One of the problems with the whole debate is that by the time we have definitive proof CO2 emissions are causing global warming it will be far, far too late..
Regardless what is causing the warming we need to take action to avoid a debacle for humans.
Exactly! Identifying causes and providing remedies is taking action.
You better start swimmin' Or you'll sink like a stone.
How is an average over 500 million years relevant here? What was the average temperature in the same time scale?
We're not talking about averages here... we're talking about the correlation between the variation of the temperature and CO2 levels over time, and the subject of debate is if this is correlation or causation.
Specifically, the people who are concerned about excessive CO2 emissions are concerned that we are as a species causing atmospheric changes that are well outside of the norms. There's a well recognized 33% rise of atmospheric CO2 in the past century and we have very accurate measurements for the past 50 years that clearly document it.
Are we to believe that in the same time that humanities CO2 emissions have grown exponentially that a 33% rise of atmospheric CO2 is merely a coincidence? And are we to believe that there is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures?
And finally... let us suppose that our CO2 emissions and global temperatures are in no way related, doesn't that imply that we REALLY don't understand the CO2/temperature relationship? If we don't understand the effect of CO2 emissions on the atmosphere and global climate doesn't that imply we need to be VERY CAREFUL with CO2 emissions?
Back to the question that spawned this thread: At some point I'd like to actually hear from the deniers a coherent argument about why it could possibly be good to actively modify our atmosphere.
Human caused CO2 emissions are at an all time historical high. Explain how this is a good thing.
Because that the energy released by emitting that CO2 is providing us a quality of life never experienced by any human being at any point in history. Electricity, locomotion, plastics - the list is endless. Without emitting that CO2, we wouldn't be having this conversation because there would be no civilization as we know it.
Granted. Explain how increasing atmospheric CO2 is not problematic.
Where the heck is all the "We'll destroy the world economy!!!!!!" coming from?.
Usually from the same people who have a vested interest in the status quo. We call it FUD, they call it news.
Such as this guy a climate change "expert" who just happens to be an ex-employee of Peabody Energy:
Peabody Energy (NYSE: BTU) is the world's largest private-sector coal company, with 2009 sales of 244 million tons and $6 billion in revenues. Its coal products fuel 10 percent of all U.S. electricity generation and 2 percent of worldwide electricity.
Having looked at the CO2 data I hope you're right that waiting on better evidence is the best course. Because if you're wrong we're already completely screwed since theory tells us there's about a 50 year lag between the change in emissions and measurable impact on global temperatures.
Using your logic by the time we find out CO2 is NOT the cause we will have destroyed the world economy and have the devastation to humanity already also.
This predicates that reducing CO2 emissions necessarily destroys the world economy. Changing the world economy is necessary, destruction is a myth promoted by the oil industry. Not that I blame them really, since those of us who are in favor of green technologies are working very hard to destroy the oil industry. (Kudos to those within the industry who have recognized that change is necessary and are actively working to promote it from within!)
I thought the issue wasn't whether climate change was happening, but whether it was artificial or natural.
Nah, there are plenty of people who deny it outright. To plenty of people, the whole global warming issue is nothing but a grand socialist conspiracy aiming to take away their god-given right to do whatever the hell they want, whenever the hell they want to do it, with no regards whatsoever to any part of the planet that might exist beyond their own nose.
Even when I was a child I was puzzled by the ability of "righteous faithful" to be egotistical, selfish pricks.
He appears to be trying to argue that since the last major climate change was clearly not caused by humans that the current one must not be.
While not without some merit, this is logically akin to arguing that I didn't get killed driving home last night therefore it would be impossible for me to be killed driving home tonight.
Convincing the deniers is like arguing religion with a believer since their beliefs are not founded in fact, measurable science or sound theory.
One of the problems with the whole debate is that by the time we have definitive proof CO2 emissions are causing global warming it will be far, far too late. At some point I'd like to actually hear a coherent argument about why it could possibly be good to actively modify our atmosphere from the deniers, so far all I've heard is rote-repetition of nonsense arguments.
I have never seen him react to anything from Linux in that way: "Damn that's cool... "
I strongly believe that it will be a game changer for Linux desktop UI.
I got that same reaction all the time when showing off the Desktop Cube a couple of years ago. So what...
The difference is the Desktop Cube was cool but pretty weak in terms of improved usability. gnome-shell not only looks cool but also improves usability.
Ignoring the 'one line change', does it seem appropriate that changing a company string should cause an "Out of memory" error? I realize the OOM error happened about 8 stack frames later but I mean, seriously ?
It was a "clever hack" is that turned out to be a bug waiting to happen. This is generally acknowledged within Eclipse. Shame on Eclipse, kudos to Oracle for bending over backwards to help a competitor.
Oracle immediately reverted the change within 2 days
I don't think that is what immediately means.
Immediate enough that by the time it hit Slashdot it had already been fixed for several days. Official updates had been available since Monday. This is last weeks news.
Add to that the fact that the workaround had been passed around the Eclipse within 24 hours and I'd say that Oracle did fine.
Even the Eclipse community agrees and blames the silly hack on the Eclipse launcher not Oracle.
I'm a pretty dedicated Gnome user, but I'll admit that the new shell isn't something I'm looking forward to. It's too non-traditional IMHO. Some basic designs have evolved in the computer UI world because they work very well, and this seems to be trying to shake things up for the sake of being different.
IMHO, the current Gnome UI with the taskbar replaced with a dock (I use Docky for this) is nearly perfect from a useability standpoint. Rather than major UI shakeups, what I want is polishing work. Smooth out the eye candy. Font rendering. Better artwork on default themes and icons. Performance tweaks. More work on specific apps.
All in all, the BASIC system is is perfect. Now's not the time to be changing it. Focus on the little things.
I disagree... but I think it's really going to be a user preference issue, some will love it, some will hate it since what gnome-shell does is far more radical than anyone has done in a decade.
The existing menus and toolbars are based on a 15 year old design concept. While, like you, I don't think they should throw out the baby with the bathwater, I do think that something new is in order given all the interesting things that have been done with the OSX, Vista and Win7 desktops.
Such a radical move will only work if it's a better experience all round, and from what I've seen so far the potential is certainly there.
You might chuckle at this notion, but the longer the thought sits there, the more it creeps in and you know it's right.
Sometime around Christmas I showed my brother gnome-shell running on Ubuntu 9.10... my brother is a mech. engineer and really couldn't care less about operating systems but does care about computing in general since trying to be a physical engineer these days without a computer is like trying to live on the far side of the moon.
I have never seen him react to anything from Linux in that way: "Damn that's cool... "
I strongly believe that it will be a game changer for Linux desktop UI.
"Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able to read or write. Besides they wear black, which is such a beastly color. I'm so glad I'm a Beta."
Slashdot Mirror
One of the problems with the whole debate is that by the time we have definitive proof CO2 emissions are causing global warming it will be far, far too late. .
Regardless what is causing the warming we need to take action to avoid a debacle for humans.
Exactly! Identifying causes and providing remedies is taking action.
You better start swimmin' Or you'll sink like a stone.
How is an average over 500 million years relevant here? What was the average temperature in the same time scale?
We're not talking about averages here... we're talking about the correlation between the variation of the temperature and CO2 levels over time, and the subject of debate is if this is correlation or causation.
Specifically, the people who are concerned about excessive CO2 emissions are concerned that we are as a species causing atmospheric changes that are well outside of the norms. There's a well recognized 33% rise of atmospheric CO2 in the past century and we have very accurate measurements for the past 50 years that clearly document it.
Are we to believe that in the same time that humanities CO2 emissions have grown exponentially that a 33% rise of atmospheric CO2 is merely a coincidence? And are we to believe that there is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures?
And finally... let us suppose that our CO2 emissions and global temperatures are in no way related, doesn't that imply that we REALLY don't understand the CO2/temperature relationship? If we don't understand the effect of CO2 emissions on the atmosphere and global climate doesn't that imply we need to be VERY CAREFUL with CO2 emissions?
Back to the question that spawned this thread: At some point I'd like to actually hear from the deniers a coherent argument about why it could possibly be good to actively modify our atmosphere.
Plants eat CO2. Our food eats plants. More plants is a good thing.
Also CO2 levels are near a 500 million year low at the present time.
That depends on what time scale you consider. The graph you cite makes any fluctuation over the past few thousand years impossible to see.
That does not explain why it is not a problem. Quite the opposite.
Human caused CO2 emissions are at an all time historical high. Explain how this is a good thing.
Because that the energy released by emitting that CO2 is providing us a quality of life never experienced by any human being at any point in history. Electricity, locomotion, plastics - the list is endless. Without emitting that CO2, we wouldn't be having this conversation because there would be no civilization as we know it.
Granted. Explain how increasing atmospheric CO2 is not problematic.
Human caused CO2 emissions are at an all time historical high. Explain how this is a good thing.
Where the heck is all the "We'll destroy the world economy!!!!!!" coming from? .
Usually from the same people who have a vested interest in the status quo. We call it FUD, they call it news.
Such as this guy a climate change "expert" who just happens to be an ex-employee of Peabody Energy:
Peabody Energy (NYSE: BTU) is the world's largest private-sector coal company, with 2009 sales of 244 million tons and $6 billion in revenues. Its coal products fuel 10 percent of all U.S. electricity generation and 2 percent of worldwide electricity.
Where the heck is all the "We'll destroy the world economy!!!!!!" coming from? .
Usually from the same people who have a vested interest in the status quo. We call it FUD, they call it news.
It's at times like this that I weep for the future of the human race.
Incidentally, this man was also a global warming denier.
Just for a complete data set; can you ask him his opinions on the Tea Party movement, Sarah Palin and Elvis? :)
Having looked at the CO2 data I hope you're right that waiting on better evidence is the best course. Because if you're wrong we're already completely screwed since theory tells us there's about a 50 year lag between the change in emissions and measurable impact on global temperatures.
Using your logic by the time we find out CO2 is NOT the cause we will have destroyed the world economy and have the devastation to humanity already also.
This predicates that reducing CO2 emissions necessarily destroys the world economy. Changing the world economy is necessary, destruction is a myth promoted by the oil industry. Not that I blame them really, since those of us who are in favor of green technologies are working very hard to destroy the oil industry. (Kudos to those within the industry who have recognized that change is necessary and are actively working to promote it from within!)
I thought the issue wasn't whether climate change was happening, but whether it was artificial or natural.
Nah, there are plenty of people who deny it outright. To plenty of people, the whole global warming issue is nothing but a grand socialist conspiracy aiming to take away their god-given right to do whatever the hell they want, whenever the hell they want to do it, with no regards whatsoever to any part of the planet that might exist beyond their own nose.
Even when I was a child I was puzzled by the ability of "righteous faithful" to be egotistical, selfish pricks.
He appears to be trying to argue that since the last major climate change was clearly not caused by humans that the current one must not be.
While not without some merit, this is logically akin to arguing that I didn't get killed driving home last night therefore it would be impossible for me to be killed driving home tonight.
Convincing the deniers is like arguing religion with a believer since their beliefs are not founded in fact, measurable science or sound theory.
One of the problems with the whole debate is that by the time we have definitive proof CO2 emissions are causing global warming it will be far, far too late. At some point I'd like to actually hear a coherent argument about why it could possibly be good to actively modify our atmosphere from the deniers, so far all I've heard is rote-repetition of nonsense arguments.
I have never seen him react to anything from Linux in that way: "Damn that's cool... "
I strongly believe that it will be a game changer for Linux desktop UI.
I got that same reaction all the time when showing off the Desktop Cube a couple of years ago. So what...
The difference is the Desktop Cube was cool but pretty weak in terms of improved usability. gnome-shell not only looks cool but also improves usability.
WHOOSH!
Ignoring the 'one line change', does it seem appropriate that changing a company string should cause an "Out of memory" error? I realize the OOM error happened about 8 stack frames later but I mean, seriously ?
It was a "clever hack" is that turned out to be a bug waiting to happen. This is generally acknowledged within Eclipse. Shame on Eclipse, kudos to Oracle for bending over backwards to help a competitor.
Oracle immediately reverted the change within 2 days
I don't think that is what immediately means.
Immediate enough that by the time it hit Slashdot it had already been fixed for several days. Official updates had been available since Monday. This is last weeks news.
Add to that the fact that the workaround had been passed around the Eclipse within 24 hours and I'd say that Oracle did fine.
Even the Eclipse community agrees and blames the silly hack on the Eclipse launcher not Oracle.
I'm a pretty dedicated Gnome user, but I'll admit that the new shell isn't something I'm looking forward to. It's too non-traditional IMHO. Some basic designs have evolved in the computer UI world because they work very well, and this seems to be trying to shake things up for the sake of being different.
IMHO, the current Gnome UI with the taskbar replaced with a dock (I use Docky for this) is nearly perfect from a useability standpoint. Rather than major UI shakeups, what I want is polishing work. Smooth out the eye candy. Font rendering. Better artwork on default themes and icons. Performance tweaks. More work on specific apps.
All in all, the BASIC system is is perfect. Now's not the time to be changing it. Focus on the little things.
I disagree... but I think it's really going to be a user preference issue, some will love it, some will hate it since what gnome-shell does is far more radical than anyone has done in a decade.
The existing menus and toolbars are based on a 15 year old design concept. While, like you, I don't think they should throw out the baby with the bathwater, I do think that something new is in order given all the interesting things that have been done with the OSX, Vista and Win7 desktops.
Such a radical move will only work if it's a better experience all round, and from what I've seen so far the potential is certainly there.
It would make Linux Environments less scary.
You might chuckle at this notion, but the longer the thought sits there, the more it creeps in and you know it's right.
Sometime around Christmas I showed my brother gnome-shell running on Ubuntu 9.10 ... my brother is a mech. engineer and really couldn't care less about operating systems but does care about computing in general since trying to be a physical engineer these days without a computer is like trying to live on the far side of the moon.
I have never seen him react to anything from Linux in that way: "Damn that's cool... "
I strongly believe that it will be a game changer for Linux desktop UI.
The vast majority were killed in auto accidents. Clearly there is something else going on here than just police being armed with firearms or not.
I'm going with natural selection.
Phrenology was not a science. Giving something a greek name does not make it a science.
Hopefully that's what peter303 was ironically alluding to...
"Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able to read or write. Besides they wear black, which is such a beastly color. I'm so glad I'm a Beta."
- Aldous Huxley, Brave New World, Ch. 2 (quotes)
Wow. Way to spread the FUD.
FUD?
T H I S ! I S ! S L A S H D O T !
Disclaimer: I'm sure you've gathered that this post is humor, however the filter thinks there are too many upper case letters above...
Now, answer the question I asked originally.
What, exactly, do you think the intent of the law is?
The intent of the law is to prohibit unauthorized computer access to computers.
Did you get it this time?