It’s them risking arrest, not you, so I would say they are the ones who get to say whether it’s a worthwhile use or not, wouldn’t you?
It’s them risking arrest, not you, so I would say they are the ones who get to say whether it’s a worthwhile use or not, wouldn’t you?
Destroyed? Let’s talk about that.
As you know, Stonehenge has been standing in the rain for 3,000 years.
Following the industrial revolution, fossil fuel emissions made that acid rain. It attacked every cultural artifact standing outdoors for decades.
I think that the people who did that belong behind bars.
But they aren’t destroying them, are they? The stones have been standing in the rain and snow for 3,000 years. Some powder paint is just going to wash off the next time it snows. It’s not like they’ve taken a jackhammer to the Heel Stone.
I basically agree with all of that, but it was totally possible to upgrade the auth system and keep it separate from Microsoft. Obviously Microsoft wouldn’t do that, but that’s kind of the point, isn’t it?
It concerns me that the article blames this on El Nino and continued burning of fossil fuels.
I’m sure those are contributing, but what about the wildfires that we saw last year? They are a feedback effect (higher temperatures makes fires more likely; fires release CO2; CO2 increases temperatures). If feedback effects have started, then everybody needs to panic.
The water companies have been paying dividends to their shareholders while not doing anything to upgrade the sewerage system. Certainly the people won’t want to pay twice for the upgrade.
Because it only contains “credible policies in place for less than 20% of the emissions cuts needed”. The other 80% is all wishful thinking.
Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that the leaking process will be the next process to try to allocate memory after you run out. It might actually be your window manager, for example.
The OOM killer is a last-ditch attempt by the OS to keep running, but it is very likely to leave your system in an unstable state.
In all seriousness, I think the reason why we are in the situation we are in is that, for about 50 years, people have ignored the worse scenarios and paid attention only to the ones that aren’t that bad. That isn’t the correct way to manage risk.
Let them sell insurance against extreme weather incidents, like droughts, floods and hurricanes. If they’re right, they should be able to offer lower rates than the rest of the market.
It is a stretch to say that their motivation for protesting could never be relevant.
Not so long ago, we had protests which were illegal because the police refused to give them a permit. The protests were because a policeman had raped and killed a woman. The conduct of the police was simultaneously what made the protest illegal and also what they were protesting about.
In this case, the motivation is that the government is failing in its basic duty to protect the lives and future of its citizens (all of them), and it’s the government that has passed legislation to make protest illegal.
“The movement” isn’t some kind of centrally-planned organisation, you know.