Comment Re:Ok, Greens. (Score 1) 629
OMFG nerd STFU if you have nothing to contribute. This is about policy, not science.
If we could reverse the last 50 years we'd be doing pretty good. Of course we can't reverse anything until we stop producing more.
If the latter were to magically happen, what time scale do you think the former would take?
Cutting back isnt about reversing climate change that's already happened, it's about stopping its continued growth
When do you think the impact of the industrial revolution, to date, will fully be absorbed by the biosphere?
When do you think the reduction of carbon inputs will begin to reduce the impact to the biosphere?
I am asking for an integer, plus or minus a thousand years.
doubt about AGW
You misread me -- my question is NOT regarding the warming.
If we accept the inputs are creating an output, what on Earth makes you conclude that the actions we take in the midst of a massive human output of "bad X" will, in fact, minimize the impact of a global trend which is causing immediate, measurable harm? The plans you seem to advocate will take a thousand years to impact what is already set in motion.
You see, we are a global society, which makes global waste, which turns, in part, to heat. That heat will cook the poor.
It will be ugly, brutish and nasty. And pretending it won't happen is folly.
Elemental’s servers could be found in Department of Defense data centers, the CIA’s drone operations, and the onboard networks of Navy warships. And Elemental was just one of hundreds of Supermicro customers.
So, as far as being the "reason" for dumping Supermicro at that time, "government contracts" do not compute.
You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all alike.
