That will presume backups - so start there. If backups are shoddy, FIX THAT FIRST. If there's one thing you can almost always get budget for its disaster recovery.
But *always*, *always* backup with the focus on how to *restore*. Backing up is easy, restoring is the hard part.
By doing this, you will identify dependencies, settings, installation procedures, etc. You'll also identify which systems are less critical than others.
Subsequently, you will know how long it'll take you to bring a system back up.
Lastly, you'll know how to save your ass if you break something.
Start your restore process by the simple edict of following the money. Work from the financial transaction outward.
You are right, we don't have an absolute free market.
Above I said government screws things up by putting their thumb on the scale. To clarify, I don't consider labor laws to be altering the scales, but to be changing the rules.
Unions served the purpose of getting the "rules changed". With OSHA, a minimum wage, and other labor laws, the grievances of unions became law.
IMHO - Unions have served their purpose. In non right-to-work states, they're more like an extortion racket who hold the keys to good paying jobs. You have to pay them a kick-back out of every check for a job it seems to me. I'm sure some people appreciate the benefits the Union provides, but to force people to be a member? Seems damn near legalized organized crime to me.
Government setting their thumbs on the scales screws everything up. Just look at housing and tuition.
You are ignoring things like marketable skills, professionalism, competition, and negotiation. Unemployment is currently high, which puts downward pressure on wages across the board because other people will offer the same services for less. If unemployment were at 5%, the companies would pay more because they need employees to increase or maintain productivity.
If colleges churn out a bunch of "it experts," wages go down. If there are fewer skilled people available and higher demand of IT workers, wages go up.
You are also ignoring how *expensive* it is for a company to hire and keep someone employed it is. These costs go up. For example, companies could probably hire more people if healthcare costs hadn't have doubled in the past 2 years due to the Affordable Care Act. They offer health benefits to their employees to be competitive and to attract better skilled employees (AKA The same free market you are saying would push people to poverty level).
So now we *have* employment law, so it *doesn't* suck for the 99%. Quite the contrary. The poor in America are rich compared to the rest of the world. Many of the poor in the United States have cars, cell phones, TVs, etc.
This really is simple. The onus isn't on the company to pay you more, the onus is make yourself more valuable. It all starts with the individual.
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.
First, output was printed. Then we had a CRT display. Invention! Then we had a color CRT display. Invention! Then we had the GUI and LCD screens. Invention! Then we had the touch CRT / Glass. Invention!
Why is it not fair to claim the GUI the invention and all GUI elements and enhancements underneath it part of that? That any GUI elements that leverage touch fall under the invention of the touch GUI?
Consider things like Apple's slide to unlock patent. Wouldn't that be like patenting the new ticker on the bottom of the TV? Why are things like slide to unlock not considered purely content? What makes it any different than, say, how the weather channel shows radar images versus the local TV station?
Ok, I'm was geniuenly surprised and I'm probably to the last person on earth to hear about this.
Why does it take FOIA filings to get access to the documents related to Mann's paleoclimatology research? Are these relevant data or is someone just fishing? Does anybody know anything about this?
Why is it necessary that people sue each other about this? Considering how important and visible this is, wouldn't it be better to just put everything out there?
We mostly agree. But my point seems to be missed entirely - so I'll try again. It's NOT about GW - it's about what we're doing about it.
But first, I'd like to know more about how you did it for pennies per KWh? Did you build your own wind turbine or what? When I priced it solar it was *WAY* expensive and had a 10 - 14 year ROI. Fuel Cells about the same. It was *way* expensive to "go green" for me. I'm in Texas and it's been over 100 for *way* too many days and my electric bill is crazy high right now.
Anyway, I watched a debate where Lord Monckton asked some questions and I gotta say - he made a really good point. Love him or hate him, it doesn't mean his questions are any less worthy of being answered than any other.
He asked questions and made points that really made me think.
The more I seek answers to his points more the overtly reactionary jackasses accuse me of being a denier.. Which, frankly, has really opened my eyes just to how *LITTLE* the green advocates actually know and understand.
So lets talk about what action to take.
Which is my critique #1: Automatically rejecting points made by the other side of the debate simple because they are the other side of the debate doesn't help
Frankly, the green movement almost seems adverse to discussing *real* answers because they fear loosing their political football. The more I ask, the more I question, the more resistance I have to finding answers. Actions are speaking louder than words.
You seem reasonable, so these are the basic question he asked that is the quickest way to get accused of impaling babies on stakes: - What are we going to do? - What impact will this have on developing nations and populations? - How will we do it? - How much will it cost? - Why are we doing it? - Can we prove the costs outweigh the negatives?
I ask these questions, nobody can seem to (or is willing to) answer them or even admit they should be asked, and I have a problem with this. It is turning me into a skeptic because instead of talking about this - I'm stereotyped.
Thus, asking questions makes me a skeptic. Really. lol... and then they act like people "just don't get it"? It's like a bunch of monkeys humping a football. A lot going on but not many results.
Which is my critique #2: Our models keep failing to predict what will happen. Simple reality. We need better models so we can answer the above questions.
*NOBODY* can *PROVE* billions will die. Nobody can *PROVE* what will happen. There is no _proof_. We're not there yet.
I"m trying to be pragmatic and the hyper-reactionary political greens won't let me. They don't like my "badspeak".
Which brings me to where I am at:
Which is my critique #3: The environmental movement seems almost oblivious to the negative impact some in their movement have. And worse, refuse to even admit that there are extremists that are making the who effort look bad.
It's *EASY* to dismiss the human toll today because we're not face to face with it; but we are foolish to not account for the direct, current impact on the planet's people today. Not just making Americans take more public transportation, but ensuring that vaccinations in the Sudan are properly refrigerated. We can't do this in an affordable way today with only sustainable or green energy.
Go build a hospital powered by wind turbines and solar panels that the people of Somalia can afford.
The extremists fight against the populations of developing nations under the banner of fighting *for* the environment.
I am *NOT* OK with preventing GM crops to feed the starving. We've spliced plants to create higher yields forever. They sue to prevent them. May less rain forest would be destroyed if would share the GM crops to increase the yields on what farmland they use today?
I am *NOT* OK with telling countries cannot build coal based or nuclear power plants - *especially* those with little to no infrastructure today. They sue to prevent them.
Damn - see, this is what is wrong with this whole goddamned thing and the zealots on both sides.
Who the *FUCK* said I want to protect the status quo or our hydrocarbon based economy? Frankly, the status quo sucks because a) there is tremendous injustice and b) *BOTH* extremes of this debate are equally culpable in my eyes. You are not hearing me, or you do not want to.
In inverse, are you saying you are just fine with children starving and dying of preventable diseases because you think they are not somehow worthy of the luxury of the benefiting from carbon based energy generation that would keep vaccines refrigerated? Do you justify this inhumanity because you believe billions will die based on climate models that have thus far been unable to accurately predict climate change impacts or the future in general?
See, two can play to stupid hyperbole game. So just stop.
Talk about overstating? You are vastly overstating mankind's ability to predict a extremely hard to measure chaos system as well as our ability to predict the future. Even the TOP UN scientists acknowledge they can't predict it with certainty.
I'm not overstating *anything* hugely. If you know how to search the Internet, you will find examples of extremists in the green movement doing exactly what I'm talking about. The extremists on the environmental movement advocate the banning of Chlorine, GM Crops, or Coal based power plants in the 3rd world? Yes. What's worse, is you won't even acknowledge the suffering taking a hard line approach has on _human beings_.
The hard-core skeptics are not helping either. There are numerous examples of horrific environmental damage resulting from greed, negligence, or both.
Both sides need to wake up because they have a bunch of idiots in their midst and it hurts their credibility and only forces everyone into polarized innaction.
Incredible exhibitions of jackassery.
My argument is not about climate change - it's about what approach to take on it. We aren't able to accurately predict the impacts because we have not had enough time to measure our current guesstimates for accuracy. Regardless of approach, we should ensure the less fortunate are not bearing an unfair brunt or left holding loosing tickets of the skin color / geography lottery ticket.
That's my point. We still can't accurately predict it.
We need to temper our approach and consider the impact on everyone, not just those fortunate enough to sit in the air-conditioned condos.
You ask me a question that *cannot* be answered (what if we don't reduce CO2) and then think you somehow understand me for pointing out that it can't be answered with certainty? You think I'm not aware that we've hit peak oil? Because I'm critical of the approach and advocate for the less fortunate you get to stereotype me?
Really.
$500 oil will make renewable energies affordable for the 1st world, but if all hydrocarbon based power is eliminated in the 1st world, are you going be OK with.. say.. Somalia getting coal based power plants? If not, then how to suggest we address this in fair, humane manner than protect the freedoms of mankind?
Goddamn but people are so myopic in their thinking...
I can't answer your question about what if we don't. Can you? No? Well, if you can't answer you own question and you know so much on the subject, how to hell do you expect other people to a) agree with you and b) accept your approach as a sound, fair, and humane solution?
You asked. I don't know. So you tell me.
If you can't, then stop acting like a hyper-political reactionary jackass and let's work on finding a solution that _works for everybody_ (which is my whole point). Because in case you haven't notice, many of those who are suffering the most from a lack of the benefits of a hydrocarbon based economy aren't anglo-saxon.
What makes the hard-core environmentalists so disgusting in my eyes is they aren't even *capable* of considering that we may need to have some type of b
Well, we know plants frigging *LOVE* the stuff... so if we don't we can probably anticipate higher crop yields. Which isn't a bad thing considering the population growth on the planet. Curbing it will further restrict of things like vaccines, health-care, education, and advanced agricultural adoption in developing nations so that's a bad thing.
CO2 may be a greenhouse gas, but we animals sort of, you know, *exhale* the stuff.
Lots of people die and starve because they don't have access to GM crops and coal powered electricity. So Unless we know *with certainty* I'm not OK telling anyone they are expendable in the name of CO2 reduction. Who knows, if they were afforded the same 1st world luxuries we are currently using, one of them might invent the next affordable green tech.
As of right now, I don't see a way to get it done without developing nations paying an extremely heavy toll.
We are all anti-nuclear now (stupid, IMHO) after Japan. The technology doesn't exist for us to have a zero CO2 impact. At least, not one we can afford (even in the 1st world).
What really hurts this whole debate is the stupidity like trying to ban Chlorine, which just so happens to be on the periodic table. CO2 is plant food - we exhale it - *fish* exhale it - the planet belches it out - it occurs naturally. Combine that with the war on GM crops and the hard-core environmental movement folks' moral authority seems to be perched on mountain of human bones and reeks more of a fascist political ideology than trying to keep rivers clean.
Does industrialization increase CO2? Probably. But so do volcanoes.
And ultimately - we get into this whole "denier" vs "believer" debate with both sides trying to dismiss everything the other side says in its entirety. Which is abject stupidity, IMHO.
I've come to the conclusion that nobody really knows for sure. Data indicates something is happening and there could be a correlation with industrialization. But so far, the models created based on the presumption of the association keep breaking down and their predictions don't play out as expected.
Therefore, IMHO, this reaffirms that we can't predict the future. Making changes now seem sort of pointless in regards to CO2 because a) we don't have an affordable alternative and b) what alternatives we do have are "not allowed".
So What will it cost if we don't? You tell me. Until we are able to accurately model what will happen, we're just shooting randomly and the costs are so incredible and the prediction accuracy is so poor, credibility alone doesn't justify it.
Slashdot sucks during election years because everything becomes a political attack, incredible demonstrations of stupidity, or ad hominem accusations of trying to kill us all because of perceived badspeak.:(
Hrm - he doesn't seem too much like "some random dude" - or any more random than other specialists in their field and who run a hospital backed research treatment center.
This is political bullshit of the highest order - and full of hypocrisy. This has *nothing* to do with factual relevance - and has *everything* to do with trying to manufacture something about a politician because you don't him. This is birther insanity in reverse.
Seems kinda lame and weak that there was an instant down-shift to ad hominem to attack the doctor as a quack because they don't like Rick Perry's political positions.
Basically - this argument is "some scientists criticize a politician because he went to another scientist for an experimental treatment using adult stem cells to help alleviate back pain; so because we don't like him, we want to use this criticism as a justification to question his decision making ability."
I think there are a lot of people who've benefited from adult stem cell research that would disagree that this is quackery.
Because someone who wants to be "The Decider" is open to medical research and treatments, even for himself, this is a bad thing? Because you don't agree with his decision to try and alleviate his back pain? *THIS* is a politically justifiable position? I strongly disagree and find it very narrow minded.
I don't care either way about this and don't understand why others do - I know people with chronic pain will try just about anything to help alleviate it. Frankly, I sort of find it a plus in someone wanting to be "The Decider" has hit the limits of modern medical practice and has had to try procedures "outside the system". They would likely be more apt to consider the patient's needs when it comes to making decisions about such matters better than someone who's never experienced such a scenario.
It sucks when a doctor says there's nothing we can do for your pain.
Having lost a family member to cancer, I can tell you with absolute certainty that criticizing someone for seeking pain relief by any means necessary is ignorant, short-sighted, and selfish. I don't care how many letters there are behind someone's name; they do not know everything and cannot say with *any* certainty how someone body will react. I've seen it first hand so if you think I'm wrong you can suck it. My sister battled intestinal cancer and they couldn't manage her pain for shit with normal treatments.
You wanna criticize for this - nice... why not just tell people in constant pain "fuck you, you're a dumb ass because some scientists don't agree".
When my sister was dying, we hit the end of the "approved treatments". From acupuncture to drugs - we tried anything and everything to alleviate the pain from her intestinal cancer. The solution was experimental and caused blisters in her mouth - but it was fucking worth it.
Politicizing medicine is a *really*, *really* bad idea and borders on unconscionably fascist thinking. It ignores the plight of many, be them janitors or governors, who can't find a treatment that works and whose only hope of relief is an experimental treatment.
If I were in his position, I would weigh the benefits and the risks and make the right decision for me. For people in this thread, or in the press, or scientists who have *NO* direct knowledge of the circumstances or of his medical condition to act like they have the moral authority to judge is just silly, hateful rhetoric founded not in sound decision but instead in partisan attacks.
Hell, I don't even like Perry that much. I live in Texas and even I, not _even_ the smartest guy in the room, know that this is a f*cking joke of an issue and only makes the people jumping on it look unreasonably partisan.
I'm not defending the article in question, but this one is just a big a pile of crap as the other.
Granted, the original had a sensationalist headline and the article was distinctly written from a skeptic's perspective.
However - shouldn't we be looking at the raw data and either confirming or debunking it?
To Paraphrase this article: "You don't to need to see the data because people who stand the most to lose if this research is right are telling you it is bull. And you shouldn't ask any questions because the guy who did the research doesn't agree with the people this research doesn't support. Oh, and did we mention he thinks there's a creator? So it's only an *IF* he's right, and we've already explained that we don't need to verify this because, as you can see, he's just some crazy bastard who took funding from an energy company. We don't see any reason to go beyond the *if* and neither should you. Yeah, he's a corrupt, quack job for sure.. nothing to see here..."
I want to see the scientific proof, not the "he doesn't think like most of us so this article is flawed" bullshit.
Give me *real* scientific process.
Seriously - WTF happened to the scientific process? By this measuring stick, both articles are flawed. Can we get back to the real question now?
The goal is to scientifically understand our environment so we can make better predictions and protect it. Nobody I know wants dirty air or polluted water; climate change proponent or skeptic. So can we kindly STFU with that kind of crap and focus on finding the truth instead of trying to gain political points and power?
See my previous post - but the first time I saw this happen was someone lied about their age - and it was below the required age for G+.
A G+ profile is a Google profile. If you put in false information that violates the ToS - the account will get shut off.
It's really kinda f*cking simple. Kids lie and say they're 21 and they have a G+ account. Some moron says he's 12 and he's *shocked*, yes *SHOCKED* his account was automatically disabled because he was too young. True story.
I joined G+ on July 1st - and the process was automated at first. I think they're doing some type of review now because they come in waves.
As a G+ problem - I've seen several people report this and almost always it comes down to something like this: The ToS for Google services have various criteria. When filling out the G+ profile - it's really your "Google" profile.
People have been putting bullshit information in. This triggers an automatic suspension of the account because what was entered violates the ToS.
Since the G+ profile is really your "Google" profile; it also locks you out of other services.
The most common one I've seen is people bitching after saying they put in a birth date that made them under the required minimum age to enter into an agreement with Google.
As a member of G+ - I can understand why they shut off new subscribers.
Their threading logic was cumbersome and needed work. The "rings" concept is cool - but when you have threads that "fork" - as in one conversation becomes closed to one ring - and another conversation to a different ring - the UI representation was horrible. If the people I interact with weren't limited - I would have turned away from G+ pretty quickly.
I'm get the feeling invites will open up again, soon. The UI has undergone some minor tweaks, the mobile app got updated, HangOuts is working better now.
Some of the stuff that's not quite perfected (IMHO) are the "nearby posts" and "incoming posts".
Slashdot Mirror
No matter what - focus on restore procedures.
That will presume backups - so start there. If backups are shoddy, FIX THAT FIRST. If there's one thing you can almost always get budget for its disaster recovery.
But *always*, *always* backup with the focus on how to *restore*. Backing up is easy, restoring is the hard part.
By doing this, you will identify dependencies, settings, installation procedures, etc. You'll also identify which systems are less critical than others.
Subsequently, you will know how long it'll take you to bring a system back up.
Lastly, you'll know how to save your ass if you break something.
Start your restore process by the simple edict of following the money. Work from the financial transaction outward.
You are right, we don't have an absolute free market.
Above I said government screws things up by putting their thumb on the scale. To clarify, I don't consider labor laws to be altering the scales, but to be changing the rules.
Unions served the purpose of getting the "rules changed". With OSHA, a minimum wage, and other labor laws, the grievances of unions became law.
IMHO - Unions have served their purpose. In non right-to-work states, they're more like an extortion racket who hold the keys to good paying jobs. You have to pay them a kick-back out of every check for a job it seems to me. I'm sure some people appreciate the benefits the Union provides, but to force people to be a member? Seems damn near legalized organized crime to me.
Government setting their thumbs on the scales screws everything up. Just look at housing and tuition.
You are ignoring things like marketable skills, professionalism, competition, and negotiation. Unemployment is currently high, which puts downward pressure on wages across the board because other people will offer the same services for less. If unemployment were at 5%, the companies would pay more because they need employees to increase or maintain productivity.
If colleges churn out a bunch of "it experts," wages go down. If there are fewer skilled people available and higher demand of IT workers, wages go up.
You are also ignoring how *expensive* it is for a company to hire and keep someone employed it is. These costs go up. For example, companies could probably hire more people if healthcare costs hadn't have doubled in the past 2 years due to the Affordable Care Act. They offer health benefits to their employees to be competitive and to attract better skilled employees (AKA The same free market you are saying would push people to poverty level).
So now we *have* employment law, so it *doesn't* suck for the 99%. Quite the contrary. The poor in America are rich compared to the rest of the world. Many of the poor in the United States have cars, cell phones, TVs, etc.
This really is simple. The onus isn't on the company to pay you more, the onus is make yourself more valuable. It all starts with the individual.
Hello?
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.
First, output was printed.
Then we had a CRT display. Invention!
Then we had a color CRT display. Invention!
Then we had the GUI and LCD screens. Invention!
Then we had the touch CRT / Glass. Invention!
Why is it not fair to claim the GUI the invention and all GUI elements and enhancements underneath it part of that?
That any GUI elements that leverage touch fall under the invention of the touch GUI?
Consider things like Apple's slide to unlock patent. Wouldn't that be like patenting the new ticker on the bottom of the TV?
Why are things like slide to unlock not considered purely content? What makes it any different than, say, how the weather channel shows radar images versus the local TV station?
Find out how Windows gets infected with Malware by downloading this exclusive EXE *FOR FREE*.
$250 is a *great* price point, IMHO. We know quality hardware sold for $99 ($300 loss) sells like hotcakes because of HP.
Will be interesting - especially since they're not working with Google on it... FTFA "At all".
I have a nook color and nook touch (the nook Touch is awesome) - I'll gladly add one of these. Amazon is shaking things up. Killer.
When will Apple start suing them?
Ok, I'm was geniuenly surprised and I'm probably to the last person on earth to hear about this.
Why does it take FOIA filings to get access to the documents related to Mann's paleoclimatology research? Are these relevant data or is someone just fishing? Does anybody know anything about this?
Why is it necessary that people sue each other about this? Considering how important and visible this is, wouldn't it be better to just put everything out there?
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/08/university-turns-over-some-mater.html?ref=hp
We mostly agree. But my point seems to be missed entirely - so I'll try again. It's NOT about GW - it's about what we're doing about it.
But first, I'd like to know more about how you did it for pennies per KWh? Did you build your own wind turbine or what? When I priced it solar it was *WAY* expensive and had a 10 - 14 year ROI. Fuel Cells about the same. It was *way* expensive to "go green" for me. I'm in Texas and it's been over 100 for *way* too many days and my electric bill is crazy high right now.
Anyway, I watched a debate where Lord Monckton asked some questions and I gotta say - he made a really good point. Love him or hate him, it doesn't mean his questions are any less worthy of being answered than any other.
He asked questions and made points that really made me think.
The more I seek answers to his points more the overtly reactionary jackasses accuse me of being a denier.. Which, frankly, has really opened my eyes just to how *LITTLE* the green advocates actually know and understand.
So lets talk about what action to take.
Which is my critique #1: Automatically rejecting points made by the other side of the debate simple because they are the other side of the debate doesn't help
Frankly, the green movement almost seems adverse to discussing *real* answers because they fear loosing their political football. The more I ask, the more I question, the more resistance I have to finding answers. Actions are speaking louder than words.
You seem reasonable, so these are the basic question he asked that is the quickest way to get accused of impaling babies on stakes:
- What are we going to do?
- What impact will this have on developing nations and populations?
- How will we do it?
- How much will it cost?
- Why are we doing it?
- Can we prove the costs outweigh the negatives?
I ask these questions, nobody can seem to (or is willing to) answer them or even admit they should be asked, and I have a problem with this. It is turning me into a skeptic because instead of talking about this - I'm stereotyped.
Thus, asking questions makes me a skeptic. Really. lol... and then they act like people "just don't get it"? It's like a bunch of monkeys humping a football. A lot going on but not many results.
Which is my critique #2: Our models keep failing to predict what will happen. Simple reality. We need better models so we can answer the above questions.
*NOBODY* can *PROVE* billions will die. Nobody can *PROVE* what will happen. There is no _proof_. We're not there yet.
I"m trying to be pragmatic and the hyper-reactionary political greens won't let me. They don't like my "badspeak".
Which brings me to where I am at:
Which is my critique #3: The environmental movement seems almost oblivious to the negative impact some in their movement have. And worse, refuse to even admit that there are extremists that are making the who effort look bad.
It's *EASY* to dismiss the human toll today because we're not face to face with it; but we are foolish to not account for the direct, current impact on the planet's people today. Not just making Americans take more public transportation, but ensuring that vaccinations in the Sudan are properly refrigerated. We can't do this in an affordable way today with only sustainable or green energy.
Go build a hospital powered by wind turbines and solar panels that the people of Somalia can afford.
The extremists fight against the populations of developing nations under the banner of fighting *for* the environment.
I am *NOT* OK with preventing GM crops to feed the starving. We've spliced plants to create higher yields forever. They sue to prevent them. May less rain forest would be destroyed if would share the GM crops to increase the yields on what farmland they use today?
I am *NOT* OK with telling countries cannot build coal based or nuclear power plants - *especially* those with little to no infrastructure today. They sue to prevent them.
Blin
Damn - see, this is what is wrong with this whole goddamned thing and the zealots on both sides.
Who the *FUCK* said I want to protect the status quo or our hydrocarbon based economy? Frankly, the status quo sucks because a) there is tremendous injustice and b) *BOTH* extremes of this debate are equally culpable in my eyes. You are not hearing me, or you do not want to.
In inverse, are you saying you are just fine with children starving and dying of preventable diseases because you think they are not somehow worthy of the luxury of the benefiting from carbon based energy generation that would keep vaccines refrigerated? Do you justify this inhumanity because you believe billions will die based on climate models that have thus far been unable to accurately predict climate change impacts or the future in general?
See, two can play to stupid hyperbole game. So just stop.
Talk about overstating? You are vastly overstating mankind's ability to predict a extremely hard to measure chaos system as well as our ability to predict the future. Even the TOP UN scientists acknowledge they can't predict it with certainty.
I'm not overstating *anything* hugely. If you know how to search the Internet, you will find examples of extremists in the green movement doing exactly what I'm talking about. The extremists on the environmental movement advocate the banning of Chlorine, GM Crops, or Coal based power plants in the 3rd world? Yes.
What's worse, is you won't even acknowledge the suffering taking a hard line approach has on _human beings_.
The hard-core skeptics are not helping either. There are numerous examples of horrific environmental damage resulting from greed, negligence, or both.
Both sides need to wake up because they have a bunch of idiots in their midst and it hurts their credibility and only forces everyone into polarized innaction.
Incredible exhibitions of jackassery.
My argument is not about climate change - it's about what approach to take on it. We aren't able to accurately predict the impacts because we have not had enough time to measure our current guesstimates for accuracy. Regardless of approach, we should ensure the less fortunate are not bearing an unfair brunt or left holding loosing tickets of the skin color / geography lottery ticket.
That's my point. We still can't accurately predict it.
We need to temper our approach and consider the impact on everyone, not just those fortunate enough to sit in the air-conditioned condos.
You ask me a question that *cannot* be answered (what if we don't reduce CO2) and then think you somehow understand me for pointing out that it can't be answered with certainty? You think I'm not aware that we've hit peak oil? Because I'm critical of the approach and advocate for the less fortunate you get to stereotype me?
Really.
$500 oil will make renewable energies affordable for the 1st world, but if all hydrocarbon based power is eliminated in the 1st world, are you going be OK with.. say.. Somalia getting coal based power plants? If not, then how to suggest we address this in fair, humane manner than protect the freedoms of mankind?
Goddamn but people are so myopic in their thinking...
I can't answer your question about what if we don't. Can you? No?
Well, if you can't answer you own question and you know so much on the subject, how to hell do you expect other people to a) agree with you and b) accept your approach as a sound, fair, and humane solution?
You asked. I don't know. So you tell me.
If you can't, then stop acting like a hyper-political reactionary jackass and let's work on finding a solution that _works for everybody_ (which is my whole point). Because in case you haven't notice, many of those who are suffering the most from a lack of the benefits of a hydrocarbon based economy aren't anglo-saxon.
What makes the hard-core environmentalists so disgusting in my eyes is they aren't even *capable* of considering that we may need to have some type of b
The timing of this ..... Where'd I put my tinfoil? heh..
Adios Mr. Taco! :)
Well, we know plants frigging *LOVE* the stuff... so if we don't we can probably anticipate higher crop yields. Which isn't a bad thing considering the population growth on the planet.
Curbing it will further restrict of things like vaccines, health-care, education, and advanced agricultural adoption in developing nations so that's a bad thing.
CO2 may be a greenhouse gas, but we animals sort of, you know, *exhale* the stuff.
Lots of people die and starve because they don't have access to GM crops and coal powered electricity. So Unless we know *with certainty* I'm not OK telling anyone they are expendable in the name of CO2 reduction. Who knows, if they were afforded the same 1st world luxuries we are currently using, one of them might invent the next affordable green tech.
As of right now, I don't see a way to get it done without developing nations paying an extremely heavy toll.
We are all anti-nuclear now (stupid, IMHO) after Japan. The technology doesn't exist for us to have a zero CO2 impact. At least, not one we can afford (even in the 1st world).
What really hurts this whole debate is the stupidity like trying to ban Chlorine, which just so happens to be on the periodic table. CO2 is plant food - we exhale it - *fish* exhale it - the planet belches it out - it occurs naturally. Combine that with the war on GM crops and the hard-core environmental movement folks' moral authority seems to be perched on mountain of human bones and reeks more of a fascist political ideology than trying to keep rivers clean.
Does industrialization increase CO2? Probably. But so do volcanoes.
And ultimately - we get into this whole "denier" vs "believer" debate with both sides trying to dismiss everything the other side says in its entirety. Which is abject stupidity, IMHO.
The "we must do something, anything because the toll of inaction will be too high" argument seems hollow and overtly reactionary. They said the oceans would rise by 2009. Now they say they have *NO FUCKING IDEA*. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall
I've come to the conclusion that nobody really knows for sure. Data indicates something is happening and there could be a correlation with industrialization. But so far, the models created based on the presumption of the association keep breaking down and their predictions don't play out as expected.
Therefore, IMHO, this reaffirms that we can't predict the future. Making changes now seem sort of pointless in regards to CO2 because a) we don't have an affordable alternative and b) what alternatives we do have are "not allowed".
So What will it cost if we don't? You tell me.
Until we are able to accurately model what will happen, we're just shooting randomly and the costs are so incredible and the prediction accuracy is so poor, credibility alone doesn't justify it.
How do we reduce CO2? What will it cost to do it?
Slashdot sucks during election years because everything becomes a political attack, incredible demonstrations of stupidity, or ad hominem accusations of trying to kill us all because of perceived badspeak. :(
Anything that could potentially drive the cost of 3D printing down is a win, IMHO!
I seem to remember that the tectonic plate in that region is about to begin a downward slope into the Pacific?
Do we know if the plate where Australia resides moves any slower or faster than others?
Hrm - he doesn't seem too much like "some random dude" - or any more random than other specialists in their field and who run a hospital backed research treatment center.
This is political bullshit of the highest order - and full of hypocrisy. This has *nothing* to do with factual relevance - and has *everything* to do with trying to manufacture something about a politician because you don't him. This is birther insanity in reverse.
Seems kinda lame and weak that there was an instant down-shift to ad hominem to attack the doctor as a quack because they don't like Rick Perry's political positions.
Basically - this argument is "some scientists criticize a politician because he went to another scientist for an experimental treatment using adult stem cells to help alleviate back pain; so because we don't like him, we want to use this criticism as a justification to question his decision making ability."
I think there are a lot of people who've benefited from adult stem cell research that would disagree that this is quackery.
Because someone who wants to be "The Decider" is open to medical research and treatments, even for himself, this is a bad thing? Because you don't agree with his decision to try and alleviate his back pain? *THIS* is a politically justifiable position? I strongly disagree and find it very narrow minded.
I don't care either way about this and don't understand why others do - I know people with chronic pain will try just about anything to help alleviate it. Frankly, I sort of find it a plus in someone wanting to be "The Decider" has hit the limits of modern medical practice and has had to try procedures "outside the system". They would likely be more apt to consider the patient's needs when it comes to making decisions about such matters better than someone who's never experienced such a scenario.
It sucks when a doctor says there's nothing we can do for your pain.
Having lost a family member to cancer, I can tell you with absolute certainty that criticizing someone for seeking pain relief by any means necessary is ignorant, short-sighted, and selfish. I don't care how many letters there are behind someone's name; they do not know everything and cannot say with *any* certainty how someone body will react. I've seen it first hand so if you think I'm wrong you can suck it. My sister battled intestinal cancer and they couldn't manage her pain for shit with normal treatments.
You wanna criticize for this - nice ... why not just tell people in constant pain "fuck you, you're a dumb ass because some scientists don't agree".
When my sister was dying, we hit the end of the "approved treatments". From acupuncture to drugs - we tried anything and everything to alleviate the pain from her intestinal cancer. The solution was experimental and caused blisters in her mouth - but it was fucking worth it.
Politicizing medicine is a *really*, *really* bad idea and borders on unconscionably fascist thinking. It ignores the plight of many, be them janitors or governors, who can't find a treatment that works and whose only hope of relief is an experimental treatment.
If I were in his position, I would weigh the benefits and the risks and make the right decision for me. For people in this thread, or in the press, or scientists who have *NO* direct knowledge of the circumstances or of his medical condition to act like they have the moral authority to judge is just silly, hateful rhetoric founded not in sound decision but instead in partisan attacks.
Hell, I don't even like Perry that much. I live in Texas and even I, not _even_ the smartest guy in the room, know that this is a f*cking joke of an issue and only makes the people jumping on it look unreasonably partisan.
So now a person's personal heath care decisions are game for criticism and would count against them for political consideration?
What's next?
"Candidate's love of tuna + mac-n-cheese is extreme and wildly outside the mainstream..."
Seriously - when did we get to a point where there is only one right way to think, talk, and act?
Sad - very few people would even *know* about this if they were trying to use it as some type hit piece..
If Dr. George Q. Daley would keep his f*cking mouth shut, maybe people wouldn't be *aware* of this.
Jackassery all around.
.. What ? You thought my subject didn't make my point?
I'm not defending the article in question, but this one is just a big a pile of crap as the other.
Granted, the original had a sensationalist headline and the article was distinctly written from a skeptic's perspective.
However - shouldn't we be looking at the raw data and either confirming or debunking it?
To Paraphrase this article: "You don't to need to see the data because people who stand the most to lose if this research is right are telling you it is bull. And you shouldn't ask any questions because the guy who did the research doesn't agree with the people this research doesn't support. Oh, and did we mention he thinks there's a creator? So it's only an *IF* he's right, and we've already explained that we don't need to verify this because, as you can see, he's just some crazy bastard who took funding from an energy company. We don't see any reason to go beyond the *if* and neither should you. Yeah, he's a corrupt, quack job for sure.. nothing to see here..."
I want to see the scientific proof, not the "he doesn't think like most of us so this article is flawed" bullshit.
Give me *real* scientific process.
Seriously - WTF happened to the scientific process? By this measuring stick, both articles are flawed. Can we get back to the real question now?
The goal is to scientifically understand our environment so we can make better predictions and protect it. Nobody I know wants dirty air or polluted water; climate change proponent or skeptic. So can we kindly STFU with that kind of crap and focus on finding the truth instead of trying to gain political points and power?
*sigh* - rant over-
So, Can I combine it with a battery and then use it as a heat sink for the CPU in my phone?
I only need juice until it gets hot, right?
Or, you go ahead and abide by the ToS.
See my previous post - but the first time I saw this happen was someone lied about their age - and it was below the required age for G+.
A G+ profile is a Google profile. If you put in false information that violates the ToS - the account will get shut off.
It's really kinda f*cking simple. Kids lie and say they're 21 and they have a G+ account. Some moron says he's 12 and he's *shocked*, yes *SHOCKED* his account was automatically disabled because he was too young. True story.
I joined G+ on July 1st - and the process was automated at first. I think they're doing some type of review now because they come in waves.
As a G+ problem - I've seen several people report this and almost always it comes down to something like this:
The ToS for Google services have various criteria.
When filling out the G+ profile - it's really your "Google" profile.
People have been putting bullshit information in. This triggers an automatic suspension of the account because what was entered violates the ToS.
Since the G+ profile is really your "Google" profile; it also locks you out of other services.
The most common one I've seen is people bitching after saying they put in a birth date that made them under the required minimum age to enter into an agreement with Google.
As a member of G+ - I can understand why they shut off new subscribers.
Their threading logic was cumbersome and needed work. The "rings" concept is cool - but when you have threads that "fork" - as in one conversation becomes closed to one ring - and another conversation to a different ring - the UI representation was horrible. If the people I interact with weren't limited - I would have turned away from G+ pretty quickly.
I'm get the feeling invites will open up again, soon. The UI has undergone some minor tweaks, the mobile app got updated, HangOuts is working better now.
Some of the stuff that's not quite perfected (IMHO) are the "nearby posts" and "incoming posts".