At first glance I am still suspicious of the scale of time. For example, there seems to be a cycle in the level of atmospheric carbon revealed in Figure 4, but it only extends one and a quarter (apparent) periods, about 160,000 years. For reference, we mammals have been scurrying around for about 200,000,000 years. That's three orders of magnitude longer. It is hard for me to accept as fact that this cycle is significantly abnormal based on that scope.
Figures 2 and 3 set off my bullshit buzzer, because their y scales don't run to zero. Sad that they have to distort those charts, since they do seem to show something.
Anyway, thanks for pointing out this resource.
Also, since you brought up volcanoes, remember what happened in 1980? I'm not saying that it is the cause of all the worlds problems. I just think that we look to scientists for answers, and they are largely willing to give us answers. Dumb looks don't generate funding.
I'm really just looking for the concession that it isn't all cut and dried.
Yes, there are cycles (or at least variations, I have no idea how periodic they are) but they run over long periods. Changes as rapid as what we are seeing in the last 200 years do not appear to be a part of those cycles (except, perhaps when a massive volcanic eruption or an asteroid strike plays a part)
I'm not sure that we even have 200 years of reliable direct observation. Do we?
In any case how can you possibly support the claim that the rate over the entire period of observation is abnormal?
I have no reason to believe that the naturally occurring changes are in any way regular. There is every possibility that there are cycles within cycles, brief periods (a few hundred years) of reversal of the trend, or similar periods of greater than average changes along the trend.
Like I said, I'm not saying we aren't causing global climate change. It is going to take more than an appeal to authority to convince me that basing policy on the theory is a good idea.
Unless I am allowed to participate, the debates become a massive campaign contribution to two of the candidates, illegal under the very campaign finance laws those two candidates have passed and signed as Senator and President.
Striving for justice as an individual is also a libertarian value.
Incidentally, when they were on CPD property they were trying to serve papers. When they were arested (still trying to serve the papers) they were on state property.
I am open to evidence that we are causing climate change, but I see two major problems with the theory.
1. There is (I think) definitive evidence that the climate heats and cools cyclically. Given the fact that this is the nature of the climate, wouldn't one expect it to keep getting warmer until such time as it starts getting cooler?
2. These cycles are on a scale of tens of thousands of years. Can we really make any sort of analysis based on direct observation of less than 10% of a cycle, and clam that it is scientific with a straight face?
I'm not saying that we aren't causing climatic change. I am saying that I don't believe that anyone can make a definitive, much less a scientific, statement that we are.
I think that conclusions about the impact of this or that human activity can be fairly characterized as "conjecture," at best.
So we are left making policy based on conjecture. That's okay. But we have to decide how much power we are willing to give to our governments based solely on that conjecture. We have to decide how much of a regulatory burden is tolerable, when it is supported only by that conjecture.
There are real world costs to ANY decisions we make based on this information, pro or con.
This idea that there is no other side is ludicrous. Something will be done based on the conclusions we reach. If we are going to do things that are to our benefit in the long run, we must make the decisions based on honest examination of the facts and the probable meaning of those facts.
"Buck" is really buckshot. Shot are little lead balls, smaller than the gage (size of the barrel) of the gun. Slugs, on the other hand, are the same size as the barrel, or they are adapted down with a sabot. (French for "shoe", apparently.)
You may not be aware that "chasing the tail lights" was a key MS FUD talking point against Linux (and Free and open source software in general) around '99.
BSD runs fine with just the posix utilities and libraries.
Great! Is somebody calling such a version of BSD "GNU/BSD"? If not, how is this germane?
Besides for something to be gnu all of it needs to be gnu. Go read the license?
I checked your posting history, 'cause this sound so much like a troll. You really should read the license, and get your pronouns straight.
By "something" do you mean a piece of GPLed software? That's true, but . ..
. . . Being "GNU" and being distributed under the terms of the GPL are orthogonal. The Emacs manual is GNU, but not GPLed. SquirrelMail is GPLed, but not GNU. And . ..
. . . being GNU means that the Free Software Foundation holds the copyrights, and has made the software part of their system.
The license explicitly permits the aggregation of GPLed and GPL incompatible software. Nobody but you has a problem mixing GNU and non-GNU at the application level.
So, the question remains; should a system be known by the same name as its kernel? Or should it have a moniker that indicates its more complete heritage?
My impression is different, but it is impossible to get reliable statistics.
My impression is based on the default desktop on the majority of major distros.
I think it depends on how you are using your computer. For me the most important thing is the desktop I use, because this is what I really work with.
I disagree that this determines what components are part of the OS. For a huge swath of PC users Outlook fits that bill. You will NEVER convince me that Outlook is part of the OS;-) Even Microsoft agrees with me on this!
The system is usable without the GUI. It is not without the core tools. You can get by without ls, but not without init. (I'm honestly not sure if the init on my system is GNU or not, though.)
To the normal user, a computer running KDE on top of Linux, GNU and X looks and behaves in exactly the same way as one running KDE on top of BSD and X.
You seem to be arguing my case here. Since GNU/Linux and BSD are defined as different OSes, X and KDE or Gnome must not be part of the OS.
Well, GNU covers Gnome. To my chagrin it seems to be the most popular desktop. Getting X in there would be good, but you can operate without that stuff.
IMO the "OS" is kernel plus the basic tools I mentioned above. So I would want to call the OS GNU/Linux.
RMS only wants "Linux" systems that use the GNU tools to be called GNU/Linux. He doesn't want, for example, embedded systems that don't use GNU to be called GNU/Linux. He doesn't want the Linux kernel to be called GNU/Linux. He just wants systems that are constructed predominantly from GNU code to be called GNU/Linux.
Linux is great, but we wouldn't get very far without GCC, the binutils, bash, the coreutils (which include chmod, cat, su, ls, tail, and on and on), etc.
Just a little credit where credit is due. This seems reasonable to me.
I know this is going be tough to take, but, here's the deal: God cannot be "derived" scientifically.
And here is the rub. Muslims say the exact same thing. How do I know if I am looking for Jesus or Allah? Or Yahweh (or Jehovah, place the vowels where you will)? Or the Buddha? Or Baal?
The only answer I see is through some proof or inspiration. Despite my seeking, I've found neither.
Do you have a specific request of God that you would like us (people at my church) to pray for on your behalf?
I can't turn down such a kind-hearted and generous request. I'm accustomed to taking on my personal challenges without asking for help. (Yes, I am familiar with "Footprints.";-) I'm sure they are already on your list, but my heart really goes out to the armed forces personnel and civilian support crews in harms way in Iraq. If you have some extra time you could dedicate to praying for them I would appreciate the gesture, if not the sentiment;-)
I've enjoyed this conversation. If you ever want to pick it up again you can reach me at the email address above.
Don't worry about feeling ridiculous, just talk to Him privately between you and Him, no one else watching or criticizing you. God knows who He is, and God knows who you are. So there's no problem.
It's not that I think someone is watching me. Quite the contrary. It's that I get the distinct impression that I'm talking to myself. I appreciate that you feel that there is a presence in your life; I don't. I try, and I don't. I wish, and I don't.
Since I want it, but I don't feel it, I can only conclude that 1. God made me wrong or 2. God isn't as he is described in the Bible (i.e. He doesn't care) or 3. God doesn't exist.
Number three is the only conclusion I can live with.
Can you propose any other rational conclusion?
I recommend reading the "New King James" translation
I have read the Bible. History, allegory, tradition, and parable. There's a lot of good stuff in there. (There's some real tripe in there too.) I desperately wanted to believe in it. I cannot force my mind to accept the words in a book over the evidence of my senses. Why did God make me that way if it isn't what he wants? Again, the only conclusion I can reach is that He didn't.
Slashdot Mirror
That link gives me a 404.
Anyway, that phenomenon isn't unique to China. We have several going here in the US. Most famously the Centralia, PA fire.
I don't really know anything about this in terms of pollution as compared to the fire you cite, or number of cars, etc.
-Peter
That looks like good info. I'll check it out.
At first glance I am still suspicious of the scale of time. For example, there seems to be a cycle in the level of atmospheric carbon revealed in Figure 4, but it only extends one and a quarter (apparent) periods, about 160,000 years. For reference, we mammals have been scurrying around for about 200,000,000 years. That's three orders of magnitude longer. It is hard for me to accept as fact that this cycle is significantly abnormal based on that scope.
Figures 2 and 3 set off my bullshit buzzer, because their y scales don't run to zero. Sad that they have to distort those charts, since they do seem to show something.
Anyway, thanks for pointing out this resource.
Also, since you brought up volcanoes, remember what happened in 1980? I'm not saying that it is the cause of all the worlds problems. I just think that we look to scientists for answers, and they are largely willing to give us answers. Dumb looks don't generate funding.
I'm really just looking for the concession that it isn't all cut and dried.
-Peter
I'm not sure that we even have 200 years of reliable direct observation. Do we?
In any case how can you possibly support the claim that the rate over the entire period of observation is abnormal?
I have no reason to believe that the naturally occurring changes are in any way regular. There is every possibility that there are cycles within cycles, brief periods (a few hundred years) of reversal of the trend, or similar periods of greater than average changes along the trend.
Like I said, I'm not saying we aren't causing global climate change. It is going to take more than an appeal to authority to convince me that basing policy on the theory is a good idea.
-Peter
I think you have confused the criminal and civil processes.
It's a common mistake.
-Peter
Striving for justice as an individual is also a libertarian value.
Incidentally, when they were on CPD property they were trying to serve papers. When they were arested (still trying to serve the papers) they were on state property.
-Peter
I am open to evidence that we are causing climate change, but I see two major problems with the theory.
1. There is (I think) definitive evidence that the climate heats and cools cyclically. Given the fact that this is the nature of the climate, wouldn't one expect it to keep getting warmer until such time as it starts getting cooler?
2. These cycles are on a scale of tens of thousands of years. Can we really make any sort of analysis based on direct observation of less than 10% of a cycle, and clam that it is scientific with a straight face?
I'm not saying that we aren't causing climatic change. I am saying that I don't believe that anyone can make a definitive, much less a scientific, statement that we are.
I think that conclusions about the impact of this or that human activity can be fairly characterized as "conjecture," at best.
So we are left making policy based on conjecture. That's okay. But we have to decide how much power we are willing to give to our governments based solely on that conjecture. We have to decide how much of a regulatory burden is tolerable, when it is supported only by that conjecture.
There are real world costs to ANY decisions we make based on this information, pro or con.
This idea that there is no other side is ludicrous. Something will be done based on the conclusions we reach. If we are going to do things that are to our benefit in the long run, we must make the decisions based on honest examination of the facts and the probable meaning of those facts.
-Peter
Interesting. Britanica claims that those are called klompen, and that sabot is chiefely French. Other sites support what you said.
I wish there wasn't an offtopic mod. Your post was really interesting. Why can't we decide what's on topic?
-Peter
"Buck" is really buckshot. Shot are little lead balls, smaller than the gage (size of the barrel) of the gun. Slugs, on the other hand, are the same size as the barrel, or they are adapted down with a sabot. (French for "shoe", apparently.)
-Peter
Your story is double odd.
The shot is 00. The spelling of the way it is spoken is "double aught."
-Peter
You may not be aware that "chasing the tail lights" was a key MS FUD talking point against Linux (and Free and open source software in general) around '99.
The reversal is delicious.
-Peter
The fact that you just accused MS of chasing the taillights indicates to me that we've won.
It's all over but the shoutin'.
-Peter
Great! Is somebody calling such a version of BSD "GNU/BSD"? If not, how is this germane?
I checked your posting history, 'cause this sound so much like a troll. You really should read the license, and get your pronouns straight.
So, the question remains; should a system be known by the same name as its kernel? Or should it have a moniker that indicates its more complete heritage?
-Peter
PS: Debian has created a BSD version of their GNU system, they call it , which seems perfectly appropriate to me.
My impression is based on the default desktop on the majority of major distros.
I disagree that this determines what components are part of the OS. For a huge swath of PC users Outlook fits that bill. You will NEVER convince me that Outlook is part of the OS
The system is usable without the GUI. It is not without the core tools. You can get by without ls, but not without init. (I'm honestly not sure if the init on my system is GNU or not, though.)
You seem to be arguing my case here. Since GNU/Linux and BSD are defined as different OSes, X and KDE or Gnome must not be part of the OS.
Tell me where I'm not understanding you, here.
-Peter
Well, GNU covers Gnome. To my chagrin it seems to be the most popular desktop. Getting X in there would be good, but you can operate without that stuff.
IMO the "OS" is kernel plus the basic tools I mentioned above. So I would want to call the OS GNU/Linux.
-Peter
Precisely as much as we give it.
Of, by, etc.
-Peter
Actually, only about a third of the people on the roads in your area this morning had their lights on.
I'd say you were damn lucky this morning.
-Peter
This joke is getting awfully tired.
RMS only wants "Linux" systems that use the GNU tools to be called GNU/Linux. He doesn't want, for example, embedded systems that don't use GNU to be called GNU/Linux. He doesn't want the Linux kernel to be called GNU/Linux. He just wants systems that are constructed predominantly from GNU code to be called GNU/Linux.
Linux is great, but we wouldn't get very far without GCC, the binutils, bash, the coreutils (which include chmod, cat, su, ls, tail, and on and on), etc.
Just a little credit where credit is due. This seems reasonable to me.
-Peter
Genius! Squirelmail leverages the power of IMAP, and FreePOPs lames it down to POP.
And it's SquirrelMail. Two Rs, two Ls (not three), and StudlyCaps.
Thank you.
-Peter
Anybody who can name the reference (not undeware gnomes) gets a gmail invite ;-)
-Peter
Don't say it
.
.
. .
Dooon't say it
. .
Muthafucka!
-Peter
PS: You thougt I was going to say "profit!"
-P
Thank you for the correction and amplification. You are absolutely correct.
-Peter
If they believe in the browser war, why do they only support IE?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I belive that the tool bar and the gmail notifier are Windows/IE only.
-Peter
And here is the rub. Muslims say the exact same thing. How do I know if I am looking for Jesus or Allah? Or Yahweh (or Jehovah, place the vowels where you will)? Or the Buddha? Or Baal?
The only answer I see is through some proof or inspiration. Despite my seeking, I've found neither.
I can't turn down such a kind-hearted and generous request. I'm accustomed to taking on my personal challenges without asking for help. (Yes, I am familiar with "Footprints."
I've enjoyed this conversation. If you ever want to pick it up again you can reach me at the email address above.
-Peter
I recently learned (through an unpleasant personal, but not-quite-that-personal, experience) that HSV, an STD, is the "major cause of cervical cancer".
Watch out, guys. Especially watch out ladies.
-Peter
It's not that I think someone is watching me. Quite the contrary. It's that I get the distinct impression that I'm talking to myself. I appreciate that you feel that there is a presence in your life; I don't. I try, and I don't. I wish, and I don't.
Since I want it, but I don't feel it, I can only conclude that 1. God made me wrong or 2. God isn't as he is described in the Bible (i.e. He doesn't care) or 3. God doesn't exist.
Number three is the only conclusion I can live with.
Can you propose any other rational conclusion?
I have read the Bible. History, allegory, tradition, and parable. There's a lot of good stuff in there. (There's some real tripe in there too.) I desperately wanted to believe in it. I cannot force my mind to accept the words in a book over the evidence of my senses. Why did God make me that way if it isn't what he wants? Again, the only conclusion I can reach is that He didn't.
-Peter