Remember the point (IMO) of such a move isn't to make it impossible for someone to find the true names of those mentioned in court records, but merely to prevent such information from being available to casual searchers.
Of course a robots.txt file could so something similar.
Actually it does. Designers should realize what the general public (aka: unthinking Joe Sixpack) will do with their products, not what some idealized consumer will do.
Also while I don't eat that many pringles (no more than 5 cans a year at most) I can't figure out what to so with that many cans.
That was my first worry as well. I would love to see more info on what (if any) chemical leach out of these thing into the marine environment and what (if any) effects those chemicals would have.
I am not ready to do that yet. It appears that SP1 and the creative audigy drivers don't like vista SP1 so that may be the issue. Of course the update refused to install even when I had removed the offending drivers so who knows.
I installed it, and at some point during the install it crapped out, and undid all the changes it had made, and popped up a 0x80071A90 error. Every thing runs as it used to, so kudos to MS for not hosing my system. Now all I need is to figure out what the hell 0x80071A90 means.
I tried to install it but I got a 0x80071A90 error. It wouldn't install but it did undo all the changes it made so the system runs as well as it did pre-sp1.
anyone having better luck, or have an idea on what the hell 0x80071A90 means?
I have been to Cuba, and to a few other totalitarian states, and there was a noticeable difference between in peoples attitudes towards the government. The people in Cuba mostly genuinely support Fidel Castro (it remains to be seen what kind of support Raul will get). In Myanmar it was obvious that the people were genuinely unhappy about their government. Of course non of this should be used as an excuse for denying Cubans proper elections.
Not exactly. Vista only restricts "premium content" from being outputted on analogue outputs ( or at least degrades it) only with DRMed content and only when the DRM asks for it. Regular content isn't affected at all. Non-DRMed media (which is all I would buy) is not affected.
In that sence it is similar to the way the ipod does DRM. The DRM only kicks in if you buy DRMed content. Otherwise it has no effect.
an easy plan B for your DVDs would be to make two copies. One to send home and one to keep in your bag.
Plus uploading your pics to an online service like flickr whenever possible, should make loosing your pics a very remote possibility
Depending on how often you can get internet access you may want to just upload your photos to flickr or some other online service. That (combined with a 60gig ipod and the camera connector) was what i did while spending 6 months in semi remote areas of SE asia.
That being said also making DVD backups is probably a good idea (keep one in your bag and mail one home) if you are extra paranoid.
Also I don't belive the ipod camera connector. works with any of the newer ipods (damn you Apple!)
"Would you believe the research Exxon put out on the same topic?"
If it was peer-reviewed then I would certainly expect it to be included in the scientific debate. The problem is many 'studies' funded by Exxon don't stand up to scientific scrutiny. That is why they are not published.
Science as an institution spends large amounts of time and money trying to prove itself wrong. That is what makes such a powerful method to describe the natural world.
"We might hear 10 things a week about global warming, 1 might be pure science backed while the other 8 might be political motivated science or more likely opinion pushed as fact in an attempt to push a political agenda."
You seem to have a hard time sperating the scientific argument from the dumbed down and sometimes inaccurate arguments presented in the media. There is a difference.
So it comes down to why would you believe thousands of scientists, when there is a chance it is all a big conspiracy.
Again if you can't trust the experts who can you trust. Who do you trust (or more importantly who do policymakers trust) when the situation is complex and politicized.
"So if I presented you with a paper for review using fallacious data, it would pass as long as the method and conclusion seemed logical?"
That is not what I said. I was referring to the review of the conclusions of a particular report. Obviously other parts of the paper are also reviewed. If your data is fallacious, or your methods are problematic, or you don't properly state your assumptions your paper might be rejected.
I referred to the review of the conclusions because you seem to be under the impressions that if someone doesn't tow the line they wont be able to get their work published, and that simply isn't the case. If you present good research and arrive at a logical conclusion your work will be published regardless of whether you agree with the status quo or not.
For the record this is what she said:
"Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement.
I agree with every meteorologist who says the topic of global warming has gotten too political. But that's why talking about the science is so important!"
If they are going to challenge climate change they need to speak to the fundamental science (and that means peer-review) of climate change. How is that controversial?
"However, are we getting all the debate?"
Science is very good at understanding the natural world. In fact nothing is better. While the media makes lost of absurd claims (on both sides of the argument) the peer-reviewed literature is quite clear, is not sensationalized and is the least biased source of data available. The problem is many people completely unqualified to debate the science have done just that. Lets leave the scientific debate to the scientists.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember the point (IMO) of such a move isn't to make it impossible for someone to find the true names of those mentioned in court records, but merely to prevent such information from being available to casual searchers. Of course a robots.txt file could so something similar.
Actually it does. Designers should realize what the general public (aka: unthinking Joe Sixpack) will do with their products, not what some idealized consumer will do. Also while I don't eat that many pringles (no more than 5 cans a year at most) I can't figure out what to so with that many cans.
It is your lucky day!
usually it is those with the most limited resources that come up with those kinds of ideas.
That was my first worry as well. I would love to see more info on what (if any) chemical leach out of these thing into the marine environment and what (if any) effects those chemicals would have.
I am not ready to do that yet. It appears that SP1 and the creative audigy drivers don't like vista SP1 so that may be the issue. Of course the update refused to install even when I had removed the offending drivers so who knows.
Thanks for you help though.
did you also get a 0x80071A90 error? and if so how did you get SP1 to install.
Thats what happened to me (I think).
I installed it, and at some point during the install it crapped out, and undid all the changes it had made, and popped up a 0x80071A90 error. Every thing runs as it used to, so kudos to MS for not hosing my system. Now all I need is to figure out what the hell 0x80071A90 means.
I tried to install it but I got a 0x80071A90 error. It wouldn't install but it did undo all the changes it made so the system runs as well as it did pre-sp1.
anyone having better luck, or have an idea on what the hell 0x80071A90 means?
I have been to Cuba, and to a few other totalitarian states, and there was a noticeable difference between in peoples attitudes towards the government. The people in Cuba mostly genuinely support Fidel Castro (it remains to be seen what kind of support Raul will get). In Myanmar it was obvious that the people were genuinely unhappy about their government. Of course non of this should be used as an excuse for denying Cubans proper elections.
not to mention that the list is very short, most of the affected programs have updates or workarounds, AND SP1 is not even out to the public.
Not exactly. Vista only restricts "premium content" from being outputted on analogue outputs ( or at least degrades it) only with DRMed content and only when the DRM asks for it. Regular content isn't affected at all. Non-DRMed media (which is all I would buy) is not affected.
In that sence it is similar to the way the ipod does DRM. The DRM only kicks in if you buy DRMed content. Otherwise it has no effect.
a $2100 PC should have no problems running vista. Unless of course he got royally ripped off.
My PC which costs a hell of a lot less, runs vista just fine.
an easy plan B for your DVDs would be to make two copies. One to send home and one to keep in your bag. Plus uploading your pics to an online service like flickr whenever possible, should make loosing your pics a very remote possibility
Depending on how often you can get internet access you may want to just upload your photos to flickr or some other online service. That (combined with a 60gig ipod and the camera connector) was what i did while spending 6 months in semi remote areas of SE asia. That being said also making DVD backups is probably a good idea (keep one in your bag and mail one home) if you are extra paranoid. Also I don't belive the ipod camera connector. works with any of the newer ipods (damn you Apple!)
"If we all chip in $20, that'd be enough to get this ball rolling."
And that is the problem. Unless you have lots of money, many legitimate legal options are completely out of your reach.
I'll wait for the official release and then I'll wait a couple more weeks, just to be sure there aren't any nasty bugs MS forgot to squash.
Don't forget that we actually ratified Kyoto, but we have not ratified the WIPO treaty.
While a agree its is a huge problem, I don't see any other real alternatives.
"No human institution has ever lasted that long"
No human civilization has lasted that long!
"Would you believe the research Exxon put out on the same topic?"
If it was peer-reviewed then I would certainly expect it to be included in the scientific debate. The problem is many 'studies' funded by Exxon don't stand up to scientific scrutiny. That is why they are not published.
Science as an institution spends large amounts of time and money trying to prove itself wrong. That is what makes such a powerful method to describe the natural world.
"We might hear 10 things a week about global warming, 1 might be pure science backed while the other 8 might be political motivated science or more likely opinion pushed as fact in an attempt to push a political agenda."
You seem to have a hard time sperating the scientific argument from the dumbed down and sometimes inaccurate arguments presented in the media. There is a difference.
So it comes down to why would you believe thousands of scientists, when there is a chance it is all a big conspiracy.
Again if you can't trust the experts who can you trust. Who do you trust (or more importantly who do policymakers trust) when the situation is complex and politicized.
"I though I made myself clear on the peer reviewed literature. I don't trust it."
That really is the crux of it isn't it. Who do you trust?
And what would it take you to believe that climate change is real and that we are causing it.
"So if I presented you with a paper for review using fallacious data, it would pass as long as the method and conclusion seemed logical?"
That is not what I said. I was referring to the review of the conclusions of a particular report. Obviously other parts of the paper are also reviewed. If your data is fallacious, or your methods are problematic, or you don't properly state your assumptions your paper might be rejected.
I referred to the review of the conclusions because you seem to be under the impressions that if someone doesn't tow the line they wont be able to get their work published, and that simply isn't the case. If you present good research and arrive at a logical conclusion your work will be published regardless of whether you agree with the status quo or not.
For the record this is what she said:
"Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement.
I agree with every meteorologist who says the topic of global warming has gotten too political. But that's why talking about the science is so important!"
If they are going to challenge climate change they need to speak to the fundamental science (and that means peer-review) of climate change. How is that controversial?
"However, are we getting all the debate?"
Science is very good at understanding the natural world. In fact nothing is better. While the media makes lost of absurd claims (on both sides of the argument) the peer-reviewed literature is quite clear, is not sensationalized and is the least biased source of data available. The problem is many people completely unqualified to debate the science have done just that. Lets leave the scientific debate to the scientists.