And what if global warming is not just a natural process, but a mild enough process that it's of a sort that has happened before in human history with effects so small that we barely noticed? It looked like the man had a chart that said temperatures were warmer a few hundred years ago. Is that worth thinking about?
...but I don't look to newspapers for serious scientific research, I look to peer-reviewed scientific journals. But, that aside, the accusations in the article all seem to be things (relative role of solar forcing, the "medieval warm period", etc.) that have been discussed and dealt-with repeatedly in the literature, both as to their accuracy and their impact, there doesn't seem to be anything, on the first impression, new here.
If they've all been "dealt with", would you care to deal with them here? I myself have not seen sufficient literature on the subject to know the truth of the matter, but since you're very familiar with it all, feel free to enlighten us.
As you say, it might be that his claims aren't new, but there may still be many people who have not heard them anyway. People in the media is always saying that no scientists have any doubt about global warming concerns related to man-made greenhouse gasses, and the only people who claim that global warming (man made) isn't certain are Exxon employees and politicians in the petroleum pocket.
So it may be that some of us may be hearing about all of this for the first time, and if there's a response, perhaps you could explain?
Additionally, Google has been long-rumored to want a "Google PC" -- if I was google I would OEM Mac hardware and ship it with "mom friendly" software that just does email, photos&tv, and web browsing software clients that only run full screen.
If that were the case, if they just wanted the hardware, wouldn't it make more sense for Google to go to Asus or whoever it is (I forget) who actually manufactures the Apple hardware? The only reason to go to Apple is if they don't want a "Google PC" but want OSX running Google software.
From what I understand, there is some truth to that. Some infections may have difficulties with the increased temperatures. However, I believe there are also some immune responses that operate more efficiently at higher temperatures, and this is believed to be part of the reason for fevers.
I'm really not pretending to be an expert, but how I've heard it described to me is that your "normal" body temperature is a compromise between various biological processes. You have some things going on in your body which would be better or more efficient if they were happening at higher temperatures, and some things would work better at lower temperatures. To account for this, evolution has found a sort of compromise at 98.6 degrees, which represents sub-optimal temperature for most things, but all of them work well enough. However, when our bodies decide that it's worth hindering brain function a little to fight off an infection, we get a fever.
It's true that cold doesn't cause infections, and a lot of research suggests that it doesn't even help "catching" infections. The idea that being out in the cold will cause you to get colds is pretty much bunk. If being cold manages to cause significant congestion or inflammation, the congestion or inflammation can become a good breading ground for bacteria. Now, I'm not a doctor, but this is what I've heard from various sources, including doctors.
However, I've also read that the human immune system works better at higher temperatures. That means that, once you have an infection, your body will fight it off better if your body temperature is raised. This may be why we have fevers when we're sick.
There'd be a certain attraction to some customers (especially enterprise) knowing that they can get guaranteed hardware compatibility.
I think there's that, but also there's an issue of closed-source software vendors getting guaranteed support of bringing their software to a platform. Obviously there are various reasons why Adobe, for example, maintains OSX ports to their software but not Linux ports. There are reasons why Microsoft is still producing Office for OSX. One of the reasons is an established user base, but some other vendors could stand to mimic the other reasons, including end-to-end hardware and software support/integration from a single company.
I expect that a lot of people won't like this statement, but I've wondered before: why doesn't another desktop vendor do what Apple did? Why doesn't Dell/HP look into emulating Apple's success and try building their own Linux/BSD distro?
Maybe it's just too risky to piss of Microsoft, and they feel their running enough risk to offer an option of Linux on a limited number of machines. However, if I were running Dell, I'd at least have some top-secret project working on an OS, using an OSS Unix as a base.
I think this is good advice for both developers and people giving support. If you want to advance Linux adoption, listen to your end-users and try your best to be responsive to their needs. Now, I'll grant that's a big "if". As some people will note, not all FOSS developers care whether their users like their software, but are rather "scratching a personal itch". That's fine, as none of what I'm saying applies to you unless you want to foster the adoption of FOSS.
Also worth noting, perhaps, is that I didn't say, "Do whatever your users ask for." Sometimes users are dumb enough to have bad ideas, and sometimes they don't know what they need. What I'm really saying is, don't assume that you know what users need before you talk to them, understand their work, and look into the problems they're having. If a user claims that Linux (and related FOSS) isn't doing what they need, don't go on the offensive. Don't accuse them of lying. Don't even assume that they're wrong unless you've talked to them long enough to understand the problems they're having. Instead, try to find out what the problem is, see if the concerns are valid, and then try to find a solution.
Even if the user is wrong, there still might be something you can do to help them. If they complain that software lacks a feature that it does, in fact, have, then maybe that means you need better documentation or training. Maybe it means the interface is confusing, or the feature is hard to find.
Regardless, it's true what they say: You can catch more bees with honey than with vinegar. If you don't listen to people, then you wont know how to get them to switch, and if you aren't polite about asking, they won't want to tell you.
I think you're more or less right. Apple hasn't changed my life, but I do feel like they've changed my computing experience (for the better). (I'm a mac user). I know a lot of non-mac users who still feel like the iPod has changed their life, but there are others who have had mp3 players before and just bought the iPod because they felt it was the best mp3 player out there. If someone puts together a better computer/OS/media store/mp3 player/movie player, I think a whole lot of these people (including me) would be open to using them instead.
However, that still requires that someone actually come out with a better product, which I don't believe we've seen a sign of that happening yet.
Well this is the problem with all of Microsoft's "anti-piracy" efforts so far: They don't really hinder piracy, but make it very hard, sometimes, for legitimate users to do legitimate things.
With Windows XP's activation, pirates shared/downloaded the corporate version, which didn't require activation, or else they found ways to crack the whole scheme. Now apparently Microsoft is forcing the corporate versions to activate as well, which might be a deal-breaker for corporate customers (myself included). It closes 1 loophole, but doesn't mean someone won't figure out a way to crack this thing. In any event, it's unlikely that it will stop piracy, but it's very likely it will annoy and inconvenience many legitimate paying customers.
Is that the point of time-capsules, to preserve information? I always thought it was more of a prompting for self-analysis, that the items were carefully chosen to pass onto the future, and then placed beyond casual meddling from those who would rethink their contribution to the record.
It seems to me you could have a high-tech time capsule but storing a bunch of photos, music, and letters on a hard drive, encrypted. You'd need some method of creating a time-lock, so the data can't be altered or retrieved for however many years. It wouldn't help you preserve information, but it would replicate the experience of a time capsule.
Jeeze, are you being purposefully obtuse? Parts of movies are made using linux. Some audio studios, depending on what they do, can use Linux. Some people working with graphics can do certain things in Linux. I was using Photoshop as an example, but the other apps you've cited aren't comprehensive either.
You've said yourself that you aren't familiar with these fields, yet you're simply refusing to listen to someone who is. I've told you outright, but I'll say it again: the people who work in programs such as Soundforge, Photoshop, or Final Cut, you will often not be able to do their jobs using Linux tools. In some of these areas, there are Linux tools, but they are not professional grade.
I don't know why you can't understand this, or if you're the one trolling, but I'll tell you one more time (in case you just need repetition): It's not an issue of training or willingness to "give it a shot". The ability to do these jobs don't exist. There are not competitive realistic feasible software solutions for these problems on Linux. Wrapping yourself in denial concerning this will not help increase Linux adoption.
I actually think Microsoft may be ahead of the curve on this one, though it may be accidental and most people at Microsoft may not even know it. In my opinion, for all the coolness of Web 2.0, web applications are still limited. They can't do all the things desktop apps can, and if you network connection goes down, you're screwed. Where desktop apps fail is that they tie to you a specific desktop and they need to be installed. You can't just pull up Microsoft Office at your friends house unless he has it installed, and you can't necessarily get access to your documents and settings anyway.
So where I think we have the best example of what the future might hold is in a little Microsoft application called "Exchange"-- or more to the point, Exchange OWA. What you have there is a very successful desktop application-- Outlook-- and a web application that mirror each other very closely. They have very similar interfaces and similar features, and most importantly, your data is automatically kept in sync between the two.
Now, of course that last part is obvious in this implementation. You have an e-mail client and a webmail client, so of course the data is going to stay in sync. However, I think this will become key in the success of web applications in the future because no one wants to have to worry about yet another place where they have to keep their data in sync.
So according to this viewpoint, what Google needs to do is make a simple desktop application that looks like their web apps and works like their web apps. Then, they need to make it so when I make a change on the desktop version, it automatically syncs with the desktop version, and vice versa. The whole idea here is, when I'm at home I have access to the best features the desktop can offer (including not needing an internet connection), and when I'm away I can have an application that looks and works similarly to what I have at home.
I don't think people are ready for pure web applications yet.
I belabor the point because you don't seem to get it, and it's entirely relevant. You almost seem to be purposefully missing the point, which makes me wonder if I'm being trolled. Some professionals with particular needs can use Linux because their tools exist now. As an example, I said I know lots of professionals who can't switch to Linux because they need Photoshop, and you indicated that Maya was a good replacement, but it's not.
So let me repeat this in case you still just don't get it: there are several pieces of professional-grade media software for which there is no equivalent on Linux. Until there are equivalent programs which allow professionals in these fields to be equally productive, people who do these sorts of production won't be able to switch their OS even if they want to. And this represents a lot of people.
You don't need software that does or performs a given function, but rather you need the same software you are using on your system (or a "drop-in replacement").
You're missing the point. In the example of Photoshop, the "given function" I would need is to allow professional graphic designers to be be productive. It doesn't matter if you're a brilliant IT pro and businessman. It doesn't matter if you retrain everyone to use Maya. Maya does not do the same things.
In case you really misunderstand the situation, I'll give you another comparison: Thinking Maya is a replacement for Photoshop is like believing that Abiword is a replacement for Microsoft Excel. Someone might say, "Both Abiword and Excel involve typed text input! You can make tables in Abiword! Your competition will use Abiword instead of Excel and therefore they'll have the advantage of free software!"
However Abiword and Excel don't do the same things. Likewise Photoshop and Maya don't do the same things. Abiword and Excel both work with text, and Photoshop and Maya both work with graphics, but they still do different things.
It's not an emacs vs. vi flamewar. It'd be more like someone trying to make a flamewar out of emacs vs. ssh. I don't know how to be more clear: neither Maya nor Mathematica are the same sort of program as Photoshop, and so someone who needs Photoshop will not be able to accomplish their work with these other programs.
I think the point is that sometimes, these are the last towns to get anything better anyway. Besides, is it really much worse to have a municipality running other ISPs out of town, denying users static IPs, than to have some other ISP doing the same thing?
Well that might be fine, but I was trying to ask a question about *his* viewpoint about where browsers are going in the future, rather than making suggestions about specific methods for distribution.
I'm not going to try to impinge on your right to ask this question, but I was wondering if this question was based on anything more than anecdotal evidence. The reason I'm wondering this is that, in my experience, Firefox is as stable and fast on Linux as it is anywhere, and so I don't know whether to think this is just my anecdotal evidence vs. yours, or whether there are problems I'm not informed about.
What does the long-term future have in store for Firefox? Is the web browser going to become more feature rich, or is the Mozilla team going to aim at keeping Firefox very minimalist and optimized? If the former, what features do you think will help advance the user experience of the web? If the latter, how will you differentiate Firefox from its competitors and maintain the brand in absence of flashy new features?
Slashdot Mirror
And what if global warming is not just a natural process, but a mild enough process that it's of a sort that has happened before in human history with effects so small that we barely noticed? It looked like the man had a chart that said temperatures were warmer a few hundred years ago. Is that worth thinking about?
If they've all been "dealt with", would you care to deal with them here? I myself have not seen sufficient literature on the subject to know the truth of the matter, but since you're very familiar with it all, feel free to enlighten us.
As you say, it might be that his claims aren't new, but there may still be many people who have not heard them anyway. People in the media is always saying that no scientists have any doubt about global warming concerns related to man-made greenhouse gasses, and the only people who claim that global warming (man made) isn't certain are Exxon employees and politicians in the petroleum pocket.
So it may be that some of us may be hearing about all of this for the first time, and if there's a response, perhaps you could explain?
Additionally, Google has been long-rumored to want a "Google PC" -- if I was google I would OEM Mac hardware and ship it with "mom friendly" software that just does email, photos&tv, and web browsing software clients that only run full screen.
If that were the case, if they just wanted the hardware, wouldn't it make more sense for Google to go to Asus or whoever it is (I forget) who actually manufactures the Apple hardware? The only reason to go to Apple is if they don't want a "Google PC" but want OSX running Google software.
From what I understand, there is some truth to that. Some infections may have difficulties with the increased temperatures. However, I believe there are also some immune responses that operate more efficiently at higher temperatures, and this is believed to be part of the reason for fevers.
I'm really not pretending to be an expert, but how I've heard it described to me is that your "normal" body temperature is a compromise between various biological processes. You have some things going on in your body which would be better or more efficient if they were happening at higher temperatures, and some things would work better at lower temperatures. To account for this, evolution has found a sort of compromise at 98.6 degrees, which represents sub-optimal temperature for most things, but all of them work well enough. However, when our bodies decide that it's worth hindering brain function a little to fight off an infection, we get a fever.
It's true that cold doesn't cause infections, and a lot of research suggests that it doesn't even help "catching" infections. The idea that being out in the cold will cause you to get colds is pretty much bunk. If being cold manages to cause significant congestion or inflammation, the congestion or inflammation can become a good breading ground for bacteria. Now, I'm not a doctor, but this is what I've heard from various sources, including doctors.
However, I've also read that the human immune system works better at higher temperatures. That means that, once you have an infection, your body will fight it off better if your body temperature is raised. This may be why we have fevers when we're sick.
Last I checked, that's what fevers were for.
There'd be a certain attraction to some customers (especially enterprise) knowing that they can get guaranteed hardware compatibility.
I think there's that, but also there's an issue of closed-source software vendors getting guaranteed support of bringing their software to a platform. Obviously there are various reasons why Adobe, for example, maintains OSX ports to their software but not Linux ports. There are reasons why Microsoft is still producing Office for OSX. One of the reasons is an established user base, but some other vendors could stand to mimic the other reasons, including end-to-end hardware and software support/integration from a single company.
I expect that a lot of people won't like this statement, but I've wondered before: why doesn't another desktop vendor do what Apple did? Why doesn't Dell/HP look into emulating Apple's success and try building their own Linux/BSD distro?
Maybe it's just too risky to piss of Microsoft, and they feel their running enough risk to offer an option of Linux on a limited number of machines. However, if I were running Dell, I'd at least have some top-secret project working on an OS, using an OSS Unix as a base.
If I may add a point:
I think this is good advice for both developers and people giving support. If you want to advance Linux adoption, listen to your end-users and try your best to be responsive to their needs. Now, I'll grant that's a big "if". As some people will note, not all FOSS developers care whether their users like their software, but are rather "scratching a personal itch". That's fine, as none of what I'm saying applies to you unless you want to foster the adoption of FOSS.
Also worth noting, perhaps, is that I didn't say, "Do whatever your users ask for." Sometimes users are dumb enough to have bad ideas, and sometimes they don't know what they need. What I'm really saying is, don't assume that you know what users need before you talk to them, understand their work, and look into the problems they're having. If a user claims that Linux (and related FOSS) isn't doing what they need, don't go on the offensive. Don't accuse them of lying. Don't even assume that they're wrong unless you've talked to them long enough to understand the problems they're having. Instead, try to find out what the problem is, see if the concerns are valid, and then try to find a solution.
Even if the user is wrong, there still might be something you can do to help them. If they complain that software lacks a feature that it does, in fact, have, then maybe that means you need better documentation or training. Maybe it means the interface is confusing, or the feature is hard to find.
Regardless, it's true what they say: You can catch more bees with honey than with vinegar. If you don't listen to people, then you wont know how to get them to switch, and if you aren't polite about asking, they won't want to tell you.
I think you're more or less right. Apple hasn't changed my life, but I do feel like they've changed my computing experience (for the better). (I'm a mac user). I know a lot of non-mac users who still feel like the iPod has changed their life, but there are others who have had mp3 players before and just bought the iPod because they felt it was the best mp3 player out there. If someone puts together a better computer/OS/media store/mp3 player/movie player, I think a whole lot of these people (including me) would be open to using them instead.
However, that still requires that someone actually come out with a better product, which I don't believe we've seen a sign of that happening yet.
Yeah, like I've never had a problem with WSUS not working properly...
Well this is the problem with all of Microsoft's "anti-piracy" efforts so far: They don't really hinder piracy, but make it very hard, sometimes, for legitimate users to do legitimate things.
With Windows XP's activation, pirates shared/downloaded the corporate version, which didn't require activation, or else they found ways to crack the whole scheme. Now apparently Microsoft is forcing the corporate versions to activate as well, which might be a deal-breaker for corporate customers (myself included). It closes 1 loophole, but doesn't mean someone won't figure out a way to crack this thing. In any event, it's unlikely that it will stop piracy, but it's very likely it will annoy and inconvenience many legitimate paying customers.
Is that the point of time-capsules, to preserve information? I always thought it was more of a prompting for self-analysis, that the items were carefully chosen to pass onto the future, and then placed beyond casual meddling from those who would rethink their contribution to the record.
It seems to me you could have a high-tech time capsule but storing a bunch of photos, music, and letters on a hard drive, encrypted. You'd need some method of creating a time-lock, so the data can't be altered or retrieved for however many years. It wouldn't help you preserve information, but it would replicate the experience of a time capsule.
Jeeze, are you being purposefully obtuse? Parts of movies are made using linux. Some audio studios, depending on what they do, can use Linux. Some people working with graphics can do certain things in Linux. I was using Photoshop as an example, but the other apps you've cited aren't comprehensive either.
You've said yourself that you aren't familiar with these fields, yet you're simply refusing to listen to someone who is. I've told you outright, but I'll say it again: the people who work in programs such as Soundforge, Photoshop, or Final Cut, you will often not be able to do their jobs using Linux tools. In some of these areas, there are Linux tools, but they are not professional grade.
I don't know why you can't understand this, or if you're the one trolling, but I'll tell you one more time (in case you just need repetition): It's not an issue of training or willingness to "give it a shot". The ability to do these jobs don't exist. There are not competitive realistic feasible software solutions for these problems on Linux. Wrapping yourself in denial concerning this will not help increase Linux adoption.
I actually think Microsoft may be ahead of the curve on this one, though it may be accidental and most people at Microsoft may not even know it. In my opinion, for all the coolness of Web 2.0, web applications are still limited. They can't do all the things desktop apps can, and if you network connection goes down, you're screwed. Where desktop apps fail is that they tie to you a specific desktop and they need to be installed. You can't just pull up Microsoft Office at your friends house unless he has it installed, and you can't necessarily get access to your documents and settings anyway.
So where I think we have the best example of what the future might hold is in a little Microsoft application called "Exchange"-- or more to the point, Exchange OWA. What you have there is a very successful desktop application-- Outlook-- and a web application that mirror each other very closely. They have very similar interfaces and similar features, and most importantly, your data is automatically kept in sync between the two.
Now, of course that last part is obvious in this implementation. You have an e-mail client and a webmail client, so of course the data is going to stay in sync. However, I think this will become key in the success of web applications in the future because no one wants to have to worry about yet another place where they have to keep their data in sync.
So according to this viewpoint, what Google needs to do is make a simple desktop application that looks like their web apps and works like their web apps. Then, they need to make it so when I make a change on the desktop version, it automatically syncs with the desktop version, and vice versa. The whole idea here is, when I'm at home I have access to the best features the desktop can offer (including not needing an internet connection), and when I'm away I can have an application that looks and works similarly to what I have at home.
I don't think people are ready for pure web applications yet.
I belabor the point because you don't seem to get it, and it's entirely relevant. You almost seem to be purposefully missing the point, which makes me wonder if I'm being trolled. Some professionals with particular needs can use Linux because their tools exist now. As an example, I said I know lots of professionals who can't switch to Linux because they need Photoshop, and you indicated that Maya was a good replacement, but it's not.
So let me repeat this in case you still just don't get it: there are several pieces of professional-grade media software for which there is no equivalent on Linux. Until there are equivalent programs which allow professionals in these fields to be equally productive, people who do these sorts of production won't be able to switch their OS even if they want to. And this represents a lot of people.
Funny, but I assume you do know what I was referencing?
You're missing the point. In the example of Photoshop, the "given function" I would need is to allow professional graphic designers to be be productive. It doesn't matter if you're a brilliant IT pro and businessman. It doesn't matter if you retrain everyone to use Maya. Maya does not do the same things.
In case you really misunderstand the situation, I'll give you another comparison: Thinking Maya is a replacement for Photoshop is like believing that Abiword is a replacement for Microsoft Excel. Someone might say, "Both Abiword and Excel involve typed text input! You can make tables in Abiword! Your competition will use Abiword instead of Excel and therefore they'll have the advantage of free software!"
However Abiword and Excel don't do the same things. Likewise Photoshop and Maya don't do the same things. Abiword and Excel both work with text, and Photoshop and Maya both work with graphics, but they still do different things.
It's not an emacs vs. vi flamewar. It'd be more like someone trying to make a flamewar out of emacs vs. ssh. I don't know how to be more clear: neither Maya nor Mathematica are the same sort of program as Photoshop, and so someone who needs Photoshop will not be able to accomplish their work with these other programs.
I think the point is that sometimes, these are the last towns to get anything better anyway. Besides, is it really much worse to have a municipality running other ISPs out of town, denying users static IPs, than to have some other ISP doing the same thing?
Well that might be fine, but I was trying to ask a question about *his* viewpoint about where browsers are going in the future, rather than making suggestions about specific methods for distribution.
Don't forget stealing candy from little kids.
Agreed. Look, you're already a mammal. If you flip out and kill people, you're good to go.
I called it. iPods are possessed by evil spirits.
I'm not going to try to impinge on your right to ask this question, but I was wondering if this question was based on anything more than anecdotal evidence. The reason I'm wondering this is that, in my experience, Firefox is as stable and fast on Linux as it is anywhere, and so I don't know whether to think this is just my anecdotal evidence vs. yours, or whether there are problems I'm not informed about.
What does the long-term future have in store for Firefox? Is the web browser going to become more feature rich, or is the Mozilla team going to aim at keeping Firefox very minimalist and optimized? If the former, what features do you think will help advance the user experience of the web? If the latter, how will you differentiate Firefox from its competitors and maintain the brand in absence of flashy new features?