Pretty poor attempt at sarcasm, given it only reveals your ignorance to the number of radiation and cancer deaths from Chernobyl. Nuclear power is indeed one of the fatally polluting energy generation methods.
Bull.
The numbers around chernobyl are thrown around with much hysteria, but lets look at some actual facts. WHO estimates the estimated death toll for Chernobyl might hit 4000, and noted:
As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.
If we do a bit of calculation based on the Bq radiation estimates from Wikipedia, the hardest hit region of the hardest hit country (Belarus) could have gotten radiation around 1480+ Bq of Cs-137 over an area of 2000 km^2. According to a Bq-to-Sv calculator, if we do 1cm distance from a 1480Bq Cs-137 source times 8765 hours (per year), you end up with a rate of Living in this 45km x 45km area would net you a whopping 9 mSv / year.
Fatal doses tend to be ~4.5 Sv. Worrysome annual dosages tend to be around 50mSv. 9mSv is like getting a CT scan once a year-- and this is if you're in the worst hit 2000km^2 of the worst hit country. In reality, the extra dosage you would have gotten from Chernobyl is just not that high.
Now compare Nuclear with hydroelectric which has killed hundreds of thousands of people in single incidents, or coal which year after year has mining accidents on its record (not to mention the pollution), and it looks pretty good. Not as good safety-wise as perhaps wind / solar, but its also a heck of a lot cheaper and a LOT more scalable.
There are potential issues and things to worry about with nuclear. Safety is not one,
I dont know that thats 100% accurate, there are a couple of "legit" "alternative" medicines that we just havent finished studying, but may be proven to be effective. Theyre just generally the minority.
Decentralized information is extremely hard to access quickly. Wikipedia not only makes it incredibly easy to get a 20,000 ft view of just about any topic, but they cite a lot of their sources so that if you want the deep down on the topic you can access the sources for more info.
And the claim that Wikipedia "controls" anything except for their little piece of the playground is absurd. You're free to start an alternative wiki-- there are already zillions-- just dont think you're entitled to be popular.
Because its none of my concern if some random company provides a crappy IT product. I as a consultant just tell my employer to pass when it comes up as an option.
I'd argue that the government is a "whole different animal" about as much as mules are a whole different animal from horses. The same arguments against government censorship hold true for corporate censorship
No, they dont, for the following reasons:
1) Its NOT YOUR PROPERTY. The company is providing you with bandwith, keyboards, mice, chairs, office space, and computers, and it is THEIR prerogative to decide how and under what circumstances they may be used. If you dont like it or feel oppressed, exercise your rights at home: noone can stop you from doing so.
2) They are sometimes LEGALLY REQUIRED to do so. If they host data protected by HIPAA or SOXley or protected by export restrictions, they can be raked over the coals for failing to police their network. If someone prints porn out on the network printer and some woman gets offended, she could potentially sue the company for sexual harassment if they cannot show that theyre taking due diligence to prevent such things.
3) They are often TECHNICALLY required to do so. Dont monitor your outbound email, and one day youll find yourself on DNSRBL or SpamHaus. Have fun dealing with that and getting delisted without implementing "censorship" of some kind. Also have fun preventing virus outbreaks on the network without both filtering and monitoring what goes on there.
4) You can leave your company, your company can dissolve, and it has no jurisdiction over what you do at home. You cannot "opt out" of the US Government, it doesnt go away, and it has the power to enforce laws regardless of where you go. Thus, it makes a lot more sense to worry about what the Government decides are "the rules" than what your company does in its own little corner of the playground.
5) You almost always explicitly agree to such "censorship" in a voluntary contract with your employer. Dont like it, dont agree to the acceptable use policy and find a different employer.
The two look alike only at the most shallow and irrelevant levels.
You forgot the part where it is appropriate to go to a grocery store, determine for yourself how much the goods on the shelves should cost, and leave that dollar amount on the shelf in lieu of paying what the grocer is asking.
But those bastards better not abuse the licensing terms on my software.
They did... insofar as Fluke having registered for the trade dress in the first place.
People really need to stop blaming companies for participating in the current P&T system that we have. Until you enter "troll" territory (starting legal fights over clearly dubious P&Ts), registering trademarks and patents is just good business sense.
Want to make a change, stop blaming Fluke or whoever and push for patent / trademark reform.
This is a distinction lost on Bennett, who ironically screams bloody murder about private companies "violating" the first amendment while recommending that we gut the 5th.
Somehow one gets the impression that Bennett doesnt actually get WHY we have the bill of rights and what the threat model is.
Bennett, if it seems like I have a bit of a grudge against you in most of the posts you drop, its because you seem to utterly lack perspective in these things and miss the bigger picture. Companies need to monitor and filter THEIR networks for legal and HR reasons. The government is a whole different animal, and we have protections in place to keep them from becoming tyrants. Thats the disconnect that you seem to keep missing.
Maybe when BlueCoat is required by a piece of legislation Ill hop aboard the "tar and feather BlueCoat Labs" bandwagon, but until then I see the service they provide as valuable.
Do you really not know what the Trail of Tears is?
Try this: start saying what you really think and see how fast you will be shut up and will lose your job etc.
I do. Ive had discussions about this -- and far more controversial-- topics with government coworkers. I still have a job, though basically everyone at my gov't job is aware Im not a big fan of Obama or basically any of his policies.
Are you really so ignorant that you dont see a difference between countries like Russia where you can be imprisoned for criticizing Putin, and the US where criticizing Obama is par for course in the media?
At this point it isnt relevant. We announced to the world that we DO care, and have shown an inability to enforce our will: that weakens our position in foreign relations substantially.
Its also pretty weak to justify Russia's bad behavior by pointing out some of ours. Are you aware of the atrocity of the trail of tears? Or that that in no way justifies Hitler's conquest of europe and the holocaust?
But does that analogy also apply to intellectual property, like software?
Yes.
I could go into all of the reasons why its "yes", but it seems a lot simpler to link you to the definition for a "work for hire": http://www.keytlaw.com/Copyrig...
Justice is invariably going to involve punishment. Rehabilition is most certainly NOT justice, as its duration and severity can have absolutely no relationship to the actual crime.
Im not understanding why gunshot (or similar) is not acceptable. Not to get all House Stark or whatever, but execution is a messy business and it does noone any favors to try to minimize that. Anyone crying "its too barbaric" should try to remember that we're ending someone's life here, and that doesnt really change just because you do it in a sterile antiseptic clinical setting.
If you really think the rape of that 8 year old was brutal enough to deserve death, at least know what you're asking for.
That's really beside the point. The big problem here is that Dr. Roache seems to think that the primary purpose of incarceration is to "punish" people. Nonsense.
Why, certainly it is! What do you suppose the 8th amendment is referring to? Heres a hint, it doesnt say "punish them as long as it takes to rehabilitate them".
Theres also a reason its called a "penal" (meaning punishment) or "justice" system, not a clinical or rehab system.
But I do fear for the day when noone gets that anymore, and the courts are free to detain you for as long as it takes to "cure" you. If you're curious as to what that looks like, I hear Winston Smith can give a pretty good account. More on this: CS Lewis on The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment
Im far-right because Im disappointed with the tepid, half-hearted, laughable response we've given over the invasion of a country that we encouraged to disarm? (Ukraine underwent disarmament in 2005 at the behest of (along with Senator Lugar) senator Obama)
But that wouldnt be the worst of it, if we were just going to be scumbags and say "nuts to you, we dont care what Russia does". No, we decided that we care, but we cant actually back our bravado up with any real consequences, with the result that we now look impotent as Russia completely ignores both our threats and our weak sanctions (oh no, sanctioning 12 individuals!). One wonders how cheaply Russia will acquire the next country, and whether we will draw additional imaginary lines for those as well.
Version 1.0 of Linux came out 2 years after its initial alpha release in 1992. If you used it in production prior to that you deserved everything you got, because before then even Linus is saying "not production ready" with the version number.
Plus a whole lot of conviction and leadership that we just dont seem to have. But hey, I hear the administrations convinced Netflix to pull Putin's membership the next time he invades a country, so thats something.
This is just BS. Of course you can make a secure product. You just have to commit the time and resources to make security your top priority.
Clearly Apple, Microsoft, Google, Mozilla, and Red Hat are all too lazy to do so. But Im sure youve got it all figured out.
I mean Im not a software dev, and I wouldnt claim to be an "expert" in security-- but surely it says something that noone's actually managed to write a "secure" application of any substantial complexity. We've gotten really good at patching bugs quickly (particularly google, various linux coders, and mozilla), but the fact that the applications are getting patched indicates that there are vulnerabilities, and its a bit silly to imply that the aforementioned organizations simply lack the expertise to "do it right".
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty poor attempt at sarcasm, given it only reveals your ignorance to the number of radiation and cancer deaths from Chernobyl. Nuclear power is indeed one of the fatally polluting energy generation methods.
Bull.
The numbers around chernobyl are thrown around with much hysteria, but lets look at some actual facts. WHO estimates the estimated death toll for Chernobyl might hit 4000, and noted:
As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre...
If we do a bit of calculation based on the Bq radiation estimates from Wikipedia, the hardest hit region of the hardest hit country (Belarus) could have gotten radiation around 1480+ Bq of Cs-137 over an area of 2000 km^2. According to a Bq-to-Sv calculator, if we do 1cm distance from a 1480Bq Cs-137 source times 8765 hours (per year), you end up with a rate of Living in this 45km x 45km area would net you a whopping 9 mSv / year.
Fatal doses tend to be ~4.5 Sv. Worrysome annual dosages tend to be around 50mSv. 9mSv is like getting a CT scan once a year-- and this is if you're in the worst hit 2000km^2 of the worst hit country. In reality, the extra dosage you would have gotten from Chernobyl is just not that high.
Now compare Nuclear with hydroelectric which has killed hundreds of thousands of people in single incidents, or coal which year after year has mining accidents on its record (not to mention the pollution), and it looks pretty good. Not as good safety-wise as perhaps wind / solar, but its also a heck of a lot cheaper and a LOT more scalable.
There are potential issues and things to worry about with nuclear. Safety is not one,
Just about anything will emit light if you pump enough current through it.
I dont know that thats 100% accurate, there are a couple of "legit" "alternative" medicines that we just havent finished studying, but may be proven to be effective. Theyre just generally the minority.
For example, I believe its generally accepted that acupuncture does something, we're just not sure how and what.
If you're really interested in a discussion on it, the NIH's National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine might be a good place to start:
Decentralized information is extremely hard to access quickly. Wikipedia not only makes it incredibly easy to get a 20,000 ft view of just about any topic, but they cite a lot of their sources so that if you want the deep down on the topic you can access the sources for more info.
And the claim that Wikipedia "controls" anything except for their little piece of the playground is absurd. You're free to start an alternative wiki-- there are already zillions-- just dont think you're entitled to be popular.
A galaxy 10.1 doesnt come with a nice wacom.
See my post here
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
On why it is "right" and necessary.
Call me when you deal with protected data, and then explain how you dont monitor you
Because its none of my concern if some random company provides a crappy IT product. I as a consultant just tell my employer to pass when it comes up as an option.
I'd argue that the government is a "whole different animal" about as much as mules are a whole different animal from horses. The same arguments against government censorship hold true for corporate censorship
No, they dont, for the following reasons:
The two look alike only at the most shallow and irrelevant levels.
You forgot the part where it is appropriate to go to a grocery store, determine for yourself how much the goods on the shelves should cost, and leave that dollar amount on the shelf in lieu of paying what the grocer is asking.
But those bastards better not abuse the licensing terms on my software.
They did... insofar as Fluke having registered for the trade dress in the first place.
People really need to stop blaming companies for participating in the current P&T system that we have. Until you enter "troll" territory (starting legal fights over clearly dubious P&Ts), registering trademarks and patents is just good business sense.
Want to make a change, stop blaming Fluke or whoever and push for patent / trademark reform.
This is a distinction lost on Bennett, who ironically screams bloody murder about private companies "violating" the first amendment while recommending that we gut the 5th.
Somehow one gets the impression that Bennett doesnt actually get WHY we have the bill of rights and what the threat model is.
Bennett, if it seems like I have a bit of a grudge against you in most of the posts you drop, its because you seem to utterly lack perspective in these things and miss the bigger picture. Companies need to monitor and filter THEIR networks for legal and HR reasons. The government is a whole different animal, and we have protections in place to keep them from becoming tyrants. Thats the disconnect that you seem to keep missing.
Maybe when BlueCoat is required by a piece of legislation Ill hop aboard the "tar and feather BlueCoat Labs" bandwagon, but until then I see the service they provide as valuable.
Do you really not know what the Trail of Tears is?
Try this: start saying what you really think and see how fast you will be shut up and will lose your job etc.
I do. Ive had discussions about this -- and far more controversial-- topics with government coworkers. I still have a job, though basically everyone at my gov't job is aware Im not a big fan of Obama or basically any of his policies.
Are you really so ignorant that you dont see a difference between countries like Russia where you can be imprisoned for criticizing Putin, and the US where criticizing Obama is par for course in the media?
At this point it isnt relevant. We announced to the world that we DO care, and have shown an inability to enforce our will: that weakens our position in foreign relations substantially.
Its also pretty weak to justify Russia's bad behavior by pointing out some of ours. Are you aware of the atrocity of the trail of tears? Or that that in no way justifies Hitler's conquest of europe and the holocaust?
But does that analogy also apply to intellectual property, like software?
Yes.
I could go into all of the reasons why its "yes", but it seems a lot simpler to link you to the definition for a "work for hire":
http://www.keytlaw.com/Copyrig...
Justice is invariably going to involve punishment. Rehabilition is most certainly NOT justice, as its duration and severity can have absolutely no relationship to the actual crime.
Im not understanding why gunshot (or similar) is not acceptable. Not to get all House Stark or whatever, but execution is a messy business and it does noone any favors to try to minimize that. Anyone crying "its too barbaric" should try to remember that we're ending someone's life here, and that doesnt really change just because you do it in a sterile antiseptic clinical setting.
If you really think the rape of that 8 year old was brutal enough to deserve death, at least know what you're asking for.
That's really beside the point. The big problem here is that Dr. Roache seems to think that the primary purpose of incarceration is to "punish" people. Nonsense.
Why, certainly it is! What do you suppose the 8th amendment is referring to? Heres a hint, it doesnt say "punish them as long as it takes to rehabilitate them".
Theres also a reason its called a "penal" (meaning punishment) or "justice" system, not a clinical or rehab system.
But I do fear for the day when noone gets that anymore, and the courts are free to detain you for as long as it takes to "cure" you. If you're curious as to what that looks like, I hear Winston Smith can give a pretty good account.
More on this:
CS Lewis on The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment
Im far-right because Im disappointed with the tepid, half-hearted, laughable response we've given over the invasion of a country that we encouraged to disarm? (Ukraine underwent disarmament in 2005 at the behest of (along with Senator Lugar) senator Obama)
But that wouldnt be the worst of it, if we were just going to be scumbags and say "nuts to you, we dont care what Russia does". No, we decided that we care, but we cant actually back our bravado up with any real consequences, with the result that we now look impotent as Russia completely ignores both our threats and our weak sanctions (oh no, sanctioning 12 individuals!). One wonders how cheaply Russia will acquire the next country, and whether we will draw additional imaginary lines for those as well.
Its a bad idea because if your money "disappears" during one of those transfers, there isnt any regulation governing "what happens now".
Version 1.0 of Linux came out 2 years after its initial alpha release in 1992. If you used it in production prior to that you deserved everything you got, because before then even Linus is saying "not production ready" with the version number.
It tells you that 28 versions ago Mozilla believed, themselves, that Firefox was ready for production.
0.9.0 usually indicates that the developers themselves dont believe it is production quality.
Plus a whole lot of conviction and leadership that we just dont seem to have. But hey, I hear the administrations convinced Netflix to pull Putin's membership the next time he invades a country, so thats something.
Barring an injunction / gag order, I dont believe anyone can prevent you from disclosing that their threats are why you are taking the list down.
This is just BS. Of course you can make a secure product. You just have to commit the time and resources to make security your top priority.
Clearly Apple, Microsoft, Google, Mozilla, and Red Hat are all too lazy to do so. But Im sure youve got it all figured out.
I mean Im not a software dev, and I wouldnt claim to be an "expert" in security-- but surely it says something that noone's actually managed to write a "secure" application of any substantial complexity. We've gotten really good at patching bugs quickly (particularly google, various linux coders, and mozilla), but the fact that the applications are getting patched indicates that there are vulnerabilities, and its a bit silly to imply that the aforementioned organizations simply lack the expertise to "do it right".