Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMDGPU In Linux 4.10 To Have Better Power Management, New VM Manager

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    Xen0sys
    Senior Member

  • Xen0sys
    replied
    Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
    If you live in cold areas, global warming is a good thing. So move to a country where is a long winter and stop whining.
    This statement is so selfish, moronic and oblivious of the reality it's hilarious. Climate change is going to effect hot & cold areas and result in greater extremes in both directions with less stability between.

    Think of it this way - we currently have 4 seasons. As climate change gets worse, Earth will slowly lose it's intermediary seasons and we will just have longer harsher & more chaotic winters and summers.

    Yes eventually Earth could go full Venus and then there would be no more cold but that is way beyond what humans will allow to happen. Instead, many species will go extinct, many societies will be damaged, and a huge amount of unnecessary and avoidable debt will be brought on to clean up all the damage. That is unless the pace to recovery is not continually accelerated.

    If you're gunna troll at least slip some misinformation in there to make it harder to debunk.
    Xen0sys
    Senior Member
    Last edited by Xen0sys; 01 November 2016, 02:33 PM.

    Leave a comment:

  • starshipeleven
    Premium Supporter

  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
    No it is not fixed. When your environment is too hot and dry, move. That humans and animals have done thousands of years.
    That isn't solving the problem, given current trends, even poles will eventually become "too hot and dry", and well before that you end with significant overcrowding in polar regions.

    Then what? A full planetary evacuation is a bit complex to pull off even if you do have the tech to make decent space stations.

    In Siberia there is a lot of room.
    Siberia = Russia = Putin = nopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopeno penopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenopenope nopenope.

    Leave a comment:

  • starshipeleven
    Premium Supporter

  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
    You did post info that ends at 1950.
    You probably missed the white arrow with "current level" on its right.

    Same tactics is used by the communist that you are believing. Climate is a lot of more that CO2 levels.
    Yeah. There is also a significant amount of hot air coming from people with an open mouth claiming total bullshit.

    On one hand its sort of a marvel that humans as a race are now powerful enough to have global/planetary impact (aka terraforming) but on the other hand we are reverse terraforming on our current course slowly making the climate in general more volatile/less stable, and less suitable for non-co2 consumers.
    Species fucking up their own environment isn't a new thing. On a local scale it's easy to find occurrences of this.
    On a global scale, most mass-extinction events were caused by unbalanced ecosystems initiating a massive cascade-failure that escalated on a near-global scale. The asteroid was just a refreshing change in an otherwise boring sequence of such same events.

    And it starts very early. See for example the Great Oxygenation Event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event
    Where cyanobacteria, anaerobic life forms (i.e. oxygen is a poison for them), generated a ridiculous amount of oxygen well before photosyntesis was a thing (photosynthetic organisms also breathe so they need oxygen, they could not evolve with a nitrogen-only atmosphere, a chicken-and-egg problem), but then got largely wiped out by that oxygen.

    If you live in non-cold areas, global warming is a bad thing. So move to a country where isn't a long winter and stop whining.
    fixed.

    Leave a comment:

  • Xen0sys
    Senior Member

  • Xen0sys
    replied
    Originally posted by debianxfce View Post

    Fast events have happened here without human action.
    Yup one outlier certainly disproves all common sense.

    http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/ - it's happening and humans are doing it. Every major scientific foundation worldwide acknowledges it. All scientific data gathered from the onset of the discovery has added to it's merit. There are no longer any meritable debates on whether or not humans are causing it - they are now about how to fix it.

    On one hand its sort of a marvel that humans as a race are now powerful enough to have global/planetary impact (aka terraforming) but on the other hand we are reverse terraforming on our current course slowly making the climate in general more volatile/less stable, and less suitable for non-co2 consumers.

    Look at the thick atmosphere of Venus - loaded with co2 and significantly hotter than Mercury (which is closer to the sun) - same greenhouse effect slowly building up on Earth.

    "The atmosphere of Venus is very thick and is about 90 times more massive than Earth's atmosphere. It is mostly carbon dioxide gas (about 96%), with some nitrogen (about 3%) and a very small amount of water vapor (0.003%). Venus also has a thick layer of sulfuric acid clouds."

    In the end it won't matter whether humans in general are smart enough to understand the why/how of climate change or necessarily agree on what is causing it. In the end humans will work to re-stabilize Earth by reducing our bloated footprint or we won't.

    Spoiler alert: we already are. Investments in solar/wind/renewable's in general have all skyrocketed in the past decade. Wind production in the US has already overtaken Coal.
    Xen0sys
    Senior Member
    Last edited by Xen0sys; 31 October 2016, 04:28 PM.

    Leave a comment:

  • starshipeleven
    Premium Supporter

  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    Extinction is wildly unlikely as the phenomenon is VERY slow,
    By "very slow" here I mean for human timescales.
    By geological timescales it is fucking fast, as geological ice ages took like millions of years to happen or to disappear.

    Leave a comment:

  • starshipeleven
    Premium Supporter

  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by Tomin View Post
    I wish we (humans, as a species) won't die because we were stupid and didn't see the bigger picture. Then again, if we fail to see it, maybe we should go to extinction.
    Extinction is wildly unlikely as the phenomenon is VERY slow, slowing down technological progress for a few centuries while some serious shit is happening and there are wars or other things wasting resources is a possibility, that many people in the poorer countries hit by these things will be left on their own devices (to die) and told to fuck off (or exploited for profit, see Monsanto) is certain.

    A positive aspect is that there will be better reasons for exocolonization in a mid-term future, which is a good thing in itself to avoid more serious issues like asteroid impacts, more common pollution/deforestation/whatever fucking up ecosystems for good, and wars.
    (for exocolonization I mean serious space stations or at most the Moon, not Mars or any other planet, ignoring for a moment that Mars is a distant radioactive desert whose pathetic atmosphere is good only for pissing off landing craft and throwing sand on your stuff on the surface, and that other planets in the solar system manage to be much worse than that, planets in general would have the same issues we have with Earth now).

    All in all, I wouldn't worry too much, if you are in a First/Second World country the biggest issues come from economical recession and immigrant influx, neither is directly linked to climate change.

    Leave a comment:

  • Tomin
    Senior Member

  • Tomin
    replied
    I'm kind of surprised that someone otherwise smart person (maybe, debatable) can think that this climate change isn't a real issue, but yeah there are such people in the world. I wish they would look how much glaciers on poles has shrunk and understood that it's too fast to be caused by natural climate change. Everyone should be aware that number of extreme weather conditions will increase when climate changes (sometimes I feel like that has already happened when I hear news about them, but maybe not quite yet). I'd also be hard to do much about this global warming, if USA (as a country) doesn't do anything to limit their emissions. I wish we (humans, as a species) won't die because we were stupid and didn't see the bigger picture. Then again, if we fail to see it, maybe we should go to extinction.

    Originally posted by illwieckz View Post
    Code:
    FI: “ilmaston lämpeneminen” → climate warming
    Erm. We also use "ilmastonmuutos" which is literally climate change, but yes the event that has been happening the last few decades (or whatever) and is caused by human is "ilmaston lämpeneminen".

    Leave a comment:

  • starshipeleven
    Premium Supporter

  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
    Man made climate change is a religion. Just see world temp in the beginning of 2000 when factories in China emissions were greatest.
    climate change is a bit more complex thing than just "average temperatures rise". It's called CLIMATE change, not TEMPERATURE change. Also "Global Warming" is a very dumbed-down and incorrect naming.

    Leave a comment:

  • starshipeleven
    Premium Supporter

  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by illwieckz View Post
    That's why you verified my statement, it was the best confirmation I could wait. Since your post is part of the problem, you can re-read my words with your post in mind when I talk about “the problem”.
    You can re-read my answers where I said that it is generic garbage and that if you want to be understood you need to be more specific.

    The fourth problem is to made it a rule.
    It's a rule because it is a fact. People outside USA that claim this bullshit are few and far in between.

    The third problem is to think it's about believers and denialists.
    None talked about believers, we are talking about people not accepting facts, and that's denial.

    The second problem is to think “disbelieving” (see 3rd) global warming is only a matter of retarded people.
    Lack of acceptance of proven facts is stupidity.

    The first problem is the way “global warming” is thought. As an example I will just study the “global warming” glossary. Not every language say “global warming” and the “global” concept is USA-centric :[/LIST]

    Code:
    DE: “erderwärmung” → earth warming
    FI: “ilmaston lämpeneminen” → climate warming
    FR: “réchauffement climatique” → climatic warming
    Earth = global
    climatic (without specifying a local place) = also global

    So they are all synonims.

    The actual name of the phenomenon is "climate change", btw, so they are all wrong.

    Other languages that have literal “global warming” equivalents just translated them from north american english words, that's why I talk about “USA-centric trolls” and not “USA-citizen trolls”,
    That's because the concept of the phenomenon came from there, and most people weren't arsed enough to come up with a better name for it.

    You can do the same with other words like say "computer". Apart from a few languages like say French, "computer" is used.

    since many people over the world narrowed their mind to the simplistic schemas from USA when it's about modern debates.
    No we are just using the right words for the language we are discussing in.

    people do not globalize the problem, but narrow it to climate or earth for example.
    Yeah, because Earth isn't the name of the whole planet (which means it is a synonim of "global"), and "climate" without specific modifiers to link it to some local place is also applied to the whole planet's climate (again similar meaning of "global").

    There is no “global warming denialists” in this language, there is “climatosceptiques”, which means “climatological skepticals”,
    How they choose to call the idiots that don't accept basic proven facts is irrelevant, they remain idiots.

    I don't get how by analyzing linguistics you can get anywhere.
    Linguistics is arbitrary as fuck and based on irrational decisions of the masses.

    It's very typical from people who live in a country they haven't inherited from their ancestors,
    And here you show you're an idiot that does not know basic sociology, and USA history.

    USA was colonized mostly by people that were rejected from other nations, misfits, cultists and whatever. Their culture was influenced by this, and their very laws protect stupid retarded silly cults, and some modern movements like Pastafarians are exploiting this for fun factor.

    The “global warming” debate was not rational from the start because the glossary used for the debate was not.
    Listen, if you use English you cannot use different words than that. I cannot start writing shit in Italian or Spanish or French or even chinese (Mandarin) just because they write it in a different way and I think it's better.

    Leave a comment:

  • illwieckz
    Senior Member

  • illwieckz
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    My post was a funnier way to say "please be more specific", so your troll attempt here is failing.
    That's why you verified my statement, it was the best confirmation I could wait. Since your post is part of the problem, you can re-read my words with your post in mind when I talk about “the problem”.

    As a rule, most people disbelieving so hard global warming are from USA. So are the Creationists, Flat-earthers, and many other types of retards.
    • The fourth problem is to made it a rule.
    • The third problem is to think it's about believers and denialists.
    • The second problem is to think “disbelieving” (see 3rd) global warming is only a matter of retarded people.
    • The first problem is the way “global warming” is thought. As an example I will just study the “global warming” glossary. Not every language say “global warming” and the “global” concept is USA-centric :

    Code:
    DE: “erderwärmung” → earth warming
    FI: “ilmaston lämpeneminen” → climate warming
    FR: “réchauffement climatique” → climatic warming
    Other languages that have literal “global warming” equivalents just translated them from north american english words, that's why I talk about “USA-centric trolls” and not “USA-citizen trolls”, since many people over the world narrowed their mind to the simplistic schemas from USA when it's about modern debates. I really don't know who live in USA or not in this thread (and I don't care), but the USA mindset is everywhere.
    • As a first example, see how some language use a noun and others use an adjective before “warming”, it means a lot of things about how things are thought.
    • As a second example, see how people do not globalize the problem, but narrow it to climate or earth for example. It's the first things to do in a scientific attempt : narrowing the problem. Globalization is easy for the mind, but can't lead to a correct rational debate. So these people, even the most retarded ones, use words that prevent simplistic generalization from the start, because the language, which is the ground of the debate, is not simplistic.
    • As a third example, I will study just one word to qualify the people. For this example I will take the French language. There is no “global warming denialists” in this language, there is “climatosceptiques”, which means “climatological skepticals”, as you see, it's not about disbelievers or denialists, it's about skepticals, and being skeptical is not equivalent with disbelieving. Skepticism is a philosophical systemic approach to question the knowledge. So, it's not about believers or denialists, it's about questioning knowledge.


    NB: And before some USA-people makes the assumption that reducing a debate to a believers versus denialists opposition sounds very religious, I say that reducing a debate to a believers versus denialists opposition is not a religious mechanism, it's a communitarian irrational sectarian mechanism, i.e. the very typical and primitive way to experience the religious phenomenon, which is typical to USA, the country of the thousands of sects growing up like if there were no-one people before them who have answered their own questions since centuries in universities (sometime since milleniums by philosophers and thinkers) or at least studied their problems before and narrowed the problems to exclude stupid and simplistic stuff, therefore creationists, flat-earthers etc. It's very typical from people who live in a country they haven't inherited from their ancestors, like if they were living the beginning of the humanity, the beginning of the world, the beginning of the history, and the origin of a spread, which are a wrong assumptions. The glossary itself reveals how the ones who created this “global warming” wording do not know what is history, knowledge inheritance, and philosophical traditions, things that give the appropriate tools to not redo the errors that has already proven to be errors, and to exclude foolishness from the start. The “global warming” debate was not rational from the start because the glossary used for the debate was not.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X