No, because even if snark, it was still wrong. A sarcastic comment would suggest that there was under-regulation. But that's clearly wrong, too. There is more regulation now than ever before.
If anything, this research actually weakens any argument that recent relocations are due to climate change, because it suggests that that they always have done it, long into the past.
Any connection to "climate change" was purely speculative on the part of the article writer.
The research actually suggested that Emperor Penguins always had changed locations periodically. There is no evidence that modern times are in any way different.
The only thing this is "evidence" of is that lots of people today will try to blame anything and everything on "climate change".
The events of the last five or six years have proven that financial markets and institutions have been over regulated.
Absolute BS. They haven't been over-regulated, they've been mis-regulated.
The Federal government has been blatantly ignoring antitrust laws, for example, while illegally regulating things it has no business or authority to regulate. It has been a combination of under-regulating and over-regulating... adding up to mis-regulation (and often illegal regulation, for that matter... they don't have authority to ignore laws any more than they have to enforce nonexistent laws).
For example, nobody disputes that Obama does not have unilateral authority, for example, to tell the EPA to impose vast new rules without the involvement of Congress. (Much less justified by EPA's "secret science".) Yet he's been doing it.
i think that the definition of ideal changes on the situation. What situations require a camera that records to multiple local and remote destinations not fixed to a central service?
Any situation that requires remote feeds in a way that actually deserves the label "security". Anything else is a toy camera.
Oh, you forgot to mention all their other failures like Gmail, maps, Google apps, chrome, hangouts, chrome cast, etc.
People are moving away from Google Apps in droves. I only use Chrome for a few very specific things... I generally get along just fine with Firefox, which doesn't snoop on me. Chrome OS can hardly be called a "success" yet. They've made a few sales... but I've seen more chrome notebooks on sale at the bargain-basement discount houses than anywhere else, suggesting that those really weren't successful, either.
When Google "consolidated" their services under one account, people jumped away from hangouts, too. And Chromecast is too new to call it a success. There is lots of competition in that market, and some of the other devices are better AND cheaper.
Most of the people who like Google services are people do don't seem to care about the pervasive snooping. Well, fine. Let them be suckers. I'm not one of those people.
I'm sure at least some ISPs stipulate in their terms of service that a subscriber cannot provide internet access to the general public without upgrading to some other (more expensive) plan. Surely we can move towards a more secure internet without strongly hinting that people should violate their contracts.
I pay for my bandwidth. What I do with it once I've paid for it is none of my ISP's goddamned business. They aren't my parents, they aren't the government, they aren't the police. They're service providers. So let them provide the service that's paid for, then shut the hell up. If they don't like it they can suck eggs, because I ALREADY PAID FOR IT.
I am literally a block away from my ISP. I've been running an open access point for more than 5 years. And it's a good signal... they can probably see it in their office.
Farmers are required to notify the local beekeeper organization when they spray certain pesticides, but few do, and the fines, even if they get caught, are too low to matter. We should have stronger enforcement, funded by much steeper fines. There is no excuse for failing to notify. All it takes is a one minute phone call or a few clicks on a website.
Thank you for injecting some sense into the conversation.
Rather than focusing on "pollinator health" (which of course we all want), we should first be looking at reducing "pollinator poisons" that we already know to exist. Obama's approach is trying to treat the symptoms rather than the cause.
We must stop using neonicotinoid pesticides. It's pretty much that simple. In the meantime, notification of beekeepers before spraying should be a top priority, including enforcement and fines big enough to be a deterrent.
Normally, stiffness and strength declines with the density of any material; that's why when bone density decreases, fractures become more likely.
I can see what was meant, but OP actually got this backward. It should be "Normally, stiffness and strength increases with density; that's why when bone density decreases, fractures become more likely."
There are a load of very detailed (fancy) 3D games using WebGL, not rudimentary at all.
Yes, and they are SLOW.
Crank them up to anything like a "decent, modern" FPS gaming (or even RPG gaming) resolution, and watch the framerate hit the floor.
Sure, it's getting faster. But you're missing the point. While WebGL and the like are getting ever faster, due almost entirely to better hardware, guess what? C++ or C are also getting faster at the same rate. Allowing better, faster, better resolution and more realistic games.
So he STILL needs to learn C or C++ if he's serious about writing games. Even a graphically-intense smartphone game has C underpinnings.
Which means, just as GP AC said, it's completely unsuitable for a "serious" game.
What OP needs to learn is C, or at a minimum C++. Nothing else will fly for this application. Rudimentary games can be done in other languages, but anything that really needs fancy graphics or fast processing will need C++ or C.
Those "external costs" are unproven and in fact highly questionable. You don't get to just assume they are there, any more than others may assume they're not. Prove the case if you want us to take you seriously.
Many economists have said that even if those external costs are all true, that's still not the real question here. The real question is: how much will mitigation cost in proportion to how much good it does, and versus how much harm it causes. Because make no mistake: there will be harm.
If electricity will be priced below market equilibrium, yes.
"Market"??? Either you're a fool or you think we are. This isn't "market". This is government fiat. It would remove any remaining pretense of free market.
You don't need a checksum of what you're giving the attorney, because it's just the encryption key. If it's tampered with, it won't work. The recipients already have the encrypted data. And if THAT is tampered with, again it won't work.
The only real issue here is keeping the attorneys apart from the recipients until your demise. For that, you can only trust that your attorney won't open the package and see who the recipients are. That's why I proposed splitting the key between two attorneys: you are doubling your chances of finding an honest attorney. (At the same time, however, you are at least theoretically reducing the odds of eventual successful delivery of the package.)
But we've been trusting attorneys in this way for hundreds of years. I don't know a better way.
Do you see the word "intended" anywhere in the law? The law stated "designed" not "intended".
Do you have a logical cell or two in your brain? If it was designed and built to be test equipment, then it wasn't intended to be used "to jam communications". You are making a distinction with no real difference.
The gun laws you are referring to pertain to the manufacture and sale by a private individual. Manufacture and sale by a company is very different.
No, it isn't. It's just as illegal for a manufacturer to sell a gun to someone with the knowledge that they intend to use it for murder, as it is for anyone else. You need to take a law 101 course.
It is Federal law that requires a company that wants to manufacture and/or sell firearms to hold a Federal Firearms License.
So? That is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the discussion at hand. Guess what? Makers of telecommunications equipment need to get licenses too.
It is also illegal for private individuals to knowingly sell guns to certain categories or people (EG felons, mentally disable, etc).
Those are State laws, not Federal, and they vary from State to State. For example: in some States, felons who have served their sentences can apply to get their firearms rights restored. In some States that is not allowed. Etc. Again, I suggest you look up some basic information on these things.
I seem to have missed the election where everyone on the internet elected Steve Wozniak and Lawrence Lessig to speak for us. The Internet does not have a super pac. A handful of people with a particular view on how the internet should be run have a super pac. To characterize themselves as the only legitimate voice on the matter is the height of arrogance.
Not just that. I've been saying for a long time that Lessig's idea may be a short-term boon but a long-term disaster. Why? Because he thinks "the problem" is that corporations have too much "money influence" on government, and the people too little.
I have argued with him that the problem is NOT that "corporations influence with too much money, and the people too little"... the real problem, the underlying problem, is big money in politics, period.
By giving money to "peoples' voices", he may be helping to solve the corporate issues, in a small way. But he's not solving the root problem at all... in fact he's just making it worse by throwing even more money at government, to "buy" more influence.
Keep in mind that Lessig also thought Obama was "The Answer", and fought hard for his election. Now he's trying to fight what he helped to build, and doing that wrong, too.
According to this "[f]ederal law prohibits the marketing, sale, or use of a transmitter (e.g., a jammer) designed to block, jam, or interfere with wireless communications". Section 203(b) prohibits making onefor use in the US too.
It's a completely toothless law.
See, the whole flaw in the law is that there is no practical way of outlawing test equipment. Test equipment, that is, that does exactly the same thing. It just isn't intended to jam or block wireless communications! It's intended to test your new phone models' susceptibility to interference, for example.
So I repeat: it isn't against the law to own the equipment. It's only illegal if it was built, bought or sold with intent to use it illegally.
They aren't busting people for selling illegal equipment. They're busting them for selling equipment that was intended to be used illegally. Again, same analogy: it's illegal to sell your gun to somebody if you know or have reason to believe they intend to go commit murder with it.
I am not sure if you are joking but a doubt going sleeveless has anything to do with jammers. Also, jammers are not weapons as defined by law.
To the best of my knowledge, they're not even illegal as defined by law. To possess, that is. It might be quite illegal to use them.
It's like the old cable TV descramblers. It was perfectly legal to build, sell, buy or own one. It was just illegal to use them to get free cable.
It's not the tool, it's the action. Just like how it's not illegal to own a gun. It's just (usually) illegal to shoot someone with it. Hell, it's illegal to kill someone with a garden rake, too.
Slashdot Mirror
So, your snark detector is broken, yes?
No, because even if snark, it was still wrong. A sarcastic comment would suggest that there was under-regulation. But that's clearly wrong, too. There is more regulation now than ever before.
Addendum:
If anything, this research actually weakens any argument that recent relocations are due to climate change, because it suggests that that they always have done it, long into the past.
Any connection to "climate change" was purely speculative on the part of the article writer.
The research actually suggested that Emperor Penguins always had changed locations periodically. There is no evidence that modern times are in any way different.
The only thing this is "evidence" of is that lots of people today will try to blame anything and everything on "climate change".
The events of the last five or six years have proven that financial markets and institutions have been over regulated.
Absolute BS. They haven't been over-regulated, they've been mis-regulated.
The Federal government has been blatantly ignoring antitrust laws, for example, while illegally regulating things it has no business or authority to regulate. It has been a combination of under-regulating and over-regulating... adding up to mis-regulation (and often illegal regulation, for that matter... they don't have authority to ignore laws any more than they have to enforce nonexistent laws).
For example, nobody disputes that Obama does not have unilateral authority, for example, to tell the EPA to impose vast new rules without the involvement of Congress. (Much less justified by EPA's "secret science".) Yet he's been doing it.
Please outline the evil Google has done.
In all honesty, this comment astounds me. Have you been living in a cardboard box?
i think that the definition of ideal changes on the situation. What situations require a camera that records to multiple local and remote destinations not fixed to a central service?
Any situation that requires remote feeds in a way that actually deserves the label "security". Anything else is a toy camera.
Oh, you forgot to mention all their other failures like Gmail, maps, Google apps, chrome, hangouts, chrome cast, etc.
People are moving away from Google Apps in droves. I only use Chrome for a few very specific things... I generally get along just fine with Firefox, which doesn't snoop on me. Chrome OS can hardly be called a "success" yet. They've made a few sales... but I've seen more chrome notebooks on sale at the bargain-basement discount houses than anywhere else, suggesting that those really weren't successful, either.
When Google "consolidated" their services under one account, people jumped away from hangouts, too. And Chromecast is too new to call it a success. There is lots of competition in that market, and some of the other devices are better AND cheaper.
Most of the people who like Google services are people do don't seem to care about the pervasive snooping. Well, fine. Let them be suckers. I'm not one of those people.
I will reference this comment 5 years from now, with sales figure of "GoogleCam", just to make a point.
And what would that point be? That many people are, indeed, insane? If not, then what?
I'm sure at least some ISPs stipulate in their terms of service that a subscriber cannot provide internet access to the general public without upgrading to some other (more expensive) plan. Surely we can move towards a more secure internet without strongly hinting that people should violate their contracts.
I pay for my bandwidth. What I do with it once I've paid for it is none of my ISP's goddamned business. They aren't my parents, they aren't the government, they aren't the police. They're service providers. So let them provide the service that's paid for, then shut the hell up. If they don't like it they can suck eggs, because I ALREADY PAID FOR IT.
I am literally a block away from my ISP. I've been running an open access point for more than 5 years. And it's a good signal... they can probably see it in their office.
Farmers are required to notify the local beekeeper organization when they spray certain pesticides, but few do, and the fines, even if they get caught, are too low to matter. We should have stronger enforcement, funded by much steeper fines. There is no excuse for failing to notify. All it takes is a one minute phone call or a few clicks on a website.
Thank you for injecting some sense into the conversation.
Rather than focusing on "pollinator health" (which of course we all want), we should first be looking at reducing "pollinator poisons" that we already know to exist. Obama's approach is trying to treat the symptoms rather than the cause.
We must stop using neonicotinoid pesticides. It's pretty much that simple. In the meantime, notification of beekeepers before spraying should be a top priority, including enforcement and fines big enough to be a deterrent.
Normally, stiffness and strength declines with the density of any material; that's why when bone density decreases, fractures become more likely.
I can see what was meant, but OP actually got this backward. It should be "Normally, stiffness and strength increases with density; that's why when bone density decreases, fractures become more likely."
Obama could stop it but doesn't, so of course it's his fault.
This.
And according to the best information we have, he has not just not stopped it, he's actively pushed to make it far worse.
So yes, it is definitely his fault, no matter how you look at it.
Seriously... who in their right mind would involve Google in their home security?
Might as well just hire Big Brother.
Who is facing extinction?
You can believe you are if you like, but the science tells me otherwise.
I don't intend to get into an argument about it here though.
There are a load of very detailed (fancy) 3D games using WebGL, not rudimentary at all.
Yes, and they are SLOW.
Crank them up to anything like a "decent, modern" FPS gaming (or even RPG gaming) resolution, and watch the framerate hit the floor.
Sure, it's getting faster. But you're missing the point. While WebGL and the like are getting ever faster, due almost entirely to better hardware, guess what? C++ or C are also getting faster at the same rate. Allowing better, faster, better resolution and more realistic games.
So he STILL needs to learn C or C++ if he's serious about writing games. Even a graphically-intense smartphone game has C underpinnings.
Do they get laid a lot less, or do they just get laid other sex partners?
They get laid a lot less.
Lots of women don't shave their armpit and other hair.
And on average they get laid a lot less.
I'm not saying that's good or bad. It's just a fact. Part of our culture.
C# is typically slightly slower than Java so....
Which means, just as GP AC said, it's completely unsuitable for a "serious" game.
What OP needs to learn is C, or at a minimum C++. Nothing else will fly for this application. Rudimentary games can be done in other languages, but anything that really needs fancy graphics or fast processing will need C++ or C.
If you ignore external costs, yes.
Those "external costs" are unproven and in fact highly questionable. You don't get to just assume they are there, any more than others may assume they're not. Prove the case if you want us to take you seriously.
Many economists have said that even if those external costs are all true, that's still not the real question here. The real question is: how much will mitigation cost in proportion to how much good it does, and versus how much harm it causes. Because make no mistake: there will be harm.
If electricity will be priced below market equilibrium, yes.
"Market"??? Either you're a fool or you think we are. This isn't "market". This is government fiat. It would remove any remaining pretense of free market.
That "armpit and other hair" can be a problem.
I might be inclined to just do without. But I could probably do without psoriasis too.
You don't need a checksum of what you're giving the attorney, because it's just the encryption key. If it's tampered with, it won't work. The recipients already have the encrypted data. And if THAT is tampered with, again it won't work.
The only real issue here is keeping the attorneys apart from the recipients until your demise. For that, you can only trust that your attorney won't open the package and see who the recipients are. That's why I proposed splitting the key between two attorneys: you are doubling your chances of finding an honest attorney. (At the same time, however, you are at least theoretically reducing the odds of eventual successful delivery of the package.)
But we've been trusting attorneys in this way for hundreds of years. I don't know a better way.
Do you see the word "intended" anywhere in the law? The law stated "designed" not "intended".
Do you have a logical cell or two in your brain? If it was designed and built to be test equipment, then it wasn't intended to be used "to jam communications". You are making a distinction with no real difference.
The gun laws you are referring to pertain to the manufacture and sale by a private individual. Manufacture and sale by a company is very different.
No, it isn't. It's just as illegal for a manufacturer to sell a gun to someone with the knowledge that they intend to use it for murder, as it is for anyone else. You need to take a law 101 course.
It is Federal law that requires a company that wants to manufacture and/or sell firearms to hold a Federal Firearms License.
So? That is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the discussion at hand. Guess what? Makers of telecommunications equipment need to get licenses too.
It is also illegal for private individuals to knowingly sell guns to certain categories or people (EG felons, mentally disable, etc).
Those are State laws, not Federal, and they vary from State to State. For example: in some States, felons who have served their sentences can apply to get their firearms rights restored. In some States that is not allowed. Etc. Again, I suggest you look up some basic information on these things.
I seem to have missed the election where everyone on the internet elected Steve Wozniak and Lawrence Lessig to speak for us. The Internet does not have a super pac. A handful of people with a particular view on how the internet should be run have a super pac. To characterize themselves as the only legitimate voice on the matter is the height of arrogance.
Not just that. I've been saying for a long time that Lessig's idea may be a short-term boon but a long-term disaster. Why? Because he thinks "the problem" is that corporations have too much "money influence" on government, and the people too little.
I have argued with him that the problem is NOT that "corporations influence with too much money, and the people too little"... the real problem, the underlying problem, is big money in politics, period.
By giving money to "peoples' voices", he may be helping to solve the corporate issues, in a small way. But he's not solving the root problem at all... in fact he's just making it worse by throwing even more money at government, to "buy" more influence.
Keep in mind that Lessig also thought Obama was "The Answer", and fought hard for his election. Now he's trying to fight what he helped to build, and doing that wrong, too.
According to this "[f]ederal law prohibits the marketing, sale, or use of a transmitter (e.g., a jammer) designed to block, jam, or interfere with wireless communications". Section 203(b) prohibits making onefor use in the US too.
It's a completely toothless law.
See, the whole flaw in the law is that there is no practical way of outlawing test equipment. Test equipment, that is, that does exactly the same thing. It just isn't intended to jam or block wireless communications! It's intended to test your new phone models' susceptibility to interference, for example.
So I repeat: it isn't against the law to own the equipment. It's only illegal if it was built, bought or sold with intent to use it illegally.
They aren't busting people for selling illegal equipment. They're busting them for selling equipment that was intended to be used illegally. Again, same analogy: it's illegal to sell your gun to somebody if you know or have reason to believe they intend to go commit murder with it.
I am not sure if you are joking but a doubt going sleeveless has anything to do with jammers. Also, jammers are not weapons as defined by law.
To the best of my knowledge, they're not even illegal as defined by law. To possess, that is. It might be quite illegal to use them.
It's like the old cable TV descramblers. It was perfectly legal to build, sell, buy or own one. It was just illegal to use them to get free cable.
It's not the tool, it's the action. Just like how it's not illegal to own a gun. It's just (usually) illegal to shoot someone with it. Hell, it's illegal to kill someone with a garden rake, too.