I agree completely, and the goal is to continuously improve the models so that the predictions become more accurate and provide a better basis on which to base corrective action. As the poster below points out, poor models leave us at the mercy of everyone; we may need to plan for the worst-case scenario, because we can't rule it out, yet the opposition can easily build a case against it by saying the models are unreliable. But the option of just doing nothing until the models are proven to everyone's satisfaction doesn't seem very good.

Yes, we can model complex systems, however that doesn't mean it's an easy task by any means, or that correct model predictions can be assumed. I spent years modeling and simulating the power grid, which is arguably less complex than climate, and that modeling was always a matter of constant tuning, refinement, and working toward making the models accord with known results so that we would have at least some confidence about predictions.

By all means we need to model climate and climate change and attempt to make rational predictions. We should be able to continuously refine our models and get better and better results. But the purpose of such modeling, similar to what we did with the power grid, is to make predictions that have reasonable credibility so that appropriate corrective actions can be taken.

What I describe is honest science and engineering, which should be completely independent of politics and generating headlines or supporting viewpoints, whether "denier" or "supporter."

It's like that dictum, "Don't tell me what I want to hear, tell me what I need to hear."

To define things better, let's say that a fair shot a "making it" means a chance to reach at least an income within a standard deviation of "average middle class" which I suppose would in turn require further definition and would be location/country dependent.

Or we can just say that people in poverty should have a fair shot at pulling themselves out of poverty. People need to have hope.

Reaching the top 1% is indeed unrealistic in the vast majority of cases.

Emacs calc is the ultimate :) Actually it is.

I think I would be happy/satisfied if, unlike the way it is today, everyone simply had a fair shot at making good. Just that, a fair chance. Then it really would be on "you" to succeed or fail.

Unfortunately the studies cited by other posters about lack of upward mobility indicate that we have a long way to go to achieve this seemingly basic goal. Not free stuff for everyone, not robbing the rich to give to the poor, just --- a fair chance.

Bad things tend to happen when enough people feel that they have no hope.

I am trying to argue that while it's correct to insist that pedestrians toe the line, a major factor, namely drivers who could care less about pedestrians, is being ignored, not through lack of laws but through lack of enforcement.

The white "walk" symbol is on (at most major intersections) for only seven seconds, several of which are lost waiting for drivers to run the yellow/red, because as I said, I risk my life trying to cross right away when the light changes in my favor. After seven seconds blinking red comes on and you're not allowed to start to cross (and I don't). Kind of makes it difficult as you've only got a few seconds to truly start a safe crossing.

I live in Honolulu and walk everywhere. Honolulu has terrible stats for pedestrian-car accidents, so the solution obviously seems to be to crack down on--- pedestrians.

I obey the laws carefully, I don't text while crossing, etc., but I still need to be vigilant because running red lights and ignoring crosswalks is a huge problem. I don't dare step off the curb when the walk light first comes on, at least at most intersections, because there is always someone running the light.

Pedestrians ought to obey the laws. They ought not to text while crossing. But ignoring a major problem on the part of motorists--- running lights and ignoring crosswalks--- isn't the way to reduce fatalities.

What you say is completely correct, and yet anyone whose life is so dependent on their computer really needs to have layered backups that are not on the computer in question, with a very high preference for some sort of off-site location.

I realize that most people don't do this, but they may one day come to regret it. Secure multi-generation backups are really the best defense. While it's good to see MS step up their game here, there has to be a significant degree of user responsibility.

It isn't optionally put on the phone, it is put there by Google and requires rooting the phone to get rid of it.

And to the person who said I should stop complaining about smartphones, I was making an observation. There's a difference. If it came across as a complaint, then I could have expressed it better.

Yes, of course there are small companies that draw /. hate, but my point was to emphasize the hate for very successful companies. I could have been more precise about that.

I keep promoting Gnus/BBDB for this role, and for some reason my idea doesn't get much traction :)

I don't know the answer to your question, but it's interesting that the companies /.ers love to hate (myself included to some degree) are incredible financial successes.

With power and money, does abuse inevitably follow? We rail at all three of these tech giants, often with very good reason, but they do whatever they want, because they can, and what customers have to say doesn't generally matter very much.

I suppose this feature might be of intense interest to some, of casual interest to others, but many, such as myself, ask, "This is on my phone why?

Making phone calls on a phone has long ago become a secondary, even a tertiary, feature.

So often a used copy of a book, even with shipping, is still less than the ebook price, and you actually own the darn thing with no DRM or other nonsense. You can make your own ebook with a scanner and 45 minutes of your time if you really have to have that.

I'm wondering what you're getting at with your multiple AC posts in multiple threads.

You should know that Linux zealots (such as I am to some degree) who are deriving value from Linux each and every day, will never agree with you.

Is it trying to be an irritant (with, I must admit, some success) what drives you? Does that give you some sort of psychological boost?

To each his own. Just don't expect to convert anyone to your viewpoint.