You mean with the leaves being eaten off by bugs and all? With the root system growing continuously? The acorns a large oak produces? Twigs and branches breaking off in the wind? That's how trees handle wind, by the way. Look up the engineering on tree houses. A big concern is the wind impact and uprooting the tree--the root system has to get stronger, because the tree's natural method of handling wind is to lose leaves, then twigs, then large branches; it won't lose a house. If the tree kept its leaves and branches, the wind would knock it over in a good storm.
And what about carnivores which are consuming energy that was taken from plant biomass years ago? In either case that point is irrelevant: the entire point of inhaling oxygen is to burn shit. That you're consuming 650 liters of oxygen because you're burning pieces of tree fruit sugar you ate doesn't negate that you need 650 liters of oxygen, and that that flows from the tree to you. Where do you think the CO2 that the trees process into oxygen comes from? Where do you think the carbon goes?
Uh, the completely non-locking allocators, scheduler paths, and so on? DragonflyBSD's internals are what separated it from FreeBSD: the original maintainer had some big ideas on how to rewrite the schedulers (process, thread, I/O) and allocators to be a lot faster, lighter, more efficient, and scalable; he got banned from FreeBSD.
HP Moonshot is going to bring 2000+ core servers to the data center one of these years (it's quiet, but there's real progress happening in there and lots of partners in the data center testing out the design and commenting and criticizing and helping to debug and improve it), and everything that isn't concurrent without a performance impact (that means no lock paths and no being any less than 4x as fast to schedule 4 threads at once) is going to shit itself when it hits the hardware and probably die.
Thousands of cores. Bajillions of bytes of memory.
Not true. Plants are the only producers of oxygen (algae...), but not the only consumers. Plants have a relatively low metabolic rate, and are the providers of food--fruit, leaves, etc--for other things. They produce much more oxygen than they consume (where 'production' is the refinement of CO2 into free O2).
Trees are the largest net producers per growing area of oxygen (and also, massive--grass isn't exactly heavy). During the day, when plants are producing oxygen, animals are absorbing that oxygen; at night, when plants are absorbing oxygen, animals are also absorbing oxygen. Air circulates through the atmosphere and is being absorbed into the ocean, where it is consumed by marine life. The biosphere is a spectacular oxygen sink, and plants which refine oxygen from CO2 must work hard to keep up.
An adult human consumes between 550 and 650 liters of oxygen per day. It requires 20 trees per person to process the CO2 that a person produces, says NASA who has an interest in plants in space to filter air (some absorb toxins like formaldehyde) and produce breathable atmosphere. One tree thus produces between 27 and 33 liters of oxygen per day. That's processing of between 42 and 100 kg of CO2 per tree per day, net flow.
Your assertion violates the laws of thermodynamics. There are more consumers than producers of oxygen.
He could mean that 20% of the capacity for converting CO2 into H2O is in the fucking rainforest. That's a flow resource, and you're thinking of a stock resource. The 20% of O2 in the atmosphere is a stock resource; the conversion of 1ML of CO2 to 1ML of H2O is a flow resource. There may be 0.1ML of CO2 in the air, but people may consume 1ML of Oxygen and produce 1ML of CO2 per 24 hours. If there's a mechanism to convert 1ML per 24 hours of CO2 into O2, then you retain 0.1ML of CO2; if not, you QUICKLY exhaust your oxygen supply.
Methane reacts with O2 to produce a lot of CO2 though. It doesn't linger very long.
The only thing possibly wrong with this proposal is that Greenpeace is historically stupid. "By far the biggest cause" could be "what we're most aware of" and turn out to be the smallest factor ever. Like when Greenpeace gave Apple the lowest score for "being good to the environment," while Apple was using less packaging, less toxic shit, and less energy to manufacture their products by far than everyone else in the industry. "But they use a type of plastic we don't like for a small piece in the iPod!" while Apple used less mercury, lead, and overall plastic in general than anyone else.
In principle we could destroy wealth by building temples and tearing them down again, or manufacturing a bunch of shit and burning it, or digging holes and filling them back in again, or building great big things like Hoover Dams and piles of town halls and town squares with no potential to monetize them.
You're deciding that you should take money from entity A and give it to entity B to spend because entity B knows how to increase the wealth in the economy better than entity A. You're proposing that the Government is the ultimate wealth creator, that the Government should take money away from the businesses (all business taxes), the working man (payroll tax, social security tax, personal income tax), the rich, the poor (sales tax, cigarette tax, alcohol tax), everyone they can, because that money is better spent by the Government. The hardship put on the poor is balanced out by the new things the Government creates. The reduced salaries, the reduced number of jobs open because a $60k position costs a business $75k after payroll taxes and social security (so every 4 jobs costs 5 jobs, so instead of a 5th job you pay the government that 5th position) are offset by the Government creating $20k or so of salary going out for every $60k position coming in.
This stuff destroys wealth. You purport that this stuff creates more wealth than it destroys. I purport that you destroy $100 of wealth by all the taxes for all this 'stimulus spending' and may not necessarily create $100 of wealth by stimulus--maybe you create $90 of wealth, or $70 of wealth, or $50 of wealth. Do you honestly think the Government removes $100 from the economy, throws down $100 of 'stimulus' of money it just took OUT of the economy, and generates $200 of wealth?
Essentially, yes. You can't legislate away stupidity. Before we banned texting while driving, idiot teens and college kids (extended teens) would hold their phone up to the window to watch the road while texting--nasty shit. We banned that, so they hold their phone in their lap, stare forward, and shift their eyes down to look at their crotch while driving--a lot worse.
The adverse consequences of allowing Google Glass use in cars may be smaller than the adverse consequences of banning cell phone use in cars. If that turns out to be true, then Google Glass may become a mitigation factor to reduce the combined risk caused by banning cell phone use while driving and by cell phones having features like cameras etc that people want to use while driving: the bans push people to avoidance techniques but not necessarily to safer (and often to more dangerous) behavior, but Google Glass gives a safer behavior that carries less perceived personal risk (i.e. legal consequences--these people are ignoring the PHYSICAL risks) and so suddenly becomes attractive.
IF Google Glass is safer, THEN the combined effect of the presence of Google Glass and the ban on use of cell phones to talk, text, and take pictures while driving SHOULD result in a safer situation than the ban alone. We'll need to examine this after Google Glass becomes popular and decide if there is a Performance Deviation here; banning it ahead of time is stupid.
Right now, the ban SHOULD result in a safer situation because people cease to engage in the banned behaviors, but the ACTUAL performance is that some subset of people continue to engage in even more dangerous behaviors. That SHOULD/ACTUAL defines a Performance Deviation (see Kepner-Tregoe Problem Analysis), and I haven't carried out a Problem Specification, but I can tell you that the life cycle is that the ban has NEVER performed as expected (SHOULD), and that the newer and more dangerous behaviors started when the ban was put in place.
The problem seems to be people are determined, so you need a decision on how to correct the Performance Deviation. More enforcement? Implausible. Other outlets? Google Glass is a possibility; what are the Adverse Consequences? (We could do a real Decision Analysis between various technological and actionable plans to reduce the Performance Deviation to determine their suitability and then analyze their adverse consequences; I haven't, and this is mostly irrational, but I am suggesting it and it can be put on the table for further analysis).
It doesn't work exactly like Gnome 2, despite being vastly superior. Look there's less shit on my screen, I have fast access to all my running tasks in an exploded view, I have automatic virtual desktops, I can context-search for applications to run quickly... and alt-tab behavior sucks, somebody fix that.
They need to use Pugh Matricies and Kepner-Tregoe Decision Analysis processes to decide what to implement first and what to never implement. Instead they'll use anecdote and personal preference.
server == daemon == service. Like udev is a hardware server, it and the dbus service lets your system show the USB hard drive you just plugged in. The whole thing is an application layer waiting for client applications to give it information, because the thing drawing on your screen is one big application rather than a nightmare of 40 little applications trying to do it.
Ubuntu is executing Embrace-Extend-Extinguish, hoping that people will tolerate Unity and they can nuke Gnome-Shell by having it not work with Mir, thus making it inconvenient and hacky and crappy on Ubuntu. I moved to OpenSuSE to get away from this Ballmerization.
Whose money is being spent? Who pays for this spending? What is the opportunity cost? How does that impact the economy?
The US just passed a bill by which the USDA is going to purchase 500,000 pounds of cane sugar for the expressed purpose of keeping the price of cane sugar high. This means poor people must pay more money for cane sugar and products containing cane sugar. This means that society partly loses out on cane sugar (loss of wealth: some people can't have cane sugar). Also, the impact is estimated at $1.4 billion per year in spent taxes (taken from the populous), which props up 50,000 jobs in the Cane Sugar industry but has a negative impact on 500,000 jobs in the rest of the related economy, causing reduced salary and reduced job availability--the total economic impact is estimated to be extremely negative, but it works out for the cane sugar producers (high prices) and the corn lobby (HFCS) both.
Spending stimulates the economy. What's your bank account # and sort code so I can spend your money?
Keynesian economics is based on one-sided math, violates the law of thermodynamics, and associated quantum information dynamics. Essentially the core tenants of Keynesian economics are that bubbles burst and this causes a problem, so keep pushing the economic knobs to keep the bubble going forever. To sustain this you need more credit, more debt, more inflation, and more jobs--and more labor, meaning more people, more output, and more energy consumption. It can't work. Eventually you can't move that much energy; eventually if you can you're still dissipating enough heat into the atmosphere to warm the surface of the earth up to molten slag temperatures. Where's all this productivity going to come from anyway?
Things are somehow expected to get more expensive without a negative impact like poor people becoming poorer?
He said Keynesians. People are notoriously stupid and latch onto systems they don't understand. Like all the people in any arbitrary religion that practice it wrong (occasionally forming sects, but most often joining religions of peace and being hateful assholes whereby you can take their own religious texts and point out where they have zero support for their behavior and much against...). Philosophy, politics, and the works go the same way--politics especially, where your candidate is the Anti-Christ for doing X but when my candidate gets voted in and continues X it's okay and wonderful.
Keynesians criticizing other Keynesians for being Keynesians. If you all backed off and shut it and let the damn thing crash, we could get back to having a stable market after we pick the pieces up. Keep hoisting that piano higher while the rope continues to fray...
Actually I was looking at KVM/oVirt because they do better for live migration and central management than VMware. Cost isn't a factor to me in this decision, but only because I hadn't seriously thought about it.
Kepner-Tregoe problem solving appears novel. Their Decision-Analysis stuff appears to be an evolution of Pugh Charts, while their Adverse Consequence Analysis and Potential Problem/Opportunity Analysis stuff seems to be directly applied ORM. You aren't applying enough Kepner-Tregoe Problem Solving; and your decision to go with Virtualization wasn't backed up by a good DA, so people are gently trying to pressure you into going back to the old and familiar. Listen to NASA.
Actually you can glance at the message immediately without shifting your vision off the road through a transparent HUD. You'll lose focus and attention, but you retain motion and reflex, which make up greater than 90% of driving anyway: your focus is on a specific area in a specific direction, and your attention is usually mainly ahead; objects shifting out of their stable relative position quickly draw attention. Glancing at your cell phone moves your vision to a relatively large, opaque obstruction that severely limits your ability to process and react to occurrences on the road.
There may be a net positive, with people worrying less about "oh I can't get a picture of that I'm driving..." or doing stupid shit like trying to whip out their camera phone, bring up the camera, and size up a good shot. Instead they just look, go "...click," and a picture is taken and stored. This alleviates the mental pressure of anxiety over a missed opportunity, releasing attention immediately to support vehicle operation. It also eliminates stupid peoples' poor prioritization by which they fumble around with their camera phones.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean with the leaves being eaten off by bugs and all? With the root system growing continuously? The acorns a large oak produces? Twigs and branches breaking off in the wind? That's how trees handle wind, by the way. Look up the engineering on tree houses. A big concern is the wind impact and uprooting the tree--the root system has to get stronger, because the tree's natural method of handling wind is to lose leaves, then twigs, then large branches; it won't lose a house. If the tree kept its leaves and branches, the wind would knock it over in a good storm.
And what about carnivores which are consuming energy that was taken from plant biomass years ago? In either case that point is irrelevant: the entire point of inhaling oxygen is to burn shit. That you're consuming 650 liters of oxygen because you're burning pieces of tree fruit sugar you ate doesn't negate that you need 650 liters of oxygen, and that that flows from the tree to you. Where do you think the CO2 that the trees process into oxygen comes from? Where do you think the carbon goes?
Uh, the completely non-locking allocators, scheduler paths, and so on? DragonflyBSD's internals are what separated it from FreeBSD: the original maintainer had some big ideas on how to rewrite the schedulers (process, thread, I/O) and allocators to be a lot faster, lighter, more efficient, and scalable; he got banned from FreeBSD.
HP Moonshot is going to bring 2000+ core servers to the data center one of these years (it's quiet, but there's real progress happening in there and lots of partners in the data center testing out the design and commenting and criticizing and helping to debug and improve it), and everything that isn't concurrent without a performance impact (that means no lock paths and no being any less than 4x as fast to schedule 4 threads at once) is going to shit itself when it hits the hardware and probably die.
Thousands of cores. Bajillions of bytes of memory.
Catch up to DragonflyBSD, which forked FreeBSD in the direction it SHOULD have gone and now has superior just-about-everything.
Not true. Plants are the only producers of oxygen (algae ...), but not the only consumers. Plants have a relatively low metabolic rate, and are the providers of food--fruit, leaves, etc--for other things. They produce much more oxygen than they consume (where 'production' is the refinement of CO2 into free O2).
Trees are the largest net producers per growing area of oxygen (and also, massive--grass isn't exactly heavy). During the day, when plants are producing oxygen, animals are absorbing that oxygen; at night, when plants are absorbing oxygen, animals are also absorbing oxygen. Air circulates through the atmosphere and is being absorbed into the ocean, where it is consumed by marine life. The biosphere is a spectacular oxygen sink, and plants which refine oxygen from CO2 must work hard to keep up.
An adult human consumes between 550 and 650 liters of oxygen per day. It requires 20 trees per person to process the CO2 that a person produces, says NASA who has an interest in plants in space to filter air (some absorb toxins like formaldehyde) and produce breathable atmosphere. One tree thus produces between 27 and 33 liters of oxygen per day. That's processing of between 42 and 100 kg of CO2 per tree per day, net flow.
Your assertion violates the laws of thermodynamics. There are more consumers than producers of oxygen.
He could mean that 20% of the capacity for converting CO2 into H2O is in the fucking rainforest. That's a flow resource, and you're thinking of a stock resource. The 20% of O2 in the atmosphere is a stock resource; the conversion of 1ML of CO2 to 1ML of H2O is a flow resource. There may be 0.1ML of CO2 in the air, but people may consume 1ML of Oxygen and produce 1ML of CO2 per 24 hours. If there's a mechanism to convert 1ML per 24 hours of CO2 into O2, then you retain 0.1ML of CO2; if not, you QUICKLY exhaust your oxygen supply.
Methane reacts with O2 to produce a lot of CO2 though. It doesn't linger very long.
The only thing possibly wrong with this proposal is that Greenpeace is historically stupid. "By far the biggest cause" could be "what we're most aware of" and turn out to be the smallest factor ever. Like when Greenpeace gave Apple the lowest score for "being good to the environment," while Apple was using less packaging, less toxic shit, and less energy to manufacture their products by far than everyone else in the industry. "But they use a type of plastic we don't like for a small piece in the iPod!" while Apple used less mercury, lead, and overall plastic in general than anyone else.
As a long-time MySQL fan... yes. PostgreSQL is better in basically every way.
In principle we could destroy wealth by building temples and tearing them down again, or manufacturing a bunch of shit and burning it, or digging holes and filling them back in again, or building great big things like Hoover Dams and piles of town halls and town squares with no potential to monetize them.
You're deciding that you should take money from entity A and give it to entity B to spend because entity B knows how to increase the wealth in the economy better than entity A. You're proposing that the Government is the ultimate wealth creator, that the Government should take money away from the businesses (all business taxes), the working man (payroll tax, social security tax, personal income tax), the rich, the poor (sales tax, cigarette tax, alcohol tax), everyone they can, because that money is better spent by the Government. The hardship put on the poor is balanced out by the new things the Government creates. The reduced salaries, the reduced number of jobs open because a $60k position costs a business $75k after payroll taxes and social security (so every 4 jobs costs 5 jobs, so instead of a 5th job you pay the government that 5th position) are offset by the Government creating $20k or so of salary going out for every $60k position coming in.
This stuff destroys wealth. You purport that this stuff creates more wealth than it destroys. I purport that you destroy $100 of wealth by all the taxes for all this 'stimulus spending' and may not necessarily create $100 of wealth by stimulus--maybe you create $90 of wealth, or $70 of wealth, or $50 of wealth. Do you honestly think the Government removes $100 from the economy, throws down $100 of 'stimulus' of money it just took OUT of the economy, and generates $200 of wealth?
Go be a Soviet.
Essentially, yes. You can't legislate away stupidity. Before we banned texting while driving, idiot teens and college kids (extended teens) would hold their phone up to the window to watch the road while texting--nasty shit. We banned that, so they hold their phone in their lap, stare forward, and shift their eyes down to look at their crotch while driving--a lot worse.
The adverse consequences of allowing Google Glass use in cars may be smaller than the adverse consequences of banning cell phone use in cars. If that turns out to be true, then Google Glass may become a mitigation factor to reduce the combined risk caused by banning cell phone use while driving and by cell phones having features like cameras etc that people want to use while driving: the bans push people to avoidance techniques but not necessarily to safer (and often to more dangerous) behavior, but Google Glass gives a safer behavior that carries less perceived personal risk (i.e. legal consequences--these people are ignoring the PHYSICAL risks) and so suddenly becomes attractive.
IF Google Glass is safer, THEN the combined effect of the presence of Google Glass and the ban on use of cell phones to talk, text, and take pictures while driving SHOULD result in a safer situation than the ban alone. We'll need to examine this after Google Glass becomes popular and decide if there is a Performance Deviation here; banning it ahead of time is stupid.
Right now, the ban SHOULD result in a safer situation because people cease to engage in the banned behaviors, but the ACTUAL performance is that some subset of people continue to engage in even more dangerous behaviors. That SHOULD/ACTUAL defines a Performance Deviation (see Kepner-Tregoe Problem Analysis), and I haven't carried out a Problem Specification, but I can tell you that the life cycle is that the ban has NEVER performed as expected (SHOULD), and that the newer and more dangerous behaviors started when the ban was put in place.
The problem seems to be people are determined, so you need a decision on how to correct the Performance Deviation. More enforcement? Implausible. Other outlets? Google Glass is a possibility; what are the Adverse Consequences? (We could do a real Decision Analysis between various technological and actionable plans to reduce the Performance Deviation to determine their suitability and then analyze their adverse consequences; I haven't, and this is mostly irrational, but I am suggesting it and it can be put on the table for further analysis).
It doesn't work exactly like Gnome 2, despite being vastly superior. Look there's less shit on my screen, I have fast access to all my running tasks in an exploded view, I have automatic virtual desktops, I can context-search for applications to run quickly... and alt-tab behavior sucks, somebody fix that.
Proposing to get rid of it is not "esoteric" or "boredom", it's rational and pragmatic.
Prove it. Extensively.
They need to use Pugh Matricies and Kepner-Tregoe Decision Analysis processes to decide what to implement first and what to never implement. Instead they'll use anecdote and personal preference.
server == daemon == service. Like udev is a hardware server, it and the dbus service lets your system show the USB hard drive you just plugged in. The whole thing is an application layer waiting for client applications to give it information, because the thing drawing on your screen is one big application rather than a nightmare of 40 little applications trying to do it.
Ubuntu is executing Embrace-Extend-Extinguish, hoping that people will tolerate Unity and they can nuke Gnome-Shell by having it not work with Mir, thus making it inconvenient and hacky and crappy on Ubuntu. I moved to OpenSuSE to get away from this Ballmerization.
Whose money is being spent? Who pays for this spending? What is the opportunity cost? How does that impact the economy?
The US just passed a bill by which the USDA is going to purchase 500,000 pounds of cane sugar for the expressed purpose of keeping the price of cane sugar high. This means poor people must pay more money for cane sugar and products containing cane sugar. This means that society partly loses out on cane sugar (loss of wealth: some people can't have cane sugar). Also, the impact is estimated at $1.4 billion per year in spent taxes (taken from the populous), which props up 50,000 jobs in the Cane Sugar industry but has a negative impact on 500,000 jobs in the rest of the related economy, causing reduced salary and reduced job availability--the total economic impact is estimated to be extremely negative, but it works out for the cane sugar producers (high prices) and the corn lobby (HFCS) both.
Spending stimulates the economy. What's your bank account # and sort code so I can spend your money?
Keynesian economics is based on one-sided math, violates the law of thermodynamics, and associated quantum information dynamics. Essentially the core tenants of Keynesian economics are that bubbles burst and this causes a problem, so keep pushing the economic knobs to keep the bubble going forever. To sustain this you need more credit, more debt, more inflation, and more jobs--and more labor, meaning more people, more output, and more energy consumption. It can't work. Eventually you can't move that much energy; eventually if you can you're still dissipating enough heat into the atmosphere to warm the surface of the earth up to molten slag temperatures. Where's all this productivity going to come from anyway?
Things are somehow expected to get more expensive without a negative impact like poor people becoming poorer?
That's like saying it's impossible to do calculus. A few people can do it.
He said Keynesians. People are notoriously stupid and latch onto systems they don't understand. Like all the people in any arbitrary religion that practice it wrong (occasionally forming sects, but most often joining religions of peace and being hateful assholes whereby you can take their own religious texts and point out where they have zero support for their behavior and much against...). Philosophy, politics, and the works go the same way--politics especially, where your candidate is the Anti-Christ for doing X but when my candidate gets voted in and continues X it's okay and wonderful.
Keynesians criticizing other Keynesians for being Keynesians. If you all backed off and shut it and let the damn thing crash, we could get back to having a stable market after we pick the pieces up. Keep hoisting that piano higher while the rope continues to fray...
Actually I was looking at KVM/oVirt because they do better for live migration and central management than VMware. Cost isn't a factor to me in this decision, but only because I hadn't seriously thought about it.
Kepner-Tregoe problem solving appears novel. Their Decision-Analysis stuff appears to be an evolution of Pugh Charts, while their Adverse Consequence Analysis and Potential Problem/Opportunity Analysis stuff seems to be directly applied ORM. You aren't applying enough Kepner-Tregoe Problem Solving; and your decision to go with Virtualization wasn't backed up by a good DA, so people are gently trying to pressure you into going back to the old and familiar. Listen to NASA.
Yeah, all 'cloud' stuff is like that. This appears to just be "you can ask it to stand up VMware machines for you instead of using vSphere or oVirt"
Actually you can glance at the message immediately without shifting your vision off the road through a transparent HUD. You'll lose focus and attention, but you retain motion and reflex, which make up greater than 90% of driving anyway: your focus is on a specific area in a specific direction, and your attention is usually mainly ahead; objects shifting out of their stable relative position quickly draw attention. Glancing at your cell phone moves your vision to a relatively large, opaque obstruction that severely limits your ability to process and react to occurrences on the road.
There may be a net positive, with people worrying less about "oh I can't get a picture of that I'm driving..." or doing stupid shit like trying to whip out their camera phone, bring up the camera, and size up a good shot. Instead they just look, go "...click," and a picture is taken and stored. This alleviates the mental pressure of anxiety over a missed opportunity, releasing attention immediately to support vehicle operation. It also eliminates stupid peoples' poor prioritization by which they fumble around with their camera phones.
Also $400 is a cheap toilet seat. http://www.amazon.com/SW554-01-Washlet-Elongated-Toilet-Cotton/dp/B0011YSEUC/
It was, literally, "snake oil"
http://xkcd.com/725/