I'm not so sure that they do (need a body count, that is) - in fact, I'm pretty sure that Portal and Portal 2 are basically what Myst's legacy are at this point, and neither of those has you racking up a body count (other than deaths by failure, ha ha).

I'm pretty sure an RC plane costs more than the shooter's pants, so he would technically be able to sue the pants off of the shooter and still get some money as well.

Good point (and one that basically points out that Mr. Whittington is the one attempting to shut off debate, in this case by basically implying Milligan is a fucking loony).

That said, the author of the paper is still just wanking at best. :-) To point at one particular issue with his conclusion: the argument from "eco-minded critics" he claims sympathy with that we have more energy than we can handle without causing damage is an argument brought from ignorance at best and from willful intent to send humanity back to the Dark Ages at worst.

Basically, the issue is not that we need to necessarily reduce our energy usage, but that we need to improve our methods of handling energy production - which is something the critics he's referring to would find a ghastly prospect, having entrenched interests in making negative predictions about humanity.

And, of course, the implication in his conclusion that because there are risks, an action is not worth taking... well, I find that attitude ethically problematic as without risks, you stunt the potential of humanity.

"Too cheap to meter" only makes sense with government-owned utilities, and then only if startup and maintenance costs (including fuel under maintenance) are both negligible.

That said, I suspect geothermal power is actually better-suited to being "too cheap to meter", but getting the necessary power output requires significant advances in mining-related technologies anyway (ideally your heat-uptake loop has as large of a heat differential as possible, meaning drilling a borehole near or even into the mantle if possible).

Eh, some of the trends are unsustainable projected into the long run.

That said, projected into the long run, there's a 100% chance of the Earth being destroyed.

Taking into account assorted opportunity costs as well (including reduced productivity from pollution-related illnesses from other sources), I would say the correct answer is "yes".

Aside from that declaring it "evil" is specifically a move to shut off debate?

It's an intentionally bad choice of words on his part, designed to garner publicity and be entirely unproductive. Referring to it as "bad" still allows room for the debate to exist - it puts him specifically on one side of it, but that's fine - whereas referring to it as "evil" shifts it from a "should we do this or not" debate to a debate about morality, which, honestly, is not what a debate about mining anything should be about.

For what it's worth, I agree with two of the three terms you're using to describe mining the moon (the point of disagreement being "completely futile", as I'd like to see advancements in automated mining technology, which would have uses down here in the old gravity well).

Is he fighting a little Batman?

2/9ths of the way through its life, considering it as "mature enough to be able to get into the Senate", maybe. It's not anywhere near dead yet.

So, more like "since it's been in 2nd grade".

I assume you take your dead fetus dredged through elephant shit drenched in horse semen instead, then.

I'll link you to what he said. (I'm not sure if you haven't read this particular bit, or if you have and are just trying to make a case for some magical ponies-and-rainbows world.)

I submit that what he said there provides more useful criticism than your suggestion, despite the usage of... well, really not very much profanity at all. (Tallying up everything that could even vaguely be considered "bad language", I get three "crap"s, two "shit"s, one "hell", and one "WTF".)

In addition, your response is more punitive than is probably necessary, considering that the person in question has a history of committing good code normally. You'd seriously operate on a two-strikes policy for bad commits?

So why does he need to yell publicly at this person who screwed up, why not do the yelling in private? The only reason I can think is that he wants to embarrass or humiliate the person, and possibly send out warnings/intimidations to tohers, and that's dickish.

If you do the yelling in private, other people will repeat the same mistake. Basic fact of human nature: we learn best from other people being made an example of.

So, responding to the mistake "publicly" (and keep in mind that far more people read Slashdot than the LKML) is the best way of preventing future mistakes. Whether or not yelling is necessarily the best way of responding is another matter entirely, and obviously is target-dependent. (Based on comments on the mailing list, yelling appears to be reserved for people who really, really should know better. People who don't necessarily know better, or people who actually ask first - like they should - don't get yelled at.)

Really, what this boils down to is that if you're not sure if you're doing the right thing, you should ask first rather than going all cowboy-style and screwing things up. "It's better to ask forgiveness than permission" should not be the guiding principle of, well, anyone who isn't ready to set out on their own anyway.

The thing is, people end up thinking it's okay to retaliate in kind because they see no adverse consequences to it. Which is directly traceable back to the whole "let's keep up a professional front" thing.

If you're going to enforce professionalism, you have to be willing to enforce thought police on everyone there so that nobody even gets to think about backstabbing...

From one of the more recent things he engaged his primary flame-cannon over, the person he aimed it at did screw up pretty badly and for no apparent reason (I mean, seriously, submitting code that you don't know if it works and you admit is probably not necessary? Don't do that).

So no, I don't think he's a dick for the sake of being a dick - he's a dick because people shouldn't be submitting things that are broken and that kind of person deserves to be told off.

Assuming that 90% of people who donate will donate in the first ten days, and that it'll hold its average to date over that time period (through exposure to new people), it's still on track for over $330k. "Half" is not "a tiny fraction" last time I checked.

But yes, expecting less than what Kicktraq is projecting is otherwise appropriate.