Which of these testable science facts do you disagree with:
AGW Science:
AGW is not science but the belief that GW is a direct result of humans, something that is not provable as there are far too many factors involved, unknowns, and incomplete data sets and data timspans. Longer duration data timespans are available with the caveat that the accuracy is questionable due to assumptions involved regarding the data, etc. The only real data set is at most 100 years old, but even then most GW folks will discount the sensor data in a good portion of that as being in-accurate for a variety of reasons, making the usable data set
A lot of visible light hits the earth.
Visible light pass through CO2 with no interaction.
Visible strikes something, IR is emitted
CO2 absorbs energy from IR
Human put more CO2 into the atmosphere then can be absorbed through the normal cycle.
Extra CO2 means more energy held in the lower atmosphere.
So you've provided a simple, not entirely testable (by average tester) set of steps for testing for one specific thing (CO2) out of many factors, most of which we have zero control over but any one of which can easily outweigh how much impact CO2 has. You still haven't shown that it is humans that causes most of the CO2, or even contributed to GW in any significant way.
And that's the problem for AGW - there's nothing that substantially concludes what is causing GW to start with, let alone being able to track that human activity.
Before you can prove humans are doing it, you have to first prove what is causing it, and the cause for GW is still very much up in the air. Until that is settled and concluded without any kind of AGW bias (as is prevalent) than determining that humans are the cause cannot happen.
"but because we should be good stewards of the resources around us"
Why? if you don't think we can do harm to it, why do we need to be good stewards?
That said, I still fully agree that technology should have as minimal an impact on the environment as possible. Not because of AGW, but because we should be good stewards of the resources around us. But that also means that making the technology have as minimal impact as possible must be a goal and that making it do so will obviously result in times that we cannot - simply because the technology is not market ready (e.g. mass producable, cheap enough, etc) to do so for short durations. The answer, in some cases, may be that that means the technology itself cannot be used; while in other situations you use it realizing that the impact will be minimalized over time.
F.e if you have a power generator that generates a lot of radiation that cannot yet be contained, then it should not be used until that radiation can be contained. However, if you have a vehicle that produces a very trace amount of non-lethal emissions (e.g CO2) in normal use, then you use it realizing that it will get better contained throughout the progress of technology - e.g model year 1 might leak more than model year 5 as tech progresses; in some cases tech being retrofitted, ala Coal Power Plants. All-in-all, there has to be a balance between what is fully contained, partially contained, and not contained at all for what technology we decide to use.
Not likely since AGW is based on science, and scientific method. Where as deniers are just a bunch of dolts with no science behind them. Ask yourself this: How come AGW deniers never talk about the actual science?
They make post like you do: No evidence, no data, every scientist, every agency, every competing country are all in some conspiracy and only the enlightened few* can see 'The Truth!'
*get over yourself already
FYI - there are temperature sensor records going back to the early 1900's. However, they discount a good chunk of them saying that the sensors were not accurate or reliable, etc. All I'm saying, is that if the data does't align to their beliefs then they very well may say the same thing here - that the satellite's sensors used to capture the data were not accurate enough to use for the purpose of climate science, etc; and therefore toss out the data.
It's not like they haven't done the before.
On the versus, look for the other side to go the other way.
It's politics and if you don't think that doesn't play a role in science (however altruistic, benign, or nefarious that role may be) then I've got a bridge to sell you.
I read this article earlier.
Here's the things people are going to fixate on, without having near enough data actually genuinely analyze them.
The article states that Antarctic Ice was way larger in are in 1964 than it is today(or was in 1972, the until-now earliest satellite data date)
And the deniers are going to fixate on the fact that there were holes in the ice.
And since there's not a lick of expert analysis vis-a-vis the implications for climate change involved there, I can't bring myself to care, what some people on slashdot are going to conclude without the numbers.
Not to mention that if it doesn't go for how the AGW claimers want, then they'll just say the sensors were not accurate enough and write it off with the other side will point to the data as showing no AGW issues.
Why? A restart of the service may very well clear out any logs relevant to the crash.
You wrote some pretty poor daemons. Since you can't be bothered to use the syslog facility, my suggestion is that you start opening files without calling truncate on them after.
You misunderstand. Syslog is used. The problem is that syslog only keeps so much data. The logs can very quickly cycle through the limited data that syslog holds. I've had systems where multiple daemons work together and an issue that led to a crash would very quickly get cleared out of the logs even with 600MB of log data being held (6x100MB files in rotation, managed by syslog) if the software was simply restarted.
Nonsense. The Affordable care act for example is intended to do the opposite. Its a flawed semi-done piece of legislation, but that's because the Republicans have done nothing but obstruct as usual.
Publically intended, yes. Truely intended? I doubt it. It's a highly flawed piece of legislation that should never have been passed.
FYI - I've written many daemons. In cases like this, a crash needs to stay down until the admin gets to it.
Why? A restart of the service may very well clear out any logs relevant to the crash.
This is especially true once the service starts relying on things like D-Bus where settings are live and can themselves be the source of the crash, but are not discovered until run-time and there's lots of network/bus talk to get to it.
So no, auto-restart is in 99% of cases NOT a feature.
You got a bunch of "upstarts" who don't know, or don't care, about Linux's roots and want to turn it into something it just never was meant to be
When I was a junior network engineer, I sometimes had to work on (what we now consider ancient) technology such as ATM, Frame Relay and ISDN. I even had my share of IPX/SPX. Back in those days, the experienced network engineers with 20+ years of experience despised Ethernet while complaining about those junior folks who knew nothing about the established technologies. As it turned out, all of them are out of a job now.
Bottom line is, when it comes to technology progress, roots are pretty much irrelevant. I don't care if something has been done like this for 1000 years. If we can find a better way to do it, let's do it.
The question should be whether or not systemd is progress, or an unnecessary burden. History is irrelevant in this case.
From every experience I've had with systemd, I'd say that it is NOT progress. I don't want every little thing integrated in the manner systemd does.
Personally, I elect not to watch it so as not to encourage more of it; and I do welcome YouTube et al removing the video, etc on the same grounds.
Now, if you want to make an argument for putting a PSA in front of the video, then you don't do it with a charity like the Red Cross. You do with several PSAs - one for the UN, and one for the viewer's country's Military enrollment, and across the world one for enrollment in the US Armed Forces. And you make sure all the PSAs are at least equal in length to the video with a big message of "hey, this is what the world will come to if you don't defend your freedoms".
This avoids the whole "profit" motive, etc that you would have with a charity as well. (And make no mistake, the Red Cross is a charity; a non-profit NGO.)
American of me? Yes. But in this kind of war, that kind of message will be the only way to really fight back - make it against their interest to post the videos to start with but providing more advertising for their enemy than for them, which is what the video is really about (a call to arms for the extremous).
But, as I said - personally I would just take it all down. But if you're going to do it, do it right.
I have and they remain not as bad as snookering the country into a war based on fabricated evidence. Even some of the R's supporters have come to realize that.
If you're talking about Iraq (which I assume you are), then we were already in an approved war - one that started in the 1990's. Very similar to how we are still technically at war with North Korea (since the 1950's) just have a cease-fire in play. Any how...regarding Iraq - all the intelligence suggested there were WMDs from numerous sources and both parties believed it, not just the Republicans. It wasn't helped at all by Sadam's secrecy and lack of letting the UN see what was going on, which only furthered people believing he actually had WMDs and was hiding them. It wasn't until they were actually able to see things that they could tell the intelligence was bad. No falsication happened; just the inability of intelligence to get at the truth due to the circumstances - like things both US and Russia did during the Cold War to throw the other off, only in Sadam's case it probably had to do more with regional politics than anything else.
Hindsight, as they say, is always 20/20. And as I noted, both sides of the aisle agreed on the intelligence and what it meant.
Except that if Comcast gets caught doing that, they'll be slapped as common carriers before they can take their next breath.
Now, that doesn't mean you're wrong. It just means there is incentive to not play too dirty (purposeful degradation)
Except they have been kind-of caught doing just that; not blatantly. All they have to do is slow down any connection that goes outside of their network - they've already been caught throttling connections.
I agree municipalities should, in general, have the right to install utilities, broadband included. But I also like the idea of state control more than federal control, as it typically promotes more models that can be compared. In the case of municipal broadband, there are a range of successes and failures, including some big money losers. If State money is being used, then the States need to be able to determine the rules. If you don't want State level control, then let the local municipalities & citizens pay for the broadband utility build if they want, but they should also pay the debt if they fail and not ask for a State or Federal bail out.
US Constitution puts things primarily in local control; State is there to moderate the localities, and Federal is there to moderate the states. But it is first and foremost about the people being able to have control.
That said, there's been a lot of "take" at both the Federal and State levels that leave the localities with little control much of the time. All of that needs to change.
...it's not anything man made. May be it's just a natural, environmental condition that no matter what we do will never really go away.
Seriously, who says that someone has to be behind it? A scientist? They've been trying that meme for years; and probably will continue that meme for years to come. It may just be that it's not human related in any manner.
But then, OMG, humans may not be at fault for AGW or Ozone Depletion...environmentalists can't have that.
Now, I'm not saying that we should not be good stewards and clean up after ourselves; make sure that industry waste is not properly disposed of, etc. We should. We should do our best to (as the Boy Scouts say) leave the area at least as clean as we found it.
Nothing he said implies they're all exactly the same. As a group they do have the motivation he mentions. The wealth gap is widening, and everything the Republicans do is designed to make it so. They are evil. Every single one.
What's funny is that everything the Democrats do does the same thing. They are evil. Every single one.
Then I suggest they start routing their Comcast bound traffic out one of those other providers. I'd be happy to help them do it, but I have a sneaking suspicion technical capability isn't the hold-up. I certainly have had to do it many times for our content provider customers... Then again, we have 6 different upstreams, and we only use Cogent for the people who really, really don't care how bad their connectivity is. The pricing is good enough to leave the circuit their idle, not hitting commit, and not care.
I don't know who they have with Comcast, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had multiple transit connections from multiple transit providers to Comcast already.
I also wouldn't be surprised to see Comcast and Verizon purposefully degrading Netflix in order to promote their own products (f.e Comcast's Xfinity) instead.
Slashdot Mirror
You really think OEMs pay that price?
OEMs may not pay that price, but what they will pay is still quite a bit more than the ARM chips that are available to them.
Which of these testable science facts do you disagree with: AGW Science:
AGW is not science but the belief that GW is a direct result of humans, something that is not provable as there are far too many factors involved, unknowns, and incomplete data sets and data timspans. Longer duration data timespans are available with the caveat that the accuracy is questionable due to assumptions involved regarding the data, etc. The only real data set is at most 100 years old, but even then most GW folks will discount the sensor data in a good portion of that as being in-accurate for a variety of reasons, making the usable data set
So you've provided a simple, not entirely testable (by average tester) set of steps for testing for one specific thing (CO2) out of many factors, most of which we have zero control over but any one of which can easily outweigh how much impact CO2 has. You still haven't shown that it is humans that causes most of the CO2, or even contributed to GW in any significant way.
And that's the problem for AGW - there's nothing that substantially concludes what is causing GW to start with, let alone being able to track that human activity.
Before you can prove humans are doing it, you have to first prove what is causing it, and the cause for GW is still very much up in the air. Until that is settled and concluded without any kind of AGW bias (as is prevalent) than determining that humans are the cause cannot happen.
"but because we should be good stewards of the resources around us" Why? if you don't think we can do harm to it, why do we need to be good stewards?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
My bet is that it's the same people complaining - you know, those Microsoft Partners that are getting kick backs for causing trouble for Google.
I wonder how long it will be before EU investigates Microsoft over that...
"...you will find a radio [button] option for optimizing windows for programs or background services".
True. Have you actually tried using it, and what differences in response time did you observe?
Yes, I've used it - on both Desktop AND Server; and it does improve performance for background (service) applications.
Personally, I don't think AGW is real at all.
That said, I still fully agree that technology should have as minimal an impact on the environment as possible. Not because of AGW, but because we should be good stewards of the resources around us. But that also means that making the technology have as minimal impact as possible must be a goal and that making it do so will obviously result in times that we cannot - simply because the technology is not market ready (e.g. mass producable, cheap enough, etc) to do so for short durations. The answer, in some cases, may be that that means the technology itself cannot be used; while in other situations you use it realizing that the impact will be minimalized over time.
F.e if you have a power generator that generates a lot of radiation that cannot yet be contained, then it should not be used until that radiation can be contained. However, if you have a vehicle that produces a very trace amount of non-lethal emissions (e.g CO2) in normal use, then you use it realizing that it will get better contained throughout the progress of technology - e.g model year 1 might leak more than model year 5 as tech progresses; in some cases tech being retrofitted, ala Coal Power Plants. All-in-all, there has to be a balance between what is fully contained, partially contained, and not contained at all for what technology we decide to use.
Not likely since AGW is based on science, and scientific method. Where as deniers are just a bunch of dolts with no science behind them. Ask yourself this: How come AGW deniers never talk about the actual science? They make post like you do: No evidence, no data, every scientist, every agency, every competing country are all in some conspiracy and only the enlightened few* can see 'The Truth!'
*get over yourself already
FYI - there are temperature sensor records going back to the early 1900's. However, they discount a good chunk of them saying that the sensors were not accurate or reliable, etc. All I'm saying, is that if the data does't align to their beliefs then they very well may say the same thing here - that the satellite's sensors used to capture the data were not accurate enough to use for the purpose of climate science, etc; and therefore toss out the data.
It's not like they haven't done the before.
On the versus, look for the other side to go the other way.
It's politics and if you don't think that doesn't play a role in science (however altruistic, benign, or nefarious that role may be) then I've got a bridge to sell you.
I read this article earlier. Here's the things people are going to fixate on, without having near enough data actually genuinely analyze them.
The article states that Antarctic Ice was way larger in are in 1964 than it is today(or was in 1972, the until-now earliest satellite data date) And the deniers are going to fixate on the fact that there were holes in the ice.
And since there's not a lick of expert analysis vis-a-vis the implications for climate change involved there, I can't bring myself to care, what some people on slashdot are going to conclude without the numbers.
Not to mention that if it doesn't go for how the AGW claimers want, then they'll just say the sensors were not accurate enough and write it off with the other side will point to the data as showing no AGW issues.
Why? A restart of the service may very well clear out any logs relevant to the crash.
You wrote some pretty poor daemons. Since you can't be bothered to use the syslog facility, my suggestion is that you start opening files without calling truncate on them after.
You misunderstand. Syslog is used. The problem is that syslog only keeps so much data. The logs can very quickly cycle through the limited data that syslog holds. I've had systems where multiple daemons work together and an issue that led to a crash would very quickly get cleared out of the logs even with 600MB of log data being held (6x100MB files in rotation, managed by syslog) if the software was simply restarted.
Nonsense. The Affordable care act for example is intended to do the opposite. Its a flawed semi-done piece of legislation, but that's because the Republicans have done nothing but obstruct as usual.
Publically intended, yes. Truely intended? I doubt it. It's a highly flawed piece of legislation that should never have been passed.
Never said they blamed the Republicans for it. Just that they are doing the same thing themselves.
What's broken is this. The initt system assumes:
1) All the subsystems boot quickly 2) None of them need to communicate back and forth about status in complex ways 3) The list isn't too long
There exists lots of users for which one or more of those 3 assumptions are false. If you don't assume those 3 then you would design boot differently.
Take a look at things like OpenRC. It manages a lot of that kind of stuff really really well. I'd much rather have it than systemd.
FYI - I've written many daemons. In cases like this, a crash needs to stay down until the admin gets to it.
Why? A restart of the service may very well clear out any logs relevant to the crash.
This is especially true once the service starts relying on things like D-Bus where settings are live and can themselves be the source of the crash, but are not discovered until run-time and there's lots of network/bus talk to get to it.
So no, auto-restart is in 99% of cases NOT a feature.
You got a bunch of "upstarts" who don't know, or don't care, about Linux's roots and want to turn it into something it just never was meant to be
When I was a junior network engineer, I sometimes had to work on (what we now consider ancient) technology such as ATM, Frame Relay and ISDN. I even had my share of IPX/SPX. Back in those days, the experienced network engineers with 20+ years of experience despised Ethernet while complaining about those junior folks who knew nothing about the established technologies. As it turned out, all of them are out of a job now. Bottom line is, when it comes to technology progress, roots are pretty much irrelevant. I don't care if something has been done like this for 1000 years. If we can find a better way to do it, let's do it. The question should be whether or not systemd is progress, or an unnecessary burden. History is irrelevant in this case.
From every experience I've had with systemd, I'd say that it is NOT progress. I don't want every little thing integrated in the manner systemd does.
And frankly, OpenRC is a lot better.
Personally, I elect not to watch it so as not to encourage more of it; and I do welcome YouTube et al removing the video, etc on the same grounds.
Now, if you want to make an argument for putting a PSA in front of the video, then you don't do it with a charity like the Red Cross. You do with several PSAs - one for the UN, and one for the viewer's country's Military enrollment, and across the world one for enrollment in the US Armed Forces. And you make sure all the PSAs are at least equal in length to the video with a big message of "hey, this is what the world will come to if you don't defend your freedoms".
This avoids the whole "profit" motive, etc that you would have with a charity as well. (And make no mistake, the Red Cross is a charity; a non-profit NGO.)
American of me? Yes. But in this kind of war, that kind of message will be the only way to really fight back - make it against their interest to post the videos to start with but providing more advertising for their enemy than for them, which is what the video is really about (a call to arms for the extremous).
But, as I said - personally I would just take it all down. But if you're going to do it, do it right.
No reason why that same kind of attack would not work on Windows or iOS either.
I have and they remain not as bad as snookering the country into a war based on fabricated evidence. Even some of the R's supporters have come to realize that.
If you're talking about Iraq (which I assume you are), then we were already in an approved war - one that started in the 1990's. Very similar to how we are still technically at war with North Korea (since the 1950's) just have a cease-fire in play. Any how...regarding Iraq - all the intelligence suggested there were WMDs from numerous sources and both parties believed it, not just the Republicans. It wasn't helped at all by Sadam's secrecy and lack of letting the UN see what was going on, which only furthered people believing he actually had WMDs and was hiding them. It wasn't until they were actually able to see things that they could tell the intelligence was bad. No falsication happened; just the inability of intelligence to get at the truth due to the circumstances - like things both US and Russia did during the Cold War to throw the other off, only in Sadam's case it probably had to do more with regional politics than anything else.
Hindsight, as they say, is always 20/20. And as I noted, both sides of the aisle agreed on the intelligence and what it meant.
Except that if Comcast gets caught doing that, they'll be slapped as common carriers before they can take their next breath. Now, that doesn't mean you're wrong. It just means there is incentive to not play too dirty (purposeful degradation)
Except they have been kind-of caught doing just that; not blatantly. All they have to do is slow down any connection that goes outside of their network - they've already been caught throttling connections.
So in other words it could be 0% accurate...
I'm not all that fond of either one, but sitting out here in 3rd party territory, the Ds seem to be less packed with idiots and crooks.
Have you looked at Medicare, Medicaide, Welfare, or ObamaCare? Full of crooks. All programs by the Dems.
I agree municipalities should, in general, have the right to install utilities, broadband included. But I also like the idea of state control more than federal control, as it typically promotes more models that can be compared. In the case of municipal broadband, there are a range of successes and failures, including some big money losers. If State money is being used, then the States need to be able to determine the rules. If you don't want State level control, then let the local municipalities & citizens pay for the broadband utility build if they want, but they should also pay the debt if they fail and not ask for a State or Federal bail out.
US Constitution puts things primarily in local control; State is there to moderate the localities, and Federal is there to moderate the states. But it is first and foremost about the people being able to have control.
That said, there's been a lot of "take" at both the Federal and State levels that leave the localities with little control much of the time. All of that needs to change.
Free marketism. It's a fundamentalist religion.
He's not advocating for a free market. A free market would allow municipal broadband.
that will include a chapter on how to select the most throwable chair.
It's be great if they had a day or two on the Elop Effect...
...it's not anything man made. May be it's just a natural, environmental condition that no matter what we do will never really go away.
Seriously, who says that someone has to be behind it? A scientist? They've been trying that meme for years; and probably will continue that meme for years to come. It may just be that it's not human related in any manner.
But then, OMG, humans may not be at fault for AGW or Ozone Depletion...environmentalists can't have that.
Now, I'm not saying that we should not be good stewards and clean up after ourselves; make sure that industry waste is not properly disposed of, etc. We should. We should do our best to (as the Boy Scouts say) leave the area at least as clean as we found it.
Nothing he said implies they're all exactly the same. As a group they do have the motivation he mentions. The wealth gap is widening, and everything the Republicans do is designed to make it so. They are evil. Every single one.
What's funny is that everything the Democrats do does the same thing. They are evil. Every single one.
Then I suggest they start routing their Comcast bound traffic out one of those other providers. I'd be happy to help them do it, but I have a sneaking suspicion technical capability isn't the hold-up. I certainly have had to do it many times for our content provider customers... Then again, we have 6 different upstreams, and we only use Cogent for the people who really, really don't care how bad their connectivity is. The pricing is good enough to leave the circuit their idle, not hitting commit, and not care.
I don't know who they have with Comcast, but I wouldn't be surprised if they had multiple transit connections from multiple transit providers to Comcast already.
I also wouldn't be surprised to see Comcast and Verizon purposefully degrading Netflix in order to promote their own products (f.e Comcast's Xfinity) instead.