Not only is the cookie essential for web programming (session handling), but people trying to track you don't even need a cookie. They have a whole slew of other methods of tracking you, the cookie is only the tip of the iceberg. These companies are sharing information to bolster their own databases. If you go to any site that uses google analytics for instance, any other site running the same or similar tracking software can piece together your entire visit by your IP address alone. And that's before they use even higher tech devices like tracking images that utilize UUIDs in HTML5 canvas, something you'd have to disable javascript on every page to prevent or use a contacted string of your IP+browser+OS+CPU to uniquely identify you without a cookie.
Because they aren't doing session handling with the cookies "good enough" is. So what if they catch your whole house, they still got you! There is no way to block the tracking, you're tracked, get used to it. Almost anything you do to prevent the tracking is useless.
And when IPv6 is implemented, forget about anonymity! Classless network. Everyone has their own UUID for an address. Then programmer's will stop using cookies for sure!
The only reason web sites use cookies is because they have no other way to distinctly identify which computer is hitting their web site from the other side of a NAT (your firewall).
It's so they can tell it's the computer in the living room and not the computer in the bedroom. Or if you like an office analogy, it's so Sue in accounting doesn't get the same Facebook page as Ted in IT.
Technically speaking, the only information visible to the servers on the internet is the IP/MAC address of your nat/firewall/whatever, the computers behind the nat/firewall/whatever cannot (by design) expose their unique IDs (MAC or Media Access Control addresses) to the internet server because the MAC address given is of the NIC in the nat/firewall/router, not of the client computer. Yes, there are other ways of tracking people, such as browser signature or some other organic information about the client, but this is in no way a solution. If Sue in accouting uses the same browser and OS as Tim in IT (very likely!) than they appear to be the same person to the internet server. Without the infamous cookie Sue see's Ted's Facebook page (and has some trouble explaining why he friended Sue's girlfriend).
Really it all comes down to this: IPv4 doesn't have enough addresses to go around, so we stick UUIDs in text files on each computer that visits a given site to uniquely identify them from other user's who visit the same site.
This comes from anti-virus and anti-malware programs labeling cookies as threats in order to make themselves appear more usefull than they really are: "oh look boss, this cookie was going to kill your cat!". So the layman uses his computer and sees his Norton fuck-ur-comp2201 report that www.target.com is trying to H4X0R their computer. Knowing the insidious nature of the evil corporate entity known as target said layman writes his representative informing him of the ticking time bomb Norton shit-tron-1117 reported.
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to inform you of the insidious nature of the virus/malware/fascist threat known as a "cookie". In spite of its innocent name, hidden inside this simple text file is a menace so horrible that it should be expunged from the face of the earth. I'm not sure what it does, but I certainly don't want my children taking cookies from strangers without my express consent.
Reguards,
J. Gearstorfer II esq. Lt. Gen. Ret. etc..
Of course when you lump cookies into the same category as trojan horses people are going to react this way. The nonsensical way some anti-malware programs behave is unethical. You cannot say "all cookies are bad" because it's simply a load of shit. I'm a highly experienced web developer and I really cannot think of any way that a cookie can harm you, your computer or your cat.
A cookie is just as revealing as your IP or your IP's RDNS entry. The only reason web sites use cookies is because they have no other way to distinctly identify which computer is hitting their web site from the other side of a NAT (your firewall). If each computer had a distinct static IP address (IPv6 or MAC) there would be no need for cookies. That cookies are somehow dangerous sounds just like people calming that vaccines are giving their children autism.... No... Actually, the vaccine people have a better case.
You absolutely need cookies to make web programs work and prevent accidental session hijacking. Any other method is a joke and therefore not used by serious programmers. Cookies cannot harm you. The worst thing that can happen is someone could tell you went to www.target.com because you have a cookie that says that on your computer, BFD.
This is not a score for privacy. This is a score for ignorance.
Steam is unnecessary bloatware. What small good steam does it is by far outweighed by the many annoyances.
Bombardment with ads! Who the hell wants to see an ad just because you want to play a game?
Some games require steam!? What the hell! Take a platform (PC) and break it into two platforms (PC/PC+Steam). What better way to drive people to piracy?
Always running. WTF? Why does this program want to run all the time, I mean, I'm not playing games all the time (unfortunately).
Centrally owned. Why not just use the internet? Isn't www.steam.com just as good as the steam app? If you want to offer all the update features add a browser add-on.
I won't even install steam because I can't stand ads on a piece of software I own. I find the practice repugnant and because I stand on my principles I can't play some games. So don't tell me steam is good. It's a redundant tool at best, at worst it's a closed ad platform for valve that treats people like tools.
Re:If you can predict the weather 100 years from n
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 1
You criticize one for not including confounding factors and the other for including them.
I didn't criticize either. Neither one includes "confounding factors" as you put it. One does not predict warming, it's just describes a theoretical climate model. The other predicts warming and cooling. Both papers explicitly left out many the variables I listed and then some. Variables you assured me were accounted for, and even made fun of me because I thought they were not included. The first report explicitly states that it should not be used as a tool to predict climate because it leaves out many of the variables I mentioned. I pointed that out, but you are just ignoring me, that little problem isn't going away.
Basically we can measure incoming radiation and outgoing radiation.
All this does, at best, is measure the concentration of certain light absorbing gases. This does nothing to tell you: what gases are present, why the gases are present, how the gases will affect the climate. It does not prove the greenhouse effect as you state. It does not prove global warming. You are committing the same fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc, again. And worse you're stating it as if were well established fact and it is not.
That's not exactly it. "We cannot prove that the warming is not random noise" is closer
I thought you would argue that, that's why I gave you a link to the definition, but I guess you believe your definition is better. Still, if there was uncontrollable cyclic warming you would need to assume that the warming would be more significant than the noise. It is not. Why won’t you address that?
It comes down to this: You can choose to ignore the people you disagree with by ascribing nefarious motivations.
You're acting as if it's a conspiracy theory still. It's well established fact. The emails were real. The shit code they used to aggregate the raw data is real. The fact they deleted emails to avoid FOA requests is real. The fact that they colluded with other scientists to prevent theories contradictory to their own from being published is real. The fact that they colluded with politicians to promote their theories is real. The fact that while choosing which data to source they always went with sources that agree with their theories and actively avoided sources that might cast doubt on their theories (e.g.: the now infamous and discredited hockey stick graph, even the soft CRU investigation found this graph to be a fraud). Phil Jones now famously said “Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?” This is not science! These are the people YOU side with.
This stuff is real. You choose to ignore it because the people who commit these heinous acts are proponents of AGW. That’s the very same thinking that got these climate scientists in trouble in the first place: “I have a righteous cause so I can use any means to achieve my goals, even if that means stretching the truth, ignoring contradictory data, and blasting others whom I disagree with.”
As far as the “people I agree with”, well I’m not sure if Immanuel Kant really counts, but I don’t think he colluded with other logisticians to create ‘faked’ reason and keep other logisticians from publishing their papers. If in my ranting I’ve committed a logical fallacy please point it out, but my thoughts are my own, not the product of an anti-AGW focus group. My point is, I can invalidate the theory a priori, just sitting here. I don’t need “people whom I agree with” although I know the number of people who agree with me is only growing as i
Re:If you can predict the weather 100 years from n
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 1
How about Ramanathan & Coakley (1978)? The 1970 SCEP report?
The first report says in the forward that it leaves out many of the variables I listed. The second report forecasts both cooling, maybe due to particulates and warming, maybe due to C02, and also implicitly leaves out many of the variables I listed, explicitly in many cases. So I guess the second report would be right no matter where the temperature goes, but as vague as they are I'll concede that at least the second report predicted warming as well as cooling.
The radiative properties of CO2 are different in the atmosphere than they are everywhere else?
Yes, that's the idea. There's this near vacuum called space that adds some still unknown variables, the sheer size of the planet and lack of any reliable temperature data going back more than 20 years. The lack of any working models, none of the models correctly predict past climate changes, which should be enough to give anyone pause. None of these things are taken into account. You are keeping in lock step with the characterization "All that can be known is known" though.
All of the things you mention are considered. I'm rather shocked that you think you have come up with a half dozen items that the scientists somehow missed.
Your statement is demonstrably false. Every single one of the things I mentioned are either left out implicitly or explicitly left out with a note reading "This model is not reliable for predicting climate because we are leaving these things out." So how you can say "All of the things you mention are considered" if you read any of these papers? Either you didn't read the papers and are just going off of what someone else said, which in my opinion is most likely. Or you're just making things up and hoping I won't read any of your citations, I just really hope it’s the former and not the latter.
Here's an idea. What if we took an infrared camera and measured the observed opacity of the atmosphere?
What are you talking about?
You mentioned this before. I pointed out that it doesn't mean what you think it means. You will need to study statistics for this one.
I think Hanson and Jones needs to study statistics, at least that was the finding of the investigation of the CRU. I however understand perfectly what no 'statistically significant' warming means. It means that the rise or fall of temperature does not exceed the noise present in the system. Why doesn't that trouble you when the predictions made are for cyclic warming? Let reword it so stupid old me can understand it better: There has been no detectable warming in the last 15 years.
Ok, for the next few paragraphs you descend into conspiracy theory territory
And that's the "light" version. They don't even talk about the effort to delete emails to avoid FOA requests. They don't talk about "loosing" the raw data. They do talk about suppressing other scientists who disagree with them. Real hero's you have there! Sounds like a real unbiased source that’s out to find the truth no matter what that might be. And this is the source of information you use.
This is how the "consensus" was won,
Re:If you can predict the weather 100 years from n
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 1
In the face of predictions of global cooling, scientists predicted that CO2 would become the driving factor in global temperatures.
That's the citation I was talking about, not what you have given me. Find me anyone in the 70's talking about AGW. Would be even better if you could produce a study predicting this as you claimed.
I don't think the EPA has done you any favours by dumbing it down like this.
Insulting me does not change the fact that you were wrong. I know how the greenhouse effect works, I also know it was analogized with the effect a greenhouse produces (trapping heat). EPA is simply an authoritative source that defines this analogy.
You have shown that you don't understand what 'it' is by assuming that it is responsible for heating greenhouses.
Sorry, I can read, I understood what the greenhouse effect was long before conversing with you. My point in saying it only works in a greenhouse is to say: it does not work in the atmosphere. I would contend that the lack of cyclic warming is proof enough of that. Or how about the fact that C02 concentrations were manifold higher in the past than now yet the planet didn't turn into Venus? These facts should do something to dissuade you from your argument. No, I’m sure you’ll find some reason why super high C02 concentrations didn’t uncontrollably warm the planet via the greenhouse effect in the past, then state it as if it was a well established fact.
Based on your misunderstanding, I can see why you were skeptical.
I understand that nobody understand exactly how the earth’s atmosphere and climate work. That’s what makes me skeptical of people making dire predictions hundreds of years in the future. I know that nobody knows exactly how the "greenhouse effect" works. For instance, consider radiative cooling, something not considered in the greenhouse effect, yet we know it exists. How can you leave radiative cooling out of any equations? Or solar cycles? Volcanic activity? The list goes on and on. To claim that because we understand how gases behave in the lab means that we know how gases behave in the atmosphere is naive. It seems that you and other AGW proponents believe that "All that can be known is known", and anyone contradicting your "facts" are idiots and should be treated as such. And now the obvious question, since all scientific theory must be falsifiable (I know you hate that) please tell me what would falsify 'greenhouse effect'. Or did you just conclude that it could not be falsified?
If temperatures had gone down instead of up then the scientists in the 1970's who said that CO2 would become the driving factor in global climate would have been provably wrong. It turns out they were not.
Sure thing. I see by the link you provided that you are confused between US temperatures and global temperatures.
First, I gave you raw temperature data for many regions not just the U.S. and all show a decrease in the last decade, why this does nothing to even shake your resolve is troubling. Then you give me this junk from Hanson and have the audacity to call it raw when you very well know it is not? You tell me I’ve sided with some unnamed special interest and you go to the center of the controversy to find your data? It's the most widely publicized fraudulent report in the history of science! I refuse to accept Hanson's work. This man has done more disservice to sci
Re:If you can predict the weather 100 years from n
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 1
That was not the consensus view
No, I guess the consensus view then was that the globe was uncontrollably cooling due to man's pollution.
You are mistaken. The greenhouse effect has nothing to do with greenhouses.
Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere behave much like the glass panes in a greenhouse.
That was easy. Greenhouse effect is a unproven theory that lies at the heart of AGW. I'm telling you it's just a theory just like AGW is, and you should avoid calling it fact when it is not.
I asked that you explain your theory and make it falsifiable.
You actually quoted me and then went on to not answer the question? You cannot falsify it, can you? Doesn't that make you question the theory? Why not answer that simple question?
The 70's were 0.03C wamer than the 60's. The 80's 0.18C warmer than the 70's. The 90's 0.12C warmer than the 80's. The 2000's 0.24C warmer than the 90's. This is exactly consistent with the theory.
But really, you need to provide links to the sources of your information, I'm not going to just take your word for it. If you can't do that than this is sort of pointless.
Re:If you can predict the weather 100 years from n
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 1
It is basic physics. Crack open a university textbook and this will be explained.
That is not just a cop out, it's an admission of defeat. There is no textbook that explains how the climate works. Nobody knows how the climate works and all predictions have proven themselves false. There were tons of outlandish claims made more than 20 years ago about how there would be no more coastal cities in the year 2000, no drinking water, no food. They all proved themselves to be absolutely wrong.
It is basic physics.
So predicting climate is basic physics now? Well shoot, everyone should know what's going to come next! Why all the simulations? What's with all the uncertainty? Why did they get it wrong 20+ years ago if it's just basic physics? The answer is that it is not just basic physics and nobody including you, including textbook writers, knows how the climate works. The greenhouse effect works... in a greenhouse! That's it! There is no evidence that C02 causes warming in the earth’s atmosphere. If it did, increasing levels would bring increasing temperatures, they have not. As the C02 levels have risen over the last decade we have seen a leveling off of the temperature, not a positive feedback loop AS WAS THE PREDICTION. We can see the levels have increased, but no positive feedback is occurring! What part of that do you not understand? The simulations are incorrect.
This should be the nail in the coffin for the AGW theory, but it perpetuates itself with excuse after excuse: “Didn’t you know?! Snow storms are because of AGW silly skeptic!”. And when a skeptic says "who’s' that guy behind the curtain?" "Why exactly do you believe this stuff?" we are giving insulting responses like "It's basic physics!". No it is not basic physics, you don't understand it, and that you're sitting there telling me you do understand it really speaks volumes of you.
I asked that you explain your theory and make it falsifiable. Your trite response is that I should read a textbook, as if the answer to AGW were in a damn textbook. Please, state your theory, and state what event would falsify your theory, in any scientific theory; there must be a way to falsify it. In the AGW theory there is no way to falsify it and that makes it unequivocally junk science.
Re:If you can predict the weather 100 years from n
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 1
I get it, I really do. There are simulations created by climate scientists that predict what the climate will be like 100 years from now. The bad part about these simulations is that they cannot accurately predict the climate 100 days from now. If you're making a simulation using differential equations your error (distance from accurate measure) will only grow the longer you run the simulation. In other words, if you can't get the first 100 days correct your outlook 1000 or 10,000 days from now is going to look absolutely alien.
Look at Ehrlich's predictions: "England will not exist in the year 2000". It may upset you but he is an AGW proponent and said that back in the 70's. There have been many other outlandish claims made by other "experts". "Coastal cities will cease to exist." "Drinking water will become scarce.". And these are the predictions of "experts" more than 30 years ago. What happened? Why were they wrong? Where is the uncontrollable warming? Even Even Phil Jones conceded there has been no warming in the last 15 years. The simulations and predictions call for uncontrollable global warming. By now, 15-20 years after the original prediction, you must concede as Phil Jones did, there is no warming. Certainly no spiral out of control as predicted.
You say I don't get it, but how many times will you listen to these false prognosticators? They have been wrong 100% of the time. Is that really the sort of track record you feel you can rely upon?
I would like to know what has you convinced. What did you read that made you say “ah ha, these predictions must be true”? Lacking any strong deductive evidence I refuse to buy into the AGW theory/religion/whatever.
Re:If you can predict the weather 100 years from n
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 1
It has been proven that C02 follows temperature increases not the other way around. Even though the AGW theory flies in the face of this fact the AGW faithful are not dissuaded
Even if it were so, correlation != causation. You need to show how your theory works and make it falsifiable. If you cannot do that you should start to ask yourself why you believe it. In the next 10 years is there any force of nature that would cause you to question your faith in AGW?
They have been right every decade since.
They have been wrong every decade since. They have predicted uncontrollable warming. This has not come to pass. Even Phil Jones conceded there has been no warming in the last 15 years. Ehrlich, an AGW proponent, said in the 70's that "England would not exist in the year 2000". You can't really believe that "they" have been right every decade since. I'm going to need a citation of a AGW proponent in the 70's that predicted the climate we have today. And while you're at it explain how you, or anyone, knows with any certainty how the climate works. I'm anxiously awaiting your reply.
Re:If you can predict the weather 100 years from n
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 1
Ok, let me fix it:
If you can predict the climate 100 years from now you had better be able to predict the climate 100 days from now. If your prediction of climate 100 days from now is not 100% accurate you can bet 100 years from now it will be totally wrong.
Re:Climate science is just a big weather forecast.
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 1
I have some bad news for you: Newtonian physics may well be just a lot of quantum mechanics. Just because we don't understand how it works does not make it false. That you arrogantly pronounce what Newtonian physics is and isn't really speaks volumes of you. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you are a diehard supporter of AGW.
Doing 5 day forecasts isn't enough to qualify someone to forecast climates.
Since nobody can accurately forecast climates and nobody and accurately forecast weather, I'm curious what magical knowledge you would impart to these undereducated meteorologists that would allow them to understand climate. What university would you send them to where they teach the "proper" climate forecasting method. What otherworldly scholar do you know of that fully understand our complex weather system?
Since nobody can do it with any accuracy I really don't see how you can claim that someone is qualified or not.
If you can predict the weather 100 years from now
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 2
If you can predict the weather 100 years from now you had better be able to predict the weather 100 days from now. If your prediction of weather 100 days from now is not 100% accurate you can bet 100 years from now it will be totally wrong.
All the predictions made so far by the AGW community have so far been totally wrong
There is no uncontrollable warming.
If early predictions are wrong, the whole model is wrong, it's not going to magically get better in later years.
Ehrlich said back in the 70's that "England will not exist in the year 2000". Obviously he was wrong. But his web page had this little gem:
Paul and his colleagues have been compelled to make two of them in an effort to counter the inaccurate information spread by Simon and others.
So Ehrlich says that "famines of unbelievable proportions" will occur, "hundreds of millions of people starving to death" "England will not exist in the year 2000". Then Ehrlich has the audacity to say Simon is spreading inaccurate information. I don't give a damn how smart you believe you are or how many "Genius Awards" are given to you. If you're wrong you're wrong. Ehrlich is so stubborn that if you read his page you would have thought that _he_ won the bet. He (or whoever wrote the page) makes no attempt to defend the idiotic (and now demonstrably false) statements Ehrlich made, but just goes into nuance of "how things could have been worse but for...". They were not, and that was Simon’s whole point, people react to the world they live in, we are not a growth in a petri dish. Ehrlich makes all these excuses as to "why he was wrong" without saying he was wrong, because he still believes that he was right. He still believes he was right and only because those damn snooping kids did England continue to exist past 1999.
Just read Ehrlich’s page, he does more disservice to himself than anyone else could ever do. The AGW people are cut from the same mold as Ehrlich. AGW cannot be wrong as a matter of pride. It has nothing to do with science, if it did there would be a way to falsify the theory. As it stands now, you cannot. Anything that points to AGW being wrong (e.g.: No uncontrollable warming) is always countered with “OH! Didn’t you know? That’s because of global warming!” It sounds more and more like Ehrlich.
But what speaks to the heart of this issue is that the AGW supporters don’t hope beyond hope that the skeptics are right. They hope the skeptics are wrong because it is a matter of pride.
I've never seen it used in a ghost hunt but i think it would be great to use Schlieren Imaging. Seems pretty cheap to setup and even if you didn't capture a ghost it's still a lot of fun to look at. After watching the Schlieren toilet video though I've never inhaled while flushing.
Maybe you need to re-read Dvorak's posting. Vivek's bio said he had a degree in Biology, this has vanished from his resume, although it was archived by Archive.org.
He received his master’s in information technology and his bachelor’s in psychology and biology from the University of Maryland
The biology degree never showed up, and has since then been removed from all his bios. Let me be blunt. I have already reported this fact, reading my link would have revealed Dvorak's rebuttal to this weak defense. Vivek has made no attempt to clear up this biology degree question and continues to pretend the question does not exist. That you seem to believe this question does not exist and are willing to ignore this very big problem with the country's CTO lying on his resume exposes you as a political hack who would say anything in defense of your ideological allies.
Vivek is an empty suit - he is as ignorant as his idea: "Let's move our datacenter's to the cloud".
The earliest ideas for a computer network intended to allow general communications among computer users were formulated by computer scientist J. C. R. Licklider, of the Bolt, Beranek and Newman (BBN) company, in August 1962, in memoranda discussing his concept for an “Intergalactic Computer Network”. Those ideas contained almost everything that composes the contemporary Internet. In October 1963, at the United States Department of Defense, Licklider was appointed head of the Behavioral Sciences and Command and Control programs at the Advanced Research Projects Agency — ARPA (the initial ARPANET acronym).
Senator Albert Gore, Jr. began to craft the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991.
So your argument, if I follow you correctly is that Al Gore is responsible for creating the internet. I must point out that he created the internet (1991-1962=29) 29 years after it was actually created. Did Al misspeak? I think so! Did Al help “create the climate for a thriving Internet” perhaps, but I would give more credit to the IT guys and taxpayers who funded the whole thing than Al Gore. And I certainly wouldn’t have advised him to say the indisputably false statement "I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Is Al Gore the "creator" just because he has the purse strings of the taxpayers? Can he really be given credit for creating something that already existed? I think not. At most he is an advocate for a system that existed long before he knew what a computer was.
Anyways, the statement in my original post was meant to be a joke, even though it's absolutely true: "The government invented the internet, not Al Gore as some may think." I challenge you falsify such an ambiguous statement. To prove me wrong you would have to interview a good sampling of the population and find that nobody thinks this, I would have to find one person who does think this. And as I have already met more than one, I am satisfied that my statement is true.
Anyone who has taken any sort of networking class knows the internet is the cloud. In any network diagram the internet is represented as the cloud, hence the name cloud computing, using the internet instead of your local servers. The government invented the internet, not Al Gore as some may think. The DOD need a way to run a network in a decentralized way in case of nuclear attack. They didn't want their computers to stop working if the central hub went down. That's why every packet says DOD in it. The internet was a DARPA project. Now I'm just summing this up for those who haven't heard about it, yes I know they didn't invent everything, but they got it going. Now the people (government) who invented the cloud, and have been using it since its inception, are now going to stop using the cloud and move to the cloud? It's uneducated drivel, and speaks volumes of Vivek Kundra's knowledge of the cloud. Even if he’s not a fraud, and I believe he is, he shouldn’t be our nations CIO.
...calls for cutting 800+ data centers by 2015, as well as shifting work to cloud computing systems.
Correction: ...call for cutting 800+ data centers by 2015 as well as shifting work to privately owned data centers.
If I hear someone talk about cloud computing again I think I’ll lose my lunch.
That said, Vivek Kundra is a fraud. Anything coming from his mouth is tainted.
At the very least the guy lied on his resume about having a degree in biology, then all of a sudden his bio changed and he LOST the degree! Good thing there’s an internet archive!
Others agree:
But his degree in biology has yet to appear as his record shows a degree from College Park Campus for Psychology and nothing more.
Don't need pipe key??? How do you suggest I use an OR condition (x || y) in most programming languages?
As I said in my post: I cannot dispense with a single key. I do need pipe, and tilde and grave and F9-F12. I just wondered why the author wanted to get rid of DEL or INSERT over say the SPACEBAR. I cannot get by without DEL or INSERT or any of the other keys I called "low hanging fruit".
I would not remove any keys. I just wondered why the guy went after DEL and INSERT. I mean why not the letter "K"?! DEL and INSERT are surely more often used than scroll lock. I know a lot of the great things the keys I called "low hanging fruit" do, and I would never remove them - I only wish I had more of them, I want F13-F100! Maybe a full ASCII keyboard would be nice. EOL, EOF, BELL, ANK the whole gang, one per key, none of this SHIFT CTRL or ATL+1234 shit. I was thinking unicode at first, but that may be too big.
Something tells me you're not going to be making support calls that involve the phrase "OK, to start task manager..". You don’t seem like the type that would even make a call for technical support.
I apparently not have the same keyboard as you do.
I certainly hope not! And if you are using my keyboard I would ask that you stop leaving crumbs between the keys! Now, why on earth do you have a keyboard without a keypad? Do you want to have no keypad or are you forced to have no keypad? Are you using a laptop or smartphone? I can only imagine you suffer for the lack of keys.
I also do not have the double/, so I hope your programs do not use them differently.
I'm a web programmer so "my" programs are whatever browser you're using, I cannot dictate what one flavor of ECMA will do with a keyboard layout vs. another. That said, I try to only implement the most common keys becuase I hope more people will have thoes keys.
I could also program using the following keyboard and say that YOU do not have enough keys:
You could? Heh, well I agree, I want more keys. I wish I had a keyboard that had every ASCII symbol, just because a full Unicode keyboard might look silly big. But for "regular people" I think the 101 standard keys are indispensable at this point because they are always expected to be there (by programmers) at every layer of human interaction. How would you get into some BIOSs without the DEL key?
Thanks for the CTRL+SHIFT+ESC, I didn't know that. We all need to support XP at some time, it's everywhere. Look at Iran's nuclear plants heh. I'll bet they'll use that CTRL+SHIFT+ESC combo a lot!
Slashdot Mirror
Not only is the cookie essential for web programming (session handling), but people trying to track you don't even need a cookie. They have a whole slew of other methods of tracking you, the cookie is only the tip of the iceberg. These companies are sharing information to bolster their own databases. If you go to any site that uses google analytics for instance, any other site running the same or similar tracking software can piece together your entire visit by your IP address alone. And that's before they use even higher tech devices like tracking images that utilize UUIDs in HTML5 canvas, something you'd have to disable javascript on every page to prevent or use a contacted string of your IP+browser+OS+CPU to uniquely identify you without a cookie.
Because they aren't doing session handling with the cookies "good enough" is. So what if they catch your whole house, they still got you! There is no way to block the tracking, you're tracked, get used to it. Almost anything you do to prevent the tracking is useless.
And when IPv6 is implemented, forget about anonymity! Classless network. Everyone has their own UUID for an address. Then programmer's will stop using cookies for sure!
It's so they can tell it's the computer in the living room and not the computer in the bedroom. Or if you like an office analogy, it's so Sue in accounting doesn't get the same Facebook page as Ted in IT.
Technically speaking, the only information visible to the servers on the internet is the IP/MAC address of your nat/firewall/whatever, the computers behind the nat/firewall/whatever cannot (by design) expose their unique IDs (MAC or Media Access Control addresses) to the internet server because the MAC address given is of the NIC in the nat/firewall/router, not of the client computer. Yes, there are other ways of tracking people, such as browser signature or some other organic information about the client, but this is in no way a solution. If Sue in accouting uses the same browser and OS as Tim in IT (very likely!) than they appear to be the same person to the internet server. Without the infamous cookie Sue see's Ted's Facebook page (and has some trouble explaining why he friended Sue's girlfriend).
Really it all comes down to this: IPv4 doesn't have enough addresses to go around, so we stick UUIDs in text files on each computer that visits a given site to uniquely identify them from other user's who visit the same site.
Of course when you lump cookies into the same category as trojan horses people are going to react this way. The nonsensical way some anti-malware programs behave is unethical. You cannot say "all cookies are bad" because it's simply a load of shit. I'm a highly experienced web developer and I really cannot think of any way that a cookie can harm you, your computer or your cat.
A cookie is just as revealing as your IP or your IP's RDNS entry. The only reason web sites use cookies is because they have no other way to distinctly identify which computer is hitting their web site from the other side of a NAT (your firewall). If each computer had a distinct static IP address (IPv6 or MAC) there would be no need for cookies. That cookies are somehow dangerous sounds just like people calming that vaccines are giving their children autism.... No... Actually, the vaccine people have a better case.
You absolutely need cookies to make web programs work and prevent accidental session hijacking. Any other method is a joke and therefore not used by serious programmers. Cookies cannot harm you. The worst thing that can happen is someone could tell you went to www.target.com because you have a cookie that says that on your computer, BFD.
This is not a score for privacy. This is a score for ignorance.
Steam is unnecessary bloatware. What small good steam does it is by far outweighed by the many annoyances.
Bombardment with ads! Who the hell wants to see an ad just because you want to play a game?
Some games require steam!? What the hell! Take a platform (PC) and break it into two platforms (PC/PC+Steam). What better way to drive people to piracy?
Always running. WTF? Why does this program want to run all the time, I mean, I'm not playing games all the time (unfortunately).
Centrally owned. Why not just use the internet? Isn't www.steam.com just as good as the steam app? If you want to offer all the update features add a browser add-on.
I won't even install steam because I can't stand ads on a piece of software I own. I find the practice repugnant and because I stand on my principles I can't play some games. So don't tell me steam is good. It's a redundant tool at best, at worst it's a closed ad platform for valve that treats people like tools.
I didn't criticize either. Neither one includes "confounding factors" as you put it. One does not predict warming, it's just describes a theoretical climate model. The other predicts warming and cooling. Both papers explicitly left out many the variables I listed and then some. Variables you assured me were accounted for, and even made fun of me because I thought they were not included. The first report explicitly states that it should not be used as a tool to predict climate because it leaves out many of the variables I mentioned. I pointed that out, but you are just ignoring me, that little problem isn't going away.
All this does, at best, is measure the concentration of certain light absorbing gases. This does nothing to tell you: what gases are present, why the gases are present, how the gases will affect the climate. It does not prove the greenhouse effect as you state. It does not prove global warming. You are committing the same fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc, again. And worse you're stating it as if were well established fact and it is not.
I thought you would argue that, that's why I gave you a link to the definition, but I guess you believe your definition is better. Still, if there was uncontrollable cyclic warming you would need to assume that the warming would be more significant than the noise. It is not. Why won’t you address that?
You're acting as if it's a conspiracy theory still. It's well established fact. The emails were real. The shit code they used to aggregate the raw data is real. The fact they deleted emails to avoid FOA requests is real. The fact that they colluded with other scientists to prevent theories contradictory to their own from being published is real. The fact that they colluded with politicians to promote their theories is real. The fact that while choosing which data to source they always went with sources that agree with their theories and actively avoided sources that might cast doubt on their theories (e.g.: the now infamous and discredited hockey stick graph, even the soft CRU investigation found this graph to be a fraud). Phil Jones now famously said “Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?” This is not science! These are the people YOU side with.
This stuff is real. You choose to ignore it because the people who commit these heinous acts are proponents of AGW. That’s the very same thinking that got these climate scientists in trouble in the first place: “I have a righteous cause so I can use any means to achieve my goals, even if that means stretching the truth, ignoring contradictory data, and blasting others whom I disagree with.”
As far as the “people I agree with”, well I’m not sure if Immanuel Kant really counts, but I don’t think he colluded with other logisticians to create ‘faked’ reason and keep other logisticians from publishing their papers. If in my ranting I’ve committed a logical fallacy please point it out, but my thoughts are my own, not the product of an anti-AGW focus group. My point is, I can invalidate the theory a priori, just sitting here. I don’t need “people whom I agree with” although I know the number of people who agree with me is only growing as i
The first report says in the forward that it leaves out many of the variables I listed. The second report forecasts both cooling, maybe due to particulates and warming, maybe due to C02, and also implicitly leaves out many of the variables I listed, explicitly in many cases. So I guess the second report would be right no matter where the temperature goes, but as vague as they are I'll concede that at least the second report predicted warming as well as cooling.
Yes, that's the idea. There's this near vacuum called space that adds some still unknown variables, the sheer size of the planet and lack of any reliable temperature data going back more than 20 years. The lack of any working models, none of the models correctly predict past climate changes, which should be enough to give anyone pause. None of these things are taken into account. You are keeping in lock step with the characterization "All that can be known is known" though.
Your statement is demonstrably false. Every single one of the things I mentioned are either left out implicitly or explicitly left out with a note reading "This model is not reliable for predicting climate because we are leaving these things out." So how you can say "All of the things you mention are considered" if you read any of these papers? Either you didn't read the papers and are just going off of what someone else said, which in my opinion is most likely. Or you're just making things up and hoping I won't read any of your citations, I just really hope it’s the former and not the latter.
What are you talking about?
I think Hanson and Jones needs to study statistics, at least that was the finding of the investigation of the CRU. I however understand perfectly what no 'statistically significant' warming means. It means that the rise or fall of temperature does not exceed the noise present in the system. Why doesn't that trouble you when the predictions made are for cyclic warming? Let reword it so stupid old me can understand it better: There has been no detectable warming in the last 15 years.
Ya, Science Daily, real lunatic fringe stuff: ...the debate is growing ever more contentious in light of the recent disclosure of e-mail messages suggesting that some scientists supporting the human activities scenario tried to suppress publication of opposing viewpoints.
And that's the "light" version. They don't even talk about the effort to delete emails to avoid FOA requests. They don't talk about "loosing" the raw data. They do talk about suppressing other scientists who disagree with them. Real hero's you have there! Sounds like a real unbiased source that’s out to find the truth no matter what that might be. And this is the source of information you use.
This is how the "consensus" was won,
That's the citation I was talking about, not what you have given me. Find me anyone in the 70's talking about AGW. Would be even better if you could produce a study predicting this as you claimed.
Insulting me does not change the fact that you were wrong. I know how the greenhouse effect works, I also know it was analogized with the effect a greenhouse produces (trapping heat). EPA is simply an authoritative source that defines this analogy.
Sorry, I can read, I understood what the greenhouse effect was long before conversing with you. My point in saying it only works in a greenhouse is to say: it does not work in the atmosphere. I would contend that the lack of cyclic warming is proof enough of that. Or how about the fact that C02 concentrations were manifold higher in the past than now yet the planet didn't turn into Venus? These facts should do something to dissuade you from your argument. No, I’m sure you’ll find some reason why super high C02 concentrations didn’t uncontrollably warm the planet via the greenhouse effect in the past, then state it as if it was a well established fact.
I understand that nobody understand exactly how the earth’s atmosphere and climate work. That’s what makes me skeptical of people making dire predictions hundreds of years in the future. I know that nobody knows exactly how the "greenhouse effect" works. For instance, consider radiative cooling, something not considered in the greenhouse effect, yet we know it exists. How can you leave radiative cooling out of any equations? Or solar cycles? Volcanic activity? The list goes on and on. To claim that because we understand how gases behave in the lab means that we know how gases behave in the atmosphere is naive. It seems that you and other AGW proponents believe that "All that can be known is known", and anyone contradicting your "facts" are idiots and should be treated as such. And now the obvious question, since all scientific theory must be falsifiable (I know you hate that) please tell me what would falsify 'greenhouse effect'. Or did you just conclude that it could not be falsified?
for the past 15 years there has been no 'statistically significant' warming. - Phil Jones
Does that do anything to falsify it then?
No, I didn't think that would dissuade you.
First, I gave you raw temperature data for many regions not just the U.S. and all show a decrease in the last decade, why this does nothing to even shake your resolve is troubling. Then you give me this junk from Hanson and have the audacity to call it raw when you very well know it is not? You tell me I’ve sided with some unnamed special interest and you go to the center of the controversy to find your data? It's the most widely publicized fraudulent report in the history of science! I refuse to accept Hanson's work. This man has done more disservice to sci
No, I guess the consensus view then was that the globe was uncontrollably cooling due to man's pollution.
From EPA.GOV
That was easy. Greenhouse effect is a unproven theory that lies at the heart of AGW. I'm telling you it's just a theory just like AGW is, and you should avoid calling it fact when it is not.
You actually quoted me and then went on to not answer the question? You cannot falsify it, can you? Doesn't that make you question the theory? Why not answer that simple question?
Citation please.
And then the warming stopped?
Fact of decreasing N. American temperatures over the last decade
decreasing European temperatures over the last 8 years (Compare Seasonal Averages) 2001 - 2009
decreasing Australian temperatures over the last decade
But really, you need to provide links to the sources of your information, I'm not going to just take your word for it. If you can't do that than this is sort of pointless.
That is not just a cop out, it's an admission of defeat. There is no textbook that explains how the climate works. Nobody knows how the climate works and all predictions have proven themselves false. There were tons of outlandish claims made more than 20 years ago about how there would be no more coastal cities in the year 2000, no drinking water, no food. They all proved themselves to be absolutely wrong.
So predicting climate is basic physics now? Well shoot, everyone should know what's going to come next! Why all the simulations? What's with all the uncertainty? Why did they get it wrong 20+ years ago if it's just basic physics? The answer is that it is not just basic physics and nobody including you, including textbook writers, knows how the climate works. The greenhouse effect works... in a greenhouse! That's it! There is no evidence that C02 causes warming in the earth’s atmosphere. If it did, increasing levels would bring increasing temperatures, they have not. As the C02 levels have risen over the last decade we have seen a leveling off of the temperature, not a positive feedback loop AS WAS THE PREDICTION . We can see the levels have increased, but no positive feedback is occurring! What part of that do you not understand? The simulations are incorrect.
This should be the nail in the coffin for the AGW theory, but it perpetuates itself with excuse after excuse: “Didn’t you know?! Snow storms are because of AGW silly skeptic!”. And when a skeptic says "who’s' that guy behind the curtain?" "Why exactly do you believe this stuff?" we are giving insulting responses like "It's basic physics!". No it is not basic physics, you don't understand it, and that you're sitting there telling me you do understand it really speaks volumes of you.
I asked that you explain your theory and make it falsifiable. Your trite response is that I should read a textbook, as if the answer to AGW were in a damn textbook. Please, state your theory, and state what event would falsify your theory, in any scientific theory; there must be a way to falsify it. In the AGW theory there is no way to falsify it and that makes it unequivocally junk science.
I get it, I really do. There are simulations created by climate scientists that predict what the climate will be like 100 years from now. The bad part about these simulations is that they cannot accurately predict the climate 100 days from now. If you're making a simulation using differential equations your error (distance from accurate measure) will only grow the longer you run the simulation. In other words, if you can't get the first 100 days correct your outlook 1000 or 10,000 days from now is going to look absolutely alien.
Look at Ehrlich's predictions: "England will not exist in the year 2000". It may upset you but he is an AGW proponent and said that back in the 70's. There have been many other outlandish claims made by other "experts". "Coastal cities will cease to exist." "Drinking water will become scarce.". And these are the predictions of "experts" more than 30 years ago. What happened? Why were they wrong? Where is the uncontrollable warming? Even Even Phil Jones conceded there has been no warming in the last 15 years. The simulations and predictions call for uncontrollable global warming. By now, 15-20 years after the original prediction, you must concede as Phil Jones did, there is no warming. Certainly no spiral out of control as predicted.
You say I don't get it, but how many times will you listen to these false prognosticators? They have been wrong 100% of the time. Is that really the sort of track record you feel you can rely upon?
I would like to know what has you convinced. What did you read that made you say “ah ha, these predictions must be true”? Lacking any strong deductive evidence I refuse to buy into the AGW theory/religion/whatever.
Even if it were so, correlation != causation. You need to show how your theory works and make it falsifiable. If you cannot do that you should start to ask yourself why you believe it. In the next 10 years is there any force of nature that would cause you to question your faith in AGW?
They have been wrong every decade since. They have predicted uncontrollable warming. This has not come to pass. Even Phil Jones conceded there has been no warming in the last 15 years. Ehrlich, an AGW proponent, said in the 70's that "England would not exist in the year 2000". You can't really believe that "they" have been right every decade since. I'm going to need a citation of a AGW proponent in the 70's that predicted the climate we have today. And while you're at it explain how you, or anyone, knows with any certainty how the climate works. I'm anxiously awaiting your reply.
Ok, let me fix it:
If you can predict the climate 100 years from now you had better be able to predict the climate 100 days from now. If your prediction of climate 100 days from now is not 100% accurate you can bet 100 years from now it will be totally wrong.
Since nobody can accurately forecast climates and nobody and accurately forecast weather, I'm curious what magical knowledge you would impart to these undereducated meteorologists that would allow them to understand climate. What university would you send them to where they teach the "proper" climate forecasting method. What otherworldly scholar do you know of that fully understand our complex weather system?
Since nobody can do it with any accuracy I really don't see how you can claim that someone is qualified or not.
All the predictions made so far by the AGW community have so far been totally wrong
There is no uncontrollable warming.
If early predictions are wrong, the whole model is wrong, it's not going to magically get better in later years.
Ehrlich said back in the 70's that "England will not exist in the year 2000". Obviously he was wrong. But his web page had this little gem:
So Ehrlich says that "famines of unbelievable proportions" will occur, "hundreds of millions of people starving to death" "England will not exist in the year 2000". Then Ehrlich has the audacity to say Simon is spreading inaccurate information. I don't give a damn how smart you believe you are or how many "Genius Awards" are given to you. If you're wrong you're wrong. Ehrlich is so stubborn that if you read his page you would have thought that _he_ won the bet. He (or whoever wrote the page) makes no attempt to defend the idiotic (and now demonstrably false) statements Ehrlich made, but just goes into nuance of "how things could have been worse but for...". They were not, and that was Simon’s whole point, people react to the world they live in, we are not a growth in a petri dish. Ehrlich makes all these excuses as to "why he was wrong" without saying he was wrong, because he still believes that he was right. He still believes he was right and only because those damn snooping kids did England continue to exist past 1999.
Just read Ehrlich’s page, he does more disservice to himself than anyone else could ever do. The AGW people are cut from the same mold as Ehrlich. AGW cannot be wrong as a matter of pride. It has nothing to do with science, if it did there would be a way to falsify the theory. As it stands now, you cannot. Anything that points to AGW being wrong (e.g.: No uncontrollable warming) is always countered with “OH! Didn’t you know? That’s because of global warming!” It sounds more and more like Ehrlich.
But what speaks to the heart of this issue is that the AGW supporters don’t hope beyond hope that the skeptics are right. They hope the skeptics are wrong because it is a matter of pride.
I've never seen it used in a ghost hunt but i think it would be great to use Schlieren Imaging. Seems pretty cheap to setup and even if you didn't capture a ghost it's still a lot of fun to look at. After watching the Schlieren toilet video though I've never inhaled while flushing.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=schlieren+imaging&aq=f
Here's the good part:
The biology degree never showed up, and has since then been removed from all his bios. Let me be blunt. I have already reported this fact, reading my link would have revealed Dvorak's rebuttal to this weak defense. Vivek has made no attempt to clear up this biology degree question and continues to pretend the question does not exist. That you seem to believe this question does not exist and are willing to ignore this very big problem with the country's CTO lying on his resume exposes you as a political hack who would say anything in defense of your ideological allies.
Vivek is an empty suit - he is as ignorant as his idea: "Let's move our datacenter's to the cloud".
Try reading it this time!
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/12/special-report-is-us-chief-information-officer-cio-vivek-kundra-a-phony/
From J. C. R. Licklider
Continues
So your argument, if I follow you correctly is that Al Gore is responsible for creating the internet. I must point out that he created the internet (1991-1962=29) 29 years after it was actually created. Did Al misspeak? I think so! Did Al help “create the climate for a thriving Internet” perhaps, but I would give more credit to the IT guys and taxpayers who funded the whole thing than Al Gore. And I certainly wouldn’t have advised him to say the indisputably false statement "I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Is Al Gore the "creator" just because he has the purse strings of the taxpayers? Can he really be given credit for creating something that already existed? I think not. At most he is an advocate for a system that existed long before he knew what a computer was.
Anyways, the statement in my original post was meant to be a joke, even though it's absolutely true: "The government invented the internet, not Al Gore as some may think." I challenge you falsify such an ambiguous statement. To prove me wrong you would have to interview a good sampling of the population and find that nobody thinks this, I would have to find one person who does think this. And as I have already met more than one, I am satisfied that my statement is true.
Anyone who has taken any sort of networking class knows the internet is the cloud. In any network diagram the internet is represented as the cloud, hence the name cloud computing, using the internet instead of your local servers. The government invented the internet, not Al Gore as some may think. The DOD need a way to run a network in a decentralized way in case of nuclear attack. They didn't want their computers to stop working if the central hub went down. That's why every packet says DOD in it. The internet was a DARPA project. Now I'm just summing this up for those who haven't heard about it, yes I know they didn't invent everything, but they got it going. Now the people (government) who invented the cloud, and have been using it since its inception, are now going to stop using the cloud and move to the cloud? It's uneducated drivel, and speaks volumes of Vivek Kundra's knowledge of the cloud. Even if he’s not a fraud, and I believe he is, he shouldn’t be our nations CIO.
Fixed that for ya:
Daily unique visitors: slashdot.com vs. cars.gov vs. animoto.com
Averages are a bitch. cars.gov had plenty more traffic, but only for a short period of time.
Correction:
...call for cutting 800+ data centers by 2015 as well as shifting work to privately owned data centers.
If I hear someone talk about cloud computing again I think I’ll lose my lunch.
That said, Vivek Kundra is a fraud. Anything coming from his mouth is tainted. At the very least the guy lied on his resume about having a degree in biology, then all of a sudden his bio changed and he LOST the degree! Good thing there’s an internet archive!
Others agree:
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/12/special-report-is-us-chief-information-officer-cio-vivek-kundra-a-phony/
http://www.businessinsider.com/americas-cio-vivek-kundra-must-go-2009-3
http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/obamas-cio-vivek-kundra-previous-close-employees-arrested-fraud-bribery
http://tech.rightpundits.com/?p=36
You're a very silly man and I'm not going to interview you.
As I said in my post: I cannot dispense with a single key. I do need pipe, and tilde and grave and F9-F12. I just wondered why the author wanted to get rid of DEL or INSERT over say the SPACEBAR. I cannot get by without DEL or INSERT or any of the other keys I called "low hanging fruit".
I would not remove any keys. I just wondered why the guy went after DEL and INSERT. I mean why not the letter "K"?! DEL and INSERT are surely more often used than scroll lock. I know a lot of the great things the keys I called "low hanging fruit" do, and I would never remove them - I only wish I had more of them, I want F13-F100! Maybe a full ASCII keyboard would be nice. EOL, EOF, BELL, ANK the whole gang, one per key, none of this SHIFT CTRL or ATL+1234 shit. I was thinking unicode at first, but that may be too big.
I certainly hope not! And if you are using my keyboard I would ask that you stop leaving crumbs between the keys! Now, why on earth do you have a keyboard without a keypad? Do you want to have no keypad or are you forced to have no keypad? Are you using a laptop or smartphone? I can only imagine you suffer for the lack of keys.
I'm a web programmer so "my" programs are whatever browser you're using, I cannot dictate what one flavor of ECMA will do with a keyboard layout vs. another. That said, I try to only implement the most common keys becuase I hope more people will have thoes keys.
You could? Heh, well I agree, I want more keys. I wish I had a keyboard that had every ASCII symbol, just because a full Unicode keyboard might look silly big. But for "regular people" I think the 101 standard keys are indispensable at this point because they are always expected to be there (by programmers) at every layer of human interaction. How would you get into some BIOSs without the DEL key?
Thanks for the CTRL+SHIFT+ESC, I didn't know that. We all need to support XP at some time, it's everywhere. Look at Iran's nuclear plants heh. I'll bet they'll use that CTRL+SHIFT+ESC combo a lot!