Slashdot Mirror

I cited Llovel et al. because of their conclusion regarding the deep ocean. I have already stated what research I would have to do before I could responsibly make a claim that the globe was warming. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]

No, you stated this:

... One thing I would have to check, just for example, is what those confidence intervals are given the multidecadal variability, which is not -- at least not uncontroversially -- known to any precise degree yet. What has been claimed to be a newly discovered variability in the Atlantic has turned up, for example. Not to mention that we know during La Niña periods of ENSO there tends to be storage, while during El Niño, more of a release. All these factors would need to be considered. Until I do, I neither agree or disagree. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-24]

Jane, that's not research you'd have to do before claiming that the globe is warming. You'd only have to do that research before attributing the warming to a particular cause. The only research you have to do before claiming that the globe is warming is to read the last sentence in the Llovel et al. 2014 abstract, and ask yourself if the bottom edge of their confidence interval is positive. Is it?

I cited Llovel et al. because of their conclusion regarding the deep ocean. I have already stated what research I would have to do before I could responsibly make a claim that the globe was warming. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]

Once again, the Llovel et al. 2014 conclusion regarding abyssal ocean temperatures depends on the globe warming. I've already explained why. If you didn't understand the equations I wrote down, just ask for help. Once you understand those equations, you'll finally see why you can't cite Llovel et al. 2014 regarding abyssal ocean temperatures while also claiming that the globe isn't warming.

I have frequently been astounded by your ability to find past information that suits your purposes, but when it comes to information that may serve to contradict your position, you suddenly appear to have never heard of Google. It is SO ridiculously easy to find references to issues with GRACE that I'm not going to bother to do it for you, and only an idiot would call that confirmation of a contrary position. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]

Sadly, that's exactly the response I expected.

I've written about many issues with GRACE, and released my source code. Here’s a quick link to browse the “control panel” of my code, followed by the top level of the program itself. All the functions used in that file are declared here and defined in full here.

So Jane will have to be more specific. I've written about many issues with GRACE, but none that qualify as "rather huge problems".

Past experienc

I cited Llovel et al. because of their conclusion regarding the deep ocean. I have already stated what research I would have to do before I could responsibly make a claim that the globe was warming. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]

No, you stated this:

... One thing I would have to check, just for example, is what those confidence intervals are given the multidecadal variability, which is not -- at least not uncontroversially -- known to any precise degree yet. What has been claimed to be a newly discovered variability in the Atlantic has turned up, for example. Not to mention that we know during La Niña periods of ENSO there tends to be storage, while during El Niño, more of a release. All these factors would need to be considered. Until I do, I neither agree or disagree. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-24]

Jane, that's not research you'd have to do before claiming that the globe is warming. You'd only have to do that research before attributing the warming to a particular cause. The only research you have to do before claiming that the globe is warming is to read the last sentence in the Llovel et al. 2014 abstract, and ask yourself if the bottom edge of their confidence interval is positive. Is it?

I cited Llovel et al. because of their conclusion regarding the deep ocean. I have already stated what research I would have to do before I could responsibly make a claim that the globe was warming. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]

Once again, the Llovel et al. 2014 conclusion regarding abyssal ocean temperatures depends on the globe warming. I've already explained why. If you didn't understand the equations I wrote down, just ask for help. Once you understand those equations, you'll finally see why you can't cite Llovel et al. 2014 regarding abyssal ocean temperatures while also claiming that the globe isn't warming.

I have frequently been astounded by your ability to find past information that suits your purposes, but when it comes to information that may serve to contradict your position, you suddenly appear to have never heard of Google. It is SO ridiculously easy to find references to issues with GRACE that I'm not going to bother to do it for you, and only an idiot would call that confirmation of a contrary position. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]

Sadly, that's exactly the response I expected.

I've written about many issues with GRACE, and released my source code. Here’s a quick link to browse the “control panel” of my code, followed by the top level of the program itself. All the functions used in that file are declared here and defined in full here.

So Jane will have to be more specific. I've written about many issues with GRACE, but none that qualify as "rather huge problems".

Past experienc

I cited Llovel et al. because of their conclusion regarding the deep ocean. I have already stated what research I would have to do before I could responsibly make a claim that the globe was warming. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]

No, you stated this:

... One thing I would have to check, just for example, is what those confidence intervals are given the multidecadal variability, which is not -- at least not uncontroversially -- known to any precise degree yet. What has been claimed to be a newly discovered variability in the Atlantic has turned up, for example. Not to mention that we know during La Niña periods of ENSO there tends to be storage, while during El Niño, more of a release. All these factors would need to be considered. Until I do, I neither agree or disagree. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-24]

Jane, that's not research you'd have to do before claiming that the globe is warming. You'd only have to do that research before attributing the warming to a particular cause. The only research you have to do before claiming that the globe is warming is to read the last sentence in the Llovel et al. 2014 abstract, and ask yourself if the bottom edge of their confidence interval is positive. Is it?

I cited Llovel et al. because of their conclusion regarding the deep ocean. I have already stated what research I would have to do before I could responsibly make a claim that the globe was warming. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]

Once again, the Llovel et al. 2014 conclusion regarding abyssal ocean temperatures depends on the globe warming. I've already explained why. If you didn't understand the equations I wrote down, just ask for help. Once you understand those equations, you'll finally see why you can't cite Llovel et al. 2014 regarding abyssal ocean temperatures while also claiming that the globe isn't warming.

I have frequently been astounded by your ability to find past information that suits your purposes, but when it comes to information that may serve to contradict your position, you suddenly appear to have never heard of Google. It is SO ridiculously easy to find references to issues with GRACE that I'm not going to bother to do it for you, and only an idiot would call that confirmation of a contrary position. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]

Sadly, that's exactly the response I expected.

I've written about many issues with GRACE, and released my source code. Here’s a quick link to browse the “control panel” of my code, followed by the top level of the program itself. All the functions used in that file are declared here and defined in full here.

So Jane will have to be more specific. I've written about many issues with GRACE, but none that qualify as "rather huge problems".

Past experienc

I cited Llovel et al. because of their conclusion regarding the deep ocean. I have already stated what research I would have to do before I could responsibly make a claim that the globe was warming. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]

No, you stated this:

... One thing I would have to check, just for example, is what those confidence intervals are given the multidecadal variability, which is not -- at least not uncontroversially -- known to any precise degree yet. What has been claimed to be a newly discovered variability in the Atlantic has turned up, for example. Not to mention that we know during La Niña periods of ENSO there tends to be storage, while during El Niño, more of a release. All these factors would need to be considered. Until I do, I neither agree or disagree. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-24]

Jane, that's not research you'd have to do before claiming that the globe is warming. You'd only have to do that research before attributing the warming to a particular cause. The only research you have to do before claiming that the globe is warming is to read the last sentence in the Llovel et al. 2014 abstract, and ask yourself if the bottom edge of their confidence interval is positive. Is it?

I cited Llovel et al. because of their conclusion regarding the deep ocean. I have already stated what research I would have to do before I could responsibly make a claim that the globe was warming. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]

Once again, the Llovel et al. 2014 conclusion regarding abyssal ocean temperatures depends on the globe warming. I've already explained why. If you didn't understand the equations I wrote down, just ask for help. Once you understand those equations, you'll finally see why you can't cite Llovel et al. 2014 regarding abyssal ocean temperatures while also claiming that the globe isn't warming.

I have frequently been astounded by your ability to find past information that suits your purposes, but when it comes to information that may serve to contradict your position, you suddenly appear to have never heard of Google. It is SO ridiculously easy to find references to issues with GRACE that I'm not going to bother to do it for you, and only an idiot would call that confirmation of a contrary position. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-25]

Sadly, that's exactly the response I expected.

I've written about many issues with GRACE, and released my source code. Here’s a quick link to browse the “control panel” of my code, followed by the top level of the program itself. All the functions used in that file are declared here and defined in full here.

So Jane will have to be more specific. I've written about many issues with GRACE, but none that qualify as "rather huge problems".

Past experienc

Yep, these Google engineers are clearly Maoists.

And German Maoism totally ruined that country.

Oh dang, that link is to Google, they are of course in on it.

Man, they've almost got me.

That usage is mentioned in the documentation:
https://support.google.com/web...

However, testing out a few queries, it seems to still work the same as it has for 20 years - requiring a term.

(Note: The decision(*) was handed down 2 hours ago and already there's rioting.)

I recently posted about a fire inspector reacting to a problem in the most dickish way possible.

The responses were surprising and enlightening. On the topic of his actions, each and every one of the respondents felt that the inspector reacted appropriately, that he in fact had to react in the most extreme manner possible, and that it was the right thing to do(**).

If you agree with this position, then it's OK for police to shoot an unarmed black man in Ferguson Missouri, or a black man purchasing a gun off the shelf at WalMart, or a 12-year old boy in Ohio playing with a toy gun.

The police have a dangerous job - they put their lives on the line every single day (just ask one), and they simply can't take the chance that a black man might be dangerous.

No. That's completely wrong, and it comes from police and other government agencies "doubling down" on their mistakes. Something bad happens, someone in authority shouts "it was the correct thing to do!", and it's echoed all over the press and on the net by people who repeat what they hear without thinking it through.

When the department says that the most dickish possible way is the right response they are alienating the people. It might avoid getting the cop thrown off the force, but in the future the department may actually *need* the support or cooperation of the people in order to do their job. This is short-term smart and long-term stupid.

We have schools teaching teenagers how to react to cops, and the take-away message is that cops only hurt people - they are a danger to be avoided

The "broken window" theory of crime can also be applied to the police. If we let them get away with these sorts of abuses, everyone in a position of authority will know that it's OK to act in the most dickish way possible.

I understand how rules exist to prevent the "worst possible scenario" from happening, but do we *always* have to act as if the worst possible scenario is happening right here, right now? Should cops always shoot a suspect who has a gun in hand? Would a more nuanced approach better?

I'm glad there's rioting. This crap needs to stop.

(*) For non-merikan readers, a grand jury does not assign guilt or innocence, it only determines whether a trial should happen. Basically, it tries to determine if there is enough evidence to go to trial. Also, it's heavily rigged *against* the defendant.

(**) There are at least 3 alternative actions the fire marshal could have taken that would have solved his problem without alienating all the con goers, the business, and the hotel. I don't expect anyone in his local area would help if his office needed public support for something, such as "please help us by sending us your video tape of incident".

So your mayo money isn't used to do this to chickens: https://www.google.com/search?...

https://code.google.com/p/chro...

looks like there's little difference two me. you are only the product if you sign in to google, which is true of whatever browser you choose.

Here, let me google that for you.
I don't know who Dillon Taylor is, but I guess we have to decide whether Hispanics are white people or not. It appears they are "the white man" when they shoot Trayvon, but they are a minority when they are unarmed and get shot.

Cops tend to (understandably) have an us versus them world view and see everyone's actions as those of a potential suspect.

What? Why is that understandable? You could say that it's understandable that waiters have an us-vs-them worldview. Or IT support. Or musicians. Or doctors. Or ANY group of people that interacts with anyone else in a professional capacity. And all of it is bullshit tribalism that makes for shitty services.

Hate is probably the wrong word for most cops but it would be fair to say cops don't trust anyone who isn't a cop. ... Apply a bit of low grade racism and you have a real problem with police distrusting a minority population and the minority population growing to distrust the police.

Hell, I'm a pasty-ass cracker from upper-middle society and I distrust the police. I know that I can afford a lawyer that means a whole swath of laws actually apply to the police during their interactions with me, but things like civil forfeiture, swatting, and local events give me good reason to distrust the cops. The complain that this teaches children to fear and avoid cops might be accurate, in all ways.

Now it's not like all cops are bad cops. It only takes one rotten apple to poison a department though, and they seem to have a culture of looking after their own. So if one screws up, the rest will cover for him. Because hey, for most of them it's just a job. Something they go into in the morning, and leave at night. They want to retire eventually. And they don't want to rock the boat. And now you have a perfectly reasonable guy who suspects that O'maley down the hall got into the evidence locker when his buddy punched that guy, but doesn't really have any proof, and sure as shit isn't going to rat on his co-worker, and generally just goes along with the flow.

BrainBackups Openworm Deep Mind Lovotics Neurogrid

The most hackable car is obviously the Adobe. You can hack it into damn near anything.

WTF are you talking about? Air is denser than helium. When you pump air into a chamber in a weather balloon, it acts as ballast. These are normal weather balloons. There's no magic source of hot air in the stratosphere that can be used to gain altitude and solar electricity won't provide enough power to keep the air in the balloon hot.

The Project Loon website directs users with more questions to visit the project loon google plus page which states several times these are helium balloons.

The reason they leak test them with helium is because that's the gas they fly them with.

... access to remote areas of the world via hot air balloons.

These are not hot air balloons.

The inflatable part of the balloon is called a balloon envelope. A well-made balloon envelope is critical for allowing a balloon to last around 100 days in the stratosphere. Loonâ(TM)s balloon envelopes are made from sheets of polyethylene plastic, and they measure fifteen meters wide by twelve meters tall when fully inflated. When a balloon is ready to be taken out of service, gas is released from the envelope to bring the balloon down to Earth in a controlled descent. In the unlikely event that a balloon drops too quickly, a parachute attached to the top of the envelope is deployed.
http://www.google.com/loon/how...

Use a proper HTML sanitizer. Yes, this is much bulkier than just throwing a regexp, but this is for a reason. Just look at the security advisories for google caja for instance: https://code.google.com/p/goog...
There's no way a simple regex can take care of all these cases, if WP just updated the regex - it is bound to be full of holes.

And Google is happy to let you take your data out of them.

https://www.google.com/setting...

Want out of the Google experience? Here is all your data available to take to your new service.

I can not think of another company that offers anything remotely similar to this.

Mine still work too, runs Inferno DS (based on Plan 9) though. ;)

Sorry, but you are quite wrong about that:

http://googlegreenblog.blogspo...

Like anyone who has more than a smidgeon of understanding about power grids, Google understands that no single power source can satisfy varying demand. So they are investing in a variety of sources: http://www.google.com/green/en...

There are gender disparities in several fields. The median salary for nurses is $65,470, whereas the median salary for IT Technicians is $42,992, but you don't hear a whole bunch of FUD over the fact that 90% of nurses are females. And when it comes right down to it, nurses are far more valuable to society than IT techs.

The male nurse point is a bad example because people do care about that.

Bush drafted the pullout plan...

Yes, the plan drafted by him years earlier — but it was Obama's execution, and his failure to make corrections when new developments made it obvious, the plan's original projections were too optimistic. Face it, Obama wanted to do it for political reasons — to look better...

You mean, like Reagan did with the USSR and Afghanistan invasion?

Hah! You lie, but that's a good example, thank you! USSR invaded Afghanistain 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.

Reagan assumed Presidency in 1981, with the invasion over a year-old, and proceeded to arm Russia's opponents in Afghanistan. He did not lift Carter-era sanctions — he expanded them. Obama, on the other hand, would not send Ukraine anything lethal, and even to get him to agree to supply blankets and body-armor took some arm-twisting and was delayed by months.

1) Gitmo is still open. 2) Drone strikes were started by Bush.

Yes, which is an embarrassment for Obama. To reduce the embarrassment, he is doing two things both of which are far worse: 1) he is releasing the current detainees — including bona-fide enemies of the US; 2) he vastly expanded the drone strikes "started by Bush". Bush used air-strikes to kill enemies, who could not be detained. Obama is using against all — such is his reluctance to increase the number of inconvenient detainees, he prefers to lose the intelligence value of interrogating them. That the remotely-killed people have no chance of clearing up any confusion makes Obama's policy even more immoral.

So far you've listed exactly the things that Republicans do.

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... That you chose to ignore the earlier-raised point of Obama taking the drone-strikes to the whole new level, and his order to kill rather the detain bin Laden, shows your dishonesty.

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...

I have seen - predominantly on Slashdot, obviously, but also elsewhere, a sort of naive technocrats (who are often also libertarians) believing that as soon as some technology is needed, the invisible hand of the market magically creates this technology so one only has to sit and wait for this magic solution to appear out of thin air. The more down-to-earth kind of these people even tried to explain this magic by telling that this process happens by throwing enough money at a problem.

Unfortunately - and TFA is a picture book example of this - reality doesn't work that way. Breakthroughs don't happen by magic, they happen by meticulous research and a shitload of small steps. Solutions don't suddenly appear just when they are needed, a long lead time of research is required. And sometimes this new technology never comes up at all.

Umm, WHAT?!?!?!

"Market" my ass. It's governments that are force-feeding "green energy" failures down our throats - not "libertarian" wishful thinking.

Solyndra

Germany abandons "green energy"

US military forced to buy green fuel

Sign me up! I'm going to be Kanye.

Google maps!

Irony: Google mapson Chrome SUCK. I've make use of Chrome extensively, and occasionally forget that I'm using it when I need a map, so I have to move it to IE.

Why does Google go out of their way to make life difficult?

Google maps!

Irony: Google mapson Chrome SUCK. I've make use of Chrome extensively, and occasionally forget that I'm using it when I need a map, so I have to move it to IE.

Why does Google go out of their way to make life difficult?

I live in Tucson, Arizona. We have one air-force base and one army national guard base. Both have a moat around them and a fence on both sides of the moat, and a bridge to the inspection station.

Here's a picture of the bridge over the moat.

Note the lack of water. Tucson, Arizona. It's a dry heat.

If it's good enough for military bases, it's good enough for the President. Also Congress. And if they continue to perform so well in representing us, they can be forced to swim it.

E

Interesting that more companies are moving away form Google. A couple months ago, RealNetworks (ya, reliable I know) changed it's default 2nd party offer from Google / Chrome to Ask. (Fun for the day: use Ask search and search for Ask toolbar ... examine the results).

For me, it is getting harder to use Google search, especially if I want to search for more than two words. For simple searches ... Google works fine. However ... frequently Google will substitute terms (that don't belong), add obvious sales links (that don't apply), or have a referral to a second level search (which has always useless: best example is returning searches for an items from eBay -- if I wanted eBay I would search eBay). Google's image search(method) is much better than Bing's ... but is there a viable option "B" general text / info search?

What a load of bullshit. That sociopath prick running the company is a bully. Many people aren't going to use uber because of this sunshine. Take your astroturfing elsewhere.

That's an interesting response. You are supporting your position by emotional strength - essentially saying that the poster has to back down or you'll respond into a full-blown emotional outburst (see bully).

When I first heard about Uber's plans the first thing that came to mind is "there's no law against publishing public information".

We have fairly clear rules about what's illegal in terms of gathering and publishing data. The police have no qualms about publishing names and addresses, and sometimes courteously withhold that information for the rich and powerful while using it against low-income people.

The press has no qualms about publishing data that people want to keep private, so long as publishing it would sell papers. If someone simply wishes to live out of the public eye, it's a challenge and "Look! We've got the scoop on Satoshi Nakamoto! Find out who he *really* is and why he needs to hide! (Are your children safe?)

If no one takes action to expose the journalists, if there's no consequences for their actions, what keeps the journalists honest? What incentive does any journalist have for journalistic integrity?

This seems like a cromulent quid-pro-quot. So long as no laws are broken, I'm fine with it.

What a load of bullshit. That sociopath prick running the company is a bully. Many people aren't going to use uber because of this sunshine. Take your astroturfing elsewhere.

That's an interesting response. You are supporting your position by emotional strength - essentially saying that the poster has to back down or you'll respond into a full-blown emotional outburst (see bully).

When I first heard about Uber's plans the first thing that came to mind is "there's no law against publishing public information".

We have fairly clear rules about what's illegal in terms of gathering and publishing data. The police have no qualms about publishing names and addresses, and sometimes courteously withhold that information for the rich and powerful while using it against low-income people.

The press has no qualms about publishing data that people want to keep private, so long as publishing it would sell papers. If someone simply wishes to live out of the public eye, it's a challenge and "Look! We've got the scoop on Satoshi Nakamoto! Find out who he *really* is and why he needs to hide! (Are your children safe?)

If no one takes action to expose the journalists, if there's no consequences for their actions, what keeps the journalists honest? What incentive does any journalist have for journalistic integrity?

This seems like a cromulent quid-pro-quot. So long as no laws are broken, I'm fine with it.

Here's one that isn't as large as some, because of the convenient river that runs directly from coal country to their furnaces, and it's STILL HUGE. You can see this thing from miles away.

Oh, and this isn't an eyesore at all, especially not all that crap blowing out of the foreground exhaust stack...

Here's one that isn't as large as some, because of the convenient river that runs directly from coal country to their furnaces, and it's STILL HUGE. You can see this thing from miles away.

Oh, and this isn't an eyesore at all, especially not all that crap blowing out of the foreground exhaust stack...

Yeah, I'm so glad that this is upwind of the city I live in. At least it's downriver, so if that dike between the settling pond on the left and the Ohio River bursts, the drinking water... well, MY city's drinking water... won't be poisoned. Sorry, Louisville, you're fucked!

What, you're saying that this is an eyesore?

Time and time again, they just refuse to properly implement CSS3 gradients.
Version after version, no progress on https://code.google.com/p/chro... at all
See http://slashdot.org/comments.p... from version 38.

It's pretty clear at this point, use Firefox or IE10+ if you want good HTML5/CSS3 support. Chrome only cares about what benefits Google and their ability to advertise to you.

Apparently I went to https://www.google.com/ 43 times today, but since I don't run javascript, block cookies, bypass Google's attempt to mask the URL with their own unique link and I open the links in a new tab, the only common tracking point is my ISP. In which case, nothing matters anyway, so what is the point of it all?

You can make a free google site at sites.google.com
You can learn Apps Script
https://developers.google.com/...
So not only can kids develop in an IDE in a browser, they get their own web site and do whatever they want. I recently started using it and I figured out how to render a ghetto lightbox with images pulled from my flickr feed. I used nothing but google API stuff, UiApp, etc.

They call it an "eye sore" and "disruptive."

They're most definitely both of those things. I had the misfortune of living through the construction of the Mehoopany Wind Farm. Think 24/7 heavy truck traffic, seemingly random road closures to move turbines/blades that were never communicated to the locals (it's awesome being half an hour late for work because they changed their schedule with no notice), huge amounts of deforestation (nine thousand acres worth), formerly crystal clear streams filled with silt from runoff, and dozens of blinking red lights where we formerly had clear nighttime skies. Take a look at this to get a feel for the impact of but one small segment of this wind farm. Look at the footprint for a single turbine and multiply it more than one hundred times, all for this one wind farm.

9,000 acres of real estate for a lousy 141 megawatts of electrical production that's wholly at the mercy of mother nature. Let's contrast that to nuclear power, the cutting edge of 1950s technology: Nine Mile Point occupies 10% of that footprint (900 acres), hosts a second power station on the property and between the two can generate 2,599 megawatts 24/7/365 regardless of the weather. That's more than eighteen times the electrical production for 10% of the land. Zero carbon emissions for production; a non-zero amount overall (plant construction and fuel mining each have a carbon footprint) but that's true of wind as well.

Wind power is a joke regardless of how you look at it. It's more environmentally disruptive than yesterday's technology and doesn't scale nearly as well. I'm not anti-solar; solar can be placed on otherwise wasted space (i.e., my roof) and is an awesome solution for peak power demand (nuclear doesn't work well here, it's better suited for base load)

It looks like the Chrome team is working on the "let keyword", whereas according to Mozilla's own MDN, they plan to remove the "let" keyword? or they let anyone edit MDN resources.

You can read in Russian here or try to understand Google translation here. The article addresses exactly the same subject - who they are and who is the guy who runs the "organization". And it seems that the "Russian Union of Engineers" is more or less a fake run by a charlatan. The guy also claims to be in top management of whole bunch of other organizations with impressive sounding names. He seems to be related to Russian defense industry though in one way or the other. Which finally leaves you with a very convincing feeling that all this is just a hoax.

I used google and hydrogen fuel station locations, it's impressive. Of course, the U.S. lies between 2 largest hydrogen pools on the planet; the Atlantic, and the Pacific oceans. I'm going to go out on limb and state, "given the pollutants of hydrocarbons, and water; water would be more useful."

Google css modification extension firefox should find you plenty of them.

https://sites.google.com/site/... https://sites.google.com/site/...

https://sites.google.com/site/... https://sites.google.com/site/...

Which was my exact point. Nobody calls them nuclear arms. They're called nuclear armaments. Go look up the definition of "arms."

"1. weapons and ammunition; armaments."

They're the same word. There is no difference between "armaments" and "arms" when referring to weapons.

They were referred to as "Arms" by such entities as the United States and the Soviet Union when they signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. It's the common noun used when discussing things such as the Nuclear Arms race. Of the two, I'd say "Nuclear Armaments" is less used. "Nuclear Weapons" is probably more common than either of those.

The boxes are still there - or at least the pedestals. Here's a picture. They are on every block. They sell ad space on them, so they aren't going to pull them down :)

When you switch "men" for "women", it's called the Reverse Bechdel Test (there's other variants involving race, etc.) and movies failing it are exceedingly rare. I found some discussion just by Googling for the term, but not many examples of movies. The one movie I recognized from those discussions is Juno, which is pretty well focused on a single woman, so it's believable that it fails the test, although I hadn't noticed.

I don’t recall seeing boot camps for Electrical Engineers or boot Camps for Medical Doctors.

Electrical Engineers don't get taken seriously when they say "wiring faults are no big deal."
Programmers do get taken seriously when they say "bugs are no big deal."

That's why coding bootcamps have a chance, because our field is full of crappy programmers, adding a few more could be an improvement.

http://www.drgibson.com/towers... http://www.coldwarcomms.org/ https://www.google.com/search?...

Feminists are Tea Baggers without the biblical references.

It sounds like you've culled your definition of feminist from only the finest of whacked-out tumblr blogs.

To avoid looking silly, I suggest you consult a dictionary, though I suggest strongly that you steer clear of "urban dictionary" for anything other than entertainment.

Ubuntu has adopted systemd-shim and various sub-systems of systemd, like logind.

what he describes is likely a cause of that, as where before upower handled acpi events directly it now defers to logind.

Ts'o lamented this change the other day on G+.

https://plus.google.com/+Theod...