According to current definitions of "pollutant", CO2 fits the bill.
According to Skeptical Science. Which is kind of like saying that under current definitions of "safe", cigarettes fit the bill (according to Philip Morris).
Exactly my point, if even GERMANS can't be rational about this there is no hope for anyone.
The German people have been systematically zombified on this and other issues. They are getting fed a lot of propaganda, they've been led around by people like Hermet Kohl and Angela Merkel for so long they just don't know any better.
If only the sun's output showed a trend. Gee, a bunch of ideologues with ties to industry providing you with the "truth" of climate change, eh? Sad.
Actually, the amount of relevant radiation that reaches the earth shows a pretty compelling correlation with global temperatures. It's certainly a better correlation that the CO2 concentrations.
Once it has significant influence, and the maintainers of competing projects have drifted away either out of frustration or because they are starved of oxygen, RedHat knows that they can effectively take Linux closed-source by restricting access to documentation and fighting changes that are not in their own best interests.
That's not even necessary - to close source it - since they can just end up as the only source of signed Linux binaries that run on a critical mass of manufacturer's computers, which require it on their UEFI Secure Boot systems. This is one of the goals of systemd. As outline their own presentation.
Assumptions, as so often before, are the mother of all fuckups. Asking (preferably in a civilized manner) will get you a long way: "Hey, I'm not seeing my logs appear in syslog, is this supposed to be that way, and if not, can you help debug?"
Thanks for that, because this seems to be the source of much of the angst among the systemd detractors. Not that they can't ask the question politely, but that the answer so often is "Yes, it's supposed to be that way, because there is something wrong about the way you've been writing to logs for the last 5 years. You will have to change your code to conform with the systemd-journald way of doing things if you ever want to see your logs again."
Never mind that with systemd, it goes beyond init. systemd as a project are sprouting tentacles everywhere, and projects closer to the user (Gnome for instance) is strongly encouraged to latch on.
This kind of tight coupling is unheard of in Linux history.
Yes, but it's required for the goals of systemd, which include being able to have signed binaries and control of the OS from the firmware all the way up to to user programs and everything, like an Apple walled garden or Windows 8 on secure boot. If you don't believe that's the goal, feel free to check out the Presentation on a perspective systemd for yourself, especially page 6 and the last page.
owing to a software glitch that can reportedly causes the devices to boot to a black screen.
Oh, a "glitch"? Really? That's the explanation, right? That's all we need to know?
Really sick of all this dumbed-down "tech news" these days. Is there a new phone out? Oh, then no tech news! Idiots.
"Glitch" - it's why the IRS lost a bunch of people's emails. It's why nobody could sign up for Obamacare - oh, "it was a glitch". Why did the UK ground all flights for most of a day back it May? Oh, it was a "glitch".
I'm really getting sick of this shit. Is the general public really this stupid?
Yes, the plan drafted by him years earlier
Not _drafted_, but agreed with Iraq government. Or do you want the US to violate its foreign treaties?
Hah! You lie, but that's a good example, thank you! USSR invaded Afghanistain [wikipedia.org] in 1979, when Jimmy Carter was is office — another example of a weak "it is all America's fault" excuse for a President. But even he imposed sanctions against USSR. And the whole world boycotted the 1980 Moscow Olympics.
And then Reagan lifted most of the sanctions by 1984 (after Brezhnev's death and the right noises in Poland about democracy). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1... , http://www.csmonitor.com/1984/... and so on.
Yes, which is an embarrassment for Obama.
Moving goalposts, are we? I did say that Obama is a mainstream Republican by his actions, so naturally he expanded the policies of his predecessors.
On top of that you got Reagan's reaction to USSR's invasion exactly backwards, which demonstrates the level of ignorance so deep, I'm unlikely to respond again...
When the facts contradict your ideology, you damn the facts.
Nonsense. You have no leg to stand on in this argument — the extrajudicial killing of bin Laden (ordered by Obama) defeats your point by itself
Don't worry, Republicans _love_ extra-judicial killings. As witnessed by their support of Bush's war and Israel.
Oh, no you don't... You keep him. A Republican would not have withdrawn all troops from Iraq
Bush drafted the pullout plan...
A Republican [politifact.com] would not have encouraged Putin to invade Ukraine by lifting all sanctions [washingtonpost.com] imposed over a similar invasion into Georgia.
You mean, like Reagan did with the USSR and Afghanistan invasion?
A Republican would've continued to detain terrorist suspects [theguardian.com] — in Guantanamo or elsewhere — rather then order extrajudicial killings [commondreams.org] — most infamously one of Osama bin Laden [theatlantic.com] himself.
1) Gitmo is still open. 2) Drone strikes were started by Bush.
No, Obama is an Illiberal Democrat through and through. But such people — yourself included — are famous for inability to recognize each other — so far are their deeds from their proclaimed ideals.
So far you've listed exactly the things that Republicans do.
It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.
