I hate autosave. Its one of the first things I turn off in any editor.
Over many years I have developed an optimal workflow of trying changes and only saving when I'm completely happy with it, so by not saving I can easily go back to the last good version.
Autosave that saves at regular time periods or whatever totally ruins that. I don't want earlier versions automatically overwritten, especially with work-in-progress changes, nor do I want multiple versions saved so I then have the hassle of figuring out *which* version to go back to, and possibly on-top all the manual housekeeping of regularly having to manually clear out multiple old versions.
>> You're asking us to cut off our arm because you think we might have an infected pinky finger.
>> I'm not sure if it's obvious to you yet, but you've got religion.
Nope. unless that religion is called common sense. I'm simply advocating that we reduce risk by not blindly ignoring what 96% of the worlds foremost experts are telling us is a real threat, That is enough of a significant number that anyone should take seriously.
Reducing risk is what big companies love to do, so that should also be natural thinking to people with even your myopic levels of short-termist capitalism.
I'm not sure how you an accuse me of having religion when you clearly have most bizarre blind faith that totally destroying the environment will somehow magically have no more inconvenient effect on humans than that of an infected pinky finger. How is it even possible for an otherwise apparently intelligent person to think we can ravage to destruction the life support system we all exclusively depend on to stay alive, and yet somehow us dying from that failing will be a minor inconvenience compared to the financial cost of doing anything proactive at all.
>> When you destroy economies, you make the poorest of the poor dead from dehydration and starvation because they can't get clean water or food.
What about the billions that will starve when we can't grow crops anymore, or those that will die directly from entire regions being hit hard with VERY extreme weather patterns? We've even already directly and recently experienced right here in the US how dangerous and costly extreme weather can be, with Katrina and New Orleans, yet somehow perople like you can just keep ignoring the evidence right in your face, almost as if it didn't really happen. Natural disaasters of that scale and much worse are queuing up and theres some evidence they are already beginning to happen all over the world, yet there are still some Americans like you that will advocate we prioritise the dollar savings of doing nothing to stop it, over the future of the entire worlds population. And you accuse ME of having religion? hah. keep praying to your almighty dollar my friend. I hope you can eat them when there's no food left.
Well you haven't provided any proof of your earlier statement at all, only a few reasonable-sounding statements that strongly suggest doing something about the environment (i.e. making any change) would cost us more than doing nothing (i.e continuing the status quo). Actually I have never disagreed on that point. I fully expect there to be some financial impact to doing something about taking action to save the environment therefore the world. It seems what your and many other Americans argument comes down to is that any financial impact on the economy at all is not worth saving the planet for. How someone can seriously think that short-term just boggles my mind. Even if fixing the ecological issue costs us the whole current financial system, I for one would rather be living in a cardboard box under a bridge eating ramen I bartered for, than definately dead from dehydration or starvation because nothing can grow at all due to continuing drought or other freak weather phenomena.
I guess at this point I should ask you for sufficient falsifiable hypothesis that by taking action to save the environment, we are actually going to bankrupt the world, and drive people into poverty and pain and suffering as you suggest.
I guess what I'm really saying here is that if 96+% of the worlds foremost environmental experts are all telling me its a real issue and we definately need to act, then I'm not arrogant enough to think I know better, especially when environmental studies isn't my field and if they are right and we don't act, we screw the planet. Andi if they are wrong and we act anyway, then its a relatively minor economic cost that has other benefits, such as cleaner air.
Your argument seems to be analogous to being in a car heading towards the edge of a cliff, but not pressing the brake pedal because no-one has yet given you indisputable scientific proof that it works.
OK, so given that even you accept global warming has anthropogenic components, can't you agree that if we did something about our emissions, future global warming would be lessened? (Which is a good thing regardless of by how much). And if you can agree that, then why can't you make the jump from "good thing in principle" into at least trying?
To address your points: >> 1) CO2 helps plants grow Any small benefit from this will be massively outweighed by the droughts and other negative changes in weather patterns.
2) CO2 emissions mitigation causes absolute electricity prices to rise, harming the poorest of the poor. Do seriously think that the size of someone's electricity bill will be whats uppermost on poor peoples minds when we/they are all facing massive food/water shortages, floods, droughts and other dangerously radical weather patterns that a global ecological crisis WILL and is already starting to cause?
Even a few minutes with Google will show that over 95% of the most prestigious academic and independent research (as opposed to that performed or funded by entities with vested interests) strongly indicates man is having a direct and major bad effect on global warming. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that?
>> Without a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, it simply *isn't science*.... do you realize you've once again ducked the question about falsifiability?
Assuming what Wikipedia defines falsifiability as is accurate: (Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false),
Then what you are saying: (>> Without a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, it simply *isn't science*) is not only logically meaningless, it doesn't even make a valid sentence.
Understanding every interaction of the entire ecosystem of our planet is probably the single most complex problem humanity has ever faced. Consequently there will *always* be some element of doubt, especially if you have a vested interest in finding it, and aren't too choosy about being unbiassed. If people have enough of a vested interest, they would agree that the sky is green. An absolute proof undeniable even by those with vested interests will therefore probably never be forthcoming.
The root of your argument just seem to be that if there's even a slight possibility of doubt that global warming (or that humans are at least partially responsible for it ) exists, then you will magically translate that into the whole thing being necessarily not true. That position is retarded, especially given whats at stake.
Basically you are promoting exactly the same misdirection that was cooked up by the marketing divisions of the oil corps to give to their corrupt puppet politicians something to use as a psuedo-scientific great-sounding but factually void sound bite to feed the majority of Americans that are too uneducated/lazy to "get" science, logic, or to do their own independent research. It also appeals to those that are monumentally stupid/selfish enough to take a highly short term view and avoid change even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are directly killing the entire planet's ecosystem.
That bullshit sound bite was created and survives only in the US. Europeans Per capita never were as bad polluters as Americans, but they understood the problem, got behind the Kyoto agreements, and made reforms decades ago. Other than the Chinese, The US still lives in complete denial entirely because powerful organizations and corrupt politicans are making money from the status quo and are conducting smear campaigns as hard as they can.
Just because you as an American have been brainwashed by a corrupt system to live in denial doesn't mean the problem itself and the obvious conclusions are any less real, or that it is not already affecting us right now and will get a lot worse, especially if we keep not doing anything.
Yes I've read it cover to cover. Even though it is not in exactly the form of a definitive proof, the overall message is VERY clear, and also representative of nearly all other credible research Ive managed to find on the subject.
Why is it that most of the world has gotten it and is doing something about it, except the US? What you and many other Americans are actually doing is hanging onto the lamest excuses to avoid having to actually face a potentially catastrophic situation, just because it might require you to change and maybe comrpomise. Why is it that its mostly only Americans that refuse to accept man-made global warming? Oh wait, because they're the amongst the worlds highest pollluters maybe?
OK so from the other side, assuming youre right and 95% of the worlds climate experts do turn out to be wrong... what actually would be the downside of still doing something about reducing man-made greenhouse gasses? The air we breathe would be less polluted and therefore better for us. Wow. What a wasted effort. NOT.
I have a mental image of all you flat-earthers standing in blighted farmers fields still trying to convince the people that can't feed their kids that it really can't be happening because there's no conclusive scientific proof yet.
"It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."...
Its funny how over 95% of the worlds climate experts already agree global warming is at least partially to fully man-made, however for a majority of Americans that is still not enough for them to think about making small changes in their own lifestyle just in case those 95% of the worlds top experts might actually have a point.
Its actually a conscious strategy. The US government has been using schools for brainwashing for decades. Get to them early, brainwash them with bullshit pro-US propaganda (e.g. salute the flag every morning), and otherwise keep them ignorant, all so the next generation can be more easily controlled.
Its not only in the US, you see the same "keep the people ignorant" thinking all over. For example, its exactly why the more fundamentalist muslim groups deny all schooling to women. it keeps them more reliant and compliant.
Have you even looked into the facts/evidence around this at all, before you echoed the corporate-provided convenient excuse to keep on doing their thing even though its destroying the planet?
>> You get to a certain point when the increase in video quality makes no difference, if you are significantly drawn into the story and the experience whether it's 1080p or 4k isn't noticable.
I agree with this, however few internet streaming sources ever get up to 1080p, and those that do also have compressed the hell out of it so you get significantly noticeable compression artifacts that effectively make it no better than 480p anyway.
What with the much lower quality video and far worse compression artifacts streaming has, also having to be connected to the internet to watch a movie, and also often having to pay per play rather than a pay once model, it totally boggles my mind that people prefer streaming video to blu-ray and even DVD. I'm much more inclined to believe that its really Hollywood that is killing off Blu-Ray (and any other form of physical media) rather than Joe Public. Hollywood have had so many bad experiences with successfully applying DRM to physical media, they've now turned to trying to do away completely with any/all forms of physical copies being in the hands of Joe Public. In mybook, thats a BAD thing for us.
Slashdot Mirror
>> The only times I have to shampoo is when because of a skin condition.
Maybe you wouldn't get a skin condition in the first place if you actually used shampoo regularly.
I hate autosave. Its one of the first things I turn off in any editor.
Over many years I have developed an optimal workflow of trying changes and only saving when I'm completely happy with it, so by not saving I can easily go back to the last good version.
Autosave that saves at regular time periods or whatever totally ruins that. I don't want earlier versions automatically overwritten, especially with work-in-progress changes, nor do I want multiple versions saved so I then have the hassle of figuring out *which* version to go back to, and possibly on-top all the manual housekeeping of regularly having to manually clear out multiple old versions.
>> These particles, stored in a vacuum, react to the Earth's magnetic field.
>> Not only is it useful, but it's secure tooâ"
Lets just hope the bad guys never discover electromagnets.
Regardless of whether it is even possible or not, the whole reason for trying this at all is not self-evident to me.
why are they doing this?
>> CO2 is not totally destroying the environment :) Neither is a small increase in global average temperature
Wow You REALLY need to check your facts. Here are just a few of the many sources that contraidct you:
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05...
http://www.nature.org/ouriniti...
http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...
http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...
http://www.ifpri.org/publicati...
So what kind of matter would be produced? Some element we are already familiar with, or something entirely new?
>> You're asking us to cut off our arm because you think we might have an infected pinky finger.
>> I'm not sure if it's obvious to you yet, but you've got religion.
Nope. unless that religion is called common sense.
I'm simply advocating that we reduce risk by not blindly ignoring what 96% of the worlds foremost experts are telling us is a real threat, That is enough of a significant number that anyone should take seriously.
Reducing risk is what big companies love to do, so that should also be natural thinking to people with even your myopic levels of short-termist capitalism.
I'm not sure how you an accuse me of having religion when you clearly have most bizarre blind faith that totally destroying the environment will somehow magically have no more inconvenient effect on humans than that of an infected pinky finger. How is it even possible for an otherwise apparently intelligent person to think we can ravage to destruction the life support system we all exclusively depend on to stay alive, and yet somehow us dying from that failing will be a minor inconvenience compared to the financial cost of doing anything proactive at all.
>> When you destroy economies, you make the poorest of the poor dead from dehydration and starvation because they can't get clean water or food.
What about the billions that will starve when we can't grow crops anymore, or those that will die directly from entire regions being hit hard with VERY extreme weather patterns? We've even already directly and recently experienced right here in the US how dangerous and costly extreme weather can be, with Katrina and New Orleans, yet somehow perople like you can just keep ignoring the evidence right in your face, almost as if it didn't really happen. Natural disaasters of that scale and much worse are queuing up and theres some evidence they are already beginning to happen all over the world, yet there are still some Americans like you that will advocate we prioritise the dollar savings of doing nothing to stop it, over the future of the entire worlds population. And you accuse ME of having religion? hah. keep praying to your almighty dollar my friend. I hope you can eat them when there's no food left.
Well you haven't provided any proof of your earlier statement at all, only a few reasonable-sounding statements that strongly suggest doing something about the environment (i.e. making any change) would cost us more than doing nothing (i.e continuing the status quo).
Actually I have never disagreed on that point. I fully expect there to be some financial impact to doing something about taking action to save the environment therefore the world.
It seems what your and many other Americans argument comes down to is that any financial impact on the economy at all is not worth saving the planet for.
How someone can seriously think that short-term just boggles my mind.
Even if fixing the ecological issue costs us the whole current financial system, I for one would rather be living in a cardboard box under a bridge eating ramen I bartered for, than definately dead from dehydration or starvation because nothing can grow at all due to continuing drought or other freak weather phenomena.
I guess at this point I should ask you for sufficient falsifiable hypothesis that by taking action to save the environment, we are actually going to bankrupt the world, and drive people into poverty and pain and suffering as you suggest.
I guess what I'm really saying here is that if 96+% of the worlds foremost environmental experts are all telling me its a real issue and we definately need to act, then I'm not arrogant enough to think I know better, especially when environmental studies isn't my field and if they are right and we don't act, we screw the planet. Andi if they are wrong and we act anyway, then its a relatively minor economic cost that has other benefits, such as cleaner air.
Your argument seems to be analogous to being in a car heading towards the edge of a cliff, but not pressing the brake pedal because no-one has yet given you indisputable scientific proof that it works.
OK, so given that even you accept global warming has anthropogenic components, can't you agree that if we did something about our emissions, future global warming would be lessened? (Which is a good thing regardless of by how much).
And if you can agree that, then why can't you make the jump from "good thing in principle" into at least trying?
OK so show me the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement that global warming ISN'T at least partially man made.
To address your points:
>> 1) CO2 helps plants grow
Any small benefit from this will be massively outweighed by the droughts and other negative changes in weather patterns.
2) CO2 emissions mitigation causes absolute electricity prices to rise, harming the poorest of the poor.
Do seriously think that the size of someone's electricity bill will be whats uppermost on poor peoples minds when we/they are all facing massive food/water shortages, floods, droughts and other dangerously radical weather patterns that a global ecological crisis WILL and is already starting to cause?
Even a few minutes with Google will show that over 95% of the most prestigious academic and independent research (as opposed to that performed or funded by entities with vested interests) strongly indicates man is having a direct and major bad effect on global warming. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that?
>> Without a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, it simply *isn't science*.... do you realize you've once again ducked the question about falsifiability?
Assuming what Wikipedia defines falsifiability as is accurate: (Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false),
Then what you are saying:
(>> Without a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, it simply *isn't science*) is not only logically meaningless, it doesn't even make a valid sentence.
Understanding every interaction of the entire ecosystem of our planet is probably the single most complex problem humanity has ever faced. Consequently there will *always* be some element of doubt, especially if you have a vested interest in finding it, and aren't too choosy about being unbiassed. If people have enough of a vested interest, they would agree that the sky is green. An absolute proof undeniable even by those with vested interests will therefore probably never be forthcoming.
The root of your argument just seem to be that if there's even a slight possibility of doubt that global warming (or that humans are at least partially responsible for it ) exists, then you will magically translate that into the whole thing being necessarily not true. That position is retarded, especially given whats at stake.
Basically you are promoting exactly the same misdirection that was cooked up by the marketing divisions of the oil corps to give to their corrupt puppet politicians something to use as a psuedo-scientific great-sounding but factually void sound bite to feed the majority of Americans that are too uneducated/lazy to "get" science, logic, or to do their own independent research. It also appeals to those that are monumentally stupid/selfish enough to take a highly short term view and avoid change even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are directly killing the entire planet's ecosystem.
That bullshit sound bite was created and survives only in the US. Europeans Per capita never were as bad polluters as Americans, but they understood the problem, got behind the Kyoto agreements, and made reforms decades ago. Other than the Chinese, The US still lives in complete denial entirely because powerful organizations and corrupt politicans are making money from the status quo and are conducting smear campaigns as hard as they can.
Just because you as an American have been brainwashed by a corrupt system to live in denial doesn't mean the problem itself and the obvious conclusions are any less real, or that it is not already affecting us right now and will get a lot worse, especially if we keep not doing anything.
Yes I've read it cover to cover. Even though it is not in exactly the form of a definitive proof, the overall message is VERY clear, and also representative of nearly all other credible research Ive managed to find on the subject.
Why is it that most of the world has gotten it and is doing something about it, except the US?
What you and many other Americans are actually doing is hanging onto the lamest excuses to avoid having to actually face a potentially catastrophic situation, just because it might require you to change and maybe comrpomise.
Why is it that its mostly only Americans that refuse to accept man-made global warming? Oh wait, because they're the amongst the worlds highest pollluters maybe?
OK so from the other side, assuming youre right and 95% of the worlds climate experts do turn out to be wrong... what actually would be the downside of still doing something about reducing man-made greenhouse gasses? The air we breathe would be less polluted and therefore better for us. Wow. What a wasted effort. NOT.
I have a mental image of all you flat-earthers standing in blighted farmers fields still trying to convince the people that can't feed their kids that it really can't be happening because there's no conclusive scientific proof yet.
How about the inter-governmental panel on climate change (IPCC)'s latest report:
http://www.climatechange2013.o...
"It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together." ...
Its funny how over 95% of the worlds climate experts already agree global warming is at least partially to fully man-made, however for a majority of Americans that is still not enough for them to think about making small changes in their own lifestyle just in case those 95% of the worlds top experts might actually have a point.
Its actually a conscious strategy. The US government has been using schools for brainwashing for decades. Get to them early, brainwash them with bullshit pro-US propaganda (e.g. salute the flag every morning), and otherwise keep them ignorant, all so the next generation can be more easily controlled.
Its not only in the US, you see the same "keep the people ignorant" thinking all over. For example, its exactly why the more fundamentalist muslim groups deny all schooling to women. it keeps them more reliant and compliant.
Have you even looked into the facts/evidence around this at all, before you echoed the corporate-provided convenient excuse to keep on doing their thing even though its destroying the planet?
>> I question why climate science needs to be part of the standards at all. It seems weirdly specific.
Because it will be by far the biggest single issue that the next generations WILL be affected by and will have to deal with.
>> You get to a certain point when the increase in video quality makes no difference, if you are significantly drawn into the story and the experience whether it's 1080p or 4k isn't noticable.
I agree with this, however few internet streaming sources ever get up to 1080p, and those that do also have compressed the hell out of it so you get significantly noticeable compression artifacts that effectively make it no better than 480p anyway.
>> For BluRay, the DRM can still bite you even if you're using a fairly conventional setup
Not that I like blu-ray DRM (or any other DRM), but I think this was pretty much only when blu-ray first came out, and was pretty rare even then.
Its greed. Thats all.
As long as most of the sheeple will put up with it, they will keep screwing us for more and more.
What with the much lower quality video and far worse compression artifacts streaming has, also having to be connected to the internet to watch a movie, and also often having to pay per play rather than a pay once model, it totally boggles my mind that people prefer streaming video to blu-ray and even DVD.
I'm much more inclined to believe that its really Hollywood that is killing off Blu-Ray (and any other form of physical media) rather than Joe Public.
Hollywood have had so many bad experiences with successfully applying DRM to physical media, they've now turned to trying to do away completely with any/all forms of physical copies being in the hands of Joe Public. In mybook, thats a BAD thing for us.