The point is that even if we re-engineered every American and their car to breathe in pollution and CO2 and breathe out minty-fresh O2, that wouldn't be enough to counter-balance the massive ramp-up of CO2 and pollution production going on in China, and projected to grow by ginormous amounts over the 100 year span TFA mentions. (Please excuse the hyperbole. I'm not always this snarky.)
Perhaps instead of saving the planet by driving little tiny cars, we could achieve the same result by purchasing less el cheapo crap from China.
If anything, that's the real black eye that the recent data swipe reveals. The emails between AGW scientists specifically mention bullying publications into not accepting/publishing papers that don't support AGW, and subsequently use the lack of published, peer-reviewed articles against those scientists whose conclusions differ from their own.
She could do that. Chances are that the insurance company would a) offer her a lowball settlement to see if she will bite and hopefully lessen the bad press they get, and if it goes to court they will b) stonewall her, drag out the case, file continuances, and (if they lose) launch an appeal process that will either bankrupt her or force her to go back to work.
Even if the lawsuit only takes a year, how is she supposed to live? They've taken away her disability, and what other income does she have? If she tried to get a job, what does that do to her chances of winning the lawsuit?
Virtualization isn't always done for redundancy. Virtualization all on one server makes perfect sense if the goal is server consolidation & energy savings. Just make sure that management understands that.
You would think that if it took a doctor's diagnosis to get her on disability, it should take one to get her off disability. This is far different than those video stings where someone (insurance company, PI, investigative "news") films some guy lifting 100 lbs over his head after he claims his back injury prevents him from working. Depression isn't like physical disabilities. You can't x-ray depression like a broken bone and point at the problem, or prove its absence.
There are plans to use Silverlight for the 2010 winter olympics as well. It seems to be a trend.
Trend? NBC is essentially the mainstream media partner of Microsoft. It seems to me your "trend" is just Microsoft marketing doing their best to buy their way into high-profile events to sway peoples' minds. I don't see this happening elsewhere at other high-profile media events and outlets.
The only trend I see here is Microsoft developing a piece of technology that doesn't play well with others. If history is any guide, this will annoy everyone for awhile before coming back to bite MS in the ass.
Well, you've got my vote. Just please tell me you'll also leave the pot smokers, gun toters, gay marriage supporters, and other harmless folks alone. Of course, those positions won't leave you with much of a voter base.
Utter crap. That's the same baloney that gets reiterated by people who didn't want us to have it then, and don't want us to have similar technology now.
Scenario #4 - the US builds & maintains a defensive shield and doesn't attack anyone. If whatever Evil Empire we are squaring off with decides to launch a pre-emptive strike, our defenses take down xx% of the incoming attack, leaving or ability to strike back, survive, and recover xx% better than it was without the defensive shield. More people live, less fallout falls, more armed forces & equipment stay intact.
Reagan offered to open our laboratories and let the Soviets share the technology. This way, nobody gains any advantage over the other, and MAD continues to balance the nuclear menace. Gorbachev didn't take him up on it.
If they want to declare something bomb-proof (or -resistant), shouldn't they test it with, hmm, let's see, maybe an actual explosion? The undersized wrecking ball they used is going to deliver its impact to one location on the wall, rather than the entire wall, as a bomb blast would.
I'm not saying that this isn't interesting, just misleading.
The purpose of advertising is to bend the truth almost but not quite to the point of breaking in order to promote whatever crap is being whored out to us. Sounds like the advertising agency did its job.
I may be using 2048 bits keys to protect my data, but I am surely not going to enter a 256-byte password every time
Your passphrase should be quite a bit longer than eight characters if you care about your key at all.
8 characters is 256 bits. 256 bytes is, of course, 256 characters.
If he is using a 2048 bit key for his encryption, and he wants his password to be as resistant to brute-force attack as his key, he would need a password of the same length. Since 2048 bits / 8 =256 bytes, he would need a 256-character password. Of course, since he is ostensibly using ASCII characters, he points out that the actual complexity of his password would still be well below that of his encryption key.
There is no minimum IQ for being a moderator. Sigh.
Of course, commodore64_love has been active around here awhile, and some mod may have thought he should have known the answer to his own question, or he could have attracted the attention of a mod-bombing foe or freak. It happens.
I think that Stalin would have struck Hitler before too long anyway. They hated each other, and the non-aggression pacts between them were tenuous at best. Germany realized that they couldn't leave their eastern flank unprotected as they blitzkrieged through Europe, and the USSR realized they didn't have the military necessary to stand up to Germany at the moment. Both were just buying time, and I think it was just a matter of time before one stabbed the other in the back. I wonder how it would have went if Stalin had struck first, while Hitler's armies were mostly busy in France and Africa.
I wouldn't care how much he makes, I would care about sticking it to him in his house. I would care about taking away most of the home-court advantage. At least it would get lots of Google advertising. At best, it would lower the performance and value of the whole franchise. Let's see what his net worth is after the Mavs finish under.500 for the year. The money teams make from tickets is only part of the pie.
I like the $10 mill lotto idea, but I don't think that it would empty the Mav's stadium. Reduce attendance, maybe.
That misses the point. If they don't like it, why don't they release a game that portrays the US as villains? The irony is that it would probably sell out in the US. My son & his Xbox friends all love playing as the evil bad guy.
Bon-bons? Hyperbole much? Also, your geography is off; Russia is to the east. Strictly speaking, not a single Russian died defending Western Europe. Of course, you will probably say that they turned Hitler's armies and resources away from the Western front, but I'd argue that Hitler did that on his own, and I don't think Russia deserves credit for Hitler's mistake.
Not to belittle Russia's accomplishment in fighting them off, or the massive loss of life they sustained, just being picky. If you had left "Western" off your comment, I probably would agree more.
I don't buy the myth that Linux has poor hardware support. I have a network-connected HP C7280 living in my basement office. It comes with a nifty little Windows-only CD for auto-detecting the printer on the network, installing the drivers, and slathering a layer of HP proprietary crapware all over Windows. The CD is useless. Can't find the printer to save its life. I have tried manual configuration with varying degrees of success, but no XP or Vista box in my house has ever printed to it without major aggravation.
On the other hand, I can tell Linux to go find it, and it does. I can tell Linux to print, fax, and scan to it, and it does.
Various Kodak, Olympus, and Canon digital cameras just work when I plug them into one of my Linux boxes. Attach my camcorder via firewire, and I'm ready to go.
Wireless network dongle? I have a SMC EZ-Connect (G) USB dongle that works fine on Linux with minimal configuration. Actually, the dongle itself didn't need installation or configuration, it was the network SSID and key. Still, as easy or easier than the same setup under XP.
The American Airlines Center where the Mavs play seats about 20,000. There are 82 games in a basketball season, meaning the Mavs will have about half that at home. Let's round it to 40 games. If they make the playoffs, that number could potentially double, so doing a little basic math here... yeah... I don't see any reason to expect them to be in the playoffs, let alone have home court advantage, so we'll keep the game total at 40.
20,000 seats times 40 games is 800,000 seats. $1 billion / 800k = $1250 per seat per game.
My suggestion for Google's response: Buy every seat to every Mavs home game for a year. Pay people $1000 each to go to the game and root for whoever the Mavs are playing that night, while wearing Google t-shirts.
I understand that there are many who share your view as well, and while I do not agree with you, I certainly respect your right to do so, and I enjoy having the chance to have discussion on it.
I'm not sure why, but this strikes me as an issue of morality rather than ethics. I'm not really sure how I differentiate the two, but they are different.
Well, they deal with the same thing; defining right vs. wrong, good vs. evil. Morals tend to be a personal set of standards, ethics tends to be a more commonly held, and/or codified set of standards.
When you send a gang of thugs over to kill someone it doesn't matter to me whether it's called a gang or an army.
The difference isn't just in the name. The difference is in their actions, and the ethical standards they hold themselves to. And yes, there are ethical standards that the US military holds itself to. They avoid killing civilians where possible. They don't execute people for shock value. They try to strike a balance between defeating and/or controlling an enemy, and humane treatment. They prosecute those members who violate their values.
What matters is that it's going there to kill someone.
I don't agree that all killing is equally immoral. There are shades of gray. Who you kill, how you kill, why where and when you kill all matter. The consequences of killing matter.
Or torture them to death. And shooting someone and leaving them to die I count as torturing them to death, even if you don't watch.
I disagree with your use of the word 'torture'. As painful as death by gunshot can be, it's intent in battle is not to extend suffering. It is intended to destroy an opponent; an opponent who is presumably armed and trying to do the same to you. Torture is predicated on one controlling the other; there is no balance of power, or ability to defend oneself anymore. Instead of applying enough force to overcome your enemy, you are applying gratuitous force to an enemy who has already been overcome.
I can understand why you feel that way, but in my mind if we equate warfare with torture, don't we create a dangerous slippery slope that could cut both ways?
On one hand, if we don't differentiate between legitimate military action and truly horrible abuse, won't that lead to greater abuses?
And on the other hand, equating war with torture forces us to question the morality of having a military at all. Do we live in a world where that is a safe or responsible option? If the military is necessary, what are its rules of combat?
If something is immoral for one person to do, then it's immoral for a thousand people to do it. Or a few million.
I wouldn't argue that the number of people killing other people makes it any more moral. Killing is still killing, however, in each case the details of how/who/why/etc do matter.
This, naturally, means that standard morality doesn't work very well in the current world. So it's important to try to figure out what a workable morality would be that would lead to a world that it would be decent to grow up in.
If by "standard" you mean "black-and-white", I'd agree. The Geneva Conventions, Hague Conventions, and Geneva Accords, among others, are international attempts to answer that question, and mostly do a pretty good job. Of course, they don't work particularly well in asymetrical/guerilla warfare, because the little guy tends not to obey them. It bothers me that the US has played fast and loose with those agreements.
I don't claim to have a good answer to that, but some things are clearly NOT part of a good answer. And torturing people to death is one of them. I'm not sure about killing people. There might be circumstances where that would be necessary. But always remember, an immoral action doesn't become moral just because it's being done by
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that even if we re-engineered every American and their car to breathe in pollution and CO2 and breathe out minty-fresh O2, that wouldn't be enough to counter-balance the massive ramp-up of CO2 and pollution production going on in China, and projected to grow by ginormous amounts over the 100 year span TFA mentions. (Please excuse the hyperbole. I'm not always this snarky.)
Perhaps instead of saving the planet by driving little tiny cars, we could achieve the same result by purchasing less el cheapo crap from China.
What we don't have is good, healthy debate.
If anything, that's the real black eye that the recent data swipe reveals. The emails between AGW scientists specifically mention bullying publications into not accepting/publishing papers that don't support AGW, and subsequently use the lack of published, peer-reviewed articles against those scientists whose conclusions differ from their own.
Isn't that how long we've been drinking carbonated Coca-Cola? It's all coming from the soda, I tell you! ;)
She could do that. Chances are that the insurance company would a) offer her a lowball settlement to see if she will bite and hopefully lessen the bad press they get, and if it goes to court they will b) stonewall her, drag out the case, file continuances, and (if they lose) launch an appeal process that will either bankrupt her or force her to go back to work.
Even if the lawsuit only takes a year, how is she supposed to live? They've taken away her disability, and what other income does she have? If she tried to get a job, what does that do to her chances of winning the lawsuit?
Virtualization isn't always done for redundancy. Virtualization all on one server makes perfect sense if the goal is server consolidation & energy savings. Just make sure that management understands that.
You would think that if it took a doctor's diagnosis to get her on disability, it should take one to get her off disability. This is far different than those video stings where someone (insurance company, PI, investigative "news") films some guy lifting 100 lbs over his head after he claims his back injury prevents him from working. Depression isn't like physical disabilities. You can't x-ray depression like a broken bone and point at the problem, or prove its absence.
Damn. And I had just converted my SUV to run on swine flu.
Where else? Pandemistan.
There are plans to use Silverlight for the 2010 winter olympics as well. It seems to be a trend.
Trend? NBC is essentially the mainstream media partner of Microsoft. It seems to me your "trend" is just Microsoft marketing doing their best to buy their way into high-profile events to sway peoples' minds. I don't see this happening elsewhere at other high-profile media events and outlets.
The only trend I see here is Microsoft developing a piece of technology that doesn't play well with others. If history is any guide, this will annoy everyone for awhile before coming back to bite MS in the ass.
Well, you've got my vote. Just please tell me you'll also leave the pot smokers, gun toters, gay marriage supporters, and other harmless folks alone. Of course, those positions won't leave you with much of a voter base.
Utter crap. That's the same baloney that gets reiterated by people who didn't want us to have it then, and don't want us to have similar technology now.
Scenario #4 - the US builds & maintains a defensive shield and doesn't attack anyone. If whatever Evil Empire we are squaring off with decides to launch a pre-emptive strike, our defenses take down xx% of the incoming attack, leaving or ability to strike back, survive, and recover xx% better than it was without the defensive shield. More people live, less fallout falls, more armed forces & equipment stay intact.
Reagan offered to open our laboratories and let the Soviets share the technology. This way, nobody gains any advantage over the other, and MAD continues to balance the nuclear menace. Gorbachev didn't take him up on it.
If they want to declare something bomb-proof (or -resistant), shouldn't they test it with, hmm, let's see, maybe an actual explosion? The undersized wrecking ball they used is going to deliver its impact to one location on the wall, rather than the entire wall, as a bomb blast would.
I'm not saying that this isn't interesting, just misleading.
The purpose of advertising is to bend the truth almost but not quite to the point of breaking in order to promote whatever crap is being whored out to us. Sounds like the advertising agency did its job.
This is what they get for rootkitting our PCs.
I may be using 2048 bits keys to protect my data, but I am surely not going to enter a 256-byte password every time
Your passphrase should be quite a bit longer than eight characters if you care about your key at all.
8 characters is 256 bits. 256 bytes is, of course, 256 characters.
If he is using a 2048 bit key for his encryption, and he wants his password to be as resistant to brute-force attack as his key, he would need a password of the same length. Since 2048 bits / 8 =256 bytes, he would need a 256-character password. Of course, since he is ostensibly using ASCII characters, he points out that the actual complexity of his password would still be well below that of his encryption key.
Imagine that on a post-it next to the monitor.
There is no minimum IQ for being a moderator. Sigh.
Of course, commodore64_love has been active around here awhile, and some mod may have thought he should have known the answer to his own question, or he could have attracted the attention of a mod-bombing foe or freak. It happens.
I think that Stalin would have struck Hitler before too long anyway. They hated each other, and the non-aggression pacts between them were tenuous at best. Germany realized that they couldn't leave their eastern flank unprotected as they blitzkrieged through Europe, and the USSR realized they didn't have the military necessary to stand up to Germany at the moment. Both were just buying time, and I think it was just a matter of time before one stabbed the other in the back. I wonder how it would have went if Stalin had struck first, while Hitler's armies were mostly busy in France and Africa.
I wouldn't care how much he makes, I would care about sticking it to him in his house. I would care about taking away most of the home-court advantage. At least it would get lots of Google advertising. At best, it would lower the performance and value of the whole franchise. Let's see what his net worth is after the Mavs finish under .500 for the year. The money teams make from tickets is only part of the pie.
I like the $10 mill lotto idea, but I don't think that it would empty the Mav's stadium. Reduce attendance, maybe.
That misses the point. If they don't like it, why don't they release a game that portrays the US as villains? The irony is that it would probably sell out in the US. My son & his Xbox friends all love playing as the evil bad guy.
Bon-bons? Hyperbole much? Also, your geography is off; Russia is to the east. Strictly speaking, not a single Russian died defending Western Europe. Of course, you will probably say that they turned Hitler's armies and resources away from the Western front, but I'd argue that Hitler did that on his own, and I don't think Russia deserves credit for Hitler's mistake.
Not to belittle Russia's accomplishment in fighting them off, or the massive loss of life they sustained, just being picky. If you had left "Western" off your comment, I probably would agree more.
Beauty is only GUI-deep,
but Ugly goes straight to the code.
I don't buy the myth that Linux has poor hardware support. I have a network-connected HP C7280 living in my basement office. It comes with a nifty little Windows-only CD for auto-detecting the printer on the network, installing the drivers, and slathering a layer of HP proprietary crapware all over Windows. The CD is useless. Can't find the printer to save its life. I have tried manual configuration with varying degrees of success, but no XP or Vista box in my house has ever printed to it without major aggravation.
On the other hand, I can tell Linux to go find it, and it does. I can tell Linux to print, fax, and scan to it, and it does.
Various Kodak, Olympus, and Canon digital cameras just work when I plug them into one of my Linux boxes. Attach my camcorder via firewire, and I'm ready to go.
Wireless network dongle? I have a SMC EZ-Connect (G) USB dongle that works fine on Linux with minimal configuration. Actually, the dongle itself didn't need installation or configuration, it was the network SSID and key. Still, as easy or easier than the same setup under XP.
The American Airlines Center where the Mavs play seats about 20,000. There are 82 games in a basketball season, meaning the Mavs will have about half that at home. Let's round it to 40 games. If they make the playoffs, that number could potentially double, so doing a little basic math here ... yeah ... I don't see any reason to expect them to be in the playoffs, let alone have home court advantage, so we'll keep the game total at 40.
20,000 seats times 40 games is 800,000 seats. $1 billion / 800k = $1250 per seat per game.
My suggestion for Google's response: Buy every seat to every Mavs home game for a year. Pay people $1000 each to go to the game and root for whoever the Mavs are playing that night, while wearing Google t-shirts.
Take your stinking paws off my lawn, you damned dirty ape!
I'm not sure why, but this strikes me as an issue of morality rather than ethics. I'm not really sure how I differentiate the two, but they are different.
Well, they deal with the same thing; defining right vs. wrong, good vs. evil. Morals tend to be a personal set of standards, ethics tends to be a more commonly held, and/or codified set of standards.
When you send a gang of thugs over to kill someone it doesn't matter to me whether it's called a gang or an army.
The difference isn't just in the name. The difference is in their actions, and the ethical standards they hold themselves to. And yes, there are ethical standards that the US military holds itself to. They avoid killing civilians where possible. They don't execute people for shock value. They try to strike a balance between defeating and/or controlling an enemy, and humane treatment. They prosecute those members who violate their values.
What matters is that it's going there to kill someone.
I don't agree that all killing is equally immoral. There are shades of gray. Who you kill, how you kill, why where and when you kill all matter. The consequences of killing matter.
Or torture them to death. And shooting someone and leaving them to die I count as torturing them to death, even if you don't watch.
I disagree with your use of the word 'torture'. As painful as death by gunshot can be, it's intent in battle is not to extend suffering. It is intended to destroy an opponent; an opponent who is presumably armed and trying to do the same to you. Torture is predicated on one controlling the other; there is no balance of power, or ability to defend oneself anymore. Instead of applying enough force to overcome your enemy, you are applying gratuitous force to an enemy who has already been overcome.
I can understand why you feel that way, but in my mind if we equate warfare with torture, don't we create a dangerous slippery slope that could cut both ways?
On one hand, if we don't differentiate between legitimate military action and truly horrible abuse, won't that lead to greater abuses?
And on the other hand, equating war with torture forces us to question the morality of having a military at all. Do we live in a world where that is a safe or responsible option? If the military is necessary, what are its rules of combat?
If something is immoral for one person to do, then it's immoral for a thousand people to do it. Or a few million.
I wouldn't argue that the number of people killing other people makes it any more moral. Killing is still killing, however, in each case the details of how/who/why/etc do matter.
This, naturally, means that standard morality doesn't work very well in the current world. So it's important to try to figure out what a workable morality would be that would lead to a world that it would be decent to grow up in.
If by "standard" you mean "black-and-white", I'd agree. The Geneva Conventions, Hague Conventions, and Geneva Accords, among others, are international attempts to answer that question, and mostly do a pretty good job. Of course, they don't work particularly well in asymetrical/guerilla warfare, because the little guy tends not to obey them. It bothers me that the US has played fast and loose with those agreements.
I don't claim to have a good answer to that, but some things are clearly NOT part of a good answer. And torturing people to death is one of them. I'm not sure about killing people. There might be circumstances where that would be necessary. But always remember, an immoral action doesn't become moral just because it's being done by