An ad hominem attack is no more valid in a scientific political discussion than any other discussion.
I'll have to beg your forgiveness; the "global warming isn't a threat / is not our fault" line has been embraced by the same slice of the body politic that claims DDT doesn't hurt baby eagles, smoking doesn't cause cancer, and you can cut taxes forever and still pay for a war.
Wow, you're a hypocrite.
In any case, the point isn't "does DDT hurt baby birds?" but "is the amount of harm done by DDT to bird eggs worth the amount of lives saved by the reduction in malaria levels?"
The question isn't "does smoking cause cancer," the question is whether smoking should be banned by the government.
You're completely dismissing the "is it worth it" part of the equation, and that's the most important part!
Sure, we could spend a quintillion trillion dollars and bankrupt the entire planet fighting global warming-- is that worth it? That's the important question. If the temperature rises at a slow rate that we can easily adjust to as it happens, then no it's, frankly, probably not worth it.
(Oh, and if you care: 1) in the first case, the DDT was quickly becoming ineffective at preventing malaria, and so banning its use was indeed worth it. In any case, the DDT ban was US-only, most other nations simply just stopped using it when it became to ineffective to be worth it. 2) in the second case, I firmly believe that everybody should be free to do whatever they want to their own body, including giving themselves lung cancer if they wish. As such, I'm definitely against any government bans on smoking, which equate to a reduction of freedom.)
We have the technology now. There's a magical device called an "air conditioner" in my house-- hell, it's so compact I even have one in my car! There's dozens if not hundreds of safely running nuclear reactors to power all those air conditions.
To say we don't have technology to cope with extreme weather is just daft. Unless you're envisioning some kind of Day After Tomorrow situation where the climate changes in like 3 days, I think we'll do just fine.
Sudan is going through a pretty bad drought, one which most observers believe is the result of climate change.
Uh... duh? How could a drought *not* be a result of climate change? Out of curiosity. "We have a drought, we believe it was caused by a high crime rate."
I mean, you didn't think that half of the world's population is just going to sit there and let the other half live while they die, did you?
Look, Darfur has been a major disaster on every level. But this article says there were 2,000 humans left in the entire world. Darfur has 6 million residents, of which 2.2 million have been "affected by violence" according to this (somewhat out-of-date) US Department of State page: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/36028.htm
Even if we assume that every single one of those 2.2 million were killed, and even if we assume the 6 million residents of Darfur represented the entire population of the Earth, there'd still be 3.8 million humans around, which is far, far, far above "extinction danger" levels.
#3 Consistency. So much of our modern society is based an the extremly mild conditions the earth has experienced over the last 20,000 years. Most of Europe is inhabitable ONLY because of the gulf stream and atlantic currents. Agriculture is ONLY possible because the temperature has been consistant year to year. We are in a sweet spot environmentally that is very unusual in earths history. screwing with the temperature is not going to help.
I dunno. Seems to me that higher average temperatures would increase food production in already-productive areas, increasing food supply and reducing deforestation. (By subsistence farmers, who seem to be the main culprit there-- nothing against them, they gotta eat too.)
Even if I was sold on the whole Global Warming thing, I've yet to hear a convincing explanation of why it's necessarily a *bad* thing. I'd love to see a detailed debate on both the negatives *and* positives of such a chance, instead of this annoying doomsaying, which is all we get now.
Stallman got pissed off when his printer drivers wouldn't work right and the company tried to keep the driver's source code secret. So He started GNU.
Are you serious? You have got to be fucking kidding me. Let's reserve the capital "He" for people like, say, God and not crazy grizzled Unix admins, k?
Are you a homeowner? In addition to my main vehicle (a PT Cruiser), I have a pickup truck I frequently use to haul gravel, make dump runs, etc. Between myself, my friends in the area, and my brother and parents, it's well-worth owning. It's a nice gas-guzzling 1965 Chevy S-10 which probably drives the green freaks around here insane-- only a pity I can't buy leaded gas for it anymore.;)
Seriously, though, if you live in a condo or apartment and you have a small family (either in number, or midgets to fit them all in an Audi TT), then good for you. But my point is that you can't assume every SUV on the road is owned by someone exactly like you. Maybe they like to go jet skiing or camping and they need the towing capacity. Maybe they have a large family. You don't know, and you can't make judgements about them until you do.
I'd love to see you bring a load of gravel to my yard in your Audi TT, though.
Where were all the SUVs 50 years ago? Family sizes were even *bigger* back then.
50 years ago, average cars were the size that most SUVs are today. And there were plenty of station wagons on the road, which amount to the same thing. I don't see that as a valid point.
Yes, and I own a car with 4 seats which has one person in it most of the time. However, you're still retarded:
1) Quite frequently I need to drive more than one person around. For instance, every single weekend. Those SUVs you see being driven by one person are probably used for other reasons at other times.
2) Buying a new car for every situation is expensive and impractical. Sure I could own a SMART, a Corolla, a SUV, and a pick-up truck, but where would I park them? How could I afford it?
Try engaging the brain before typing the post, and you might actually come up with why a lot of SUVs have a single driver.
That happened during the portion of earth history during which people fought wars constantly. It wasn't the ideas and new technology that killed off the Maori and Native Americans, it was the disease and warfare. In fact, Native Americans were extremely quick to adopt the technology and ideas they were exposed to-- both sides at Little Big Horn had rifles.
The point is, we're now in a period of history where: 1) We attempt diplomacy *first*, and 2) It usually works.
ZDNet blogger Jason Perlow and Centrify's Tom Kemp discover that 80 percent of all Microsoft server protocols are un-patented. What exactly then, did SAMBA license?
Is this article trying to present me with the logic: 80% of protocols are un-patented, therefore SMB is un-patented?
Because I don't see how that follows at all. Is SMB part of the 80% or part of the 20%? If you want to know what SAMBA licensed, why don't you just ask them? I'm sure they'd know...
I'm just saying that, on the continuum of Operating System Shittiness, Vista isn't even close to the bottom. I've personally used much worse OSes... hell, Windows ME is one of them.
If you genuinely think that Windows Vista is the worst OS ever (and you've actually used it, and aren't just parroting the groupthink), you should just be thankful you've never been exposed to worse ones. That's all.
Vista isn't nearly, even remotely, as bad as Slashdotters think it is. Have you actually tried it, or are you just parroting others?
In any case, it's not even in the running for "shitty." MacOS 7.0, before it was patched, would permanently corrupt itself if you removed a Font from the System Folder. THAT'S shitty. Vista is nothing close.
Proprietary software support generally (of course there are exceptions!) come with the software when it's purchased. While your equation is better than mine: 1) The number wouldn't change that much when you totaled it up 2) The point of this entire discussion is that the original equation is flawed, not necessarily that my replacement is perfect. Open source software isn't free.
I'm not debating that. I'm just saying that you can't simply say that if proprietary software companies are losing X dollars in sales, "the public" is getting X dollars of value for free. In reality, it's X dollars minus whatever support costs are needed for the open source software.
I'm not trying to debate the merits of the way open source projects charge support costs, simply pointing out the bad comparison in the parent post.
And watching a HD movie on my 15" laptop!?! Haha, what's the point? I'd rather watch it on something designed and comfortable for movie/TV watching.
So would I, but the conductor of the commuter train I ride got really upset when I used up a whole row on my sound system alone.
Christ, do Slashdotters never leave the house? Seriously, you can't think of a single place or situation in the entire world where it would be good to watch a movie, but you can't fit a 54" TV?
But the fact is that one of the primary goals of just about every scientist is to challenge or overturn the conventional wisdom. And to so in a way that is observable and disprovable. You don't get a ticket to Stockholm by echoing the community.
No, you have to call up an airline or travel agency first.
Now they should start a pilot program to reduce the Lotus Notes-related suicide rate. Perhaps a bottle of vicodin gets delivered to your desk every time the app starts up...
By the time these things are ready we won't need to put bodies in them. Then soon after the other side will have them. Then maybe war will become a harmless spectator sport.
But it's so easy to use that old "let's close tax loopholes!" canard to win elections! Let's just ignore the fact that there really aren't any tax loopholes left to close. (Notice that when they say this, they're never really specific about what the loophole is, or how much tax revenue is lost to it. It's always just vague "tax loopholes!")
Apple advertises all the freakin' time, so I guess that Apple products must be "lowest-cost items that offer no quality or durability." (Of course, then again, the iPod sets the market median, so I guess technically your statement still applies.)
You're also forgetting, or unaware, of brand advertising and trade group advertising, both of which are much different than traditional selling-of-products.
Brand advertising usually takes the form of sponsorships, Coke sponsors a local sporting event, paying many of the bills in exchange for a few Coke posters around. I'm sure you think this practice is evil, but I like it personally... if I want to set up an independent film festival (for example), it's a lot easier to get done if I get Fandango (or whoever) footing some of the bill.
Trade group advertising I've personally always thought was pretty worthless. "Plastics make it possible." As if I'm going to buy the aluminum CD jewel cases instead of the plastic ones! But, hell, I think most things trade unions do are pretty worthless, so what do I know?
Slashdot Mirror
An ad hominem attack is no more valid in a scientific political discussion than any other discussion.
I'll have to beg your forgiveness; the "global warming isn't a threat / is not our fault" line has been embraced by the same slice of the body politic that claims DDT doesn't hurt baby eagles, smoking doesn't cause cancer, and you can cut taxes forever and still pay for a war.
Wow, you're a hypocrite.
In any case, the point isn't "does DDT hurt baby birds?" but "is the amount of harm done by DDT to bird eggs worth the amount of lives saved by the reduction in malaria levels?"
The question isn't "does smoking cause cancer," the question is whether smoking should be banned by the government.
You're completely dismissing the "is it worth it" part of the equation, and that's the most important part!
Sure, we could spend a quintillion trillion dollars and bankrupt the entire planet fighting global warming-- is that worth it? That's the important question. If the temperature rises at a slow rate that we can easily adjust to as it happens, then no it's, frankly, probably not worth it.
(Oh, and if you care:
1) in the first case, the DDT was quickly becoming ineffective at preventing malaria, and so banning its use was indeed worth it. In any case, the DDT ban was US-only, most other nations simply just stopped using it when it became to ineffective to be worth it.
2) in the second case, I firmly believe that everybody should be free to do whatever they want to their own body, including giving themselves lung cancer if they wish. As such, I'm definitely against any government bans on smoking, which equate to a reduction of freedom.)
We have the technology now. There's a magical device called an "air conditioner" in my house-- hell, it's so compact I even have one in my car! There's dozens if not hundreds of safely running nuclear reactors to power all those air conditions.
To say we don't have technology to cope with extreme weather is just daft. Unless you're envisioning some kind of Day After Tomorrow situation where the climate changes in like 3 days, I think we'll do just fine.
Sudan is going through a pretty bad drought, one which most observers believe is the result of climate change.
Uh... duh? How could a drought *not* be a result of climate change? Out of curiosity. "We have a drought, we believe it was caused by a high crime rate."
I mean, you didn't think that half of the world's population is just going to sit there and let the other half live while they die, did you?
Look, Darfur has been a major disaster on every level. But this article says there were 2,000 humans left in the entire world. Darfur has 6 million residents, of which 2.2 million have been "affected by violence" according to this (somewhat out-of-date) US Department of State page: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/36028.htm
Even if we assume that every single one of those 2.2 million were killed, and even if we assume the 6 million residents of Darfur represented the entire population of the Earth, there'd still be 3.8 million humans around, which is far, far, far above "extinction danger" levels.
#3 Consistency. So much of our modern society is based an the extremly mild conditions the earth has experienced over the last 20,000 years. Most of Europe is inhabitable ONLY because of the gulf stream and atlantic currents. Agriculture is ONLY possible because the temperature has been consistant year to year. We are in a sweet spot environmentally that is very unusual in earths history. screwing with the temperature is not going to help.
I dunno. Seems to me that higher average temperatures would increase food production in already-productive areas, increasing food supply and reducing deforestation. (By subsistence farmers, who seem to be the main culprit there-- nothing against them, they gotta eat too.)
Even if I was sold on the whole Global Warming thing, I've yet to hear a convincing explanation of why it's necessarily a *bad* thing. I'd love to see a detailed debate on both the negatives *and* positives of such a chance, instead of this annoying doomsaying, which is all we get now.
Stallman got pissed off when his printer drivers wouldn't work right and the company tried to keep the driver's source code secret. So He started GNU.
Are you serious? You have got to be fucking kidding me. Let's reserve the capital "He" for people like, say, God and not crazy grizzled Unix admins, k?
Are you a homeowner? In addition to my main vehicle (a PT Cruiser), I have a pickup truck I frequently use to haul gravel, make dump runs, etc. Between myself, my friends in the area, and my brother and parents, it's well-worth owning. It's a nice gas-guzzling 1965 Chevy S-10 which probably drives the green freaks around here insane-- only a pity I can't buy leaded gas for it anymore. ;)
Seriously, though, if you live in a condo or apartment and you have a small family (either in number, or midgets to fit them all in an Audi TT), then good for you. But my point is that you can't assume every SUV on the road is owned by someone exactly like you. Maybe they like to go jet skiing or camping and they need the towing capacity. Maybe they have a large family. You don't know, and you can't make judgements about them until you do.
I'd love to see you bring a load of gravel to my yard in your Audi TT, though.
Where were all the SUVs 50 years ago? Family sizes were even *bigger* back then.
50 years ago, average cars were the size that most SUVs are today. And there were plenty of station wagons on the road, which amount to the same thing. I don't see that as a valid point.
Yes, and I own a car with 4 seats which has one person in it most of the time. However, you're still retarded:
1) Quite frequently I need to drive more than one person around. For instance, every single weekend. Those SUVs you see being driven by one person are probably used for other reasons at other times.
2) Buying a new car for every situation is expensive and impractical. Sure I could own a SMART, a Corolla, a SUV, and a pick-up truck, but where would I park them? How could I afford it?
Try engaging the brain before typing the post, and you might actually come up with why a lot of SUVs have a single driver.
That happened during the portion of earth history during which people fought wars constantly. It wasn't the ideas and new technology that killed off the Maori and Native Americans, it was the disease and warfare. In fact, Native Americans were extremely quick to adopt the technology and ideas they were exposed to-- both sides at Little Big Horn had rifles.
The point is, we're now in a period of history where:
1) We attempt diplomacy *first*, and
2) It usually works.
Just FYI, and apropos of nothing, Hulu.com has the first season of Sliders posted:
http://www.hulu.com/sliders
ZDNet blogger Jason Perlow and Centrify's Tom Kemp discover that 80 percent of all Microsoft server protocols are un-patented. What exactly then, did SAMBA license?
Is this article trying to present me with the logic: 80% of protocols are un-patented, therefore SMB is un-patented?
Because I don't see how that follows at all. Is SMB part of the 80% or part of the 20%? If you want to know what SAMBA licensed, why don't you just ask them? I'm sure they'd know...
I'm just saying that, on the continuum of Operating System Shittiness, Vista isn't even close to the bottom. I've personally used much worse OSes... hell, Windows ME is one of them.
If you genuinely think that Windows Vista is the worst OS ever (and you've actually used it, and aren't just parroting the groupthink), you should just be thankful you've never been exposed to worse ones. That's all.
How many other fast-tracked ISO standards have no conforming implementations?
I dunno about ISO, but there are entire economies built around XHTML + CSS, neither of which has a reference implementation.
Vista isn't nearly, even remotely, as bad as Slashdotters think it is. Have you actually tried it, or are you just parroting others?
In any case, it's not even in the running for "shitty." MacOS 7.0, before it was patched, would permanently corrupt itself if you removed a Font from the System Folder. THAT'S shitty. Vista is nothing close.
Proprietary software support generally (of course there are exceptions!) come with the software when it's purchased. While your equation is better than mine:
1) The number wouldn't change that much when you totaled it up
2) The point of this entire discussion is that the original equation is flawed, not necessarily that my replacement is perfect. Open source software isn't free.
Ok, but your post also confirms that the nay-sayers haven't played it, and so their opinion is utterly meaningless.
I'm not debating that. I'm just saying that you can't simply say that if proprietary software companies are losing X dollars in sales, "the public" is getting X dollars of value for free. In reality, it's X dollars minus whatever support costs are needed for the open source software.
I'm not trying to debate the merits of the way open source projects charge support costs, simply pointing out the bad comparison in the parent post.
And watching a HD movie on my 15" laptop!?! Haha, what's the point? I'd rather watch it on something designed and comfortable for movie/TV watching.
So would I, but the conductor of the commuter train I ride got really upset when I used up a whole row on my sound system alone.
Christ, do Slashdotters never leave the house? Seriously, you can't think of a single place or situation in the entire world where it would be good to watch a movie, but you can't fit a 54" TV?
It first has to be true. There's still support costs with open source software, something many open source proponents seem to forget quite often.
But the fact is that one of the primary goals of just about every scientist is to challenge or overturn the conventional wisdom. And to so in a way that is observable and disprovable. You don't get a ticket to Stockholm by echoing the community.
No, you have to call up an airline or travel agency first.
Or if they aren't retarded, they'll go to one of the other 47 sites that publishes Dilbert daily. Here:
http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComic.mpl?date=2008/4/19&name=Dilbert
The Houston Chronicle has a good comics page, and I've never even been to Texas in my life. It's the Internet people, figure it the hell out already!
Now they should start a pilot program to reduce the Lotus Notes-related suicide rate. Perhaps a bottle of vicodin gets delivered to your desk every time the app starts up...
By the time these things are ready we won't need to put bodies in them. Then soon after the other side will have them. Then maybe war will become a harmless spectator sport.
So you're going from Aliens to Robot Jox?
NOT a step-up! Let's stick with Aliens.
But it's so easy to use that old "let's close tax loopholes!" canard to win elections! Let's just ignore the fact that there really aren't any tax loopholes left to close. (Notice that when they say this, they're never really specific about what the loophole is, or how much tax revenue is lost to it. It's always just vague "tax loopholes!")
The hell?
Apple advertises all the freakin' time, so I guess that Apple products must be "lowest-cost items that offer no quality or durability." (Of course, then again, the iPod sets the market median, so I guess technically your statement still applies.)
You're also forgetting, or unaware, of brand advertising and trade group advertising, both of which are much different than traditional selling-of-products.
Brand advertising usually takes the form of sponsorships, Coke sponsors a local sporting event, paying many of the bills in exchange for a few Coke posters around. I'm sure you think this practice is evil, but I like it personally... if I want to set up an independent film festival (for example), it's a lot easier to get done if I get Fandango (or whoever) footing some of the bill.
Trade group advertising I've personally always thought was pretty worthless. "Plastics make it possible." As if I'm going to buy the aluminum CD jewel cases instead of the plastic ones! But, hell, I think most things trade unions do are pretty worthless, so what do I know?