Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Totally OT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Totally OT [message #89640 is a reply to message #89635] |
Tue, 11 September 2007 20:51   |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>
>Neil wrote:
>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>> I tried making a "con" directory on OSX and it worked fine. But then
I
>>> tried to make a directory called "neocon" and that didn't work out at
all...
>>
>> What happened when you tried to make a directory
>> called: "iamaonetrickponyglobalwarmingliberalranter" ???
>
>I tried it and got this message:
>
>"Climate science is a non-partisan issue"
Yes, you are correct, it is a non-partisan issue that
manifests itself in extreme ways every 10,000 years or so,
regardless of how much or how little we decrease our "carbon
footprint" (which is simply rich-liberal-speak for: "I'll fly
on private jets that burn more fossil fuel in an hour than your
car burns all year, while I tell you how to live your life, and
assuage my own personal guilt by paying dubious firms to make
me feel like they'll actually spend my donation on something
that will reduce industrial emissions, even though I really
kinda think they may not, but at least I get a "carbon credit",
which is a fictitious idea that enables me to continue telling
you how should live your life while I fly on my private
jet......") and so on & so forth.
>But the main thing you should get out of my report is this: If you get a
>Mac (or install Linux), you can have all the "con" directories you could
>ever want. Which is clearly the best reason yet to switch. :^)
Good deal, if for some unknown reason I find myself needing
lots of "con" directories, I'll keep that key point in mind.
>Newt for pres.
Why you would want to elect a small lizard, I have no idea, but
since it's probably better than any of your alternative picks
out there, I say go for it.
:)
|
|
|
|
| Re: Totally OT [message #89641 is a reply to message #89640] |
Tue, 11 September 2007 20:58 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Neil wrote:
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>> Neil wrote:
>>> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>>>> I tried making a "con" directory on OSX and it worked fine. But then
> I
>>>> tried to make a directory called "neocon" and that didn't work out at
> all...
>>> What happened when you tried to make a directory
>>> called: "iamaonetrickponyglobalwarmingliberalranter" ???
>> I tried it and got this message:
>>
>> "Climate science is a non-partisan issue"
>
> Yes, you are correct, it is a non-partisan issue that
> manifests itself in extreme ways every 10,000 years or so,
> regardless of how much or how little we decrease our "carbon
> footprint" (which is simply rich-liberal-speak for: "I'll fly
> on private jets that burn more fossil fuel in an hour than your
> car burns all year, while I tell you how to live your life, and
> assuage my own personal guilt by paying dubious firms to make
> me feel like they'll actually spend my donation on something
> that will reduce industrial emissions, even though I really
> kinda think they may not, but at least I get a "carbon credit",
> which is a fictitious idea that enables me to continue telling
> you how should live your life while I fly on my private
> jet......") and so on & so forth.
Heh. Who's ranting now? :^)
I see that you are distracted by your resentment of Al Gore. Go ahead,
get it all out. Don't hold back.
But then go to the science. There are sound reasons that most climate
scientists (regardless of political party affiliation) see possible
human causes for the current, measurable post industrial, post
population boom climate changes. There are reasons that this event
differs from previous events. Scientists are taking all the possible
causes into account.
>> But the main thing you should get out of my report is this: If you get a
>
>> Mac (or install Linux), you can have all the "con" directories you could
>
>> ever want. Which is clearly the best reason yet to switch. :^)
>
> Good deal, if for some unknown reason I find myself needing
> lots of "con" directories, I'll keep that key point in mind.
Good! My work here is done.
>> Newt for pres.
>
> Why you would want to elect a small lizard, I have no idea, but
> since it's probably better than any of your alternative picks
> out there, I say go for it.
You asked for a political post for you, so I made one, custom! :^)
The other post was for Mark, and I hope he found it as helpful as you
found yours.
BTW, I haven't made my pick for president yet. Way to early!
Maybe Al Gore will jump in. ;^)
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
> :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Totally OT [message #89647 is a reply to message #89641] |
Tue, 11 September 2007 22:49 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>Heh. Who's ranting now? :^)
>
>I see that you are distracted by your resentment of Al Gore.
>Go ahead, get it all out. Don't hold back.
Actually I was referring to Leonardo DiCrappio, Thom Yorke of
Radiohead, and Bono... if I was going to rail on Al Gore, I
would've used his fuckingridiculouslyinnefficient house as an
example. Family estate or not, if he REALLY feels the way he
feels, he'd gut it & make it energy-efficient. Otherwise, he's
just tellng us how to live our lives without really practicing
what he preaches - typical hypocrisy. I'll grant Al the private
jet - he's a former Vice President of the United States - he
can't be expected to travel on Southwest Airlines.
Want to talk about Al's house? :)
>But then go to the science. There are sound reasons that most
>climate scientists (regardless of political party affiliation)
>see possible human causes for the current, measurable post
>industrial, post population boom climate changes. There are
>reasons that this event differs from previous events.
>Scientists are taking all the possible
>causes into account.
No they're not...
There could be some human contribution, but it's really the
equivalent of a fart in a windstorm - Krakatoa changed the
world's climate for a few months - we could drop every nuke we
have & still not equal the effect of that blast, it was heard in
what is now Mauritius, off the coast of Africa, over 3,000
miles away and in populated parts of Australia over 2,200 miles
away. It's estimated that this loudest sound in history
reached 180 db over 100 miles away from the source and the
blast pushed small rocks & pumice/ash/dust up as much as 50
miles high... yet you think WE changed the climate? Krakatoa
changed the global climate for about 5 years, average temps
around the globe dropped by (wait for it) one-point-two-
degrees celcius in the first year! OMIGOD the glaciers all
doubled their size as a result!
Oh, wait, no they didn't.
Or maybe they DID, since it took five years for the global
climate to start returning to normal? Ever hear about the Year
Without a Summer? It was 1816 - go check it out. Another year
wherein the climate was affected by a volcano - in this case,
Mt. Tambora... actually there had been a few years of crappy
climate fom about 1812 on, but the real kicker seemed to
be triggered by Tambora's eruption in 1815.
Mt Laki in Iceland caused temperatures in the entire Northern
Hemisphere to drop by about 1 degree (C) in 1783.
Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, cooling the globe for about 2-3
years by almst a full degree (c), and pushed more aerosol
particles into the atmosphere than any euption since Krakatoa,
causing MASSIVE destruction of the ozone layer, which
contributed to temp increases after the cooling cycle.
How do we know that all the panic about global warming isn't
just the globe returning to where it NORMALY SHOULD BE at
this point in the cycle? We aso had St. Helens in 1980, as well
on our continent - that just added to the long-term volcanic
winter effect.
Point is, compared to these events, we don't influence the
climate much, if at all. Having said that, now that we know
aerosol particles can damage the ozone layer, should we try to
reduce them? Yes. Now that we know burning fossil fuels could
be detrimental should we look for substitues? Sure. Do we have
the capacity to alter the climate of a planet so big that you
can barely see the sum total of all the lights of the most
densely-populated areas from space? Doubt it. We (and all our
emissions) are essentially gnats compared to major climactic
events that we have no control over one way or the other.
>BTW, I haven't made my pick for president yet. Way to early!
Just go with Hillary, that way a Republican will win for sure.
>Maybe Al Gore will jump in. ;^)
Maybe, but I doubt it, he's having too much fun being rich &
famous & out of Clinton's shadow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Totally OT [message #89669 is a reply to message #89647] |
Wed, 12 September 2007 05:41 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Neil wrote:
> Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>> Heh. Who's ranting now? :^)
>>
>> I see that you are distracted by your resentment of Al Gore.
>> Go ahead, get it all out. Don't hold back.
>
> Actually I was referring to Leonardo DiCrappio, Thom Yorke of
> Radiohead, and Bono... if I was going to rail on Al Gore, I
> would've used his fuckingridiculouslyinnefficient house as an
> example. Family estate or not, if he REALLY feels the way he
> feels, he'd gut it & make it energy-efficient. Otherwise, he's
> just tellng us how to live our lives without really practicing
> what he preaches - typical hypocrisy. I'll grant Al the private
> jet - he's a former Vice President of the United States - he
> can't be expected to travel on Southwest Airlines.
>
> Want to talk about Al's house? :)
I wouldn't mind checking out his place. But he never calls. None of
those guys ever call.
>> But then go to the science. There are sound reasons that most
>> climate scientists (regardless of political party affiliation)
>> see possible human causes for the current, measurable post
>> industrial, post population boom climate changes. There are
>> reasons that this event differs from previous events.
>> Scientists are taking all the possible
>> causes into account.
>
> No they're not...
I guess climate scientists are ignorant then. They wasted a lot of money
on advanced degrees, and a lot of their lives doing scientific studies,
just to miss out on the obvious things that any non-scientist can
clearly see...
That seems extremely unlikely. Seriously.
Science is a very competitive pursuit and what comes out of it is what
survives intense peer review. It would be virtually impossible to create
a scientific consensus in 2007 based on ignoring the obvious.
> There could be some human contribution,
That's what the evidence shows. And that is why the world is now working
on mitigation. Including the USA.
> but it's really the
> equivalent of a fart in a windstorm - Krakatoa changed the
> world's climate for a few months - we could drop every nuke we
> have & still not equal the effect of that blast, it was heard in
> what is now Mauritius, off the coast of Africa, over 3,000
> miles away and in populated parts of Australia over 2,200 miles
> away. It's estimated that this loudest sound in history
> reached 180 db over 100 miles away from the source and the
> blast pushed small rocks & pumice/ash/dust up as much as 50
> miles high...
Pretty cool, eh? :^)
> yet you think WE changed the climate?
Based on the evidence, yes.
You are right that non-human causes can change the climate. However that
doesn't mean that human causes can't change the climate.
The evidence shows that human causes are now contributing to climate
change. Here's an overview from the U.S. Government (EPA):
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/index.html
Quote:
"As through much of its history, the Earth's climate is changing. Right
now it is getting warmer. Most of the warming in recent decades is very
likely the result of human activities. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) State of the Climate Report and the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Surface
Temperature Analysis indicate the average temperature of the Earth’s
surface has increased by about 1.2 to 1.4ºF since 1900. Other aspects of
the climate are also changing such as precipitation patterns and
storminess."
Take a look at this report from the National Academies of Science in the
U.S.A., Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan,
Russia and England.
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
A few quotes:
"The existence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is
vital to life on Earth – in their absence average
temperatures would be about 30 centigrade degrees lower
than they are today. But human activities are now causing
atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases –
including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone,
and nitrous oxide – to rise well above pre-industrial levels.
Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in
1750 to over 375 ppm today – higher than any previous
levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000
years)."
"Major parts of the climate system respond slowly to
changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. Even if
greenhouse gas emissions were stabilised instantly at
today’s levels, the climate would still continue to change as
it adapts to the increased emission of recent decades.
Further changes in climate are therefore unavoidable.
Nations must prepare for them."
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now
sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It
is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they
can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term
reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions."
> Krakatoa
> changed the global climate for about 5 years, average temps
> around the globe dropped by (wait for it) one-point-two-
> degrees celcius in the first year! OMIGOD the glaciers all
> doubled their size as a result!
>
> Oh, wait, no they didn't.
> Or maybe they DID, since it took five years for the global
> climate to start returning to normal?
Make up your mind. :^)
Suspended particulates can cool the earth but they rain out relatively
quickly. So you can get a blip like that. That's different from the
effect of accumulated greenhouse gases which take a lot longer to
dissipate.
> Ever hear about the Year
> Without a Summer? It was 1816 - go check it out. Another year
> wherein the climate was affected by a volcano - in this case,
> Mt. Tambora... actually there had been a few years of crappy
> climate fom about 1812 on, but the real kicker seemed to
> be triggered by Tambora's eruption in 1815.
>
> Mt Laki in Iceland caused temperatures in the entire Northern
> Hemisphere to drop by about 1 degree (C) in 1783.
>
> Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, cooling the globe for about 2-3
> years by almst a full degree (c), and pushed more aerosol
> particles into the atmosphere than any euption since Krakatoa,
> causing MASSIVE destruction of the ozone layer, which
> contributed to temp increases after the cooling cycle.
Volcanoes are amazing. They've been around much longer than just the
last few hundred years. They can and do affect the climate. However they
do not explain the current climate change event.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/223957/72
Ozone depletion is a separate problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Ozone_depletion _and_global_warming
> How do we know that all the panic about global warming isn't
> just the globe returning to where it NORMALY SHOULD BE at
> this point in the cycle? We aso had St. Helens in 1980, as well
> on our continent - that just added to the long-term volcanic
> winter effect.
After decades of study, we know a lot more than some folks give us
credit for.
> Point is, compared to these events, we don't influence the
> climate much, if at all.
There are a variety of natural climate drivers. But that doesn't change
the current evidence for human caused climate change now.
> Having said that, now that we know
> aerosol particles can damage the ozone layer, should we try to
> reduce them? Yes.
By international agreement, we already have.
> Now that we know burning fossil fuels could
> be detrimental should we look for substitues? Sure.
Agreed.
> Do we have
> the capacity to alter the climate of a planet so big that you
> can barely see the sum total of all the lights of the most
> densely-populated areas from space? Doubt it.
It may seem counter-intuitive at first. But the evidence is there.
If it were just the greenhouse gases produced by a single night's city
lights on the momentary night side of the earth, today that's a lot of
energy with tons of greenhouse gases produced. But still, one night's
worth is probably not significant enough to worry about.
However, when we consider each of those lights burning every night for
decades, and more lights added every week, the energy it takes to do
that adds up. If you could imaging overlaying every night's lights for
the last fifty years, you'd have a very bright image. A lot of those
lights are powered by burning fossil fuels (coal being the most
popular), and over the years, a lot of greenhouse gases have been released.
When we include other human activities (transportation, mining,
manufacturing, agriculture, military activities, lighting during the
day, heating, cooling, etc.), we're talking about significantly higher
amounts of greenhouse gases released than just one night's lighting
produces. Since greenhouse gases take long periods of time to dissipate,
they are accumulating ever faster. Meanwhile our output continues to
grow. Since industrialization, our contribution to greenhouse gases has
gone on long enough, and grown fast enough, to become a noticeable
factor in the earth's climate.
Human causes not are the only factor in determining climate, no one is
claiming that. But our contributions to greenhouse gases bring a new
element to the equation. Changing the balance.
> We (and all our
> emissions) are essentially gnats compared to major climactic
> events that we have no control over one way or the other.
We have been releasing a lot of carbon from fossil fuels. Carbon that
had been locked up slowly, and for millions of years. And we're doing it
relatively quickly.
Yes, this is on top of all the natural cycles. Clearly it's a new factor
that we cannot overlook. When scientists look at the data, they can see
and account for natural cycles (including volcanoes), AND they can see
the effect of our contributions.
Let's say for the sake of discussion that the effect of mankind is still
relatively small. Then why would we matter?
Keep in mind that we are part of a system, a system that has been fairly
balanced, overall, since about the last ice age.
Even a small change can tip a scale.
If you added just one extra player to a football team, making it 12 vs.
13 players, that could be enough to change the outcome of a game. The
balance changes. The team with the extra player has an advantage, the
extra player tilts the game.
Or, put it this way, it doesn't take much of Blair's 16 Million Reserve
(http://www.chez-williams.com/Hot%20Sauce/hothome.htm) to change the
taste of a recipe.
>> BTW, I haven't made my pick for president yet. Way to early!
>
> Just go with Hillary, that way a Republican will win for sure.
It's not important to me that either a Democrat or Republican win. It's
important to me that we have a competent president, and that we work
toward a future that gives our kids and their kids better opportunities
than we have, in a free, successful society living on a healthy and
sustainable planet.
>> Maybe Al Gore will jump in. ;^)
>
> Maybe, but I doubt it, he's having too much fun being rich &
> famous & out of Clinton's shadow.
True, he does seem to be enjoying himself.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Totally OT [message #89676 is a reply to message #89614] |
Wed, 12 September 2007 06:58 |
chuck duffy
Messages: 453
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Mark,
That's wacky. CON is an old DOS logical device referring to the console,
and as such was a reserved word.
You could do things such as create files using this device
copy con test.txt
Then whatever you typed on the CONsole went to the file. When you typed
CTRL+Z the file would be terminated.
similarly there was PRN, a logical device representing the printer. You
could do things like copy a file to the printer
copy test1.txt > PRN
you can see that if you are able to copy a file to a 'device' called PRN,
then you could never use the name PRN for a file, because it would be ambiguous
as to which PRN you were trying to copy to :-)
The hangover remains because PC users demand that every old piece of shit
app from 1988 on, and every old shitty batch file STILL WORK under WINDOWS!.
Similarly, you should not be able to create a folder or file with any of
the following names:
CON COM1 - COM4
PRN AUX LPT1
Chuck
"W. Mark Wilson" <xpam_mark@avidrecording> wrote:
>Can anyone here with XP create a new folder called "con" without the quotes,
>caps or none, anywhere on their drives, under XP as OS?
>
>Just curious if it's me.
>
>W. Mark Wilson
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Totally OT [message #89677 is a reply to message #89674] |
Wed, 12 September 2007 06:59 |
chuck duffy
Messages: 453
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
No, you can't do it from the command line. It would break compatibility for
wordperfect for DOS 3.0 :-)
Chuck
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>It's reserved name in Windows. Same goes for trying to create a file named
>'COM1' of 'LPT2' and so forth. If for some reason you really need a file
>or folder with one of those names (probably not a good idea in any case)
>you can do it from the command line. If you're in a directory c:\temp and
>you open a command window you can type
>
>C:\temp>mkdir \\.\c:\temp\con
>
>or lpt1 or whatever, and it will work.
>
>Many *NIX systems also reserve names.
>
>TCB
>
>"W. Mark Wilson" <xpam_mark@avidrecording> wrote:
>>Can anyone here with XP create a new folder called "con" without the quotes,
>
>>caps or none, anywhere on their drives, under XP as OS?
>>
>>Just curious if it's me.
>>
>>W. Mark Wilson
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Dec 15 15:42:29 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.06960 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
