)m completely for it. I just want to keep science separate from politics. Reducing CO2 emissions is my personal political view, and despite being a scientist, my political view is no more important than anyone elseâ(TM)s.
Again, what is your exact complaint about scientists being political because you complain a tremendous amount about that but have yet to cite an example of what you mean. It's another talking point.
But.... I donâ(TM)t claim certainty - that is almost never true In science. I believe we need to keep funding climate science.
We do. We keep funding it. Why is that so hard for you to understand? You keep stating something that is blatantly and simply not true. What we don't do is keep reinventing the wheel when it comes to science. Physicists aren't trying to trying to prove mass causes gravity because the science is settled. They are trying to figure how gravity works inside a black hole.
. Many if not most of the climate prediction models have proven to be simply wrong.
Citation needed.
To say that the science on climate change is "settled" is asinine, and as Joe Frisch says to have any understanding of what science this refers to you have to be specific about the questions that are asked.
So you're disagreeing with the vast number of scientists because . . .
The subject of CO2 emissions is not even that simple. Can you or anyone answer the question of what the ideal CO2 concentration is for the atmosphere, and what the economic and political tradeoffs are with a higher CO2 concentration?
There is no "ideal". This shows your poor understanding of atmospheric science.
Is a slightly warmer climate a bad thing if this means a greater amount of vegetative biomass?
Considering the number of effects we can document are happening the answer is yes. To say otherwise is denial.
If we collectively want to reduce CO2 emissions globally, what will be the tradeoffs for developing nations in Africa, India, Indonesia, China, etc? Are we going to tell them they have to cut back on their emissions so we can continue to drive our SUVs to work, live in our 5,000 square feet homes with air conditioning and heating, fly to conferences on jet fueled air planes, take cruises to Mexico and the Caribbean, and soak up the benefits of the Internet served to us by massive power hungry data centers?
So your answer is to do absolutely nothing because Africa and China?
You keep saying that scientists shouldn't be political when they've been asked what should be don. Again what is your specific complaint other than a nebulous talking point echoed by the deniers.
Slashdot Mirror
My guess is not all hardware is exactly identical in every way. Even those that are designed to be exact copies might have slight differences that cause malfunctions. Since Apple didn't test 3rd party displays when testing new software it didn't appear to be a problem.
Remember the outcry a few years back when certain models iPhones had better battery life than others based on who manufactured the A9? The TSMC versions used less battery and ran cooler than the Samsung versions. Now these chips were supposed to be identical but the major difference was that Samsung used a smaller lithography (14nm) than TSMC (16nm) in the manufacturing process. While I haven't seen any thorough explanations one possible reason is that leakage becomes more of an issue as features get smaller and that chip manufacturers have to design around it (See FinFET) . Of course some people were upset at their "defective" A9 chip if they got a Samsung model.
Stop pretending that I didn't mean the entire investigation.
This what you wrote: "Or it could be that the FBI is investigating trump and the FISA court wants to make damn sure they're on solid ground when they approve an order." You clearly did not write anything of the sort so I am to read your mind and figure out what you meant?
It's a stupid strawman argument that you're using to try and make yourself feel like you were somehow right about wildly misinterpreting what should have been obvious to you. And it's not working. You're just making yourself look worse with every post.
So basically you're blaming someone else when you did not write clearly. Also I addressed your point. How do you answer the fact that in the case of Flynn, a FISA request was not needed as the Russian Ambassador is always under surveillance? Or are you just unwilling to admit that you are making yourself look bad?
And why would you think Trump is the only person who would be surveilled? He's not the entire organization that ran his election. In fact,19 people besides Trump have been indicted so far in the course of the investigation. It's not unlikely that some of the information used to indict them was obtained through FISA orders.
None of which you wrote. You wrote Trump specifically. But to address your point, I bring you the example of Michael Flynn. His downfall was that he failed to disclose communications with a Russian ambassador that were being monitored because ALL communications with a Russian Ambassador are being monitored by the NSA, CIA, etc. For someone asking to be head of the National Security Council, Flynn either disregarded or did not know that.
It does not matter even _one_ bit. In a datacenter we'll just set the standard VM starting disk size to 50+ GB regardless of OS, probably dedupe it all on the array at the block level, and a few tens of GB difference hasn't meant squat for any system with its own local disks in many years.
Linux is used for many things besides data centers.
It's not really worth the effort to trim a default Linux install at any scale unless you are installing it on some old 72 GB SCSI drives, or your toaster.
Again, Linux is used for many things besides data centers. For example, my router runs Tomato which does not have 72GB of space. I have Intel NUC which has 20GB of space which I used as a print server for a while.
Unless you're purchasing an extremely large TV and viewing it from a pretty close distance, 8K TVs will never be worth it, because you won't even see the difference.
Personally I think TVs the size of walls might be cool as they could display high resolution landscape scenes.
When the full numbers are shown, it seems more it's a big bag of nothing. Just like the doomsayers proclaim that on December 21, 2012 there would be the end of the world because of sun and Earth alignment, the doomsayers were right about the alignment. However the same doomsayers either fail to mention or didn't know that the alignment they mention happens every December 21st and 2012 was not different than any other year.
And why would the FBI need FISA requests to record Trump's communications? The President's communications are always being monitored by the government.
doesn't deserve to own one. Turn in your man card immediately.
Anyone who doesn't understand why you shouldn't buy an 8K TV at this time should turn in their brain immediately. Seriously, some broadcast TV signals are not even in 1080p much less 4K. UltraHD Blurays only get up to 4K and you can't get it for every title. Eventually people might get 8K but only after there is considerable content and broadband that can handle it is ubiquitous. I'm going to guess maybe 10 years from now would 8K be worth it.
Podcasts are great for activities where your vision is occupied. Some of us we have long commutes to work. If you are commuting an hour one way either in the car or on mass transit, that's a lot of time to catch up. Also for me, if I need to get some work done, I put on headphones to block the office noise. I could listen to music or podcasts. If I'm cooking I can't or don't watch TV or videos but a podcast is fine.
Also some podcasts are entertainment and in addition to information. If you have a hobby like fly fishing or quilting, there's probably a good podcast. Are you a Star Wars geek that needs to talk about The Last Jedi? There are gads of people who did and have podcasts about it. Do you love movies and don't know what to see this weekend? There's a podcast about that.
I can't believe you FOSS tards still think "bloat" is the problem (as you browse the internets using an i386 compatible kernel).
Bloat is a huge problem for Windows. Unlike Windows, you can customize Linux to work on different devices with varying amounts of resources. For example, you can run RedHat Enterprise 2.3 requires only 4GB of disk space. That's server software. Ubuntu with all the bells and whistles need 25GB but that can be cut down to 5GB. Windows 10 at a minimum currently requires 16GB. That doesn't include all the additional libraries like .NET that you might need to make things work.
MS might be abandoning the strategy of having both Windows Phone 10 and Windows 10 going forward. However that doesn't mean that those who have existing Windows phones will benefit. Well if it has been like every other Windows Phone transition, a lot if not all existing hardware won't work with the newest version and apps. So those who have existing phones may be stuck with a phone that is essentially abandoned. That may not entice existing customers to buy new Windows phones considering MS has abandoned their phones in the past.
MS themselves have announced they are no longer working on new features for Windows Phone 10. Looking at the Windows Store, it looks like very few new developers are creating apps. Those that exist on the store are out of date in terms of features with comparable apps on Android or iOS or they haven't been updated in a long time.
I mean. next they will be going after people accessing broadcast television with an antenna....
Are you equating someone pirating and rebroadcasting content illegally with someone legally receiving broadcast TV programming? Because that's a false equivalence.
Technology incentivized copyright into becoming the legal disaster it is today. It has to evolve with that technology or become more toothless and pointless than it already is.
Er? Every single copyright holder has always had the ability to control their content, and today consumers have multiple technological means to legally get content that we didn't have 20 or sometimes 10 years ago. For example Netflix only started streaming 11 years ago. Before then their predominant delivery was mail. Apple and Amazon certainly didn't stream 20 years ago. These advances have pushed traditional distribution methods to innovate. If you are looking at physical distribution, Redbox has largely replaced Blockbuster. Pay per view purchases now have to compete with other methods.
I wouldn't say "physics is settled" even though a lot of specific questions in physics are settled. What is meant by the climate science is "settled"?
Again no one is saying that but you. What people are saying is that regarding climate change, the science is settled. It seems you are completely ignoring the first part of the sentence when it comes to context.
What we should do to mitigate those effects isn't science. Science provides options. For example, science can tell you your increased risk of cancer if you smoke. It can't tell you whether or not that is more important than the enjoyment you get out of smoking. I know several scientists who do smoke (fully aware of the risks).
This is just like when you tell a doctor, that it hurts when you move your arm in a certain way and he tells you not to move it in that way. Please tell which ways to mitigate are not science?
Its the very vague "science is settled" phrase that I object to.
Again you seem to be ignoring the first part of a sentence and focusing on the second part. When regarding that mass is the source of gravity, the science is settled. Regarding the existence of black holes, the science is settled. No one is saying all of science in those fields is settled.
It feels like a political statement of certainty.
But it's you that is imposing politics into the statement. Science deals with certainty. The speed of light is 299792458 m / s. You can approximate 3.0 x 10^8 if your calculations don't require a high degree of precision. It's not 2.0 x 10^8. It's not 4.0 x 10^8. Scientists are certain about climate change because the vast amount of evidence that has been collected across a number of different fields. They are not certain to piss you off or to make a political statement.
We don't have certainty - and don't need certainty in order to make good policy. We don't have certainty in most other policy inputs.
Yet the vast majority of climate scientists from different countries and cultures disagree with you. The problem isn't that we don't have certainty. The problem is that you don't have certainty.
And you might want to read a dictionary before you feel that you should correct someone on their use of a word.
Definition of incredulous
1 : unwilling to admit or accept what is offered as true : not credulous : skeptical
2 : incredible
3 : expressing incredulity an incredulous stare
Modern satellites may be hardened against modern cyber attacks but the ones in orbit for decades might not be.
I read the article and while it makes the claim about Win95, it doesn't go into detail about it or support it with facts. I find that claim somewhat incredulous as most satellites would never use a GUI based desktop OS. Maybe some control systems on the ground use Win95 and have ever been updated.
I would agree with the basic premise that many satellites especially older ones are not hardened against cyber attacks.
My objection is only to the term "settled" which implies that we know all the answers and there is nothing left o study.
No that's what you are saying. What scientists are saying is that certain questions have been settled. It's settled that mass causes gravity. It's settled that supermassive black holes exist. It's settled that evolution is real. It's settled the earth is not flat. That does not mean all science in those fields stop. It means scientists don't spend resources and time on questions that are settled.
Fairly sad, but strongly evidenced by the fact that overwhelming scientific consensus had failed to sway the majority of American citizenry.
Fix that for you.
First of all, let me make it clear. I believe in AGW and I advocate policies to limit it that are considered liberal.
I find that to be a label to be a problem. Climate scientists have said that we are altering the world irrevocably to the point where it will be hard to maintain our current lifestyles and that change will be needed. One major change is to limit the pollution we know what are pumping into the air. Somehow that's "liberal" thinking.
Look, I understand that you think you can simply throw science at a problem and it should be solved.
I never said anything to the like. What I said specifically is that any solution to a problem has to be monitored and checked. Agencies like NOAA who monitor atmospheric conditions would be the ones to assess the effectiveness of any solution.
But we tried that and we failed.
And when did this happen? My assessment is the science never failed. Politicians and governments failed to agree on solutions. That had nothing to do with the science.
We did not use the appropriate tactics to persuade a strong majority of the population that we were correct. This isn't a case of science - the science is pretty much proven.
The large majority of the world agrees with AGW. It's just in the US, the amount of propaganda especially by the GOP has been overwhelming.
Actually that's a good analogy. It was the doctors, *not* the scientists that led that policy discussion, and the argument was stronger for it.
What? Medical researchers (scientists) are not always doctors. While doctors had a role in finding links of tobacco to cancer, they were not the only ones behind the research. In the case of AGW, who do you propose should have led the policy discussion?
Why? Because doctors weren't going to benefit ideologically or financially from advocating the banning/discouraging of smoking. Nor would they gain academic reputation by being proved "correct". They were seen as impartial.
First of all this implies that scientists are not impartial and that doctors are always impartial. We all know this is a false dichotomy. Second, you imply that somehow scientists benefit financially or ideologically from AGW and doctors did not from Big Tobacco. That again is false as some doctors were on the payroll of Big Tobacco. Do you have any evidence that the vast majority of climate scientists were benefiting from AGW or do you wish to withdraw your accusation?
And lastly, are you implying that scientists do not wish to be right or correct about science? Are you saying that in the field of science being wrong and incorrect is the goal of scientists? Science at its core principles relies on things being correct. That's why alchemy was abandoned as a science. That's why astrology isn't considered science. That's why something as weird as quantum mechanics which defies common sense at times is the prevailing theory of particle physics. Things are correct in science because there is evidence.
The moment they start using scientific findings to try and put themselves in charge, they become a danger greater than climate change.
Can you point to an example?
Can you point to an example or are you parroting talking points?
This is so bizarre. Iâ(TM)ve never said that w am opposed to reducing emissions. Iâ(TM)m completely for it. I just want to keep science separate from politics. Reducing CO2 emissions is my personal political view, and despite being a scientist, my political view is no more important than anyone elseâ(TM)s.
Again, what is your exact complaint about scientists being political because you complain a tremendous amount about that but have yet to cite an example of what you mean. It's another talking point.
But.... I donâ(TM)t claim certainty - that is almost never true In science. I believe we need to keep funding climate science.
We do. We keep funding it. Why is that so hard for you to understand? You keep stating something that is blatantly and simply not true. What we don't do is keep reinventing the wheel when it comes to science. Physicists aren't trying to trying to prove mass causes gravity because the science is settled. They are trying to figure how gravity works inside a black hole.
. Many if not most of the climate prediction models have proven to be simply wrong.
Citation needed.
To say that the science on climate change is "settled" is asinine, and as Joe Frisch says to have any understanding of what science this refers to you have to be specific about the questions that are asked.
So you're disagreeing with the vast number of scientists because . . .
The subject of CO2 emissions is not even that simple. Can you or anyone answer the question of what the ideal CO2 concentration is for the atmosphere, and what the economic and political tradeoffs are with a higher CO2 concentration?
There is no "ideal". This shows your poor understanding of atmospheric science.
Is a slightly warmer climate a bad thing if this means a greater amount of vegetative biomass?
Considering the number of effects we can document are happening the answer is yes. To say otherwise is denial.
If we collectively want to reduce CO2 emissions globally, what will be the tradeoffs for developing nations in Africa, India, Indonesia, China, etc? Are we going to tell them they have to cut back on their emissions so we can continue to drive our SUVs to work, live in our 5,000 square feet homes with air conditioning and heating, fly to conferences on jet fueled air planes, take cruises to Mexico and the Caribbean, and soak up the benefits of the Internet served to us by massive power hungry data centers?
So your answer is to do absolutely nothing because Africa and China?
You keep saying that scientists shouldn't be political when they've been asked what should be don. Again what is your specific complaint other than a nebulous talking point echoed by the deniers.