So you think we know everything we need to know about climate science and don't need to study it further? If not, then its not "settled".
So there are two separate issues here:
1) Do we know everything about climate science? No. Should we stop studying it? That doesn't even deserve an answer, though you seem to be the only person suggesting it as a possibility.
2) Do we know enough to make some choices about what to do? Sure. Our knowledge is imperfect, but it always is. When do you think we will know 110% of everything there is to know about climate?
I mean, our knowledge of medicine is not complete and we are still studying it, but I bet that if you break your leg you'll go to the hospital for x-rays and treatment rather than saying "we still need to study bone repair, it's extremely complex to model, I'll just wait for another 250 years until we know all we can possibly know".
Any climate choices we make now will be imperfect but still pretty good. My problem with the "we need to study it before we choose" is that right now we seem to be way past the "we can stop it" point but are still at the "we can make it less severe" point. Or we can study it for another 250 years and do nothing, which according to all of our current studies means "very severe, very damaging to us, our kids, and grandkids".
I'm old enough to remember all kinds of fearful comments about Wheeler here and on Ars (and Groklaw) because of his cable lobbyist background.
And "Dingo" Wheeler's initial actions proved those fears correct. But then people objected, and (wonder of wonders) Wheeler listened and learned and reversed course. And we got a rational policy.
Compare to Pai's methods. "FCC hears ya. FCC don't care."
TFA says that government records that are supposed to be public, are public. I'm happy that that is the case, but I'm curious why anyone would write a "report" about it. That was five minutes of my life that I'll never get back.
Dude, Hillary lost. You need to find another female on whom you can blame your personal failings and insecurities. The common choice now is Nancy Pelosi, though Elizabeth Warren is gaining popularity with the insecure males in the world. So, are you an "old standby" or "up-and-coming" kinda blamer?
Getting to the original subject: Why would the beep command need root access? Also, why would someone want a beep command to make noise on the computer where it is running? I have a bash alias which beeps on the computer where I am physically typing, which is rarely the same one where I am running things.
There have been no "driverless" cars on public roads so far. They have all had humans present ready (in theory) to intervene when the SD software did not cope; I don't know what the statistics are for interventions but I suspect that many if not most go un-reported.
Waymo seems to be operating driverless cars in Arizona right now. The public launch is supposed to be "real soon now", but news articles have claimed that they have been running in a private test for a few months. No issues so far.
The human "supervisor" will never be reliable. If you expect people to take over in time to save a life, you'll be disappointed. Humans are good at many things, but paying attention during long watches of boring inactivity is something we are terrible at. If the car cannot drive without the human, it is not safe in general use.
So, folks who commit suicide aren't dead? Good to know. Or just not important? Irrelevant? Ignorable?
Of course I care about suicides. Many people the world over try to commit suicide. When guns are involved, they usually succeed. When guns are not involved, they usually fail and sometimes (though not often enough) get the mental or emotional help that they needed.
California has about 8 per 100K people. Nevada and Arizona have about 14 per 100K. Oregon has about 12.
If someone told you that states with lax gun control laws have fewer deaths due to firearms, they lied. And you believed them. Without checking (which took me about 18 seconds). Sigh.
That's an interesting point. I do expect we'll have some V2V communications eventually, presumably with varying amounts of trust. Some of the self-driving companies are cowboys who won't care about security, but some of the companies are quite sharp.
I agree that V2V will change where the money is spent, but that may not be all bad. This might be a problem that the market can solve better than governments, at least once we have few or no human-driven cars (and if the incentives are set properly). Also, the "no traffic markings" experiments in Europe seemingly have worked well.
Waymo cars in Arizona are often without any driver. They use plan B, which is "design cars which won't hit people, no matter what the idiot in the car does or the idiot walking on the road does".
If you read the court's opinion (or even the summary), it clearly says the FCC's overreach was considering "ordinary calls from any conventional smartphone" to fall under robocall regulation. Putting aside your obvious dislike of Pai, do you honestly believe they should?
I'm curious, how many innocent cell-phone owners were indicted under this (clearly crazy) interpretation of the law?
If it was a lot, then cool, the FCC got something right. I'll be surprised, but very happy and will admit that I am wrong. Though rather than throwing the rules out, the FCC should amend it to do the right thing.
If it was none, then wow, conservatives are the most gullible idiots on this planet. How can you complain about a rule which does useful things (stop annoying robo-callers) but which "might cause a problem" but hasn't in the multiple years it has been in effect? Wow, that means that some folks will believe anything, no matter how crazy or stupid or easily disprovable, that their leaders claim. Blind loyalty is the opposite of patriotism.
So, which is it? Am I happy, or are you a gullible idiot? Should be easy to demonstrate.
If today's decision brings an even bigger flood of robocalls into the homes of Trump's base, it will very quickly no longer be Trump's base.
Do you believe that Trump supporters will connect an event in reality with Trump? Well, I suppose there is a first time for everything, no matter how unlikely.
Can't be, because "wireless" is mentioned many times. The only reason I can think to deliver power to a TV would be to power the TV, and USB-c seems unlikely to work for this. Plus, if you can get power to the USB-c then you can get power to the TV. Unless you think that wireless USB-c would also transmit power wirelessly?
We basically had that for a while when ILECs were forced to allow other DSL providers to colocate their equipment at the telco Central Office and resell the underlying line as DSL. Ultimately, the market collapse, however.
No market collapse. What happened is the presidency changed to a new party, and fiber-to-the-home became profitable to deploy. The line-sharing rules only applied to copper, so phone companies stopped improving DSL, started deploying fiber, and physically removed copper lines whenever someone switched.
The FCC, now stacked with the opposite party, said "free market! And lucrative jobs from telcos when we leave the FCC! W00T!"
Modern feminism acts in a way that's not egalitarian. If you're pushing for "more women in tech" and give massive handouts, and promote people without merit? You're not egalitarian.
I'm not sure if you are a troll or if you actually believe that ludicrous statement, so I'll continue assuming that you believe that tech companies are "promoting minorities without merit".
Pretty much every single study shows that when you have an equally qualified white male and some minority (female, hispanic, black, whatever), the white male is far more likely to be hired and to be promoted. Why? Because we're human, and humans are terrible. Plus, Dunning–Kruger means that we don't recognize when we do it.
Tech (and other) companies are trying to remove the pro-white-male bias so that there is no bias. This is very imperfect and is will often fail, in both directions.
The rest of your comment was just whining about "feminists", which implies that you don't know any.
I completely agree with you. The right to bear arms for anyone in a state-sanctioned militia must not be infringed.
So, just curious: which state militia was this nutjob in? Or do you hate the constitution so much that you plan on misrepresent what it says?
I'm a liberal. Liberals don't care about what guns you own. All liberals want is to reduce the crazy number of violent deaths in the USA.
So what is your plan for reducing the violent deaths? Because all I've heard is "well, 100 million guns hasn't reduced the killing, so we clearly need 300 million!"
You want to know who's at fault for Parkland? The left, for alienating white men and making them feel like they have nothing to lose, and for disarming the populace. If there had been a good guy with a gun there would only have been one dead person, but because of the left's hatred of self defense, 17 people are dead. That blood is on their hands. I hope they can sleep at night.
Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, and in this case (like all others) the person responsible is Obama.
I think you are saying that white men are so fragile that they will be triggered unless they are in a safe space?
Fourth option is I block ads and enough* of the rest of you don't
Ah, the "I got mine, Jack!" strategy.
Before you cry "no fair", know this: It's too late for "fair" in advertising, and has been since *long* before there was an internet. To the degree that it's profitable to abuse the public- producers, sellers, and advertisers have done exactly that. For millenia.
And the time-honored "but Billy started it!" defense.
I happen to like the free (except for ads) nature of the web. Now I tend to buy subscriptions for sites I like, but when I was a poor student "free" was all I could afford, and I don't believe in an internet "by the wealthy for the wealthy". So I feel that it is my duty to block or avoid the truly awful ads but otherwise allow ads. Google's plan seem to do just that, for which I am rather happy.
No need for either/or: get the shot and eat garlic.
Though I have doubts about the health benefits of garlic, I do love garlic (roasted and spread on bread as excellent!) If it were actually good at reducing blood pressure than I would be taking a lot less daily medicine.
The people dying are not dying from the flu. It is actually sepsis that is causing the high numbers of deaths this year.
You are correct. People are dying from sepsis, which caused by infection. For most of these people that infection is the flu or pneumonia (caused by the flu).
So if you have the flu vaccine you have a lower chance of getting the flu and thus a lower chance of sepsis. Are you implying something different?
Perhaps you should read up on how the flu vaccine will make you more likely to contract other strains of the flu. The swine flu was particularly boosted by people who had gotten previous flu shots in the years previously. Not sure how that helps you avoid the flu if it is actually helping you get it instead.
Citation needed from a reputable source,
Since the immune system is exposed to many thousands of attackers and develops defenses against most of those, it seems odd that defenses against one flu would make you more likely to get another flu than someone who had no flu defenses at all. That sounds like something that anti-vaxxers make up to convince gullible people that vaccines are bad, and some quick google searching didn't turn anything up, but I'm willing to be convinced by evidence.
When you say "they won't abuse it", are you talking about some specific "they"? Or just a general whining that there is no perfect security plus everyone in power sometimes acts like shit? Cause I think we all agree with the second one already.
Slashdot Mirror
So you think we know everything we need to know about climate science and don't need to study it further? If not, then its not "settled".
So there are two separate issues here:
1) Do we know everything about climate science? No. Should we stop studying it? That doesn't even deserve an answer, though you seem to be the only person suggesting it as a possibility.
2) Do we know enough to make some choices about what to do? Sure. Our knowledge is imperfect, but it always is. When do you think we will know 110% of everything there is to know about climate?
I mean, our knowledge of medicine is not complete and we are still studying it, but I bet that if you break your leg you'll go to the hospital for x-rays and treatment rather than saying "we still need to study bone repair, it's extremely complex to model, I'll just wait for another 250 years until we know all we can possibly know".
Any climate choices we make now will be imperfect but still pretty good. My problem with the "we need to study it before we choose" is that right now we seem to be way past the "we can stop it" point but are still at the "we can make it less severe" point. Or we can study it for another 250 years and do nothing, which according to all of our current studies means "very severe, very damaging to us, our kids, and grandkids".
I'm old enough to remember all kinds of fearful comments about Wheeler here and on Ars (and Groklaw) because of his cable lobbyist background.
And "Dingo" Wheeler's initial actions proved those fears correct. But then people objected, and (wonder of wonders) Wheeler listened and learned and reversed course. And we got a rational policy.
Compare to Pai's methods. "FCC hears ya. FCC don't care."
TFA says that government records that are supposed to be public, are public. I'm happy that that is the case, but I'm curious why anyone would write a "report" about it. That was five minutes of my life that I'll never get back.
Dude, Hillary lost. You need to find another female on whom you can blame your personal failings and insecurities. The common choice now is Nancy Pelosi, though Elizabeth Warren is gaining popularity with the insecure males in the world. So, are you an "old standby" or "up-and-coming" kinda blamer?
Getting to the original subject: Why would the beep command need root access? Also, why would someone want a beep command to make noise on the computer where it is running? I have a bash alias which beeps on the computer where I am physically typing, which is rarely the same one where I am running things.
There have been no "driverless" cars on public roads so far. They have all had humans present ready (in theory) to intervene when the SD software did not cope; I don't know what the statistics are for interventions but I suspect that many if not most go un-reported.
Waymo seems to be operating driverless cars in Arizona right now. The public launch is supposed to be "real soon now", but news articles have claimed that they have been running in a private test for a few months. No issues so far.
The human "supervisor" will never be reliable. If you expect people to take over in time to save a life, you'll be disappointed. Humans are good at many things, but paying attention during long watches of boring inactivity is something we are terrible at. If the car cannot drive without the human, it is not safe in general use.
So, folks who commit suicide aren't dead? Good to know. Or just not important? Irrelevant? Ignorable?
Of course I care about suicides. Many people the world over try to commit suicide. When guns are involved, they usually succeed. When guns are not involved, they usually fail and sometimes (though not often enough) get the mental or emotional help that they needed.
Which is why states with few restrictions on guns have fewer gun deaths than states with strict rules on guns.
Oh wait, look at that, the opposite is true. How could that be?
Probably because they do; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
California has about 8 per 100K people. Nevada and Arizona have about 14 per 100K. Oregon has about 12.
If someone told you that states with lax gun control laws have fewer deaths due to firearms, they lied. And you believed them. Without checking (which took me about 18 seconds). Sigh.
That's an interesting point. I do expect we'll have some V2V communications eventually, presumably with varying amounts of trust. Some of the self-driving companies are cowboys who won't care about security, but some of the companies are quite sharp.
I agree that V2V will change where the money is spent, but that may not be all bad. This might be a problem that the market can solve better than governments, at least once we have few or no human-driven cars (and if the incentives are set properly). Also, the "no traffic markings" experiments in Europe seemingly have worked well.
Waymo cars in Arizona are often without any driver. They use plan B, which is "design cars which won't hit people, no matter what the idiot in the car does or the idiot walking on the road does".
Are we irradiating our children?
Yes, we are. Every time they go out to the playground, since the sun produces lots and lots of radiation.
Are we damaging our children? Maybe, but if so, this poorly-done study doesn't support the theory that cell towers are the cause.
If you read the court's opinion (or even the summary), it clearly says the FCC's overreach was considering "ordinary calls from any conventional smartphone" to fall under robocall regulation. Putting aside your obvious dislike of Pai, do you honestly believe they should?
I'm curious, how many innocent cell-phone owners were indicted under this (clearly crazy) interpretation of the law?
If it was a lot, then cool, the FCC got something right. I'll be surprised, but very happy and will admit that I am wrong. Though rather than throwing the rules out, the FCC should amend it to do the right thing.
If it was none, then wow, conservatives are the most gullible idiots on this planet. How can you complain about a rule which does useful things (stop annoying robo-callers) but which "might cause a problem" but hasn't in the multiple years it has been in effect? Wow, that means that some folks will believe anything, no matter how crazy or stupid or easily disprovable, that their leaders claim. Blind loyalty is the opposite of patriotism.
So, which is it? Am I happy, or are you a gullible idiot? Should be easy to demonstrate.
If today's decision brings an even bigger flood of robocalls into the homes of Trump's base, it will very quickly no longer be Trump's base.
Do you believe that Trump supporters will connect an event in reality with Trump? Well, I suppose there is a first time for everything, no matter how unlikely.
Can't be, because "wireless" is mentioned many times. The only reason I can think to deliver power to a TV would be to power the TV, and USB-c seems unlikely to work for this. Plus, if you can get power to the USB-c then you can get power to the TV. Unless you think that wireless USB-c would also transmit power wirelessly?
No, "clear as mud" is understating the issue.
Perhaps even Clinton was able to monetize this move since he kicked it off.
You do realize that iHeartMedia is a conservative media company which was known for filtering criticisms of George W Bush, right?
We basically had that for a while when ILECs were forced to allow other DSL providers to colocate their equipment at the telco Central Office and resell the underlying line as DSL. Ultimately, the market collapse, however.
No market collapse. What happened is the presidency changed to a new party, and fiber-to-the-home became profitable to deploy. The line-sharing rules only applied to copper, so phone companies stopped improving DSL, started deploying fiber, and physically removed copper lines whenever someone switched.
The FCC, now stacked with the opposite party, said "free market! And lucrative jobs from telcos when we leave the FCC! W00T!"
Modern feminism acts in a way that's not egalitarian. If you're pushing for "more women in tech" and give massive handouts, and promote people without merit? You're not egalitarian.
I'm not sure if you are a troll or if you actually believe that ludicrous statement, so I'll continue assuming that you believe that tech companies are "promoting minorities without merit".
Pretty much every single study shows that when you have an equally qualified white male and some minority (female, hispanic, black, whatever), the white male is far more likely to be hired and to be promoted. Why? Because we're human, and humans are terrible. Plus, Dunning–Kruger means that we don't recognize when we do it.
Tech (and other) companies are trying to remove the pro-white-male bias so that there is no bias. This is very imperfect and is will often fail, in both directions.
The rest of your comment was just whining about "feminists", which implies that you don't know any.
I completely agree with you. The right to bear arms for anyone in a state-sanctioned militia must not be infringed.
So, just curious: which state militia was this nutjob in? Or do you hate the constitution so much that you plan on misrepresent what it says?
I'm a liberal. Liberals don't care about what guns you own. All liberals want is to reduce the crazy number of violent deaths in the USA.
So what is your plan for reducing the violent deaths? Because all I've heard is "well, 100 million guns hasn't reduced the killing, so we clearly need 300 million!"
You want to know who's at fault for Parkland? The left, for alienating white men and making them feel like they have nothing to lose, and for disarming the populace. If there had been a good guy with a gun there would only have been one dead person, but because of the left's hatred of self defense, 17 people are dead. That blood is on their hands. I hope they can sleep at night.
Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, and in this case (like all others) the person responsible is Obama.
I think you are saying that white men are so fragile that they will be triggered unless they are in a safe space?
Fourth option is I block ads and enough* of the rest of you don't
Ah, the "I got mine, Jack!" strategy.
Before you cry "no fair", know this: It's too late for "fair" in advertising, and has been since *long* before there was an internet.
To the degree that it's profitable to abuse the public- producers, sellers, and advertisers have done exactly that. For millenia.
And the time-honored "but Billy started it!" defense.
I happen to like the free (except for ads) nature of the web. Now I tend to buy subscriptions for sites I like, but when I was a poor student "free" was all I could afford, and I don't believe in an internet "by the wealthy for the wealthy". So I feel that it is my duty to block or avoid the truly awful ads but otherwise allow ads. Google's plan seem to do just that, for which I am rather happy.
No need for either/or: get the shot and eat garlic.
Though I have doubts about the health benefits of garlic, I do love garlic (roasted and spread on bread as excellent!) If it were actually good at reducing blood pressure than I would be taking a lot less daily medicine.
The people dying are not dying from the flu. It is actually sepsis that is causing the high numbers of deaths this year.
You are correct. People are dying from sepsis, which caused by infection. For most of these people that infection is the flu or pneumonia (caused by the flu).
So if you have the flu vaccine you have a lower chance of getting the flu and thus a lower chance of sepsis. Are you implying something different?
Perhaps you should read up on how the flu vaccine will make you more likely to contract other strains of the flu. The swine flu was particularly boosted by people who had gotten previous flu shots in the years previously. Not sure how that helps you avoid the flu if it is actually helping you get it instead.
Citation needed from a reputable source,
Since the immune system is exposed to many thousands of attackers and develops defenses against most of those, it seems odd that defenses against one flu would make you more likely to get another flu than someone who had no flu defenses at all. That sounds like something that anti-vaxxers make up to convince gullible people that vaccines are bad, and some quick google searching didn't turn anything up, but I'm willing to be convinced by evidence.
When you say "they won't abuse it", are you talking about some specific "they"? Or just a general whining that there is no perfect security plus everyone in power sometimes acts like shit? Cause I think we all agree with the second one already.
I'm confused: are you saying that it is a problem if your printer config page says "not secure" in the browser bar?
GP should have said "every website that Google will index" rather than "every website", but that seemed understood to me.