Ouch. How silly I've been all this time! I always sweared that all those stupid tasks that came by email where from the PHB/PMP project manager. And all the time it was the computer!
Why not take it a step further? Considering that a freaking lot of the base utilities in Unix came from BSD, and another huge part is inspired on SRV/4 I therefore decree: The OS formerly know by the impures as GNU/Linux should now be called AT&TSRV4/SOLARIS/BSD/GNU Linux. If you use KDE, please append Microsoft Windows to the name, because kde is largerly a copy of windows explorer interface. Similarly, write your letters to Microsoft and demand them to rename the late windows 95 as BSD/Windows 95 because they have used BSD tcp/ip code.
Well, we know that every energy conversion step wastes some energy. So, at times where several governments are planning to ban incandescent lights, is it wise to go the way of wirelless power, with all the potential waste, just to enable people to have the convenience of charging their laptops without the minor hassle of handling a cable?
(PS: Of course, for serious applications like medical implants, I think it's a good idea and worth the waste)
You're correct. Most episodes of famine in Africa over the last, say, 30 years, were the direct result of armed conflicts, ethnical genocide and force migrations (our african dictator friend's version of Hitler's final solution).
Take for example Ethiopia, there's plenty of water and soil there, still, after the conflicts caused by their incompetent socialist rulers, they underwent the dramatic famine we all witnessed in the 80's.
There's no such thing as U.S. mandated worldwide embargo. I am from Brazil and had a girlfriend workin for a company which has some factories in Cuba (Souza Cruz Tobacco). You can find Cuban products (not so many of them) in almost every city on Europe (including U.K.), South America and Asia. Also, major european Hotel companies have business in the island. Fidel Castro also receives a lot of oil for free from his ally Hugo Chavez.
The embargo applies only to American companies, and it's perfectly just, as american citizens and companies that were expropriated by Fidel's revolution never received compensation for the theft.
Don't they teach those things there on history/geography classes?
Actually Castro is just repeating an argument from Hugo Chavez. Chavez' regime is heavily dependent on revenues from oil sales to the US, and thus, it's on his best interests to satanize ethanol production (don't forget that sugar cane turned into alcohol also means less sugar on tables). The worst scenario for Chavez right now would be a drop on demand for venezuelan oil. Without the american dollars he wouldn't be able to maintain his dictatorship for much time
1. Improving Reproductive Success is different from improving survivability. 2. Natural farming requires far more land than our current intensive methods, and is too sensitive to climate factors and plagues. Actually, throughout man's history, farming could barely sustain people and recurring widespread famines were way too common. In fact, even today, you only have to look at some really poor Third World countries, were farmers have no more resources than some primitive tools and animal traction, to have a glimpse of how life was for ALL of us without manufacturing. Everytime you see lots of people starving in Africa after a long drought, this is no much different from what have been happening for ages to that people, it's just because they rely on natural methods, that they don't have food security. Maybe you are also a software developer, maybe you dring your expensive ethiopian coffee, and in that case you need to remember, that if people didn't buy "useless" things like HDTVs, iPOds, cars and others you'll probably would not have your job, and your friendly ethiopian coffee farmers would be now living out of subsistence farming, until of course, the next drought, were half of them would be dead by starvation because their crop could not survive without rain, and they could not really have reserves with their primitive, low productivity, not-mechanized farming methods. I used to regret having majored in economics as I ever worked as a software developer, even after college. But when I read comments like yours, I feel grateful for not being the one spiting such nonsense.
Quickly producing the prime factors of large arbitrary numbers would probably do much to reduce the level of skepticism
Nah, that would only attract unwanted nightly visits from some nice folks that happen to work at CIA and NSA.
Exchange of goods is a fancy term for commerce, commonly used in economics. Of course I was not referring to transportation, but to the fact that poorer countries don't have capital enough to expand their production while complying with more strict emission rules. Of course, for a developed country, that already got at high levels of industrialization, this is not a problem, for third world countries it, currently, is. But, you raised also an interesting point.
There's also the problem of what you do to the economies of the mid-western countries, venezuela and all others that depend heavily on huge revenues from oil exports if you cut down current consumption too fast. Are you prepared for the massive immigration that will follow? Of course, you have to balance that against the effects of global warming. As climate is a chaotic system that we barely understand right now, I am all for reducing the
emission levels as much as we can, but we need to factor all those other elements in our calculations.
Of course we can change our energetical matrix, but we need to keep in mind the cost of converting all engines to hydrogen/alcohol, building the infra-structure to feed them, distribution and so on. Of course, all of this effort could also lead the world in a huge economic boom (imagine all the jobs that could be created) but the fact is that, right now, we still don't know.
Please note also, that just reducing emission levels on developed countries is not going to work, raise the cost of operation for a factory in, let's say Indiana, and, given the opportunity, that factory will be shot down, and another one will be built in Argentina, polluting even more than the original one in Indiana.
Also, the world economy is heavily dependent on the import of good by the First World country, and specially, the USA. put the USA in a dire recession, and the villagers in amazonia that sell natural materials for organic cosmetics products sold in the US are going to have a hard time to feed their kids, the same for shoes makers in southern brasil, ipod factory workers in China and, expensive sport cars producers in italy and so on.
Something must be done, but we can't take this issue lightly, imagining that all problems will be solved once the evil Bush leaves the office, and the USA ratifies a newer version of the Kioto Protocol. Things are just not that simple.
The biggest problem with the issue of Global Warming are the naysayers on *both* sides of the spectrum:
First, there are the nuts who refuse to see that something really, really wrong is happening, and it's happening right now.
Second, there are the other ones who refuse to see that to reduce our CO2 levels, at the current state of affairs, we must be ready to tackle the effects of a global recession, or at least a general slow down on the global exchange of goods.
I didn't say that we must not do anything because of that, what I meant is that THERE IS a problem, and that we must find a solution for that.
For your idea that third-world countries are poor because rich countries buy things at very slow prices, you fail to see, that even those small prices must be higher than the prices they could get before. As long as you are not sending an army to buy things by force, people would still be able to sell things for those who are willing to pay more.
For example, here in Brasil, our northwest was always a region plaged by misery and hunger, because of the dryness. But now we start to see some improvements exactly on the places where there has been the development of fruits culture for export. The salaries on these regions are higher, the employees have a decent pay, water, their kids have schools, they have now electrical power, and all of that, because now they have a product to sell for the world. Next vacation, go to Brasil northeast, Rio Grande do Norte and see it with your own eyes.
The Fscking problem is: How you do it? Even freezing CO2 levels at the present values, will probably cause a global recession that will put hundreds of millions starving in the Third World. Even First World countries like French which are already doomed by unemployment and social tensions are going to see their situation explode with a global recession.
My first language is portuguese, and the portuguese acronym for STD-Sexually Transmitted Disease is DST. For one moment, I though that Microsoft has infected some of their users with some Sexually Transmitted Disease and was going to charge them for the cure
But what is really impressive, is that I'd just found this as something natural for microsoft, and it took me a whole 5 seconds to realize that the english acronym is different. It really says a lot about my perceptions on Microsoft. Any other portuguese speaker here got the same feeling upon reading the headline?
"I sense someone who still hasn't got over the US getting defeated by a bunch of little Asian peasants in black pyjamas. "We could have won if we'd really wanted to, that does it, I'm taking my ball and going home...""
Actually I am not an american, so, your argument doesn't apply here.
No need to nuke, but some border crossing, if you know what I mean. And this is a political no-no. Just as killing soviet "advisers" in Vietnam would be some time ago, or bombing vietcong supply lines behind some "no-cross" borders was.
The thing is, even a militia needs logistical support. Kill that and youre done.
Looks easy, except for the fact that nobody is going to believe if the US says the militia is being supported by Iran and/or Siria, so it's a political impossibility to cut the oxygen for the insurgents.
Care to cite factual sources on your "lower quality" statement? Even to say (possible) require that you have at least some factual evidence to back your claim on the plausibleness of "lower quality"
Political Reasons, mostly. These days (thankfully) are not like the old days of WWII were you could bomb London (the germans) or Dresden(the allies) at will. The simple idea of an expensive intelligent bomb precise within a 0.50 m range would be considered silly in the past.
But an all out war with an enemy like Russia or China would be a whole different game. People wouldn't care too much about the US using a lot of power against such behemoths. When operating without political restrictions, there would be no match for the US forces nowadays.
Slashdot Mirror
Ouch. How silly I've been all this time!
I always sweared that all those stupid tasks that came by email where from the PHB/PMP project manager. And all the time it was the computer!
Why not take it a step further?
Considering that a freaking lot of the base utilities in Unix came from BSD, and another huge part is inspired on SRV/4 I therefore decree:
The OS formerly know by the impures as GNU/Linux should now be called AT&TSRV4/SOLARIS/BSD/GNU Linux.
If you use KDE, please append Microsoft Windows to the name, because kde is largerly a copy of windows explorer interface.
Similarly, write your letters to Microsoft and demand them to rename the late windows 95 as BSD/Windows 95 because they have used BSD tcp/ip code.
Well, we know that every energy conversion step wastes some energy. So, at times where several governments are planning to ban incandescent lights, is it wise to go the way of wirelless power, with all the potential waste, just to enable people to have the convenience of charging their laptops without the minor hassle of handling a cable? (PS: Of course, for serious applications like medical implants, I think it's a good idea and worth the waste)
You're correct. Most episodes of famine in Africa over the last, say, 30 years, were the direct result of armed conflicts, ethnical genocide and force migrations (our african dictator friend's version of Hitler's final solution). Take for example Ethiopia, there's plenty of water and soil there, still, after the conflicts caused by their incompetent socialist rulers, they underwent the dramatic famine we all witnessed in the 80's.
_catch_
There's no such thing as U.S. mandated worldwide embargo. I am from Brazil and had a girlfriend workin for a company which has some factories in Cuba (Souza Cruz Tobacco). You can find Cuban products (not so many of them) in almost every city on Europe (including U.K.), South America and Asia. Also, major european Hotel companies have business in the island. Fidel Castro also receives a lot of oil for free from his ally Hugo Chavez. The embargo applies only to American companies, and it's perfectly just, as american citizens and companies that were expropriated by Fidel's revolution never received compensation for the theft. Don't they teach those things there on history/geography classes?
Actually Castro is just repeating an argument from Hugo Chavez. Chavez' regime is heavily dependent on revenues from oil sales to the US, and thus, it's on his best interests to satanize ethanol production (don't forget that sugar cane turned into alcohol also means less sugar on tables).
The worst scenario for Chavez right now would be a drop on demand for venezuelan oil. Without the american dollars he wouldn't be able to maintain his dictatorship for much time
1. Improving Reproductive Success is different from improving survivability.
2. Natural farming requires far more land than our current intensive methods, and is too sensitive to climate factors and plagues. Actually, throughout man's history, farming could barely sustain people and recurring widespread famines were way too common. In fact, even today, you only have to look at some really poor Third World countries, were farmers have no more resources than some primitive tools and animal traction, to have a glimpse of how life was for ALL of us without manufacturing.
Everytime you see lots of people starving in Africa after a long drought, this is no much different from what have been happening for ages to that people, it's just because they rely on natural methods, that they don't have food security.
Maybe you are also a software developer, maybe you dring your expensive ethiopian coffee, and in that case you need to remember, that if people didn't buy "useless" things like HDTVs, iPOds, cars and others you'll probably would not have your job, and your friendly ethiopian coffee farmers would be now living out of subsistence farming, until of course, the next drought, were half of them would be dead by starvation because their crop could not survive without rain, and they could not really have reserves with their primitive, low productivity, not-mechanized farming methods.
I used to regret having majored in economics as I ever worked as a software developer, even after college. But when I read comments like yours, I feel grateful for not being the one spiting such nonsense.
Quickly producing the prime factors of large arbitrary numbers would probably do much to reduce the level of skepticism
Nah, that would only attract unwanted nightly visits from some nice folks that happen to work at CIA and NSA.
Hey! I am THE environment! you insensitive clod! :-)
OK. Try developing something good when your boss' boss is throwing chairs in rage all around the campus.
I am a developer, you insensitive clod!
Why can't I have a MacPro? Why?!
Grrrrr!
btw, I am not a native english speaker. So, sorry if you find my post hard to read.
Exchange of goods is a fancy term for commerce, commonly used in economics. Of course I was not referring to transportation, but to the fact that poorer countries don't have capital enough to expand their production while complying with more strict emission rules. Of course, for a developed country, that already got at high levels of industrialization, this is not a problem, for third world countries it, currently, is. But, you raised also an interesting point. There's also the problem of what you do to the economies of the mid-western countries, venezuela and all others that depend heavily on huge revenues from oil exports if you cut down current consumption too fast. Are you prepared for the massive immigration that will follow? Of course, you have to balance that against the effects of global warming. As climate is a chaotic system that we barely understand right now, I am all for reducing the emission levels as much as we can, but we need to factor all those other elements in our calculations. Of course we can change our energetical matrix, but we need to keep in mind the cost of converting all engines to hydrogen/alcohol, building the infra-structure to feed them, distribution and so on. Of course, all of this effort could also lead the world in a huge economic boom (imagine all the jobs that could be created) but the fact is that, right now, we still don't know. Please note also, that just reducing emission levels on developed countries is not going to work, raise the cost of operation for a factory in, let's say Indiana, and, given the opportunity, that factory will be shot down, and another one will be built in Argentina, polluting even more than the original one in Indiana. Also, the world economy is heavily dependent on the import of good by the First World country, and specially, the USA. put the USA in a dire recession, and the villagers in amazonia that sell natural materials for organic cosmetics products sold in the US are going to have a hard time to feed their kids, the same for shoes makers in southern brasil, ipod factory workers in China and, expensive sport cars producers in italy and so on. Something must be done, but we can't take this issue lightly, imagining that all problems will be solved once the evil Bush leaves the office, and the USA ratifies a newer version of the Kioto Protocol. Things are just not that simple.
The biggest problem with the issue of Global Warming are the naysayers on *both* sides of the spectrum: First, there are the nuts who refuse to see that something really, really wrong is happening, and it's happening right now. Second, there are the other ones who refuse to see that to reduce our CO2 levels, at the current state of affairs, we must be ready to tackle the effects of a global recession, or at least a general slow down on the global exchange of goods. I didn't say that we must not do anything because of that, what I meant is that THERE IS a problem, and that we must find a solution for that. For your idea that third-world countries are poor because rich countries buy things at very slow prices, you fail to see, that even those small prices must be higher than the prices they could get before. As long as you are not sending an army to buy things by force, people would still be able to sell things for those who are willing to pay more. For example, here in Brasil, our northwest was always a region plaged by misery and hunger, because of the dryness. But now we start to see some improvements exactly on the places where there has been the development of fruits culture for export. The salaries on these regions are higher, the employees have a decent pay, water, their kids have schools, they have now electrical power, and all of that, because now they have a product to sell for the world. Next vacation, go to Brasil northeast, Rio Grande do Norte and see it with your own eyes.
Are you an idiot or just a troll? Where did I said that?
The Fscking problem is: How you do it? Even freezing CO2 levels at the present values, will probably cause a global recession that will put hundreds of millions starving in the Third World. Even First World countries like French which are already doomed by unemployment and social tensions are going to see their situation explode with a global recession.
My first language is portuguese, and the portuguese acronym for STD-Sexually Transmitted Disease is DST. For one moment, I though that Microsoft has infected some of their users with some Sexually Transmitted Disease and was going to charge them for the cure
But what is really impressive, is that I'd just found this as something natural for microsoft, and it took me a whole 5 seconds to realize that the english acronym is different. It really says a lot about my perceptions on Microsoft. Any other portuguese speaker here got the same feeling upon reading the headline?
"I sense someone who still hasn't got over the US getting defeated by a bunch of little Asian peasants in black pyjamas. "We could have won if we'd really wanted to, that does it, I'm taking my ball and going home...""
Actually I am not an american, so, your argument doesn't apply here.
No need to nuke, but some border crossing, if you know what I mean. And this is a political no-no. Just as killing soviet "advisers" in Vietnam would be some time ago, or bombing vietcong supply lines behind some "no-cross" borders was.
The thing is, even a militia needs logistical support. Kill that and youre done. Looks easy, except for the fact that nobody is going to believe if the US says the militia is being supported by Iran and/or Siria, so it's a political impossibility to cut the oxygen for the insurgents.
Care to cite factual sources on your "lower quality" statement? Even to say (possible) require that you have at least some factual evidence to back your claim on the plausibleness of "lower quality"
Political Reasons, mostly. These days (thankfully) are not like the old days of WWII were you could bomb London (the germans) or Dresden(the allies) at will. The simple idea of an expensive intelligent bomb precise within a 0.50 m range would be considered silly in the past. But an all out war with an enemy like Russia or China would be a whole different game. People wouldn't care too much about the US using a lot of power against such behemoths. When operating without political restrictions, there would be no match for the US forces nowadays.
If I owed you one trillion dollars I would have a hell of an incentive to nuke you with everything I've got :-)
Well... when you can lock on a target and shoot with that target not even being aware you're around.....