I can afford a Mac, as well. My wife prefers them, so that's what I buy for her. Me? $400 PC that runs circles around all but the highest top-end Macs. Oh, and runs OSX just fine, either natively (tried it to see if it would work) or in a VM.
It's worth noting that I can afford a nicer hotel than you, what with the $800 I saved vs buyingtwo $1200 MacBook Pros.
Uhmm... My office is Mac-centric but I'm a Linux guy, so I installed Linux on a $400 Toshiba laptop, then installed Win7 and OSX into VMs on that. My boss used to laugh at me every time my OSX VM would take a crap (about once a month because I never restart it and it sometimes doesn't like to wake from suspend), until I told him to make note of every time how MacBook Pro took a dump and let's compare numbers. He has issues with his $1200 "superior product" roughly 5x as often as I do. I see similar stats on the various different generation iMacs in the office, as well; that's why I switched to using my own machine, it just works. Now, I hope you like Grape, and don't worry, Mr. Jones^H^H^Hbs made this Flavor Aid himself, so you know it's safe to drink.
I'd also like to point out that my $400 laptop boots faster (Linux -> login -> start the OSX VM) than any MacBook Pro or iMac in this office, and half of them are mid-2011 models.
Everyone's welcome to their own opinion, but we don't get to choose which facts exist. The above statements are fact. Sorry.
Well, to be an "off topic ac troll", I'd have to post AC. Since I, unlike you, APK, am still allowed to log in and have plenty of karma to burn, I don't bother with that checkbox. I just post as I see fit and let the banned trolls like yourself hide behind the AC badge. You do realize you're only still here because Slashdot *chooses* to allow anon posting without requiring a login first, and not because you've figured out some genius way around the system, right? You're just as much within the system as you were when you were actually allowed to log in.
No, I had my appendix removed on my 5th birthday; therefore, I am not complete. As to whether or not I'm a notjob, my therapist tells me as long as I keep signing checks, I'm perfectly sane.
free != Open Source
free != Free
Free != Open Source
Just because you can see the source for some piece of software doesn't mean no money changed hands in its creation. Likewise, just because some piece of software is given away at no cost does not mean you can do whatever you want with it. More to the point, just because you can see the source to some piece of software does not mean you can do whatever you want with it.
free == no cost
Free == do whatever you want with it
Open Source == you can see the source
Many paid project are open source, with no license for redistribution. Many free projects are closed source. Many free projects are also Free, meaning you can distrbute them as you see fit, and a number of those are also Open Source.
The content is NOT originated by youtube, so it's very unclear that that they have any moral authority to restrict its distribution.
The content is distributed through their servers and they most certainly do have moral authority to restrict access to those servers. Moreso, they are in no way restricting distribution, you can distribute your content through any number of other channels.
Another solution that could (should?) be implemented is: Use a locally-hosted script to load any externally-hosted scripts. Your page will load and render faster because everything required to render the page is loading from your own server, and you still get the 3rd-party-hosted shit^H^H^H^Hscripts on the page, just *after* it has rendered, so your users can, you know, actually start using the damned site.
I had a whole long reply written out and inadvertently refreshed the page (along with several other tabs I meant to reload). Since you're obviously not going to get the point I'm trying to make (or consider that maybe the small-scale installations of alternative energy solutions aren't causing problems right now is the same reason small-scale installations of coal, oil, and natural gas generators didn't cause a problem), I don't see a reason to retype all of it. If I feel like it later, I will do so, but, for now, I am through with you.
Did I say "don't do anything"? No. Does it really make sense to ignore these possible issues (no matter how remote) as we begin to implement our fixes? If we're at least considering the possibility that these changes might have unintended side effects as we implement changes, we'll be on the lookout for such side effects and be able to immediately take corrective action if needed. Doesn't that just make sense?
None of the proposed solutions have caused any effects on the proposed scale of the effects of global warming, you are 100% correct. Have you considered that this may be because none of them have been implemented on any massive scale?
Your "maybes" and "unknowns" are no better or worse than mine. If the questions never get asked, how will they ever be answered? To wit, mine still have not been; yours have, by your own preconcieved notions and answers. I'm posing this possibility because I truly do not know, I don't have any idea, I'm posing it to those who are willingto consider it, who may have some insight. Your "insight" is worthless to me if you are unwilling to consider the possibility that my questions may have answers you won't like. If you won't consider those answers, you'll never know if they're correct, you just keep on assuming that what you know is right and never explore what you don't know, because it may well prove you wrong.
I'm not arguing that you are incorrect, I'm arguing that, until my questions are answered, until my scenarios are fully considered, you can not prove that you *are* correct.
Considering that this includes everything from economic measures to encourage conservation of carbon-based fuels to alternative sources of energy to CO2 recapture, you are asking for a book-length treatise.
No, jsut some of the proposed measures. The ones you, personally, feel will be most effective, would suffice. In case you missed it (you did quote it), here it is again:
How about you detail some of these proposed measures?
Some. See it?
Sorry, but this is nonsense. These sources of energy contribute appreciably to global warming only to the extent that fossil fuels are involved in their production. If you are worried about waste heat, (a) this is negligible compared to the huge solar energy flux that CO2 affects, and (b) is equally a factor for fossil fuel energy plus the increased retention of solar energy due to CO2.
Indeed waste heat is negligible for these alternative forms of energy, at their current scales of implementation. Scale it up to replace fossil fuels and you might see my point. I addressed this in my post, but you chose not to quote that part. In fact, most of the arguments you make, I addressed in my post, in the footnotes, if not in the body. It's easy to make it look like you're winning an argument when you quote only the part of the opposing argument that you have counterarguments for, completely ignoring (and not quoting) where your opponent has already addressed those counterpoints before you even made them.
You are getting silly again. Power to do things like smelting can be obtained from multiple sources, it need not require CO2 production.
And how do you smelt the metals used to make the electric burners and/or inductive furnaces used to smelt without producing CO2? You can't heat the metals in the burners enough to melt them without melting the burners, so that's not a solution. You can't create the raw materials for an inductive furnace in an inductive furnace, either. You need a flame for this, and a flame meand CO2. You can argue that there are other ways to smelt metals all day long and it doesn't change the fact that I already addressed this in my post. Hopefully this additional example will make it clear to you. You, friend, are being silly by insisting that all smelting can be done without releasing CO2, when, in fact, this is not the case, as I have demonstrated with examples that you have failed to counter. I'm open to being shown that I am wrong, but you have not even attempted to do this.
You also chose not to quote (and fully ignored) my pivotal argument:
I guess, at its crux, my arguemnt here is a simple one: What we replace global warming with might be worse that global warming. Let's make sure we don't do that.
You have not addressed this, which has been my whole point from the start, in any way. You've been arguing what you want to argue, in an attempt to invalidate the point I have been trying to make, while completely ignoring that point. I must admit, you've been successful in coaxing me into arguing your point and letting mine slip, but when I caught that and brought my original point back into the spotlight, you ignored it. Can you address it this time? Or are you simply going to point out that nobody is going to read this far into this thread and run with your tail between your legs, like everyone else who argues with me here does? Yes, I'm aware that nobody is likely going to read this. No, that does not mean you win by default.
TL;DR: If you're going to cherry-pick lines from my argument and use them out of context, bugger off and admit that you don't have counterpoints for most of what I'm arguing. If you want to debate this properly, please address all of my points, as I have done with all of yours up to now. I'm keeping an open mind, but I'm not seeing anything compelling.
How about you detail some of these proposed measures? Or, at least, admit that CO2 and methane are not the only possible causes of global warming, even if they're the only two currently-acting factors you are willing to recognize right now?
It's not just cars and power generation that release CO2, many industrial processes (which I keep mentioning and you keep ignoring) release CO2 and, in fact, the mere act of breathing releases a fair bit of it. So we can switch to all nuclear/solar/wind/hydro power, each of which has its own, different, ecological impact that may, on the scale required to meet our current and future power demands, contribute to global warming just as much as the CO2 released from our current power production methods. To wit, the solar cell on your calculator does about as much for global warming as the CO2 in the breath I just exhaled; scale that solar cell up to what would be required to meet the world's power demands.
We can all switch to electric vehicles, powered by "clean electricity" once we've mad the above switch. Ok, assuming you end up being right and we don't poison the earth through the industrial processes required to make solar cells, fuck up weather patterns with expansive wind farms (what we have to day is roughly 1% of what would be required to go fully "clean energy"), increase the temperature of the oceans and melt more polar ice (can we say climate change?) with hydroelectric (that equipment generates heat[*1], that heat is dispersed, partly, through the water flowing through the equipment), or, failing that, disrupt the flow of fresh water by popping up too many dams for inland hydro generation, or cook/nuke ourselves with nuclear power, and we finally figure out what to do with all those spent lithium ion batteries we're gonna end up with, then I can't see a flaw in that one.[*2] Electric cars don't, themselves, generate and CO2. You've got it all solved, gongrats![*3]
Then, we have the industrial provcesses I keep mentioning. We don't know what the byproducts of switching those over to non-CO2-producing processes will be, because nobody has, ever, in the history of, well, history, devised a non-CO2-producing method for carrying out every single large-scale industrial process known to man. In fact, it's likely that many of these processes (such as smelting[*4] metals to create wind/hydro turbines and batteries used in electric cars[*5], refining uranium to generate nuclear power[*6], and refining silicon to a degree suitible for solar cell production) may not even have non-CO2-producing counterparts[*7]. So, do we just do away with those processes and the things they allow us to create[*8]?
Following the CO2 reduction plan to its logical conclusion, of course, means simply ending all life on earth.[*9][*10][*11][*12]
You haven't proposed a solution, here. Admittedly, neither have I, but that's because I've already admitted that we don't know what the solution is. You claim to have all the answers, so, where are they? Present them!
I guess, at its crux, my arguemnt here is a simple one: What we replace global warming with might be worse that global warming. Let's make sure we don't do that.
[*1] Admittedly, superheating the ocean would likely require us to build way more hydroelectric plants than are likely even geographically possible, but hey, if I'm wrong about global warming, maybe I'm wrong about that, too?
[*2] </sarcasm>
[*3] See [*2]
[*4] For non-ferrous metals, this typically means a big flame, which typically means CO2
[*5] Lithium is non-ferrous, as are lead and nickel
[*6] Smelting is part of the process
[*7] In case it's not glaringly obvious, that means that even the proposed "clean energy" generation methods result in production of CO2
[*8] Like electricity
[*9] Wouldn't global warming do that, anyway?
[*10] Might as well, if we're going to plunge ourselves back into the dark ages... again
[*11] Since we're so destructive and seem to fuck up everything we touch, anyway (see: global warming), would that really be a bad thing?
[*12] You first
You're implying (quite strongly, I might add) that CO2 is the only (and only possible) cause for global warming, even when faced with the fact that CO2 is, in fact, not the only contributing factor to climate change. That's grounds for me to dismiss any and all of your arguments on this issue, which I have done and will continue to do until you acknowledge this one important fact.
When we replace our industrial processes with ones that do not generate CO2, what will the byproducts of those processes be and what effect will those byproducts have? That I was trying to get you to ask yourself that very important question was very obviously my point.
I'm not saying it's not a problem and I'm not saying nothing should be done about it. What I'm saying is that we need to be sure what we do will actually fix it.
Slashdot Mirror
And applies more to OSX users than Linux users. After all, OSX is a certified UNIX system, while no Linux distro has been certified.
I can afford a Mac, as well. My wife prefers them, so that's what I buy for her. Me? $400 PC that runs circles around all but the highest top-end Macs. Oh, and runs OSX just fine, either natively (tried it to see if it would work) or in a VM.
It's worth noting that I can afford a nicer hotel than you, what with the $800 I saved vs buyingtwo $1200 MacBook Pros.
Uhmm... My office is Mac-centric but I'm a Linux guy, so I installed Linux on a $400 Toshiba laptop, then installed Win7 and OSX into VMs on that. My boss used to laugh at me every time my OSX VM would take a crap (about once a month because I never restart it and it sometimes doesn't like to wake from suspend), until I told him to make note of every time how MacBook Pro took a dump and let's compare numbers. He has issues with his $1200 "superior product" roughly 5x as often as I do. I see similar stats on the various different generation iMacs in the office, as well; that's why I switched to using my own machine, it just works. Now, I hope you like Grape, and don't worry, Mr. Jones^H^H^Hbs made this Flavor Aid himself, so you know it's safe to drink.
I'd also like to point out that my $400 laptop boots faster (Linux -> login -> start the OSX VM) than any MacBook Pro or iMac in this office, and half of them are mid-2011 models.
Everyone's welcome to their own opinion, but we don't get to choose which facts exist. The above statements are fact. Sorry.
Well, to be an "off topic ac troll", I'd have to post AC. Since I, unlike you, APK, am still allowed to log in and have plenty of karma to burn, I don't bother with that checkbox. I just post as I see fit and let the banned trolls like yourself hide behind the AC badge. You do realize you're only still here because Slashdot *chooses* to allow anon posting without requiring a login first, and not because you've figured out some genius way around the system, right? You're just as much within the system as you were when you were actually allowed to log in.
No, I had my appendix removed on my 5th birthday; therefore, I am not complete. As to whether or not I'm a notjob, my therapist tells me as long as I keep signing checks, I'm perfectly sane.
Ambiguity. We already have to deal with it in many other cases, why not learn to deal with it here?
of course, from experience here? Anyone posting AC is usually a troll also!
There, fixed that for ya
free != Open Source
free != Free
Free != Open Source
Just because you can see the source for some piece of software doesn't mean no money changed hands in its creation. Likewise, just because some piece of software is given away at no cost does not mean you can do whatever you want with it. More to the point, just because you can see the source to some piece of software does not mean you can do whatever you want with it.
free == no cost
Free == do whatever you want with it
Open Source == you can see the source
Many paid project are open source, with no license for redistribution. Many free projects are closed source. Many free projects are also Free, meaning you can distrbute them as you see fit, and a number of those are also Open Source.
I don't think you're supposed to paste them all... You're probably not gonna get paid for that one.
That's racist. Why single out white people like that? We all suck.
The content is NOT originated by youtube, so it's very unclear that that they have any moral authority to restrict its distribution.
The content is distributed through their servers and they most certainly do have moral authority to restrict access to those servers. Moreso, they are in no way restricting distribution, you can distribute your content through any number of other channels.
Shhhh...... Don't let the RIAA know that!
Did the schools get Steam before they got Linux, or did they get Steam before Lunix did?
I hereby release the GP post into the public domain. Have a field day.
Given your aptitude for reasoning, I'd reason that you are either not a student, not from the US, or both.
Yes there is, it's called FKP, or Fingers to Keyboard Protocol.
Another solution that could (should?) be implemented is: Use a locally-hosted script to load any externally-hosted scripts. Your page will load and render faster because everything required to render the page is loading from your own server, and you still get the 3rd-party-hosted shit^H^H^H^Hscripts on the page, just *after* it has rendered, so your users can, you know, actually start using the damned site.
Damn, no modpoints... anyone?
I had a whole long reply written out and inadvertently refreshed the page (along with several other tabs I meant to reload). Since you're obviously not going to get the point I'm trying to make (or consider that maybe the small-scale installations of alternative energy solutions aren't causing problems right now is the same reason small-scale installations of coal, oil, and natural gas generators didn't cause a problem), I don't see a reason to retype all of it. If I feel like it later, I will do so, but, for now, I am through with you.
Did I say "don't do anything"? No. Does it really make sense to ignore these possible issues (no matter how remote) as we begin to implement our fixes? If we're at least considering the possibility that these changes might have unintended side effects as we implement changes, we'll be on the lookout for such side effects and be able to immediately take corrective action if needed. Doesn't that just make sense?
None of the proposed solutions have caused any effects on the proposed scale of the effects of global warming, you are 100% correct. Have you considered that this may be because none of them have been implemented on any massive scale?
Your "maybes" and "unknowns" are no better or worse than mine. If the questions never get asked, how will they ever be answered? To wit, mine still have not been; yours have, by your own preconcieved notions and answers. I'm posing this possibility because I truly do not know, I don't have any idea, I'm posing it to those who are willingto consider it, who may have some insight. Your "insight" is worthless to me if you are unwilling to consider the possibility that my questions may have answers you won't like. If you won't consider those answers, you'll never know if they're correct, you just keep on assuming that what you know is right and never explore what you don't know, because it may well prove you wrong.
I'm not arguing that you are incorrect, I'm arguing that, until my questions are answered, until my scenarios are fully considered, you can not prove that you *are* correct.
Considering that this includes everything from economic measures to encourage conservation of carbon-based fuels to alternative sources of energy to CO2 recapture, you are asking for a book-length treatise.
No, jsut some of the proposed measures. The ones you, personally, feel will be most effective, would suffice. In case you missed it (you did quote it), here it is again:
How about you detail some of these proposed measures?
Some. See it?
Sorry, but this is nonsense. These sources of energy contribute appreciably to global warming only to the extent that fossil fuels are involved in their production. If you are worried about waste heat, (a) this is negligible compared to the huge solar energy flux that CO2 affects, and (b) is equally a factor for fossil fuel energy plus the increased retention of solar energy due to CO2.
Indeed waste heat is negligible for these alternative forms of energy, at their current scales of implementation. Scale it up to replace fossil fuels and you might see my point. I addressed this in my post, but you chose not to quote that part. In fact, most of the arguments you make, I addressed in my post, in the footnotes, if not in the body. It's easy to make it look like you're winning an argument when you quote only the part of the opposing argument that you have counterarguments for, completely ignoring (and not quoting) where your opponent has already addressed those counterpoints before you even made them.
You are getting silly again. Power to do things like smelting can be obtained from multiple sources, it need not require CO2 production.
And how do you smelt the metals used to make the electric burners and/or inductive furnaces used to smelt without producing CO2? You can't heat the metals in the burners enough to melt them without melting the burners, so that's not a solution. You can't create the raw materials for an inductive furnace in an inductive furnace, either. You need a flame for this, and a flame meand CO2. You can argue that there are other ways to smelt metals all day long and it doesn't change the fact that I already addressed this in my post. Hopefully this additional example will make it clear to you. You, friend, are being silly by insisting that all smelting can be done without releasing CO2, when, in fact, this is not the case, as I have demonstrated with examples that you have failed to counter. I'm open to being shown that I am wrong, but you have not even attempted to do this.
You also chose not to quote (and fully ignored) my pivotal argument:
I guess, at its crux, my arguemnt here is a simple one: What we replace global warming with might be worse that global warming. Let's make sure we don't do that.
You have not addressed this, which has been my whole point from the start, in any way. You've been arguing what you want to argue, in an attempt to invalidate the point I have been trying to make, while completely ignoring that point. I must admit, you've been successful in coaxing me into arguing your point and letting mine slip, but when I caught that and brought my original point back into the spotlight, you ignored it. Can you address it this time? Or are you simply going to point out that nobody is going to read this far into this thread and run with your tail between your legs, like everyone else who argues with me here does? Yes, I'm aware that nobody is likely going to read this. No, that does not mean you win by default.
TL;DR: If you're going to cherry-pick lines from my argument and use them out of context, bugger off and admit that you don't have counterpoints for most of what I'm arguing. If you want to debate this properly, please address all of my points, as I have done with all of yours up to now. I'm keeping an open mind, but I'm not seeing anything compelling.
How about you detail some of these proposed measures? Or, at least, admit that CO2 and methane are not the only possible causes of global warming, even if they're the only two currently-acting factors you are willing to recognize right now?
It's not just cars and power generation that release CO2, many industrial processes (which I keep mentioning and you keep ignoring) release CO2 and, in fact, the mere act of breathing releases a fair bit of it. So we can switch to all nuclear/solar/wind/hydro power, each of which has its own, different, ecological impact that may, on the scale required to meet our current and future power demands, contribute to global warming just as much as the CO2 released from our current power production methods. To wit, the solar cell on your calculator does about as much for global warming as the CO2 in the breath I just exhaled; scale that solar cell up to what would be required to meet the world's power demands.
We can all switch to electric vehicles, powered by "clean electricity" once we've mad the above switch. Ok, assuming you end up being right and we don't poison the earth through the industrial processes required to make solar cells, fuck up weather patterns with expansive wind farms (what we have to day is roughly 1% of what would be required to go fully "clean energy"), increase the temperature of the oceans and melt more polar ice (can we say climate change?) with hydroelectric (that equipment generates heat[*1], that heat is dispersed, partly, through the water flowing through the equipment), or, failing that, disrupt the flow of fresh water by popping up too many dams for inland hydro generation, or cook/nuke ourselves with nuclear power, and we finally figure out what to do with all those spent lithium ion batteries we're gonna end up with, then I can't see a flaw in that one.[*2] Electric cars don't, themselves, generate and CO2. You've got it all solved, gongrats![*3]
Then, we have the industrial provcesses I keep mentioning. We don't know what the byproducts of switching those over to non-CO2-producing processes will be, because nobody has, ever, in the history of, well, history, devised a non-CO2-producing method for carrying out every single large-scale industrial process known to man. In fact, it's likely that many of these processes (such as smelting[*4] metals to create wind/hydro turbines and batteries used in electric cars[*5], refining uranium to generate nuclear power[*6], and refining silicon to a degree suitible for solar cell production) may not even have non-CO2-producing counterparts[*7]. So, do we just do away with those processes and the things they allow us to create[*8]?
Following the CO2 reduction plan to its logical conclusion, of course, means simply ending all life on earth.[*9][*10][*11][*12]
You haven't proposed a solution, here. Admittedly, neither have I, but that's because I've already admitted that we don't know what the solution is. You claim to have all the answers, so, where are they? Present them!
I guess, at its crux, my arguemnt here is a simple one: What we replace global warming with might be worse that global warming. Let's make sure we don't do that.
[*1] Admittedly, superheating the ocean would likely require us to build way more hydroelectric plants than are likely even geographically possible, but hey, if I'm wrong about global warming, maybe I'm wrong about that, too?
[*2] </sarcasm>
[*3] See [*2]
[*4] For non-ferrous metals, this typically means a big flame, which typically means CO2
[*5] Lithium is non-ferrous, as are lead and nickel
[*6] Smelting is part of the process
[*7] In case it's not glaringly obvious, that means that even the proposed "clean energy" generation methods result in production of CO2
[*8] Like electricity
[*9] Wouldn't global warming do that, anyway?
[*10] Might as well, if we're going to plunge ourselves back into the dark ages... again
[*11] Since we're so destructive and seem to fuck up everything we touch, anyway (see: global warming), would that really be a bad thing?
[*12] You first
You're implying (quite strongly, I might add) that CO2 is the only (and only possible) cause for global warming, even when faced with the fact that CO2 is, in fact, not the only contributing factor to climate change. That's grounds for me to dismiss any and all of your arguments on this issue, which I have done and will continue to do until you acknowledge this one important fact.
When we replace our industrial processes with ones that do not generate CO2, what will the byproducts of those processes be and what effect will those byproducts have? That I was trying to get you to ask yourself that very important question was very obviously my point.
I'm not saying it's not a problem and I'm not saying nothing should be done about it. What I'm saying is that we need to be sure what we do will actually fix it.
That doesn't mean they won't result in global warming or climate change.