If they actually cared about user privacy they wouldn't hide away that option in about:config where 99.9% of users would never find it. Same goes for other privacy enhancing options, they didn't make changes until called on it and cajoled. Opting for user privacy was never their default, it was something they changed only after being called on it. Take browser fingerpringint, they never did anything about it even with 100's of millions of $ at their disposal, instead they waited for someone else to fix it.
I think where they're f**king up is in making the game pay-to-win. People will buy this as per usual, they'll feel the deep unfairness of it and not buy the next pay-to-win game I expect. For EA it doesn't matter if 90% of the user base abandons them as long as the remaining 'whales' make them over 10x more.
Hopefully Indie companies will spot gaps in the market and keep making good games that don't stink of micro-transactions.
I put my money where my mouth is, I don't even buy games with season passes.
Except it no longer respects your freedom to customize the UI and it was always a bit bad at respecting your privacy (stun servers, browser fingerprinting).
You need to consider the energy required to 'clean air' and the energy expended whilst outputting CO2. Since the 2 parts oxygen of CO2 are coming from the atmosphere, burning 1 ton of coal results in over 2 tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. How much energy does it take to remove 2 tons of CO2 from the atmosphere best case scenario?
I didn't say CO2 is toxic at any point.
The problem with your 3rd statement is that renewables are now cheaper than coal without subsidies in many places and the cost of renewables is still plummeting. Coal is dead, it costs too much, there is no point in continuing to burn it. Building a coal power station right now is a very risky thing to do which is why it's simply not happening much.
You can pretend the external costs don't matter, but that's simply not true those external costs are very real financial costs and they do matter. Do you expect developing countries to stop developing, do you not expect poor people to not receive medical treatment both now and in the future?
What's so great about electricity that it's worth getting ill and dying for? Would it not be better to simply pay for renewable energy and not get ill?
This is like when people donate to cancer research 'charities' they're not in it to help anyone, they're just scared of dying prematurely from cancer. Investment, not charity.
Second that. Things that stops me from upgrading from my (over 5 years old) Galaxy Note 2 are, it has quad core, it works fine still, it takes great pic's, it has a replaceable battery which is very cheap even for the Samsung branded battery. OTOH The new Galaxy Note cost is absurd and it doesn't have a replaceable battery.
You want to live on a planet with air too toxic to breathe!!!
"It's safe to ignore the Juggernaut ahead of you on the road if you've had the hover conversion done on your car and can glide right over it."
Yeah, fantasy like the rest of the denialists ideas.
" the cult of AGW has insisted we tax and reduce the expansion of technology to poor people"
Such as? Coal Power stations? But of course coal is not technology, coal is a fossil fuel, one of which when you include the external costs is one of the most expensive forms of energy. Or should poor people just shut up and suffer from the nasty diseases and death that poor air quality brings.
Real evidence is historical evidence of what happened in the past when CO2 levels where high, there have been very large scale extinction events before. We're on course for 3centrigrade or more of heat rises, then there's the knock on effect of the methane from melting permafrosts which hasn't been added to the models and there's a substantial risk from ocean methane clathrates also releasing, also not factored in to the models. The permafrosts are already melting much like the north pole sea ice has already mostly melted at the warmest part of the year. Global warming is uneven, the north pole seems to be getting 10 to 20 degree rises already.
There is very clear scientific evidence that more CO2 = higher temperature and higher sea levels.
The oceans are already substantially more acidic because of mankind burning fossil fuels. Warming oceans is already killing coral reefs which are home to large amounts of ocean life. CO2 + water = carbonic acid and that's literally what's happening in the oceans right now, CO2 is turning into carbonic acid and acidifying the oceans. The last time the oceans became too acidic, most ocean life died, it rotted, that in turn released enough toxic gases to kill nearly all animal land life. Climate and sea level is the least of our worries, we should be far more concerned about ocean acidification - that's the real killer.
So you can ignore the predictions, you can also look up the road and ignore a Juggernaut heading towards you. Both are a bad idea. Heat = energy and more energy = more severe weather systems, pretty obvious really.
What have "Global warming deniers" got? Rhetoric by scientists who's main field of science usually isn't climate and they're typically backed by fossil fuel corporations. And whacky conspiracy theories that don't hold water under inspection.
No, you did not ask for compelling evidence you asked for "a plan", a wholly singular thing that would require a herculean effort by one party. The solutions to global warming are not 'the plan' it's not a valid argument to say that solutions to global warming don't exist because you don't know what they are. Global warming is an extremely multifaceted problem, not a singular problem, it is caused by construction, by farming, by transport, by the energy industry etc. There is no one solution, there are hundreds of solutions it's absurd to ask anyone to list them all. Solutions to transport, energy production.
Like I said, nothing to do with the subject what so ever. Do you have any evidence that we can't deal with global warming. How about YOU actually try and construct some kind of meaningful argument, something which you haven't actually done yet, you've said nothing meaningful what-so-ever. Just went with some weird straw man argument.
And that's all bollocks, this thread is a waste of time, I really don't care, what you;re saying has nothing to do with global warming and I don't think you're at all interested in solutions to global warming you just want to be an annoying git. There's no reason why I have to provide some 'plan' that isn't necessary, there doesn't need to be some incredible plan, just individual solutions to individual problems.
Evidence of a plan? There has to be some magical fucking scheme, get lost, there's all the solutions needed to reduce CO2 output, we don't need some fancy stupid master plan, that's fallacious.
You think it'd fit here? The plan would be the size of an encyclopedia. 100% Renewables, investment in multiple types of energy storage, changes to the way concrete and steel are made, changes to aeroplane fuel types. Efficiency increases. Incentives and fines. Massive car charging networks. Fossil fuel nothing, electric everything. 100% recycling of literally everything, if it can be recycled then don't make products with it. Just some of the stuff that needs doing, doing all of this would create jobs and industries and so would mostly be zero-sum cost to the economy.
Complete bollocks, environmentalists know exactly how to fix the problem, you just haven't been listening to anything they say. Solutions exist right across the board. No-one's saying it would be easy or that we could do this for free or without some small sacrifices in lifestyle methods, but if we don't address global warming we could wipe ourselves out. Personally I think that Trump winning the election is an example of so much stupidity that I don't think the human race is collectively intelligent enough not to wipe itself out.
Slashdot Mirror
If they actually cared about user privacy they wouldn't hide away that option in about:config where 99.9% of users would never find it. Same goes for other privacy enhancing options, they didn't make changes until called on it and cajoled. Opting for user privacy was never their default, it was something they changed only after being called on it. Take browser fingerpringint, they never did anything about it even with 100's of millions of $ at their disposal, instead they waited for someone else to fix it.
This is racist stereotyping, clearly some Slashdotters don't understand the difference between incite and insight.
The point you've missed is that the original poster is blatantly trying to create a racist stereotype. The replier recognised that.
So you're not proud to be an american based upon something you just made up. WTF?
Racism is a prejudice, it means you pre-judge. That's what you just did. You stereo-typed and pre-judged based upon that stereotype.
"Having to show up to work on time.
Having to be productive at work.
Not being able to blame his poor work performance on "racist crackers""
On what do you base this? Article mentions nothing of the sort.
Waterfox is a fork that says it will support legacy apps, but whether it'll get enough support and last I don't know. Pale moon too.
Nethack is still going. WoW is far from dead.
I think where they're f**king up is in making the game pay-to-win. People will buy this as per usual, they'll feel the deep unfairness of it and not buy the next pay-to-win game I expect. For EA it doesn't matter if 90% of the user base abandons them as long as the remaining 'whales' make them over 10x more.
Hopefully Indie companies will spot gaps in the market and keep making good games that don't stink of micro-transactions.
I put my money where my mouth is, I don't even buy games with season passes.
12 of my 14 extensions are legacy, no way am I upgrading.
Except it no longer respects your freedom to customize the UI and it was always a bit bad at respecting your privacy (stun servers, browser fingerprinting).
But that doesn't work with 57 does it?
You need to consider the energy required to 'clean air' and the energy expended whilst outputting CO2. Since the 2 parts oxygen of CO2 are coming from the atmosphere, burning 1 ton of coal results in over 2 tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. How much energy does it take to remove 2 tons of CO2 from the atmosphere best case scenario?
I didn't say CO2 is toxic at any point.
The problem with your 3rd statement is that renewables are now cheaper than coal without subsidies in many places and the cost of renewables is still plummeting. Coal is dead, it costs too much, there is no point in continuing to burn it. Building a coal power station right now is a very risky thing to do which is why it's simply not happening much.
You can pretend the external costs don't matter, but that's simply not true those external costs are very real financial costs and they do matter. Do you expect developing countries to stop developing, do you not expect poor people to not receive medical treatment both now and in the future?
What's so great about electricity that it's worth getting ill and dying for? Would it not be better to simply pay for renewable energy and not get ill?
This is like when people donate to cancer research 'charities' they're not in it to help anyone, they're just scared of dying prematurely from cancer. Investment, not charity.
Second that. Things that stops me from upgrading from my (over 5 years old) Galaxy Note 2 are, it has quad core, it works fine still, it takes great pic's, it has a replaceable battery which is very cheap even for the Samsung branded battery. OTOH The new Galaxy Note cost is absurd and it doesn't have a replaceable battery.
You want to live on a planet with air too toxic to breathe!!!
"It's safe to ignore the Juggernaut ahead of you on the road if you've had the hover conversion done on your car and can glide right over it."
Yeah, fantasy like the rest of the denialists ideas.
" the cult of AGW has insisted we tax and reduce the expansion of technology to poor people"
Such as? Coal Power stations? But of course coal is not technology, coal is a fossil fuel, one of which when you include the external costs is one of the most expensive forms of energy. Or should poor people just shut up and suffer from the nasty diseases and death that poor air quality brings.
Real evidence is historical evidence of what happened in the past when CO2 levels where high, there have been very large scale extinction events before. We're on course for 3centrigrade or more of heat rises, then there's the knock on effect of the methane from melting permafrosts which hasn't been added to the models and there's a substantial risk from ocean methane clathrates also releasing, also not factored in to the models. The permafrosts are already melting much like the north pole sea ice has already mostly melted at the warmest part of the year. Global warming is uneven, the north pole seems to be getting 10 to 20 degree rises already.
There is very clear scientific evidence that more CO2 = higher temperature and higher sea levels.
The oceans are already substantially more acidic because of mankind burning fossil fuels. Warming oceans is already killing coral reefs which are home to large amounts of ocean life. CO2 + water = carbonic acid and that's literally what's happening in the oceans right now, CO2 is turning into carbonic acid and acidifying the oceans. The last time the oceans became too acidic, most ocean life died, it rotted, that in turn released enough toxic gases to kill nearly all animal land life. Climate and sea level is the least of our worries, we should be far more concerned about ocean acidification - that's the real killer.
So you can ignore the predictions, you can also look up the road and ignore a Juggernaut heading towards you. Both are a bad idea. Heat = energy and more energy = more severe weather systems, pretty obvious really.
What have "Global warming deniers" got? Rhetoric by scientists who's main field of science usually isn't climate and they're typically backed by fossil fuel corporations. And whacky conspiracy theories that don't hold water under inspection.
"Now you're claiming a detailed plan wouldn't be compelling evidence."
No, I'm not.
No, you did not ask for compelling evidence you asked for "a plan", a wholly singular thing that would require a herculean effort by one party. The solutions to global warming are not 'the plan' it's not a valid argument to say that solutions to global warming don't exist because you don't know what they are. Global warming is an extremely multifaceted problem, not a singular problem, it is caused by construction, by farming, by transport, by the energy industry etc. There is no one solution, there are hundreds of solutions it's absurd to ask anyone to list them all. Solutions to transport, energy production.
Like I said, nothing to do with the subject what so ever. Do you have any evidence that we can't deal with global warming. How about YOU actually try and construct some kind of meaningful argument, something which you haven't actually done yet, you've said nothing meaningful what-so-ever. Just went with some weird straw man argument.
And that's all bollocks, this thread is a waste of time, I really don't care, what you;re saying has nothing to do with global warming and I don't think you're at all interested in solutions to global warming you just want to be an annoying git. There's no reason why I have to provide some 'plan' that isn't necessary, there doesn't need to be some incredible plan, just individual solutions to individual problems.
Evidence of a plan? There has to be some magical fucking scheme, get lost, there's all the solutions needed to reduce CO2 output, we don't need some fancy stupid master plan, that's fallacious.
You think it'd fit here? The plan would be the size of an encyclopedia. 100% Renewables, investment in multiple types of energy storage, changes to the way concrete and steel are made, changes to aeroplane fuel types. Efficiency increases. Incentives and fines. Massive car charging networks. Fossil fuel nothing, electric everything. 100% recycling of literally everything, if it can be recycled then don't make products with it. Just some of the stuff that needs doing, doing all of this would create jobs and industries and so would mostly be zero-sum cost to the economy.
Posting as AC is self-censorship.
Complete bollocks, environmentalists know exactly how to fix the problem, you just haven't been listening to anything they say. Solutions exist right across the board. No-one's saying it would be easy or that we could do this for free or without some small sacrifices in lifestyle methods, but if we don't address global warming we could wipe ourselves out. Personally I think that Trump winning the election is an example of so much stupidity that I don't think the human race is collectively intelligent enough not to wipe itself out.