You're still missing the point. Calories are not interchangeable -- eating "too many" calories isn't the cause of obesity. Go read "Why we get fat" by Gary Taubes for a better documented explanation.

Because charging Red Hat, a billion dollar company, $99 for access to signing services is not "monopoly abuse"? The author of TFA already pointed out that nothing stops somebody from providing the same services to the Linux community, but it's difficult and expensive and they can't be bothered, so it's easier to pay Microsoft to do it for them. As can anyone else.

Secure boots and trusted computing are fundamentally a good idea. Having OEMs provide a set of root keys to control what boots is a good idea. The problem is the creator of BobLinux who wants to have thousands of random users install his random kernel is indistinguishable technically from the creator of some boot sector malware who wants to have thousands of users permanently rooted. It becomes distinguishable once you have people who check out what the software is and signs it, which is the service Microsoft are providing - for very little, actually. As I said, apparently others don't feel like offering similar services when it's expensive to do and Microsoft are offering to do it cheaply. But they could.

Microsoft will be offering signing services through their sysdev portal. It's not entirely free (there's a one-off $99 fee to gain access), but it's cheaper than any realistic alternative would have been. It ensures compatibility with as wide a range of hardware as possible and it avoids Fedora having any special privileges over other Linux distributions. If there are better options then we haven't found them. So, in all probability, this is the approach we'll take. Our first stage bootloader will be signed with a Microsoft key.

An actual law to prevent looking forward.

That's what the 1M rule was, not looking forward - it was putting on the fantasy goggles and pretending what they saw was real.

Republicans wanted this looking forward to base projections on reality, not on fantasy.

Why would you support people who only want to pretend instead of see accurately?

You might want to try that again

As in, the real answer is 900%...

Whenever you are doing estimates like that you should always use some kind of quick common sense check of your result. For example, a 100% increase from 0.2 is 0.4 - so obviously your 90% calculation was way too low.

Nah. 1 meter is around the consensus projection.

IPCC is saying "around" 59cm now. Which is a HUGE difference.

It may be lower

MAY?

You'd have to show evidence that sea level increases were actually accelerating, which they are not - despite predictions over the past several years they would be. Since those projections were wrong then, what suddenly makes them so trustworthy now?

in the case of Republicans, the scenario you want to believe.

Why do the Democrats get a pass? They are picking 1M out of THIER ass simply to prevent development in some areas.

The Republicans are at least saying, look, here is a clear trend line, it has been roughly on this path for decades, why not look at that as a baseline for predictions until a theory comes along that starts DEMONSTRATING otherwise? The Republicans seem to be the only ones presenting a way to come up with a reasonable estimate devoid of guesswork and hyperbole.

The most annoying thing about the global warming cultists such as yourself is that you continue to ignore what happens in reality, and dismiss all attempts at reasonable and rational estimates for future change in favor of your own scare-mongering huge numbers. All while draping yourself in the false flag of "science" which you refuse to listen to or practice.

They already have the engineering report. They don't like the results. It's inconvenient for the developers to have the water rise 1M

Obviously whoever decided they should plan for the sea level to rise a meter is not an engineer.

Even the IPCC is estimating now, a maximum of around 2 feet.

But of course, no predicted massive sea level rises have taken place yet. They keep predicting doom but the sea level simply continues to creep up along the same historical trend line it has been on for decades. If forecasts cannot get the rise correct in the short term, why should planners be forced to use the even longer term wild estimates?

People who live on the coast will have to deal with potentially much higher water levels from storms anyway, so all the planning around this baseline number does is make some land off-limits that would not be otherwise, which is pointless.