Etch is maintained to 2009-09. dist-upgrading a production server on release day, just for the fun of it, is probably a terrible idea. I'll be sticking with etch well into next year.
As I said on another comment on this discussion, the BPI is likely using a MediaSentry-inspired service, if not MediaSentry itself (the MPAA is involved, as well).
You're still right about not being able to differentiate between licensed and unlicensed. But the horrible reality is that the governments and big isps now have their own definition: All music is owned by the big four.
The list of "illegal" users comes from the BPI, who are presumably using a service like MediaSentry (in fact, the MPAA is involved).
This, too, is similar to the "Pedo Menace" stuff, where in the list is coming from a third party - the Center for Missing and Exploited Children or whatever it's called.
The author (Mr. Evans) begins his article with an appeal from authority, i.e. "I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol".
My apparent ad hominem was actually not fallacious, in that the claim of authority, which I might have been willing to accept, turned out to be false. So the first paragraph of Mr. Evan's article (of which there are several in the same vein) actually begs for "questioning who wrote".
Honestly, I didn't pursue his claims after it became obvious that he wasn't a climatologist working for the Australian government, as he implicitly suggests. He was a programmer who wrote the desktop client software, apparently.
His resume turns up in the first page of google results. In it are references to two scientific papers that had been published, twenty years ago, in an unrelated field (electronics, right?). IANACS, but I think it is reasonable to expect that as a truly credentialed academic (Stanford), he has the skills to submit a paper, if indeed he is on to something that the whole field of climatology is missing.
This is very familiar to all who remember the campaigning on behalf of the tobacco industry in the 80s. Asking me to put on my oncologist hat and prove to you that smoking causes lung cancer isn't fair. The circumstantial evidence that he is full of it (gets paid by a pro-coal think tank, lack of credentials in the field, no papers in journals, lying about his experience) is strong enough to dismiss this, imho.
Checking sources is one way we navigate through fields not in our specialties. This guy is not a good source of information about climate science. The Lavoisier Group is not a good source of information about climate science. Infowars, obviously, is not a good source of information about anything at all.
Libertarian: But we can't collectively manage our impact on the environment! Humans must act independently out of rational self-interest!/off whacky randian rant.
Evangelical Christian Dominionist: But we can't consider our impact on the environment! Humanity has been given domain to subjugate the earth by God!/off whacky Pastor Hagee sermon.
Armchair Free-Marketeer: But we can't spend money on research or restoration! Humanity must follow sound free-market principles!/off whacky chicago-school thesis
Sweet Jesus you're right. This is easily the most depressing thing I've seen all day.
It's an astroturf campaign aimed at free software/anti-patent advocates, brought to you by the allegedly reformed "energy sector". From the style, I'm thinking it may have been built by people like these guys, or a similar outfit, that do stuff like this.
Even if you're a climate-change flat-earther, you all have to realize that you're being manipulated. "Developing An Open Source Solution to Climate Change"? What does that even mean?
And have any of you read the comments? The already totally-populated tag cloud? The keyword metadata?
This is a PR campaign, what these fine human beings in marketing call "online strategies". I wouldn't be surprised if some of the ACs on this discussion aren't part of this "campaign" (You all suck, btw. Trolling for the lulz is fine, but trolling for a paycheck is just fucked).
Reducing net carbon emissions by not putting millions of tons of it into the atmosphere is apparently way too difficult. Much easier to change the chemistry of earth's oceans (wtf?!).
The content cartels have had region-coding to game the international economy for more than a decade. No way they're going to give that up just because it's on the web.
I would venture a guess that some of that region-based pricing might be built in to contracts with the content people.
Okay. Depending on who you ask, there were at least 4 distinct waves of migration. Each of these waves was a different generation or a different class.
The generation/class with the greatest support of the embargo is the first, the middle and upper classes (also white, mainly). Understandably so, as this was the generation who had their power and belongings taken from them and had the most to lose.
Later migrations, like the Marielitos, balseros and "dusty feet", came from different classes and generations and have different opinions.
The generation that constituted the first wave is slowly dying off, and opinion in favor of the embargo is eroding in relation to the change.
Disclaimer: I'm anglo. Apologies to any cubanos if I screwed something up.
That's an extremely simplistic view. Cuban-Americans are about as far from monolithic as you can get, as are their opinions about the embargo, and their actions in light of it.
Did I mention that the main people who break the embargo are those very same former cubans?
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, that statement is ill-informed.
I don't really have a horse in this race, but you might like to know that Linnaean classification isn't a good example for your argument. It's been heavily modified since Linnaeus, and parts of it have in fact been abandoned for some applications, like the angiosperms (APG II is a lot more useful, generally).
Linnaeus's system in Systema Naturae had three kingdoms; animal, plant, and "mineral".
Also amusing is that his taxonomy was not meant to reflect evolution (obviously), and that he believed he was cataloging God's creation. This is kind of similar to the way our idea of a "planet" came from a religious view of the cosmos (the really bright stars that don't follow the other stars).
This might seem pedantic, but the climate change issue is paramount for the following reason: It is not likely that our civilization would survive traveling very far down the road to consuming all the fossil fuels on earth.
Slighly OT, but here's a link to an google engEDU talk on the subject of taxonomies, by the author of "Everything is Miscellaneous". True believers in "tags" (metadata) may be familiar with some of the ideas. Early (first couple of minutes) on he makes some amusing observations of the Pluto controversy. I didn't completely agree with his view, but his argument is illuminating.
I can't remember if the video touches on this specifically, but the discussion reminds me of the ascendancy of cladistics in biology. In a sense, all taxonomies are ultimately local.
(The stuff about Melvil Dewey later on in the video is hilarious and worth a watch too)
United States Bill of Rights = First ten amendments to the Constitution
Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
My handlers at the Obama campaign won't be happy about this. They warned me about getting called on bullshit by people of above average intelligence. I expect they'll cut my latte ration. I will probably have to ask my liberal professor what a pun is, too. I wish I wasn't such a moron...
Seriously, though... Read this thread again, then adjust your meds.
The "whoosh" is for you missing a joke about the WH's *ahem* novel interpretation of the law. It wasn't actually speculation about some strange conspiracy.
The link to the wikipedia article on "strawman" arguments is to point out the weakness in your logic, in this case a fallacy that a joke about the WH's objectively creative legal opinions meant that the GP (or me, for that matter) is a 911 conspiracy theorist.
In other words, there is no connection between criticism of the executive branch and 911 conspiracy theories. Your conflation of the two is either ignorant or dishonest.
Slashdot Mirror
Good advice.
Etch is maintained to 2009-09. dist-upgrading a production server on release day, just for the fun of it, is probably a terrible idea. I'll be sticking with etch well into next year.
I think you know that this is completely untrue.
That isn't true, either. I wish it was, I truly do. But sadly, it is quite plausible.
As I said on another comment on this discussion, the BPI is likely using a MediaSentry-inspired service, if not MediaSentry itself (the MPAA is involved, as well).
You're still right about not being able to differentiate between licensed and unlicensed. But the horrible reality is that the governments and big isps now have their own definition: All music is owned by the big four.
The list of "illegal" users comes from the BPI, who are presumably using a service like MediaSentry (in fact, the MPAA is involved).
This, too, is similar to the "Pedo Menace" stuff, where in the list is coming from a third party - the Center for Missing and Exploited Children or whatever it's called.
Why confuse the poor guy? (bobetov: those are the ip addresses for opendns).
"AC": Troll me directly, please.
208.67.222.222 208.67.220.220
The author (Mr. Evans) begins his article with an appeal from authority, i.e. "I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol".
My apparent ad hominem was actually not fallacious, in that the claim of authority, which I might have been willing to accept, turned out to be false. So the first paragraph of Mr. Evan's article (of which there are several in the same vein) actually begs for "questioning who wrote".
Honestly, I didn't pursue his claims after it became obvious that he wasn't a climatologist working for the Australian government, as he implicitly suggests. He was a programmer who wrote the desktop client software, apparently.
His resume turns up in the first page of google results. In it are references to two scientific papers that had been published, twenty years ago, in an unrelated field (electronics, right?). IANACS, but I think it is reasonable to expect that as a truly credentialed academic (Stanford), he has the skills to submit a paper, if indeed he is on to something that the whole field of climatology is missing.
This is very familiar to all who remember the campaigning on behalf of the tobacco industry in the 80s. Asking me to put on my oncologist hat and prove to you that smoking causes lung cancer isn't fair. The circumstantial evidence that he is full of it (gets paid by a pro-coal think tank, lack of credentials in the field, no papers in journals, lying about his experience) is strong enough to dismiss this, imho.
Checking sources is one way we navigate through fields not in our specialties. This guy is not a good source of information about climate science. The Lavoisier Group is not a good source of information about climate science. Infowars, obviously, is not a good source of information about anything at all.
http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/the_australians_war_on_science_16.php
Yah, I know, typical liberal media, cirkular links, etc.
http://www.google.com/search?q=rocket+scientist+david+evans
Not a rocket scientist. Not a climatologist. Not a top anything. Average Windows programmer. Cashing in on "consulting" for think-tanks.
Variations
Libertarian: But we can't collectively manage our impact on the environment! Humans must act independently out of rational self-interest! /off whacky randian rant.
Evangelical Christian Dominionist: But we can't consider our impact on the environment! Humanity has been given domain to subjugate the earth by God! /off whacky Pastor Hagee sermon.
Armchair Free-Marketeer: But we can't spend money on research or restoration! Humanity must follow sound free-market principles! /off whacky chicago-school thesis
Respectfully,
whacky enviro
Sweet Jesus you're right. This is easily the most depressing thing I've seen all day.
It's an astroturf campaign aimed at free software/anti-patent advocates, brought to you by the allegedly reformed "energy sector". From the style, I'm thinking it may have been built by people like these guys, or a similar outfit, that do stuff like this.
Even if you're a climate-change flat-earther, you all have to realize that you're being manipulated. "Developing An Open Source Solution to Climate Change"? What does that even mean?
And have any of you read the comments? The already totally-populated tag cloud? The keyword metadata?
This is a PR campaign, what these fine human beings in marketing call "online strategies". I wouldn't be surprised if some of the ACs on this discussion aren't part of this "campaign" (You all suck, btw. Trolling for the lulz is fine, but trolling for a paycheck is just fucked).
Reducing net carbon emissions by not putting millions of tons of it into the atmosphere is apparently way too difficult. Much easier to change the chemistry of earth's oceans (wtf?!).
The content cartels have had region-coding to game the international economy for more than a decade. No way they're going to give that up just because it's on the web.
I would venture a guess that some of that region-based pricing might be built in to contracts with the content people.
Okay. Depending on who you ask, there were at least 4 distinct waves of migration. Each of these waves was a different generation or a different class.
The article is in pretty sad shape, but here's a wikipedia article.
The generation/class with the greatest support of the embargo is the first, the middle and upper classes (also white, mainly). Understandably so, as this was the generation who had their power and belongings taken from them and had the most to lose.
Later migrations, like the Marielitos, balseros and "dusty feet", came from different classes and generations and have different opinions.
The generation that constituted the first wave is slowly dying off, and opinion in favor of the embargo is eroding in relation to the change.
Disclaimer: I'm anglo. Apologies to any cubanos if I screwed something up.
That's an extremely simplistic view. Cuban-Americans are about as far from monolithic as you can get, as are their opinions about the embargo, and their actions in light of it.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, that statement is ill-informed.
This is kind of old hat, but any source of infrared light should work in place of the "sensor bar".
Just google wii sensor substitute.
I don't really have a horse in this race, but you might like to know that Linnaean classification isn't a good example for your argument. It's been heavily modified since Linnaeus, and parts of it have in fact been abandoned for some applications, like the angiosperms (APG II is a lot more useful, generally).
Linnaeus's system in Systema Naturae had three kingdoms; animal, plant, and "mineral".
Also amusing is that his taxonomy was not meant to reflect evolution (obviously), and that he believed he was cataloging God's creation. This is kind of similar to the way our idea of a "planet" came from a religious view of the cosmos (the really bright stars that don't follow the other stars).
This might seem pedantic, but the climate change issue is paramount for the following reason: It is not likely that our civilization would survive traveling very far down the road to consuming all the fossil fuels on earth.
802.11s or like wireless, software radio, and maybe unlicensed (and uncontrollable) whitespace radio use. Something a lot like OLPC's mesh.
Combine that with good open portable machine, handheld-sized.
Make cheap and distribute.
Route around damage by censors in the most fundamental way, by routing around the physical structure of the internet.
Repressive regimes lose all control of information, and as a bonus, ISPs, telco backbones, and hosting companies become obsolete! Whee!
Could be a long way off... But it's the stuff of my dreams. I'd put a sticker that says "This machine kills fascists" on mine.
Slighly OT, but here's a link to an google engEDU talk on the subject of taxonomies, by the author of "Everything is Miscellaneous". True believers in "tags" (metadata) may be familiar with some of the ideas. Early (first couple of minutes) on he makes some amusing observations of the Pluto controversy. I didn't completely agree with his view, but his argument is illuminating.
I can't remember if the video touches on this specifically, but the discussion reminds me of the ascendancy of cladistics in biology. In a sense, all taxonomies are ultimately local.
(The stuff about Melvil Dewey later on in the video is hilarious and worth a watch too)
United States Bill of Rights = First ten amendments to the Constitution
Fourth Amendment:
Foiled again.
My handlers at the Obama campaign won't be happy about this. They warned me about getting called on bullshit by people of above average intelligence. I expect they'll cut my latte ration. I will probably have to ask my liberal professor what a pun is, too. I wish I wasn't such a moron...
Seriously, though... Read this thread again, then adjust your meds.
Curse you, Maddox!!!
Tell us how you really feel.
Vote for whoever you like, for whatever reasons you like. No one tried to talk you into anything.
I just wanted you to know that your reasoning was flawed (and still is); fwiw, ymmv, etc.
Oh, and Bush is a crook. :P
The "whoosh" is for you missing a joke about the WH's *ahem* novel interpretation of the law. It wasn't actually speculation about some strange conspiracy.
The link to the wikipedia article on "strawman" arguments is to point out the weakness in your logic, in this case a fallacy that a joke about the WH's objectively creative legal opinions meant that the GP (or me, for that matter) is a 911 conspiracy theorist.
In other words, there is no connection between criticism of the executive branch and 911 conspiracy theories. Your conflation of the two is either ignorant or dishonest.
First, *whoosh*.
Also, this.
That's really really funny!
I nearly shot dr pepper out of my nose.
Sign me up if you need an evangelist to do an engEDU-style talk.
I can't tell if you're making fun of Extreme Programming proper, the way it is defined here: Fowler tract.
It strikes me as pretty cool... Just an unfortunate name.