Jane doesn't seem to be describing someone who just isn't a pacifist. Jane actually seems to be describing someone who attacks without remorse and doesn't care if his responses are proportional or escalating. How is that different from the description of a sociopath?
And "Anonymous Coward" doesn't seem to be describing what I actually wrote. Where is your failure to understand my simple words? Why do you insist on putting your own spin on them that I neither wrote or intended?
That's a form of dishonesty. I repeat: you are quick to criticize others but you seem blind to your own transgressions. That's called hypocrisy.
Don't bother to reply; I have nothing further to say to you.
Because purposeful geoengineering is, by its nature, going to be of larger scale of effect. Making mistakes about degree of effect or feedbacks could be very bad for us. It's devil you know versus devil you don't, and you only get one planet to try with. Relatively small chances of error are still kind of a big deal.
Pretty much this. It's the same precautionary principle that should have been used with GMOs, which are already causing serious problems. And I don't mean health problems, I mean ecology. Such as roudup-ready corn spreading in the wild, and passing some of its modified genes to other plants, when it wasn't supposed to.
The whole global warming scare made it abundantly obvious that the current state of science (plus politics) is incapable of intelligently managing the climate, or perhaps even managing it at all, much less intelligently.
I'd like to add, though: contrary to what OP implies, we've been "seriously considering" engineering the climate for many decades.
I'm sure that they learned a valuable lession from that and will never do anything like that again. I'm also sure that pigs fly and cows routinely jump over the moon.
This is a good illustration of the folly of top-down "waterfall" methodology. Too much micro-planning in advance, no action.
Let's just pray none of them are studying Constitutional law, since they obviously don't understand what rights private entities maintain.
It's just more eco-bullying, plain and simple. I, for one, am sick and tired of these deluded incompetents trying to bully others who demonstrably understand more about it than they do.
Again, Jane distinguishes his behavior from Winterfox's by insisting that Jane's just "responding in kind" rather than overreacting by escalating the language.
That is very definitely NOT what I wrote. Don't try to put words in my mouth. That practice is at least as evil as anything you have accused me of doing. I ask again: look in a mirror much? Do you know what the word "hypocrisy" means?
Here is the difference between YOU and ME (and nothing whatever to do with this "Winterfox" person): at least I acknowledge the behavior that I actually do engage in, regardless of whether you think I should apologize for it. You, on the other hand, seem to be blind to your own transgressions.
I did NOT claim I never "escalated", if you want to use that word. What I stated was that I won't apologize for it, IF I felt it was actually justified.
Winterfox eventually realized that she was overreacting by escalating the language (like "illiterate fuck") in response to people who had never used that language to describe her.
Let's be clear: I really don't give a damn about your philosophy.
I am not a pacifist. Attack me and I will attack back, and feel NO remorse for doing so. I don't care whether you want to call that escalation. Do you understand that? I don't care. Trying to go there isn't going to get you anywhere.
INVARIABLY, the people here on Slashdot who harass me in this manner have been people who failed to show I was wrong, but felt they were right anyway, and got all butthurt because I wouldn't admit I was wrong and validate their feelings.
Nope. Doesn't work that way. Show me or get stuffed. If I think I made a mistake -- as I may have once here in this thread, go back and read -- I will admit I may have been wrong and ask for pardon. But if I am pretty sure I have not made a mistake, you will not get an apology from me.
It's that simple. I don't give a rat's ass about political correctness or what other people think. I speak the truth as I best know it, without spin. If I am shown to be wrong, I will admit it. That's all there is to it. If your feelings get all hurt because of that, probably best to just not engage me at all.
I just ran into this in iBooks, and was very nervous until I confirmed that other normal books still had prices. So "Get" means "free iBook", too.
For books, maybe. But it really just obfuscates the issue for software because they just swapped out "free" for "get", while still barely giving a nod to the DIFFERENCE between actually free, and "free trial but you have to pay to unlock the full version".
Granted, they did add an indicator for "in-app purchases", but made it as unobtrusive as they reasonably could. In my opinion, that is dishonesty. Or at best, being honest only very reluctantly and begrudgingly.
While WhatsApp does have a security hole. Using WhatsApp is more secure than using no encryption.
This seems to be most reasonable of the responses so far.
EFF has mentioned that when the end-to-end encryption is implemented, and then IF it passes their tests, they will update their Secure Messaging Scorecard for it. Right now its score is rather dismal: 2 of 7.
Currently there are only a few text messaging apps that get full points: TextSecure, Silent Text, OTR (Windows), CryptoCat, and something called ChatSecure which I had not heard of before.
Some people objected to CryptoCat being awarded all points, in that it hadn't been fully audited yet. EFF replied that it passed tests to their satisfaction.
I did not list phone apps such as Redphone because they're primarily voice not text per se.
We have been over all of this before. I am going to publish my proof that you were wrong, in time. Nothing has changed, and your insistence on a formula from me that is 100% irrelevant to the proof that you were wrong changes nothing.
Period. The end. You will get no more response from me to this continued HARASSMENT.
It is against my policy to respond to the person who made this comment. Ever since I challenged his incorrect answer to a question of physics several years ago, he has been rude and insulting, jumping into conversations that did not involve him for the sole purpose of insulting and harassing me.
That is my statement. You may make your own judgment.
Typical stupidity, is Research the same as propaganda?
I didn't say it was. But when research grant $$ is favorably awarded to research on a particular "side" of an issue (which has shown to be the case, rather extremely, over the last decade or so), then researchers tend to research only one "side" of that issue. Read the GAO report.
It doesn't have to do with "conspiracy", it has to do with political pressure. That's only "conspiracy" if you consider all Democrats or Republicans or members of any other party to be co-conspirators.
Researchers are human. They follow the $$ like anybody else.
Obviously sincere apologies wouldn't be familiar to you
Really. You're writing about other people's attitude, and you start it off that way? Do you not own any mirrors? Sounds like blatant hypocrisy to me.
When I believe that someone else has been unjustifiably rude or insulting, I have no problem with responding in kind. I can be wrong sometimes, and when shown I am wrong, I also have no problem apologizing. There are innumerable examples of that here on Slashdot over the years.
The qualifier is that first I must be shown to be wrong. "Shown" is the operative word. Merely saying I am wrong doesn't make it so. Show me real evidence, and barring contrary evidence I will accept it.
Last I read a Libertarian platform, it said that pollution should not be regulated by the government, but that landowners should sue when pollution gets into their property.
Hey... there are extreme Libertarians who are out of touch with reality, in exactly the same way there are extreme Democrats and Republicans who are out of touch with reality. There is nothing unique about Libertarians in that regard, and judging them all by the positions of an extreme few is as erroneous as judging all Democrats and Republicans the same way.
The actual Libertarian principle in regard to that subject is that polluting somebody's back yard is doing them harm. Another of the central principles is that one of the primary functions of government is to prevent people from doing harm to other people. Further, contrary to what many people say, the Libertarian principle regarding government regulation is that government should regulate only when it's necessary to do so.
But if you put those together, the result is that if it is necessary for government to regulate pollution in order to prevent people from polluting other peoples' back yards, then it should. Ideally that should be voluntary, but if voluntary doesn't work then the government must regulate it.
Where on earth would anyone get hold of a ink jet printer?
It's funny, but it's even funnier because there's a ring of truth to it.
Anything that's cheap enough to mass-produce in or on dollar bills, is also cheap enough for some person or group that is highly motivated to counterfeit.
That's the way stuff works, folks.
I mean heck... look at the holograms on Micro SDs. They were put there to foil counterfeiting... now they're being counterfeited.
While it is technically true that both sides have some non-zero amount of money, one side has enough of it to afford the worlds biggest PR firm along with 4 companies in the Fortune 10 (that would be 4 of the top 10 US companies by revenue.
Oh, give me a frigging break. Yes, energy companies (not just oil) spent millions of dollars on research and campaigns contrary to global warming alarmism. Some estimates go as high as $40 and even $50 million.
But according to a recent GAO report, our own government spent $106 Billion dollars on "climate change" research, and that was by 2010, 4 years ago.
So this "oil companies are spending money" argument works against the climate alarmists. No matter how you cut it, the "other side" has outspent them by more than 1000 to 1.
You are not following the discussion and you do not understand the points being raised.
What an rude, arrogant thing to say. It is you who aren't following.
Sales taxes are STATE taxes. You are correct that Federal authority to collect state taxes in not in question: it doesn't exist.
What the federal government does with a hypothetical federal sales tax revenue is its own business
Sure... if it's a federal sales tax. But it isn't. Read the bill.
State laws have NOTHING to do with such a tax system.
Read the bill. Or even just read a news article about it. It wasn't a tax. It was a bill that would have unconstitutionally tried to force STATES to collect taxes for other STATES.
Now, go read up and get a clue before calling other people stupid again, or I shall start calling you Mr. Dunning.
No. Since there is no context associated with it, and I know nothing about any of the parties involved, I did not find it even a little bit interesting. Are you trying to apologize for something? Then why not just say it?
while others are about as screwed up as anything in the Democratic or Republican plank collection
then you give examples of Democrats and Republicans. You left the part quoted above unsupported.
At any rate, I am quite happy that this bill was killed, because it was another whitewash job, like the original Patriot Act. In fact it would have extended some of the worst provisions of the Patriot Act, while not really curbing NSA much at all. It would in fact have codified into explicit law some of the surveillance and FISA court BS we have been trying to get rid of.
Slashdot Mirror
Jane doesn't seem to be describing someone who just isn't a pacifist. Jane actually seems to be describing someone who attacks without remorse and doesn't care if his responses are proportional or escalating. How is that different from the description of a sociopath?
And "Anonymous Coward" doesn't seem to be describing what I actually wrote. Where is your failure to understand my simple words? Why do you insist on putting your own spin on them that I neither wrote or intended?
That's a form of dishonesty. I repeat: you are quick to criticize others but you seem blind to your own transgressions. That's called hypocrisy.
Don't bother to reply; I have nothing further to say to you.
Because purposeful geoengineering is, by its nature, going to be of larger scale of effect. Making mistakes about degree of effect or feedbacks could be very bad for us. It's devil you know versus devil you don't, and you only get one planet to try with. Relatively small chances of error are still kind of a big deal.
Pretty much this. It's the same precautionary principle that should have been used with GMOs, which are already causing serious problems. And I don't mean health problems, I mean ecology. Such as roudup-ready corn spreading in the wild, and passing some of its modified genes to other plants, when it wasn't supposed to.
The whole global warming scare made it abundantly obvious that the current state of science (plus politics) is incapable of intelligently managing the climate, or perhaps even managing it at all, much less intelligently.
I'd like to add, though: contrary to what OP implies, we've been "seriously considering" engineering the climate for many decades.
I'm sure that they learned a valuable lession from that and will never do anything like that again. I'm also sure that pigs fly and cows routinely jump over the moon.
This is a good illustration of the folly of top-down "waterfall" methodology. Too much micro-planning in advance, no action.
Let's just pray none of them are studying Constitutional law, since they obviously don't understand what rights private entities maintain.
It's just more eco-bullying, plain and simple. I, for one, am sick and tired of these deluded incompetents trying to bully others who demonstrably understand more about it than they do.
Again, Jane distinguishes his behavior from Winterfox's by insisting that Jane's just "responding in kind" rather than overreacting by escalating the language.
That is very definitely NOT what I wrote. Don't try to put words in my mouth. That practice is at least as evil as anything you have accused me of doing. I ask again: look in a mirror much? Do you know what the word "hypocrisy" means?
Here is the difference between YOU and ME (and nothing whatever to do with this "Winterfox" person): at least I acknowledge the behavior that I actually do engage in, regardless of whether you think I should apologize for it. You, on the other hand, seem to be blind to your own transgressions.
I did NOT claim I never "escalated", if you want to use that word. What I stated was that I won't apologize for it, IF I felt it was actually justified.
Winterfox eventually realized that she was overreacting by escalating the language (like "illiterate fuck") in response to people who had never used that language to describe her.
Let's be clear: I really don't give a damn about your philosophy.
I am not a pacifist. Attack me and I will attack back, and feel NO remorse for doing so. I don't care whether you want to call that escalation. Do you understand that? I don't care. Trying to go there isn't going to get you anywhere.
INVARIABLY, the people here on Slashdot who harass me in this manner have been people who failed to show I was wrong, but felt they were right anyway, and got all butthurt because I wouldn't admit I was wrong and validate their feelings.
Nope. Doesn't work that way. Show me or get stuffed. If I think I made a mistake -- as I may have once here in this thread, go back and read -- I will admit I may have been wrong and ask for pardon. But if I am pretty sure I have not made a mistake, you will not get an apology from me.
It's that simple. I don't give a rat's ass about political correctness or what other people think. I speak the truth as I best know it, without spin. If I am shown to be wrong, I will admit it. That's all there is to it. If your feelings get all hurt because of that, probably best to just not engage me at all.
I just ran into this in iBooks, and was very nervous until I confirmed that other normal books still had prices. So "Get" means "free iBook", too.
For books, maybe. But it really just obfuscates the issue for software because they just swapped out "free" for "get", while still barely giving a nod to the DIFFERENCE between actually free, and "free trial but you have to pay to unlock the full version".
Granted, they did add an indicator for "in-app purchases", but made it as unobtrusive as they reasonably could. In my opinion, that is dishonesty. Or at best, being honest only very reluctantly and begrudgingly.
While WhatsApp does have a security hole. Using WhatsApp is more secure than using no encryption.
This seems to be most reasonable of the responses so far.
EFF has mentioned that when the end-to-end encryption is implemented, and then IF it passes their tests, they will update their Secure Messaging Scorecard for it. Right now its score is rather dismal: 2 of 7.
Currently there are only a few text messaging apps that get full points: TextSecure, Silent Text, OTR (Windows), CryptoCat, and something called ChatSecure which I had not heard of before.
Some people objected to CryptoCat being awarded all points, in that it hadn't been fully audited yet. EFF replied that it passed tests to their satisfaction.
I did not list phone apps such as Redphone because they're primarily voice not text per se.
We have been over all of this before. I am going to publish my proof that you were wrong, in time. Nothing has changed, and your insistence on a formula from me that is 100% irrelevant to the proof that you were wrong changes nothing.
Period. The end. You will get no more response from me to this continued HARASSMENT.
Public Service Announcement
Dear readers:
It is against my policy to respond to the person who made this comment. Ever since I challenged his incorrect answer to a question of physics several years ago, he has been rude and insulting, jumping into conversations that did not involve him for the sole purpose of insulting and harassing me.
That is my statement. You may make your own judgment.
Typical stupidity, is Research the same as propaganda?
I didn't say it was. But when research grant $$ is favorably awarded to research on a particular "side" of an issue (which has shown to be the case, rather extremely, over the last decade or so), then researchers tend to research only one "side" of that issue. Read the GAO report.
It doesn't have to do with "conspiracy", it has to do with political pressure. That's only "conspiracy" if you consider all Democrats or Republicans or members of any other party to be co-conspirators.
Researchers are human. They follow the $$ like anybody else.
Obviously sincere apologies wouldn't be familiar to you
Really. You're writing about other people's attitude, and you start it off that way? Do you not own any mirrors? Sounds like blatant hypocrisy to me.
When I believe that someone else has been unjustifiably rude or insulting, I have no problem with responding in kind. I can be wrong sometimes, and when shown I am wrong, I also have no problem apologizing. There are innumerable examples of that here on Slashdot over the years.
The qualifier is that first I must be shown to be wrong. "Shown" is the operative word. Merely saying I am wrong doesn't make it so. Show me real evidence, and barring contrary evidence I will accept it.
Last I read a Libertarian platform, it said that pollution should not be regulated by the government, but that landowners should sue when pollution gets into their property.
Hey... there are extreme Libertarians who are out of touch with reality, in exactly the same way there are extreme Democrats and Republicans who are out of touch with reality. There is nothing unique about Libertarians in that regard, and judging them all by the positions of an extreme few is as erroneous as judging all Democrats and Republicans the same way.
The actual Libertarian principle in regard to that subject is that polluting somebody's back yard is doing them harm. Another of the central principles is that one of the primary functions of government is to prevent people from doing harm to other people. Further, contrary to what many people say, the Libertarian principle regarding government regulation is that government should regulate only when it's necessary to do so.
But if you put those together, the result is that if it is necessary for government to regulate pollution in order to prevent people from polluting other peoples' back yards, then it should. Ideally that should be voluntary, but if voluntary doesn't work then the government must regulate it.
Does that really sound so outrageous to you?
If you could actually read my mind, you would know why you were wrong about that.
Where on earth would anyone get hold of a ink jet printer?
It's funny, but it's even funnier because there's a ring of truth to it.
Anything that's cheap enough to mass-produce in or on dollar bills, is also cheap enough for some person or group that is highly motivated to counterfeit.
That's the way stuff works, folks.
I mean heck... look at the holograms on Micro SDs. They were put there to foil counterfeiting... now they're being counterfeited.
While it is technically true that both sides have some non-zero amount of money, one side has enough of it to afford the worlds biggest PR firm along with 4 companies in the Fortune 10 (that would be 4 of the top 10 US companies by revenue.
Oh, give me a frigging break. Yes, energy companies (not just oil) spent millions of dollars on research and campaigns contrary to global warming alarmism. Some estimates go as high as $40 and even $50 million.
But according to a recent GAO report, our own government spent $106 Billion dollars on "climate change" research, and that was by 2010, 4 years ago.
So this "oil companies are spending money" argument works against the climate alarmists. No matter how you cut it, the "other side" has outspent them by more than 1000 to 1.
Pardon my reply above.
To me, it looked like a sarcastic comment aimed at me.
But I could have been wrong.
You are not following the discussion and you do not understand the points being raised.
What an rude, arrogant thing to say. It is you who aren't following.
Sales taxes are STATE taxes. You are correct that Federal authority to collect state taxes in not in question: it doesn't exist.
What the federal government does with a hypothetical federal sales tax revenue is its own business
Sure... if it's a federal sales tax. But it isn't. Read the bill.
State laws have NOTHING to do with such a tax system.
Read the bill. Or even just read a news article about it. It wasn't a tax. It was a bill that would have unconstitutionally tried to force STATES to collect taxes for other STATES.
Now, go read up and get a clue before calling other people stupid again, or I shall start calling you Mr. Dunning.
You really didn't see anything familiar about this?
Yes, you are quite correct. I really don't see anything familiar about that.
I *DO*, however, seem to detect something familiar about YOU.
Stop spamming me. Nobody is impressed. And I mean that literally: nobody.
They are very demonstrably the very same thing. That's why Sherman Antitrust Act has been enacted loooong time ago.
WHOOOOOSH!!!
Get a clue. It was corporatists who created the "trusts" that needed to be busted. The antitrust laws were not made to protect us from Libartarians.
Go read Adam Smith.
I read them carefully enough.
Might want to go away, asshole.
So long as it is effective in keeping the President from escaping, I'm all for it.
Haha. Pretty much this.
The best way to make the White House safe is to put a President in it who people don't want to kill all the time.
Illiterate, apparently.
No need to apologize.
No, signing does not prevent that, because signing can be bypassed. Is this clear? Do I need to state it a couple more different ways?
You might find this essay interesting:
No. Since there is no context associated with it, and I know nothing about any of the parties involved, I did not find it even a little bit interesting. Are you trying to apologize for something? Then why not just say it?
while others are about as screwed up as anything in the Democratic or Republican plank collection
then you give examples of Democrats and Republicans. You left the part quoted above unsupported.
At any rate, I am quite happy that this bill was killed, because it was another whitewash job, like the original Patriot Act. In fact it would have extended some of the worst provisions of the Patriot Act, while not really curbing NSA much at all. It would in fact have codified into explicit law some of the surveillance and FISA court BS we have been trying to get rid of.