I'm not really being optimistic. In my mind I'm being realitistic. Technological increase is the ONLY thing I can see solving the problem. (Again, I'm not even sold on global warming, but the other immediate effects of pollution are enough for me.) I don't see any way to get people/government/leaders/coporations/whoever to do anything until there are drastic and in-your-face effects. Most people simply don't care and won't care if the sky is falling until a big piece of it lands on their house or their car or their head and does some damage.
I mean let's be honest with ourselves for a moment, do you think politics or people will ever solve anything BEFORE it's a huge problem? (And when they do "solve it" it'll be a vehicle for winning elections.) Not in big nations. Not in small nations. Maybe in villages.
Governments won't solve this. Not so long as Exxon are putting leaders all over the world into office. Until really, politicians are more worried about cancer, suffocating and melting... nothing will carry more weight than he mighty dollar. (Or citizen revolt, but if people ever actually care enough to get to that point, they'll have boycotted gas and dirty power on their own.)
I see no solution aside from technological increases and probably enough environmental change to where it hits people at home in a very obvious way. Our leaders and our race remain very unchanged. Maybe I'm just a cynic.
> By 2050, industrialized nations will be emitting little CO2
and you're basing that on what? the last 45 years of emission trends?
Incidentally, with those 45 years of emission trends, we also have a history of parabolic growth in technology. In fact, that history goes back to about the time of the Industrial Revolution where technology just gets faster, smaller, more efficient, etc. The fact that we've been able to gather and analyze said trends is a result of technological advances. I mean, really, I can't use that data to predict that we're going to continue to get more sophisticated over time.
We're going to get more techologically sophisticated. I can say that with as much certainty that I can say the summer is going to be warmer than the winter here in Las Vegas. Sure, something COULD happen, but predicting against that kind of catastrophe is pointless.
And finally, like it or not, war and money drive technology. I mean, if you want to continue to make predictions, just get out your history book and read about how humans have operated, make your graph and predict. The fact is this, either we're going to get more advanced and the problem will just go away or the effects will get so drastic that we "have to do something." (Or like the impending ice age that was preached at us in the 1980s, global warming is just flat out wrong and we're getting our panties all twisted for nothing.)
You don't need to say the sky is falling to tell us about the immediate problems of bad emissions like the fact that when you live in a valley you have to deal with smog or that gas is eating up more of my payheck than I want it to. I don't know anyone who WANTS anything like that. Humans are really only very good at dealing with the immediate, not impending doom that may or may not even be impending doom. And for anyone who says we KNOW and that all scientists KNOW and AGREE, they're deluding themselves.
You're living in a world where most of the people can barely take care of day to day needs. Even in industrialized countries people are struggling just to survive. Until global warming becomes enough of a problem that it takes precedent in people's lives, nothing will be done.
Relying on the theory that human technology will only get better over time is just as valid as anything else I've heard around here and frankly--given the state of human nature which doesn't appear to have changed much since history has been written--it's the most realistic solution we can look forward to. I might sound a bit nihilisitic, but what else can be done?
Now, before I get the customary "la, la, la, I can't hear you" response that just about anyone who takes my stance receives on this site, let me tell you what I am doing. I'm moving out to a farm, switching over to solar and microturbine energy methods and I may do a biodiesel setup on my truck while out there. Really, as an individual, that's all I can do. Build an anerobic digestor and start the collection of ethanol and methane for my energy needs. On top of that, I spend a good portion of my time before my state legislature talking about issues. To top it off, I run for public office and while someone of my limited means cannot get elected, I run anyway because someone HAS to. My home state (Nevada) is a land ripe with natural energy, but it's untapped primarily due to federal tampering and a legislature that won't stand up to them.
So I guess the question I have for most "holy shitballs, the sky is falling" global warming screamers around is this: What are you doing about it aside from screaming here on Slashdot and making fun of anything who doesn't agree? Are you off the grid? Are you spending your time and money to reduce YOUR emissions? Or is day to day life--bills and computers and games and maybe a family--getting in the way or cleaning up your own act? I read another post in this discussion about a guy in New York (I think) who pays more a month for power to get it from a clean source (hydro). If e
There's not much else to the story. Incidentally, they asked her why she was carrying so much "reading material" (which included, dare I say it, the New York Times and a bunch of legal briefs for a case her and her brother were involved in). This shit happens more often than it should. (I was actually arrested a little over a year ago and after citing multiple laws in the NRS and various tidbits of the US and Nevada Consistutions I was asked if I was one of those "militia types." Later, when citing the law, a mashall asked me if why I cited the law since I was obviously a "constitutionalist" and people like me didn't believe we hadd to follow any laws. Whatever the fuck that means. Seriously, have you ever been at odds with a government agency? They start treating you like a fucking terrorist if you dare assert your rights or are so arrogant as to think that the boys in blue or any of the "special" people that work for the government have to follow the same rules as us "peons.")
And I wasn't clear, for the next two trips she got the "uber search." The trips after that. The uber search is rather than just passing your stuff through a metal detector and, in some cases, taking your shoes off, you get your bags looked through piece by piece (sometimes multiple times) and plan on anything in a wrapper being opened.
As for changing her name, I said she used her middle name. Tons of people go by their middle name. Furthermore, under common law I can change my own damn name whenever I want, to whatever I want as often as I want. It's MY name, not theirs.
The fact of the matter is my mom ain't a terrorist. She's a political activist, but seeing as she files briefs rather than bombs, I think she's safe. And we're talking about law here, spirit is meaningless and word is everything. If "spirit of" meant anything in the legal world this country would be collectively assfucked on a daily basis by our "leaders."
And you thought WRONG about the airports requring government ID, in fact if you look through all the TSA rules and regulations the only time they require one at all is if you're buying a ticket. If you purchased one online and have your boarding pass, you don't have to have ID at all. (Expect to bring a copy of the rules with you, argue and have to get "uber searched," but you can get on the plane without one nonetheless.) I used to do this, but having your bags gone through with a fine tooth comb multiple times and having some scary old guy frisk you in a not so comfortable way isn't my cup of tea.
It's not fraudulant if THEY accept them. The IDs don't mention a government or nationality on them. I've even said, "Well, all I have is an ID from my Fellowship, will that do?" No problem.
Finally, a lesson in vocabulary: defraud: to deprive of something by deception or fraud.
Who is being deprived? Who is being injured? If my mom was dangerous or was a smuggler or something, that would be different. (Although this goes to show how pitiful these ID checks are at stopping actual dangerous people.)
And frankly, I don't care if someone IS a terrorist. Scan the luggage. Make sure they don't have bombs. Keep a marshal on the planes. If some dude is a terrorist, I don't care if he's on the plane as long as he's sitting pretty. These ID checks do NOTHING for security. Like so many things they only stop "honest criminals." Most of these rules are just to get Americans used to the idea of showing their papers everywhere. It was a beautiful thing when you could travel anywhere in this country by pretty much any means without having to lick some local agency's nuts and get their permission.
Now, in the event that you're interested in the actual story (like the news editorial) and didn't want to just try and stomp on me like some kind of a troll contact me at my email address. My slashdot unserame at gmail. (I would have just linked the damn thing if not for mentioning the ACLU suit since... if I'm gonna mention that, I wanna remain somewhat anonymous for the time being because it's in the works right now.)
While I totally agree with you... (I refuse to even get a driver's license so I'm a certified wacko), let me tell you a little story about how asinine airport ID checks are.
My mother was added to the "terrorist watch list" at the airport a few months ago. Why? For wearing a bunch of very anti-Bush political pins and for "daring" to carry some silver dollars with her and having a copy of the constitution with her. The ID she used it one I printed up. There was nothing illegal about it. It wasn't a fake. It was just a little church ID I made up and up until that point they never bothered her using it. (They've never bothered me.)
Two trips later, my mom was given the "uber search" each time. So, I took her ID and changed the name on it to her middle name instead. Guess what? No problems since.
What's ridiculous is that the IDs I use everywhere are ones I make. I never lie. I never use them to defraud anything. But if I can do this with a $200 Epson Printer... I think well funded terrorists can do better. Seriously, this isn't about terrorism... it's about getting Americans used to exactly what you said: showing their Nazi fucking papers.
Thankfully, my mom was contacted by the ACLU the other day after a local writer put her story in an editorial and she's being brought on board a class action suit over this kind of harassment in the airports.
Let me first state that I have been using AMD chips since my K5-133 and had a K6, K6-2, K6-III and multiple itterations of the Athlon.
"The K6's came closer to beating the Intel offerings, but even then, the Intel chips had a small performance lead..."
Small? I guess if you're talking about office applications. (In fact I believe in the realm of the integer, K6 had the lead.) The P-Pro/PII/PIII were the undisputed kings of the floating point in the age when 3D gaming was becoming "the thing." Even when programs utilized 3D Now! the PII/IIIs usually came out on top. The Athlons even had issues with the PIII evenly clocked in the higher ranges (1GHz comes to mind) until the Athlons moved away from the slot and put the cache on die (since if I remember, the cache on the higher clocked models was running as low as 1/3 core speed).
It wasn't until the P4 vs AMD64 war rampted up that AMD had an obvious advantage in most respects. I guess I'm taking your "not day 1" thing a little further! I talked way more than I needed to.
I dunno what the big deal is. I just looked at the responses to what you said and... yeah, what the hell?
I would never use Wikipedia for "serious" research. I wouldn't use ANY encyclopedia for "serious" research. What I will say is this, Wikipedia is an awesome starting place for research and it's also excellent for "light" research. (For instance I'm working on some stuff for a renaissance fair and jumping through brief articles about this and that in the time period has been very helpful and didn't force me to do a lot of looking.)
I just don't see the point of whining. I think the real problem is that people want the Wikipedia to be something it isn't. Remember what it is and factor that in when doing your research there. It's good, light reading. It's a great starting point. It's very entertaining. Most of the info I've read on it is reliable. (Any time I've cared to double check the info has been confirmed.) I a few errors in an article on Elizibeth I and fixed them too, which was really cool.
It happens. The point is, don't forget what the Wikipedia is or how it works when reading. (And if someone tells me other encyclopedias are devoid of opinion, propoganda or BS, they get kicked in the nuts. Seriously.)
Hehehe. I assumed when I selected "plain old text" it would post those things properly. I'm surprised I still got modded well with that little problem.
That's pretty much what I do.
"Okay, here's how it works. I just did a clean install of Windows on your machine. All the spyware is gone. All the viruses are gone. The thing has all the newest drivers and is fully updated. The first rule of Fight Club is you do not use IE. The second rule of Fight Club is you DO NOT use IE.
"Here's Firefox. I've installed Java and Flash for it. You will use this browser. If you return to using IE and there are more problems, plan on paying me to fix your computer next time it breaks. I won't do it for free again."
It works every time. I also delete all IE shortcuts. For the kind of people I generally deal with, that's enough. Even people that aren't friends, I let them know that return calls will be more expensive if they use IE. I hate dealing with this kind of crap. At least most people seem to use webmail these days. It sure does beat having to also replace Outlook Express.
In a normal browser, that's fine and dandy. However, HTML itself (devoid of CSS) is read and used by other devices. For instance if I am browsing in Lynx, that list makes a huge difference in display and don't even get me started on voice readers and other things.
HTML is not there purely to be used as an anchor for style. It is there to explain what kinds of content a document contains. I mean, why use an h1 - h6 or a p or em or strong? You could simply create contextual style definitions for divs and spans which would, more or less, do everything that other tags do.
I mean really, if HTML was really just there for CSS all you'd need would be , , ,
, , , , and . You wouldn't even need since you could could just define inline divs.
Well, you're a doomsday freak if I ever heard one. You're the modern equivalent of "Repent Sinners! The end is at hand!"
We can wipe ourselves out, sure. But life in general? Nope.
Anyway, you should really take a seat on watch the episode of "Bullshit!" on this subject. It's very enlightening. Very enlightening. (And not, that's not the extent of my personal study but for someone of your simple means, it's a good start.)
"Is that what the 'scientific community' is saying or is that just what you're reading on Slashdot?"
I could ask the same of you. And seriously, if my science was based on what I read here at Slashdot, I'd believe in global warming.
"From your original post, I don't the impression that you've looked at the specific problem and the data too closely."
Again, I can say the same thing about you. So what?
"You don't seem to want to delve into the nuances of the real global warming data and possible outcomes so you just write it all off as fear-mongering. There are all kinds of bad outcomes between here and 'we're gonna burn.'"
I can analyze patterns with the best of them. Social and historical patterns indicate that this sort of science is always politically motivated crap. I'm just using my own form of statistical gambling which is no different than anyone who believes in global warming.
There are also GOOD things about an increase in temperature. Look at the recent article about the peat bogs in Siberia. Try telling them how much global warming--if it exists long term--sucks.
I'm not a scientist in the field, and I have a hunch that you aren't either. That makes both us fairly unqualified to do much with the nuances of the "real" global waming data. We can take what little we do know (about anything) and choose whose conclusion we want to believe. In the highly unlikely event you are a scientist active in the community, it's still safe to say that other people, just as qualified as you, have come to entirely different conclusions.
What's a poor, pitiful layman like myself to do? I guess I have to have "faith" that the scientists that I have chosen to "believe in" are correct. And really, whether you want to say it or not, that's all any of us can do. Have faith.
"What environmental science is telling us is: there's a pretty good chance that they're right, a miniscule one that they're wrong, and the weight on inaction is huge. You bet."
Wrong. *buzz* You don't get to come back tomorrow. You don't even get a lousy copy of our home game.
What the scientists you have chosen to believe are telling us that. Others are saying otherwise. 20 years ago they would have said "there's a pretty good chance that they're right, a miniscule one that they're wrong" in context to a new ice age.
There are plenty of scientists who are saying that global warming is part of a natural cycle, others that say the data is too inconclsive to make any real decision and others with other theories. However, saying that thhe earth is going through a natural cycle isn't good for news or politics so it doesn't get front page coverage and in the minds of people must not be "real" science. Only stuff in USA Today counts.
Read my other posts and replies on this thread. I'm not agnostic about environmental reform. I'm in favor of MAJOR clean up efforts. I don't need doomsday to get me to want clean air, food and water. I don't need groups LYING about mass deforestation in the United States to get me to act either. I want a clean environment. However, I also want honest science. Both of these things are important.
What I totally agree with you on is that the weight of inaction is huge, but remember, so is the weight of misguided action. This applies to more than just global warming.
Can you please tell me how ice cores tell us about temperature? Maybe it's my simple minded thinking, but I can imagine that the only kind of air you're going to find in an ice core is the cold kind. I mean, that's all that's in my freezer.
They might tell us about what kinds of things were in the air. But that's not temperature. There's more to climate than what's in the air. Plenty of those factors, I'm sure, are completely unknown to the human race right now.
And even if we have climate information from 400,000 years ago, all we have are chunks. That's all. We're connecting points on a graph with HUGE gaps. HUGE gaps. That's inconclusive science and nothing to get our panties in a twist over.
Trees. Heh. I don't know if this occurs to anyone, but check your stats. We have more forest land in the USA now than we did 200 years ago. Yes, we cut down trees... but we--that's right, us environment destroying humans--regrow them. Why? Because the logging business goes out of business if they wipe themselves out.
Trees are just one of those warm, fuzzy images used by environmentalists to push bullshit. They're no different than the pictures of baby fetuses the pro-life wackos show us in order to "prove" that we should be able tell a raped woman that she has to have the baby. The left... the right... it's about images that get emotional response and NOT science. This is exactly the problem I have with all of this.
And when people totally misread what is said and pull out single quotes to misrepresent what was being said, I get sick (nothing personal).
Not once, and I mean not once, did I say we shouldn't clean up our environmental practices. Why? Because I believe we're making a mess of things. I don't need some asshat telling me the seas are going to boil to see that. If you live in any reasonable sized city that sits in a valley (like me) you get a fine taste of why air pollution needs fixing. When I go to buy gas, it becomes obvious why alternative means of energy needs to be looked at. When we see toxic waste and radiation showing immediate signs of cancer and other ill health nastiness, I know we need to stop putting nasty ass chemicals in our food and water.
And let's pretend for a moment that I'm a totally selfish hedonist. Why do I give a fuck about your kids, particularly if I don't have any of my own? They aren't *my* problem. Keep your "for the children" shit to yourself because it's one of the most misused methods of propaganda the world has seen.
"If scientific research sounds too off-center, then it must be wrong, because I am sure nothing really bad can happen to me. "
That's not what was said. I don't care how crazy something sounds. What I do care about is whether or not the science is sound. And I'm sorry, but global warming is not something the scientific world agrees on. Not at all. Let us not forget that we had the opposite theory a few decades ago.
The biggest problem with doomsday science is that, normally, real science requires adequate proof before action takes place. (You know, like field testing medicine before throwing at the public.) However, add the twist, "There's no time! Act now or we all die!" and you can act without real proof. Yeah. Nice going. And even better, the people who do act are our wonderful leaders who will waste money and use this doomsday shit to push tons of unrelated crap.
And let's pretend that I'm a true evolutionist, for just a moment. If we make the environment worse, perhaps we'll evolve into stronger creatures to survive? Or, we'll wipe ourselves out and something stronger will step up to the plate. Why does it matter either way? Honestly, on a purely scientific level what does it matter whether or not we survive as a species? If things go to hell after I'm dead, why will I care? I'm not saying I really think this way, but do you care to answer that? From a cold, purely numbers mentality, if life should continue, shouldn't it be the strongest kind? Isn't that what survival of the fittest is all about?
These future problems don't affect MOST humans--who are selfish pricks. Focus on the here and now and we'll see REAL progress instead of money and time wasted on inconclusive theory that would be solved by fixing the here and now anyway. Dirty air, high gas prices and cancer are much better and more scientifically and economically compelling reasons to clean up our acts environmentally. Doomsday shit isn't.
Read what is said, not what isn't being said. Please. I never attacked environmental reform and clean up efforts. I attacked using inconclusive science for... well... much of anything. The only thing it's good for is paving the way for conclusive science and that's ALL it should be used for.
We see micro evolution in a few generations. We've seen it in birds and bugs and even humans. We have not observed a dog becoming a whale except with theories based on similar skulls, okay? Macro evolution, if it even works, has not been observed.
It's theory derived from trying to make sense of bones we've found in the ground and mixing that with micro evolutional changes we've observed, not fact. You're entitled to believe in it as I am, but the fact is that we "believe." That's that. It might be the right guide. It might be wrong. Whatever. Since I'm not an active member of that scientific community all I can do is choose what I do and do not wish to accept. It's all anyone who isn't on the forefront can do.
Unfortunately it can't all be ignored. While it is a small sample and the information is very localized in the time spectrum... it's all we got, we have to make the best decisions we can with what is available. If it happens to be well supported but wrong, we waste a few billion dollars and some things improve when they didn't have to. If it is right, we're fucked.
It can't? Watch.......... See there? I just ignored it.
A few billion dollars on a theory that's flip flopped at least once in two decades (cold, now hot) based on a very localized time spectrum could better be spent solving actual problems! Whether or not there is global warming, energy conservation, alternative fuels, cleaner air, etc. are good things. They help us here and now. They solve actual observed problems. The affect the economies of the world in a positive manner. The improve my observable quality of life.
The problem is that the money, and a whole lot of it, isn't going to improvements. It's going to study this bullshit and fuel the campaigns of the assholes that are screaming that we're going to cook. That's what sensational science is meant to do. It's why it should be ignored. Real, concrete improvements solve actual problems, observable problems.
Given those two options I say take moderate steps in the direction that is supported instead of ignoring it because we lack sufficient datapoints. Find out what is generally supported and make a reasonable pollicy accordingly.
How do we know taking those supposedly moderate steps won't harm us? Recently we jumped into Iraq because we went on a lack of sufficient datapoints.That's not science, I know. But really, neither is most of this crap that gives real science a bad name.
Even if global warming is happening, take the money and time to investigate the supposed problems and not the symptom, which is all global warming is if it's even a problem. Pollution is bad. All you have to do is look at the air in LA to know that. Stop trying to scare people with this doomsday shit. It turns goood science into high pressure, commission based sales.
This unproven theory is being taught in schools as fact (I know, I was there) with no debate and no talk except, "Stop air pollution or the planet is going to die." I won't even give global warming the time of day. We can solve real problems with real solutions right now. In doing so, we even solve theoretical problems like global warming.
I'm rooted in the concrete? How odd. I guess this means I'm not a man of faith.
Look, global warming is a theory and despite the attitude around here there's no real proof and like every piece of sensational science there are plenty of other scientists out there that disagree. End of story. You guys make it sound like everyone in the scientific community is totally convinced that we're gonna burn and sorry, but that's just not the way things are.
There, that was easy. Now, as I read somewhere around here the other day, science is not truth nor is it fact. It's a method that attempts to discern both of those things. It's a good method and as time goes on the results of our discoveries show in the things we build and the advancement of our society. So before I continue, I'm not anti-science and have no desire to be branded as some sort of Bible thumper. (Which seems to be the title given to anyone who dares question the perfection of our holy scientists.)
The problem is that humans (whether religious zealots or scientific zealots) rarely want to admit they're on the path to truth. They want to say they've found it, they know what it is and that's all she wrote. No one wants to say that they're trying when they can say that they're successful and make a really big deal out of it. For instance:
"The earth is getting cooler. We're heading straight for a new ice age! We have to cut our pollution!"
"The earth is getting hotter. It's global warming! We're all gonna fry if we don't stop polluting!"
"We are all vile sinners. We're heading straight for hell! Repent and accept Jesus or you'll burn!"
People who defend sensational scientific beliefs are just as contradictory as religious nuts. When they're talking about evolution they point to the fact that the changes and cycles take thousands and thousands of years. Geological changes? Even longer. Nature, as a whole moves in very slow patterns and makes very slow changes. It's not in a hurry. However, suddenly we analyse weather for what... 100 years? 200 years? We pluck out a pinhole sized chunk of a 4,000,000,000 year old pie and think that it really tells us anything that's truly long term?
I really love George Carlin's routine on the environment. He make a single statement that really brings it all into focus. Are humans so arrogant that we think we can destory the earth let alone save it?
I have a pretty simple policy on whether or not I believe a particular scientific theory/"discovery" and it works like this: If a "discovery" is made that yields cool new gadgets that improve my quality of life (TV, computers, polyester, bath puffs) then I believe it. If a "discovery" is heavily debated and spends a lot of time coming out of the mouths of the far left and/or the far right, I can usually ignore it and move on with my life. Politically pushed and motivated science is the worst kind. In an ironic twist, science should be scientifically motivated.
Stop telling me we know how everything works or that our methods are perfect and all that's left is time and discovery. In 250 years they're going to poke as much fun at what we know now as we do the science of 1750. Our medicine will be viewed as barbaric and primitive and our ideas on things like quantum physics will be viewed as remedial at best. In fact, with the speed discoveries are made now, the gap may be even bigger in 250 years. Again, this doesn't mean everything we know is bogus, it just means you shouldn't treat it like the be all end all.
Use science as a guide and use it to the best of your abilities. However, putting the level of faith in sensational theories that fundamentalists put in a literal 7 day (24 hours a day) creation of the world really isn't any better.
Scientifically, we're moving in the right direction. We're doing our best. However, deal with the fact that a lot of so-called "science" is politically motivated bullshit. Also deal with the fact that some things that we hold dear now are going to be discarded as we learn more about the universe and its laws and mechanics. With the exception of spotting a huge space object heading for the planet, doomsday science can be summarily ignored.
Finally, you seem to feel that manufacturing is the center of the current economy. This seems to me to be patently untrue. The wealtiest nations in the world are nations which are involved in very little manufacturing. This holds true on every continent. Instead trade, engineering, and high-value deliverables are the key points to becoming wealthy.
The problem comes the tides change. Our "modern," "global" economy hasn't been around long enough to really demonstrate the cycles yet. Yes, right now the wealthiest nations have moved away from manufacturing, more or less because wealthy nations find such things beneath them (we can always ship it off to some unsophisticated foreigner that we can pay even less than a McDonald's worker here).
The problem will present itself when a nation that provides a wealthy nation with most (or at least a majority) of its manufacturing decides to go to war. Sure, China's economy would have issues if it were to cut trade with the USA, but you want to know who would have some real issues? It's not just the cheap crap we lose, it's the parts to a good deal of the expensive things that are supposedly "made in the USA."
Sooner or later the cheap labor of the world is going to turn on the arrogant, wealthy nations. China's looking to do it now.
Sometimes I prefer them telling me how to do my business rather than the Linux world telling me what I can't do. Decent video editting anyone? Vector graphics? Page layout?
And do you seriously think the OSS world is devoid of telling people what to do? (Gnome 2 has a vision and direction and dammit, it's gonna be the way the devs way. Which seriously, is a good thing.) They make decisions that I have to live with and they have upgrade paths they decide to take that some people eat. Say hello to computers.
These are tools. That's all computers are. I have a couple FreeBSD servers, a Windows desktop for games and testing sites in IE and a Mac for everyday use and development. My primary machine has, at one time or another, run Windows, Linux, OS X and even BeOS.
Open Source is nice for SOME things but some people around here treat it like a religion. For the most part, open source doesn't affect me. Why? I'm not much of a C programmer. I'm definitely not an application developer or a kernel hacker. What good does it do me? I just bought a new drill and it came with a schematic. Yay. I can't fix it anyway.
Until there comes a day where I cannot change to another OS then no one is telling me what to do. Not Bill. Not Steve. Not Linus. Etc.
And you know what? TCO has A LOT to do with Linux for A LOT of people. It might be a control thing for you, but that's anything but the case for a great deal of other people/businesses that use/are considering Linux. Who cares about open source vs. a tyrannical company when you can't function using the former.
Computers and software are tools people. Just tools. Use what suits your needs and leave the dogma to the Baptists.
Oh I see how it works. Well, thank you for pointing out to me that people who take offense to people being shitheads are the true menaces to society. So when the dorks at school are being made fun of by the jocks, really it's the defenseless nerds who are the real dicks for allowing themselves to get upset. Thanks for making it clear to me now.
Dumbass.
(Incidentally, in my list, over half of the things I mentioned weren't genetic. I didn't even draw that connection. You did.)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not really being optimistic. In my mind I'm being realitistic. Technological increase is the ONLY thing I can see solving the problem. (Again, I'm not even sold on global warming, but the other immediate effects of pollution are enough for me.) I don't see any way to get people/government/leaders/coporations/whoever to do anything until there are drastic and in-your-face effects. Most people simply don't care and won't care if the sky is falling until a big piece of it lands on their house or their car or their head and does some damage.
I mean let's be honest with ourselves for a moment, do you think politics or people will ever solve anything BEFORE it's a huge problem? (And when they do "solve it" it'll be a vehicle for winning elections.) Not in big nations. Not in small nations. Maybe in villages.
Governments won't solve this. Not so long as Exxon are putting leaders all over the world into office. Until really, politicians are more worried about cancer, suffocating and melting... nothing will carry more weight than he mighty dollar. (Or citizen revolt, but if people ever actually care enough to get to that point, they'll have boycotted gas and dirty power on their own.)
I see no solution aside from technological increases and probably enough environmental change to where it hits people at home in a very obvious way. Our leaders and our race remain very unchanged. Maybe I'm just a cynic.
> By 2050, industrialized nations will be emitting little CO2
and you're basing that on what? the last 45 years of emission trends?
Incidentally, with those 45 years of emission trends, we also have a history of parabolic growth in technology. In fact, that history goes back to about the time of the Industrial Revolution where technology just gets faster, smaller, more efficient, etc. The fact that we've been able to gather and analyze said trends is a result of technological advances. I mean, really, I can't use that data to predict that we're going to continue to get more sophisticated over time.
We're going to get more techologically sophisticated. I can say that with as much certainty that I can say the summer is going to be warmer than the winter here in Las Vegas. Sure, something COULD happen, but predicting against that kind of catastrophe is pointless.
And finally, like it or not, war and money drive technology. I mean, if you want to continue to make predictions, just get out your history book and read about how humans have operated, make your graph and predict. The fact is this, either we're going to get more advanced and the problem will just go away or the effects will get so drastic that we "have to do something." (Or like the impending ice age that was preached at us in the 1980s, global warming is just flat out wrong and we're getting our panties all twisted for nothing.)
You don't need to say the sky is falling to tell us about the immediate problems of bad emissions like the fact that when you live in a valley you have to deal with smog or that gas is eating up more of my payheck than I want it to. I don't know anyone who WANTS anything like that. Humans are really only very good at dealing with the immediate, not impending doom that may or may not even be impending doom. And for anyone who says we KNOW and that all scientists KNOW and AGREE, they're deluding themselves.
You're living in a world where most of the people can barely take care of day to day needs. Even in industrialized countries people are struggling just to survive. Until global warming becomes enough of a problem that it takes precedent in people's lives, nothing will be done.
Relying on the theory that human technology will only get better over time is just as valid as anything else I've heard around here and frankly--given the state of human nature which doesn't appear to have changed much since history has been written--it's the most realistic solution we can look forward to. I might sound a bit nihilisitic, but what else can be done?
Now, before I get the customary "la, la, la, I can't hear you" response that just about anyone who takes my stance receives on this site, let me tell you what I am doing. I'm moving out to a farm, switching over to solar and microturbine energy methods and I may do a biodiesel setup on my truck while out there. Really, as an individual, that's all I can do. Build an anerobic digestor and start the collection of ethanol and methane for my energy needs. On top of that, I spend a good portion of my time before my state legislature talking about issues. To top it off, I run for public office and while someone of my limited means cannot get elected, I run anyway because someone HAS to. My home state (Nevada) is a land ripe with natural energy, but it's untapped primarily due to federal tampering and a legislature that won't stand up to them.
So I guess the question I have for most "holy shitballs, the sky is falling" global warming screamers around is this: What are you doing about it aside from screaming here on Slashdot and making fun of anything who doesn't agree? Are you off the grid? Are you spending your time and money to reduce YOUR emissions? Or is day to day life--bills and computers and games and maybe a family--getting in the way or cleaning up your own act? I read another post in this discussion about a guy in New York (I think) who pays more a month for power to get it from a clean source (hydro). If e
There's not much else to the story. Incidentally, they asked her why she was carrying so much "reading material" (which included, dare I say it, the New York Times and a bunch of legal briefs for a case her and her brother were involved in). This shit happens more often than it should. (I was actually arrested a little over a year ago and after citing multiple laws in the NRS and various tidbits of the US and Nevada Consistutions I was asked if I was one of those "militia types." Later, when citing the law, a mashall asked me if why I cited the law since I was obviously a "constitutionalist" and people like me didn't believe we hadd to follow any laws. Whatever the fuck that means. Seriously, have you ever been at odds with a government agency? They start treating you like a fucking terrorist if you dare assert your rights or are so arrogant as to think that the boys in blue or any of the "special" people that work for the government have to follow the same rules as us "peons.")
And I wasn't clear, for the next two trips she got the "uber search." The trips after that. The uber search is rather than just passing your stuff through a metal detector and, in some cases, taking your shoes off, you get your bags looked through piece by piece (sometimes multiple times) and plan on anything in a wrapper being opened.
As for changing her name, I said she used her middle name. Tons of people go by their middle name. Furthermore, under common law I can change my own damn name whenever I want, to whatever I want as often as I want. It's MY name, not theirs.
The fact of the matter is my mom ain't a terrorist. She's a political activist, but seeing as she files briefs rather than bombs, I think she's safe. And we're talking about law here, spirit is meaningless and word is everything. If "spirit of" meant anything in the legal world this country would be collectively assfucked on a daily basis by our "leaders."
And you thought WRONG about the airports requring government ID, in fact if you look through all the TSA rules and regulations the only time they require one at all is if you're buying a ticket. If you purchased one online and have your boarding pass, you don't have to have ID at all. (Expect to bring a copy of the rules with you, argue and have to get "uber searched," but you can get on the plane without one nonetheless.) I used to do this, but having your bags gone through with a fine tooth comb multiple times and having some scary old guy frisk you in a not so comfortable way isn't my cup of tea.
It's not fraudulant if THEY accept them. The IDs don't mention a government or nationality on them. I've even said, "Well, all I have is an ID from my Fellowship, will that do?" No problem.
Finally, a lesson in vocabulary: defraud: to deprive of something by deception or fraud.
Who is being deprived? Who is being injured? If my mom was dangerous or was a smuggler or something, that would be different. (Although this goes to show how pitiful these ID checks are at stopping actual dangerous people.)
And frankly, I don't care if someone IS a terrorist. Scan the luggage. Make sure they don't have bombs. Keep a marshal on the planes. If some dude is a terrorist, I don't care if he's on the plane as long as he's sitting pretty. These ID checks do NOTHING for security. Like so many things they only stop "honest criminals." Most of these rules are just to get Americans used to the idea of showing their papers everywhere. It was a beautiful thing when you could travel anywhere in this country by pretty much any means without having to lick some local agency's nuts and get their permission.
Now, in the event that you're interested in the actual story (like the news editorial) and didn't want to just try and stomp on me like some kind of a troll contact me at my email address. My slashdot unserame at gmail. (I would have just linked the damn thing if not for mentioning the ACLU suit since... if I'm gonna mention that, I wanna remain somewhat anonymous for the time being because it's in the works right now.)
While I totally agree with you... (I refuse to even get a driver's license so I'm a certified wacko), let me tell you a little story about how asinine airport ID checks are.
My mother was added to the "terrorist watch list" at the airport a few months ago. Why? For wearing a bunch of very anti-Bush political pins and for "daring" to carry some silver dollars with her and having a copy of the constitution with her. The ID she used it one I printed up. There was nothing illegal about it. It wasn't a fake. It was just a little church ID I made up and up until that point they never bothered her using it. (They've never bothered me.)
Two trips later, my mom was given the "uber search" each time. So, I took her ID and changed the name on it to her middle name instead. Guess what? No problems since.
What's ridiculous is that the IDs I use everywhere are ones I make. I never lie. I never use them to defraud anything. But if I can do this with a $200 Epson Printer... I think well funded terrorists can do better. Seriously, this isn't about terrorism... it's about getting Americans used to exactly what you said: showing their Nazi fucking papers.
Thankfully, my mom was contacted by the ACLU the other day after a local writer put her story in an editorial and she's being brought on board a class action suit over this kind of harassment in the airports.
Say hello to the Facist States of America.
Let me first state that I have been using AMD chips since my K5-133 and had a K6, K6-2, K6-III and multiple itterations of the Athlon.
"The K6's came closer to beating the Intel offerings, but even then, the Intel chips had a small performance lead..."
Small? I guess if you're talking about office applications. (In fact I believe in the realm of the integer, K6 had the lead.) The P-Pro/PII/PIII were the undisputed kings of the floating point in the age when 3D gaming was becoming "the thing." Even when programs utilized 3D Now! the PII/IIIs usually came out on top. The Athlons even had issues with the PIII evenly clocked in the higher ranges (1GHz comes to mind) until the Athlons moved away from the slot and put the cache on die (since if I remember, the cache on the higher clocked models was running as low as 1/3 core speed).
It wasn't until the P4 vs AMD64 war rampted up that AMD had an obvious advantage in most respects. I guess I'm taking your "not day 1" thing a little further! I talked way more than I needed to.
If I had my points today you'd score one. That was fucking hilarious.
Actually in an array (it doesn't work so well in a hash) you can just do this:
puts array
That's it.
I dunno what the big deal is. I just looked at the responses to what you said and... yeah, what the hell?
I would never use Wikipedia for "serious" research. I wouldn't use ANY encyclopedia for "serious" research. What I will say is this, Wikipedia is an awesome starting place for research and it's also excellent for "light" research. (For instance I'm working on some stuff for a renaissance fair and jumping through brief articles about this and that in the time period has been very helpful and didn't force me to do a lot of looking.)
I just don't see the point of whining. I think the real problem is that people want the Wikipedia to be something it isn't. Remember what it is and factor that in when doing your research there. It's good, light reading. It's a great starting point. It's very entertaining. Most of the info I've read on it is reliable. (Any time I've cared to double check the info has been confirmed.) I a few errors in an article on Elizibeth I and fixed them too, which was really cool.
It happens. The point is, don't forget what the Wikipedia is or how it works when reading. (And if someone tells me other encyclopedias are devoid of opinion, propoganda or BS, they get kicked in the nuts. Seriously.)
Watch Blade Trinity! Macs are the choice computers of vampire hunters! That's why I use mine.
Hehehe. I assumed when I selected "plain old text" it would post those things properly. I'm surprised I still got modded well with that little problem.
That's pretty much what I do. "Okay, here's how it works. I just did a clean install of Windows on your machine. All the spyware is gone. All the viruses are gone. The thing has all the newest drivers and is fully updated. The first rule of Fight Club is you do not use IE. The second rule of Fight Club is you DO NOT use IE. "Here's Firefox. I've installed Java and Flash for it. You will use this browser. If you return to using IE and there are more problems, plan on paying me to fix your computer next time it breaks. I won't do it for free again." It works every time. I also delete all IE shortcuts. For the kind of people I generally deal with, that's enough. Even people that aren't friends, I let them know that return calls will be more expensive if they use IE. I hate dealing with this kind of crap. At least most people seem to use webmail these days. It sure does beat having to also replace Outlook Express.
In a normal browser, that's fine and dandy. However, HTML itself (devoid of CSS) is read and used by other devices. For instance if I am browsing in Lynx, that list makes a huge difference in display and don't even get me started on voice readers and other things.
HTML is not there purely to be used as an anchor for style. It is there to explain what kinds of content a document contains. I mean, why use an h1 - h6 or a p or em or strong? You could simply create contextual style definitions for divs and spans which would, more or less, do everything that other tags do.
I mean really, if HTML was really just there for CSS all you'd need would be , , , , , , , and . You wouldn't even need since you could could just define inline divs.
Well, you're a doomsday freak if I ever heard one. You're the modern equivalent of "Repent Sinners! The end is at hand!"
We can wipe ourselves out, sure. But life in general? Nope.
Anyway, you should really take a seat on watch the episode of "Bullshit!" on this subject. It's very enlightening. Very enlightening. (And not, that's not the extent of my personal study but for someone of your simple means, it's a good start.)
"Is that what the 'scientific community' is saying or is that just what you're reading on Slashdot?"
I could ask the same of you. And seriously, if my science was based on what I read here at Slashdot, I'd believe in global warming.
"From your original post, I don't the impression that you've looked at the specific problem and the data too closely."
Again, I can say the same thing about you. So what?
"You don't seem to want to delve into the nuances of the real global warming data and possible outcomes so you just write it all off as fear-mongering. There are all kinds of bad outcomes between here and 'we're gonna burn.'"
I can analyze patterns with the best of them. Social and historical patterns indicate that this sort of science is always politically motivated crap. I'm just using my own form of statistical gambling which is no different than anyone who believes in global warming.
There are also GOOD things about an increase in temperature. Look at the recent article about the peat bogs in Siberia. Try telling them how much global warming--if it exists long term--sucks.
I'm not a scientist in the field, and I have a hunch that you aren't either. That makes both us fairly unqualified to do much with the nuances of the "real" global waming data. We can take what little we do know (about anything) and choose whose conclusion we want to believe. In the highly unlikely event you are a scientist active in the community, it's still safe to say that other people, just as qualified as you, have come to entirely different conclusions.
What's a poor, pitiful layman like myself to do? I guess I have to have "faith" that the scientists that I have chosen to "believe in" are correct. And really, whether you want to say it or not, that's all any of us can do. Have faith.
"What environmental science is telling us is: there's a pretty good chance that they're right, a miniscule one that they're wrong, and the weight on inaction is huge. You bet."
Wrong. *buzz* You don't get to come back tomorrow. You don't even get a lousy copy of our home game.
What the scientists you have chosen to believe are telling us that. Others are saying otherwise. 20 years ago they would have said "there's a pretty good chance that they're right, a miniscule one that they're wrong" in context to a new ice age.
There are plenty of scientists who are saying that global warming is part of a natural cycle, others that say the data is too inconclsive to make any real decision and others with other theories. However, saying that thhe earth is going through a natural cycle isn't good for news or politics so it doesn't get front page coverage and in the minds of people must not be "real" science. Only stuff in USA Today counts.
Read my other posts and replies on this thread. I'm not agnostic about environmental reform. I'm in favor of MAJOR clean up efforts. I don't need doomsday to get me to want clean air, food and water. I don't need groups LYING about mass deforestation in the United States to get me to act either. I want a clean environment. However, I also want honest science. Both of these things are important.
What I totally agree with you on is that the weight of inaction is huge, but remember, so is the weight of misguided action. This applies to more than just global warming.
Can you please tell me how ice cores tell us about temperature? Maybe it's my simple minded thinking, but I can imagine that the only kind of air you're going to find in an ice core is the cold kind. I mean, that's all that's in my freezer.
They might tell us about what kinds of things were in the air. But that's not temperature. There's more to climate than what's in the air. Plenty of those factors, I'm sure, are completely unknown to the human race right now.
And even if we have climate information from 400,000 years ago, all we have are chunks. That's all. We're connecting points on a graph with HUGE gaps. HUGE gaps. That's inconclusive science and nothing to get our panties in a twist over.
Trees. Heh. I don't know if this occurs to anyone, but check your stats. We have more forest land in the USA now than we did 200 years ago. Yes, we cut down trees... but we--that's right, us environment destroying humans--regrow them. Why? Because the logging business goes out of business if they wipe themselves out.
Trees are just one of those warm, fuzzy images used by environmentalists to push bullshit. They're no different than the pictures of baby fetuses the pro-life wackos show us in order to "prove" that we should be able tell a raped woman that she has to have the baby. The left... the right... it's about images that get emotional response and NOT science. This is exactly the problem I have with all of this.
And when people totally misread what is said and pull out single quotes to misrepresent what was being said, I get sick (nothing personal).
Not once, and I mean not once, did I say we shouldn't clean up our environmental practices. Why? Because I believe we're making a mess of things. I don't need some asshat telling me the seas are going to boil to see that. If you live in any reasonable sized city that sits in a valley (like me) you get a fine taste of why air pollution needs fixing. When I go to buy gas, it becomes obvious why alternative means of energy needs to be looked at. When we see toxic waste and radiation showing immediate signs of cancer and other ill health nastiness, I know we need to stop putting nasty ass chemicals in our food and water.
And let's pretend for a moment that I'm a totally selfish hedonist. Why do I give a fuck about your kids, particularly if I don't have any of my own? They aren't *my* problem. Keep your "for the children" shit to yourself because it's one of the most misused methods of propaganda the world has seen.
"If scientific research sounds too off-center, then it must be wrong, because I am sure nothing really bad can happen to me. "
That's not what was said. I don't care how crazy something sounds. What I do care about is whether or not the science is sound. And I'm sorry, but global warming is not something the scientific world agrees on. Not at all. Let us not forget that we had the opposite theory a few decades ago.
The biggest problem with doomsday science is that, normally, real science requires adequate proof before action takes place. (You know, like field testing medicine before throwing at the public.) However, add the twist, "There's no time! Act now or we all die!" and you can act without real proof. Yeah. Nice going. And even better, the people who do act are our wonderful leaders who will waste money and use this doomsday shit to push tons of unrelated crap.
And let's pretend that I'm a true evolutionist, for just a moment. If we make the environment worse, perhaps we'll evolve into stronger creatures to survive? Or, we'll wipe ourselves out and something stronger will step up to the plate. Why does it matter either way? Honestly, on a purely scientific level what does it matter whether or not we survive as a species? If things go to hell after I'm dead, why will I care? I'm not saying I really think this way, but do you care to answer that? From a cold, purely numbers mentality, if life should continue, shouldn't it be the strongest kind? Isn't that what survival of the fittest is all about?
These future problems don't affect MOST humans--who are selfish pricks. Focus on the here and now and we'll see REAL progress instead of money and time wasted on inconclusive theory that would be solved by fixing the here and now anyway. Dirty air, high gas prices and cancer are much better and more scientifically and economically compelling reasons to clean up our acts environmentally. Doomsday shit isn't.
Read what is said, not what isn't being said. Please. I never attacked environmental reform and clean up efforts. I attacked using inconclusive science for... well... much of anything. The only thing it's good for is paving the way for conclusive science and that's ALL it should be used for.
It's theory derived from trying to make sense of bones we've found in the ground and mixing that with micro evolutional changes we've observed, not fact. You're entitled to believe in it as I am, but the fact is that we "believe." That's that. It might be the right guide. It might be wrong. Whatever. Since I'm not an active member of that scientific community all I can do is choose what I do and do not wish to accept. It's all anyone who isn't on the forefront can do.
Unfortunately it can't all be ignored. While it is a small sample and the information is very localized in the time spectrum... it's all we got, we have to make the best decisions we can with what is available. If it happens to be well supported but wrong, we waste a few billion dollars and some things improve when they didn't have to. If it is right, we're fucked.
It can't? Watch. ... ... ... See there? I just ignored it.
A few billion dollars on a theory that's flip flopped at least once in two decades (cold, now hot) based on a very localized time spectrum could better be spent solving actual problems! Whether or not there is global warming, energy conservation, alternative fuels, cleaner air, etc. are good things. They help us here and now. They solve actual observed problems. The affect the economies of the world in a positive manner. The improve my observable quality of life.
The problem is that the money, and a whole lot of it, isn't going to improvements. It's going to study this bullshit and fuel the campaigns of the assholes that are screaming that we're going to cook. That's what sensational science is meant to do. It's why it should be ignored. Real, concrete improvements solve actual problems, observable problems.
Given those two options I say take moderate steps in the direction that is supported instead of ignoring it because we lack sufficient datapoints. Find out what is generally supported and make a reasonable pollicy accordingly.
How do we know taking those supposedly moderate steps won't harm us? Recently we jumped into Iraq because we went on a lack of sufficient datapoints.That's not science, I know. But really, neither is most of this crap that gives real science a bad name.
Even if global warming is happening, take the money and time to investigate the supposed problems and not the symptom, which is all global warming is if it's even a problem. Pollution is bad. All you have to do is look at the air in LA to know that. Stop trying to scare people with this doomsday shit. It turns goood science into high pressure, commission based sales.
This unproven theory is being taught in schools as fact (I know, I was there) with no debate and no talk except, "Stop air pollution or the planet is going to die." I won't even give global warming the time of day. We can solve real problems with real solutions right now. In doing so, we even solve theoretical problems like global warming.
I'm rooted in the concrete? How odd. I guess this means I'm not a man of faith.
Look, global warming is a theory and despite the attitude around here there's no real proof and like every piece of sensational science there are plenty of other scientists out there that disagree. End of story. You guys make it sound like everyone in the scientific community is totally convinced that we're gonna burn and sorry, but that's just not the way things are.
Do we really know what's going on?
No.
There, that was easy. Now, as I read somewhere around here the other day, science is not truth nor is it fact. It's a method that attempts to discern both of those things. It's a good method and as time goes on the results of our discoveries show in the things we build and the advancement of our society. So before I continue, I'm not anti-science and have no desire to be branded as some sort of Bible thumper. (Which seems to be the title given to anyone who dares question the perfection of our holy scientists.)
The problem is that humans (whether religious zealots or scientific zealots) rarely want to admit they're on the path to truth. They want to say they've found it, they know what it is and that's all she wrote. No one wants to say that they're trying when they can say that they're successful and make a really big deal out of it. For instance:
People who defend sensational scientific beliefs are just as contradictory as religious nuts. When they're talking about evolution they point to the fact that the changes and cycles take thousands and thousands of years. Geological changes? Even longer. Nature, as a whole moves in very slow patterns and makes very slow changes. It's not in a hurry. However, suddenly we analyse weather for what... 100 years? 200 years? We pluck out a pinhole sized chunk of a 4,000,000,000 year old pie and think that it really tells us anything that's truly long term?
I really love George Carlin's routine on the environment. He make a single statement that really brings it all into focus. Are humans so arrogant that we think we can destory the earth let alone save it?
I have a pretty simple policy on whether or not I believe a particular scientific theory/"discovery" and it works like this: If a "discovery" is made that yields cool new gadgets that improve my quality of life (TV, computers, polyester, bath puffs) then I believe it. If a "discovery" is heavily debated and spends a lot of time coming out of the mouths of the far left and/or the far right, I can usually ignore it and move on with my life. Politically pushed and motivated science is the worst kind. In an ironic twist, science should be scientifically motivated.
Stop telling me we know how everything works or that our methods are perfect and all that's left is time and discovery. In 250 years they're going to poke as much fun at what we know now as we do the science of 1750. Our medicine will be viewed as barbaric and primitive and our ideas on things like quantum physics will be viewed as remedial at best. In fact, with the speed discoveries are made now, the gap may be even bigger in 250 years. Again, this doesn't mean everything we know is bogus, it just means you shouldn't treat it like the be all end all.
Use science as a guide and use it to the best of your abilities. However, putting the level of faith in sensational theories that fundamentalists put in a literal 7 day (24 hours a day) creation of the world really isn't any better.
Scientifically, we're moving in the right direction. We're doing our best. However, deal with the fact that a lot of so-called "science" is politically motivated bullshit. Also deal with the fact that some things that we hold dear now are going to be discarded as we learn more about the universe and its laws and mechanics. With the exception of spotting a huge space object heading for the planet, doomsday science can be summarily ignored.
Finally, you seem to feel that manufacturing is the center of the current economy. This seems to me to be patently untrue. The wealtiest nations in the world are nations which are involved in very little manufacturing. This holds true on every continent. Instead trade, engineering, and high-value deliverables are the key points to becoming wealthy.
The problem comes the tides change. Our "modern," "global" economy hasn't been around long enough to really demonstrate the cycles yet. Yes, right now the wealthiest nations have moved away from manufacturing, more or less because wealthy nations find such things beneath them (we can always ship it off to some unsophisticated foreigner that we can pay even less than a McDonald's worker here).
The problem will present itself when a nation that provides a wealthy nation with most (or at least a majority) of its manufacturing decides to go to war. Sure, China's economy would have issues if it were to cut trade with the USA, but you want to know who would have some real issues? It's not just the cheap crap we lose, it's the parts to a good deal of the expensive things that are supposedly "made in the USA."
Sooner or later the cheap labor of the world is going to turn on the arrogant, wealthy nations. China's looking to do it now.
Sometimes I prefer them telling me how to do my business rather than the Linux world telling me what I can't do. Decent video editting anyone? Vector graphics? Page layout?
And do you seriously think the OSS world is devoid of telling people what to do? (Gnome 2 has a vision and direction and dammit, it's gonna be the way the devs way. Which seriously, is a good thing.) They make decisions that I have to live with and they have upgrade paths they decide to take that some people eat. Say hello to computers.
These are tools. That's all computers are. I have a couple FreeBSD servers, a Windows desktop for games and testing sites in IE and a Mac for everyday use and development. My primary machine has, at one time or another, run Windows, Linux, OS X and even BeOS.
Open Source is nice for SOME things but some people around here treat it like a religion. For the most part, open source doesn't affect me. Why? I'm not much of a C programmer. I'm definitely not an application developer or a kernel hacker. What good does it do me? I just bought a new drill and it came with a schematic. Yay. I can't fix it anyway.
Until there comes a day where I cannot change to another OS then no one is telling me what to do. Not Bill. Not Steve. Not Linus. Etc.
And you know what? TCO has A LOT to do with Linux for A LOT of people. It might be a control thing for you, but that's anything but the case for a great deal of other people/businesses that use/are considering Linux. Who cares about open source vs. a tyrannical company when you can't function using the former.
Computers and software are tools people. Just tools. Use what suits your needs and leave the dogma to the Baptists.
Oh I see how it works. Well, thank you for pointing out to me that people who take offense to people being shitheads are the true menaces to society. So when the dorks at school are being made fun of by the jocks, really it's the defenseless nerds who are the real dicks for allowing themselves to get upset. Thanks for making it clear to me now.
Dumbass.
(Incidentally, in my list, over half of the things I mentioned weren't genetic. I didn't even draw that connection. You did.)
Thank you. My comment may have been modded down but this was worth a good laugh before heading to work.