Up until recently Facebook only allowed people with.edu emails to sign up. Then, they added corporations. Only relatively recently did they add the ability for anyone to sign up, and use geographical "networks", etc.
Anyways, its fairly obvious comparing the two sites that one is oriented towards people who are more mature. The site is, for the most part, very structured. There are profile fields, and unless you get into the seedy underbelly of groups, its hard to get any kind of ridiculous "self expression" on Facebook. MySpace, on the other hand, is highl customizable and lends itself much easier to stupid "rebel conforming non-conformist" teenagers and others who never really grew up.
Its not some evil class division or whatever. duh.
"Hactivist" is a perfectly cromulent word, right? No, not really. I really despise this weird need everyone has to create new words. He already have perfectly good words, like "hacker", "activist" and "loser kids who want to feel powerful." Why anyone felt the need to create another buzz word is beyond me. This one is going right on the top of my list.
Analysts have long said that one of the big challenges will be managing that flow into and out of the nation's electric grid, and that companies that manage the flow of information are well placed to handle that task.
That doesn't make any sense. They distribute information on a virtual network and they own almost none of the hardware used to distribute it... but they are somehow well placed to distribute power from a power grid, which is a completely different network?
That doesn't make any sense at all. It makes so little sense, I can't even think of an analogy close enough to what they said to properly mock them.
There are many conflicts in the story, and no one from the government is giving convincing answers.
You didn't provide any examples, so it is difficult for me to provide you with convincing answers... but have you considered the possibility that those from the government do not full understand the dynamics involved with a collapse of such a large building? Their lack of answers is simply a way of saying "Gee, we really don't know why it looks like molten metal is comming out of it." If they truely were innocent, wouldn't you expect them to not be able to answer these types of questions easily? Isn't it far more likely that if they had done this on purpose they would be able to EASILY point to answers for all of these questions? Is it more likely that they do not know the answers to some tough questions (and thus are spending a lot of money via NIST to find those answers) or that they planned the whole thing, killed thousands of people, and then forgot to consider that anyone would ask questions and they should be prepared with plausable sounding answers?
For example, there are vidoes showing molten metal pouring out of a WTC building before its collapse.
Since jet fuel cannot melt steel what could cause it? So some scientists (Steven Jones) decided to use method.
Someone suggested it could be aluminium from the aircraft frame. So they melted Al, and poured it out, but it just looked silvery. Then they mixed in wood chips, carpet and other organic matter that may be found in an office. The organic matter just floated on top, and when poured out it just looked silvery, not 'sparky' like iron. Then they thought what could make molten iron? So they tried various thermite reactions and that gave results strikingly similar to that seen on videos.
They then started analysing wtc dust and found many iron micro spheres, and under X-EDS found the spheres had strong peaks for Aluminium, Iron and Sulfer, again pointing towards use of thermite. Unfortunately, this isn't quite the scientific method at work. See, they had a clear goal when doing these experiments not to find out "what looks like this" but to show that other things do not look this way. They didn't set out to discover what this metal looking stuff was and then found out it might be thermite. Instead, they said "that's thermite... lets show that its not aluminum and then people will believe us!"
What makes you think that NIST is unable to use the scientific method, anyways?
There are many things about 911 that still do not make sense, especially the symmetrical near free-fall collapse of WTC7.
Well, unfortunately the NIST report on WTC 7 isn't finalized. But here is a brief explanation (again from the NIST FAQ):
The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:
An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;
Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and
Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
The bible is full of events natural events that science has gone on to explain but which we don't fret about. Every time someone falls to the ground they were being pulled by a magical force which science later called "gravity". Does knowing the way in which gravity works, and the ability to predict its effects contradict the bible? No: people assume that God created gravity and that is the method by which he keeps people stuck to the Earth and the planets and stars in rotation.
Actually, Copernicus and Galileo both hit quite a wall in introducing gravity related concepts (like the earth revolving around the sun and the existence of other planets). Seems that pesky catholic church was none too quick to catch on.
Religion, in general, has a really bad history of outright refusing to acknowledge any counter points to their previously held facts. Its human nature, everyone does it. Fortunately in recent years the Roman Catholic church has become level headed, and they even accept evolution. The problem is the nut-jobs just love it here in the US (it was founded by them, after all).
Personally I think maybe we should try just treating creationists like flat earthers or other fringe people. I wish everyone could just agree that they are nuts and just ignore them as extremists and move on. Highlighting this "museum" and fighting it only gives them excuses to continue to believe there is a "fight" going on in science about evolution or that anyone actually cares what they think.
Maddox is not a physicist, but when something reaches that critical mass that even Maddox has to call it stupid, then you know it must really be pretty fucking stupid.
With respect to jet fuel, I'll quote you directly from the NIST page:
In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).
However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.
No, because its based on pseudo-science and conspiracy theories. It is to such a ridiculous level that aMaddox even covered it. You can find numerousrefutations if you take 3 seconds to search.
Why does everyone insist that there are no problems with paper? Granted current electronic methods are awful... But part of the reason that paper is so vulnerable is because it gives everyone this false feeling that their vote is "real." The fact is it is just as easy to stuff paper ballots as to change digital votes, and it is just as easy (or easier) to "loose" and "miscount" paper ballots. The best bet for a secure election where all votes are counted (and no extras are counted either) is an open system using strong cryptographic principals to ensure auditability an vote verification. Lucky for all of us, several such systems exist... but none of them (that I know of) are being used for public elections (a few are used for university elections in the places where they are researched.)
IANAL and my memory isn't so great but I think....
Currently, telecommunications laws prohibit them from discriminating, which is why it is not happening now. Several bills recently were created (and almost passed) that would specifically allow anti-neutral behavior.
Even if there was no threat of the tide changing to be less neutral any time soon, it is best to have laws specifically spelling out what is and is not allowed. We can't exactly trust providers to be neutral just because it is the nice thing to do.
Its a great strategy. I have been worried about my increasing reliance on g-mail... that if it ever disappeared for some reason I would find it really hard to transition to a new app. I was seriously considering a 12 step program to switch back to a client side mail application. But now I don't have to worry, if gmail ever disappears I'll still have to go cold turkey, but at least I won't loose any data.
I wouldn't hold my breath if I was you. Unlike screwing people on re-installs, protecting the DRM is worth more to them than your $400. Running Windows in a VM makes it very easy to use the VM to make a 'vrtual' sound or video card and pump the unencrypted data directly into a file. I'm surprised any of the versions would allow you to play DRM content in a VM.
Slashdot Mirror
Up until recently Facebook only allowed people with .edu emails to sign up. Then, they added corporations. Only relatively recently did they add the ability for anyone to sign up, and use geographical "networks", etc.
Anyways, its fairly obvious comparing the two sites that one is oriented towards people who are more mature. The site is, for the most part, very structured. There are profile fields, and unless you get into the seedy underbelly of groups, its hard to get any kind of ridiculous "self expression" on Facebook. MySpace, on the other hand, is highl customizable and lends itself much easier to stupid "rebel conforming non-conformist" teenagers and others who never really grew up.
Its not some evil class division or whatever. duh.
"Hactivist" is a perfectly cromulent word, right? No, not really. I really despise this weird need everyone has to create new words. He already have perfectly good words, like "hacker", "activist" and "loser kids who want to feel powerful." Why anyone felt the need to create another buzz word is beyond me. This one is going right on the top of my list.
Video at 11.
That doesn't make any sense at all. It makes so little sense, I can't even think of an analogy close enough to what they said to properly mock them.
You didn't provide any examples, so it is difficult for me to provide you with convincing answers... but have you considered the possibility that those from the government do not full understand the dynamics involved with a collapse of such a large building? Their lack of answers is simply a way of saying "Gee, we really don't know why it looks like molten metal is comming out of it." If they truely were innocent, wouldn't you expect them to not be able to answer these types of questions easily? Isn't it far more likely that if they had done this on purpose they would be able to EASILY point to answers for all of these questions? Is it more likely that they do not know the answers to some tough questions (and thus are spending a lot of money via NIST to find those answers) or that they planned the whole thing, killed thousands of people, and then forgot to consider that anyone would ask questions and they should be prepared with plausable sounding answers?
For example, there are vidoes showing molten metal pouring out of a WTC building before its collapse. Since jet fuel cannot melt steel what could cause it? So some scientists (Steven Jones) decided to use method. Someone suggested it could be aluminium from the aircraft frame. So they melted Al, and poured it out, but it just looked silvery. Then they mixed in wood chips, carpet and other organic matter that may be found in an office. The organic matter just floated on top, and when poured out it just looked silvery, not 'sparky' like iron. Then they thought what could make molten iron? So they tried various thermite reactions and that gave results strikingly similar to that seen on videos. They then started analysing wtc dust and found many iron micro spheres, and under X-EDS found the spheres had strong peaks for Aluminium, Iron and Sulfer, again pointing towards use of thermite. Unfortunately, this isn't quite the scientific method at work. See, they had a clear goal when doing these experiments not to find out "what looks like this" but to show that other things do not look this way. They didn't set out to discover what this metal looking stuff was and then found out it might be thermite. Instead, they said "that's thermite... lets show that its not aluminum and then people will believe us!"
What makes you think that NIST is unable to use the scientific method, anyways?
There are many things about 911 that still do not make sense, especially the symmetrical near free-fall collapse of WTC7.
Well, unfortunately the NIST report on WTC 7 isn't finalized. But here is a brief explanation (again from the NIST FAQ):
Religion, in general, has a really bad history of outright refusing to acknowledge any counter points to their previously held facts. Its human nature, everyone does it. Fortunately in recent years the Roman Catholic church has become level headed, and they even accept evolution. The problem is the nut-jobs just love it here in the US (it was founded by them, after all).
Personally I think maybe we should try just treating creationists like flat earthers or other fringe people. I wish everyone could just agree that they are nuts and just ignore them as extremists and move on. Highlighting this "museum" and fighting it only gives them excuses to continue to believe there is a "fight" going on in science about evolution or that anyone actually cares what they think.
With respect to jet fuel, I'll quote you directly from the NIST page:
No, because its based on pseudo-science and conspiracy theories. It is to such a ridiculous level that aMaddox even covered it. You can find numerous refutations if you take 3 seconds to search.
God, I would like to file a bug report...
Why does everyone insist that there are no problems with paper? Granted current electronic methods are awful... But part of the reason that paper is so vulnerable is because it gives everyone this false feeling that their vote is "real." The fact is it is just as easy to stuff paper ballots as to change digital votes, and it is just as easy (or easier) to "loose" and "miscount" paper ballots. The best bet for a secure election where all votes are counted (and no extras are counted either) is an open system using strong cryptographic principals to ensure auditability an vote verification. Lucky for all of us, several such systems exist... but none of them (that I know of) are being used for public elections (a few are used for university elections in the places where they are researched.)
Luck for them, they obviously don't have QA at all.
IANAL and my memory isn't so great but I think.... Currently, telecommunications laws prohibit them from discriminating, which is why it is not happening now. Several bills recently were created (and almost passed) that would specifically allow anti-neutral behavior. Even if there was no threat of the tide changing to be less neutral any time soon, it is best to have laws specifically spelling out what is and is not allowed. We can't exactly trust providers to be neutral just because it is the nice thing to do.
Atlantis. The real question is, does it have a star gate?
I, for one, welcome our new ultra-cute-robotic-baby-seal overlords.
Eve must be wondering who the hell Charles is....
Its a great strategy. I have been worried about my increasing reliance on g-mail... that if it ever disappeared for some reason I would find it really hard to transition to a new app. I was seriously considering a 12 step program to switch back to a client side mail application. But now I don't have to worry, if gmail ever disappears I'll still have to go cold turkey, but at least I won't loose any data.
I wouldn't hold my breath if I was you. Unlike screwing people on re-installs, protecting the DRM is worth more to them than your $400. Running Windows in a VM makes it very easy to use the VM to make a 'vrtual' sound or video card and pump the unencrypted data directly into a file. I'm surprised any of the versions would allow you to play DRM content in a VM.
TFA provides absolutely no useful information. Its basically "We know a guy and he totally says Google is helping the CIA do something."
Completely useless.