Electric vehicles themselves do not emit, but they cause power plants to emit.

Except in France, where only about 8% of their electricity comes from fossil fuels.

Considering the PM2.5 issue, I'm starting to wonder if "modern" diesels might actually be worse than older ones. At least older diesels produce big particulates that are more easily filtered or washed out by rain. Plus, they get better fuel economy, can run on biodiesel without clogging the common-rail injectors, etc.

I agree, it seems to be a 'liberal' thing - carbon credits, rather than a 'simple' carbon tax. Pollution trading, etc... Let's create MORE complex systems that don't really solve anything.

What are you, an idiot? The only reason 'liberals' talk about carbon credits instead of a 'simple' carbon tax is in an attempt to compromise with conservatives!

Then, conservative assholes turn around and blame them for it -- just like what happened with Romneycare.

Liberal: "Let's solve the problem by taxing carbon!"
Conservative: "NO! TAXES ARE EVIL!!!! We need a Free Market solution!"
Liberal: "Fine. We'll assign a value to carbon, and let it be traded on the Free Market."
Conservative: "NO! That's too complicated!"
Liberal: "..."

Apparently, what needs to happen is for liberals to stop attempting to compromise, and just tell the conservatives to go fuck themselves instead.

Would suck for kernel devs but would probably work just fine for most Linux users. Linux is not doomed.

Every user is potentially a kernel dev, ...

In exactly the same way that Bill Maher is potentially a future pope.

No, not in the same way! For the purpose of this conversation, "kernel dev" includes even people who do something as simple as `make menuconfig` or anything else that causes the checksum of the kernel to change.

That's actually a lot of people, including all Gentoo users, VMware users, anybody who needs to enable support for weird hardware, anybody who needs a non-free driver that can't be distributed already compiled in, etc.

Would suck for kernel devs but would probably work just fine for most Linux users. Linux is not doomed.

Every user is potentially a kernel dev, which is the entire point of Free Software!

What's in it for the OEM to do this?

I'll give you a hint: it's green, rectangular, and under the table.

Regarding PCs though, I can think of nothing that would generate a new anti-trust lawsuit faster than this. MS had better walk damn carefully here if they do ANYTHING that could be perceived as unfairly locking Linux and other OSes from PC hardware.

Even with Republicans having a majority in both houses of Congress?

So, that being said... Can anyone explain to me why Microsoft can use the Secure Boot feature but Linux can't offer the same as an "out of the box" experience?

Because the entire point of Free Software is that every individual user could be customizing his kernel and thus needing his own personal key.

Once a user learns enough about Linux to want to install it...

Oh, and how did they do that? By using a Live CD. And what do you call a Live CD in a world with mandatory Secure Boot? A goddamn coaster, that's what!

Why the fuck should there be a goddamn OS license key in the BIOS to begin with?!!

And what about any individual user, even one who uses Red Hat or Ubuntu, who has the audacity to actually want to exercise his rights under the GPL and recompile his kernel?

Actually, I will simply blacklist any company...

You will end up having to blacklist every company, giving up technology entirely, and going to live in a hut on a mountain.

For the vendor of a mass-market Linux laptop ---- if there is such a thing --- choosing a signed Linux OS and closing an attack vector common to both Linux and Windows makes perfect sense as well.

A Linux laptop with Secure Boot misses the point, since it prevents the user from recompiling his kernel. It's Tivoization all over again!

Red Hat and Ubuntu could probably get their keys recognized

You're completely missing the point.

Having Red Hat or Ubuntu get their keys recognized is not even slightly good enough. Every user who recompiles his kernel gets his own unique key, and needs to have that recognized! The ability for the kernel to be recompiled by the user is the entire fucking point, and is not negotiable. Therefore, secure boot is an existential threat to Free Software!

FlyHelicopters is from Texas (which has its own grid) and thinks everywhere in the US is like that.

Considering that you quoted it, I'm baffled about how you managed to miss the part where I mentioned "either US grid (east or west)." I'm well aware that power generated in Arizona doesn't get to Maine; however, power generated in somewhere like Ohio or Maryland perhaps could.

The point is, I'm making a stronger claim than you think: not that there's never been a time where the weather was bad over the continental US, but rather that there's never been a time where the weather was bad over the whole eastern US or western US (separately).

I am not aware of many negatives for them, aside from the maintenance required for the more elaborate ones.

Cost. Green roofs are heavy, so you have to build the structure (significantly) stronger to hold them up.