One cannot take a stand against "exclusion" or "intolerance" without becoming exactly that which they stand against. Not tolerating those who are intolerant is in itself a form of intolerance. Excluding those who wish to engage in exclusionary behavior is in itself a form of exclusion.
BULLSHIT
Tolerance means not tolerating intolerance. Otherwise it would be counter to tolerance. Tolerance, in the political context, means pushing for greater inclusion and less discrimination, not the machinist's definition which is roughly synonymous to "allowance."
I can't believe intolerant people still think that tolerant people should respect their bigotry because of some silly, childish attempt at a logic trick.
There's only one way to strip away the politics, and you could do it any time:
Separate them in your head.
You seem to be saying that since there is overlap between the action/inaction choice of the climate issue and political goals, you can't trust the science. But that overlap will always exist in a governed state.
It's no different from any other science where physical experimentation is impossible, like astrophysics. You can try to learn it for yourself. You can live in an apartment in Somalia while you do it, if that helps (bring guns!).
I only got to the part where he said the study was invalid because it didn't directly address the "skeptics' " latest sticking point (whether AGW is catastrophic; before that it was whether it was man-made, before that it was whether it was happening; next it will probably be whether it's preventable). At that point I was both at my tolerance limit for moronic discourse and satisfied that, like other attempted refutations of the consensus study, it was absolutely wrong.
And anyone who didn't immediately disregard that article due to idiotic, inflammatory language sure as hell isn't in it for the facts.
For the same reason it's wasn't sufficient to simulate your computer programs on paper back in the early days of computing...the simulation is FAR from fast enough.
This article ensures it, it makes Aaron Swartz' manifesto look like a hippy drum circle in comparison. If he slips up the legal system will hit him with everything. Watch out Bruce.
The NSA botnet wouldn't normally use darknets, that's likely to trigger an IDS or firewall alert. It would use their network of zombie machines with "plain-looking" addresses unless it's attacking a network that normally has darknet traffic going on.
It's just because of the effort/reward ratio. If black hats were willing to put more effort in and could get more reward out, they'd write malware like the NSA does.
What made AQ strong for a while was OBL's incredible intelligence. He was smart enough to more than make up for the rest of them being total morons. To use a demolition analogy, he could tell you when and where to tap a dam with a hammer and bring the whole thing down. Without his little nuggets of genius they're just a bunch of idiots with hammers.
All because of the DeBleeznux corporation pushing nova bombing as the only socially acceptable way to propose back in 21000BC. It's been an ingrained social custom ever since.
Nope this can't work. Unless you physically control the server it could be accessed through coercion. If you send the public key to the server through the Internet using anything less than symmetric key encryption with a key that only you have, and have never sent through the Internet, that's at risk of being snooped by the NSA.
For a while I thought high-level ECDH SSL, if self-generated, might work as NSA-proof encryption but after reading this article I'm not so sure.
Came here to say this. Without using shared secret encryption it either requires a (potentially coercible) central authority or is vulnerable to MITM attacks. And any kind of "time deletion" is only good for security on the receiver's device, not security of the message sent - the important thing to remember with computers is that if you can see it on your screen or hear it through your speakers, you can own it forever. No exceptions.
It's to add him to the list of "troublemakers." Then the first time he sorta-slips-up they won't just "throw the book at him," they'll use all the books to crush him like a bug. He wouldn't be the first...
I cannot dump my sewage in the stream upstream of you, nor can I dam up the stream and keep all the water for myself while you die. Nor can I dump the waste from my factory or hog farm into the watershed.
AKA denying people water!!! See government is EEEEEVILLLL!!!!
If one of them is fusion energy, as it appears to be...then yes it is. They'll be able to stop polluting, actively clean their atmosphere and then they'll be all gung-ho about environmental initiatives like carbon trading when they're holding the clean and abundant energy.
Slashdot Mirror
One cannot take a stand against "exclusion" or "intolerance" without becoming exactly that which they stand against. Not tolerating those who are intolerant is in itself a form of intolerance. Excluding those who wish to engage in exclusionary behavior is in itself a form of exclusion.
BULLSHIT
Tolerance means not tolerating intolerance. Otherwise it would be counter to tolerance. Tolerance, in the political context, means pushing for greater inclusion and less discrimination, not the machinist's definition which is roughly synonymous to "allowance."
I can't believe intolerant people still think that tolerant people should respect their bigotry because of some silly, childish attempt at a logic trick.
There's only one way to strip away the politics, and you could do it any time:
Separate them in your head.
You seem to be saying that since there is overlap between the action/inaction choice of the climate issue and political goals, you can't trust the science. But that overlap will always exist in a governed state.
It's no different from any other science where physical experimentation is impossible, like astrophysics. You can try to learn it for yourself. You can live in an apartment in Somalia while you do it, if that helps (bring guns!).
I only got to the part where he said the study was invalid because it didn't directly address the "skeptics' " latest sticking point (whether AGW is catastrophic; before that it was whether it was man-made, before that it was whether it was happening; next it will probably be whether it's preventable). At that point I was both at my tolerance limit for moronic discourse and satisfied that, like other attempted refutations of the consensus study, it was absolutely wrong.
And anyone who didn't immediately disregard that article due to idiotic, inflammatory language sure as hell isn't in it for the facts.
This is the case no matter what happens, whether through "green" tech or continuing pollution. That's not a climate policy problem.
For the same reason it's wasn't sufficient to simulate your computer programs on paper back in the early days of computing...the simulation is FAR from fast enough.
This article ensures it, it makes Aaron Swartz' manifesto look like a hippy drum circle in comparison. If he slips up the legal system will hit him with everything. Watch out Bruce.
The 4Runner is one of the few.
The idea that they "use it wisely" is very questionable based on what's leaked out so far.
That would be a reasonable assessment if the EFF took positions contrary to that of most of its members but beneficial to the ISPs.
The NSA botnet wouldn't normally use darknets, that's likely to trigger an IDS or firewall alert. It would use their network of zombie machines with "plain-looking" addresses unless it's attacking a network that normally has darknet traffic going on.
It's just because of the effort/reward ratio. If black hats were willing to put more effort in and could get more reward out, they'd write malware like the NSA does.
What made AQ strong for a while was OBL's incredible intelligence. He was smart enough to more than make up for the rest of them being total morons. To use a demolition analogy, he could tell you when and where to tap a dam with a hammer and bring the whole thing down. Without his little nuggets of genius they're just a bunch of idiots with hammers.
There are also reports and scary links showing up between a lot of influential people saying that you're full of shit and likely an SEA member.
Interesting link I saw this morning on the makeup of the Syrian rebel forces:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/05/us-syria-crisis-usa-rebels-idUSBRE98405L20130905
All because of the DeBleeznux corporation pushing nova bombing as the only socially acceptable way to propose back in 21000BC. It's been an ingrained social custom ever since.
You can't throw them in jail, but I'm sure they'll fine the ass off that no-good pirating nonprofit :-(
And which hair metal band were you a part of?
That was against a record company trying to sell it for profit, almost the opposite of the current situation.
That's how I understood it.
Well you're right that I got the two sides messed up...but it doesn't solve the physical access problem.
Nope this can't work. Unless you physically control the server it could be accessed through coercion. If you send the public key to the server through the Internet using anything less than symmetric key encryption with a key that only you have, and have never sent through the Internet, that's at risk of being snooped by the NSA.
For a while I thought high-level ECDH SSL, if self-generated, might work as NSA-proof encryption but after reading this article I'm not so sure.
Came here to say this. Without using shared secret encryption it either requires a (potentially coercible) central authority or is vulnerable to MITM attacks. And any kind of "time deletion" is only good for security on the receiver's device, not security of the message sent - the important thing to remember with computers is that if you can see it on your screen or hear it through your speakers, you can own it forever. No exceptions.
It's to add him to the list of "troublemakers." Then the first time he sorta-slips-up they won't just "throw the book at him," they'll use all the books to crush him like a bug. He wouldn't be the first...
More importantly will it be as strong as the one that holds our oceans and atmosphere from falling off!?
I cannot dump my sewage in the stream upstream of you, nor can I dam up the stream and keep all the water for myself while you die.
Nor can I dump the waste from my factory or hog farm into the watershed.
AKA denying people water!!! See government is EEEEEVILLLL!!!!
If one of them is fusion energy, as it appears to be...then yes it is. They'll be able to stop polluting, actively clean their atmosphere and then they'll be all gung-ho about environmental initiatives like carbon trading when they're holding the clean and abundant energy.
Fusion race tiem?