It is a bold man that tells people that they shouldn't take out insurance - and even bolder given the level of uncertainties there are in seismology. That said, IANAS.
And it is a coward that tells people to remain very careful when danger is overestimated - and an even bigger coward if he does that so he doesn't have to take responsibility if it goes wrong. Especially when it is his job to estimate the risk.
TFA mentions that this is about the "campus" of a university. Does that mean the university-owned computers that are meant only for educational purposes? Or does this mean the privately owned computers that students have in their own rooms where they live?
Makes a LOT of difference to me.
If I lived at a campus where the university would rat on me everytime I would download something that may be illegal (but isn't necessarily) - I would be out of there. That's not a free country anymore... You'd be guilty until proven innocent.
However - if we talk about university owned computers for education - sure... they own it. They can block whatever they want on their own computers in their own buildings on their own networks... although I think it's childish.
Its the same with the drug companies who prefer treatments (with big ongoing costs) to cures (with a one-off cost and nothing further)
Would this myth fucking die already. Do you have ANY evidence that drug companies are actually hiding cures so they can continue giving "treatments"? Name me one disease that you have credible evidence that a cure can be found but the drug company killed it because it would hurt profits. And before you say "HIV", you might want to do some basic research first. There have been over 70, SEVENTY, trials of HIV vaccines and all have failed. And it's not like drug companies are the only ones looking for cures.
Yeah, that's a stupid myth.
Drug companies would have absolutely no problem getting rich selling a one-time cure as well as ongoing treatments. They will happily calculate the minimum price of a one-time cure in order to reach their planned profit margins within a set time, and add a nice percentage on top for profit.
These noble companies make no distinction between cures and treatments. Money is money after all.
It's one thing to buy cheap Chinese made consumer electronics goods, but would you really want to risk your life in an aircraft? They cant even get products specifically destined for children right without someone unscrupulous substituting something inferior or deadly (lead paint, melamine). Unfortunately as a country they have a long way to go to rebuild their reputation.
Most of your car parts are already made in China. So are important things like your fire alarm, the locks on the front door, parts for your heating system... not to mention an increasing amount of medicines and food. You're already "risking your life" buying Chinese things (and surviving it too)... Just because your local manufacturing lobby screams fire whenever a Chinese product is faulty doesn't mean that those bad products are the only exports from China.
The Chinese try to dominate the world financially... if that means that they must build good quality aircraft, then they will. So, they will either improve their own technology up to a point that it competes with the European and American industries - or they will eventually buy the European and American industries with profits from other sectors.
I don't think China will ever undertake any military actions to dominate the world. They'll eventually just buy us all.
Altitude is quite irrelevant. It's velocity we need!
The potential energy of 1 kg at 250 km is 2.5 MJ/kg. The kinetic energy of 1 kg at 7000 m/s is 25 MJ (10x as much!). The atmosperic drag adds less than 20% to the energy requirements.
The point I try to make? We need velocity! How fast does that Space Ship go? (No, I didn't RTFA - it may be in there...)
p.s. 100 km is half orbital only because low earth orbit is at about 200 km.
A classic case of misinformation being worse than no information. However, Google does have a disclaimer on the service about possible errors.
Funny how the first thing that pops into some people's minds is the disclaimers, and possible lawsuits.
Regardless of the disclaimer - I do not think that any country would sue Google for misinformation which lead to a war. The claim would be astronomical... and unrealistic.:-) It would be hilarious (and stupid) if a foreign company with a free service would be held accountable for military actions.
It shouldn't, but it amazes me how a military force from one country can take action based on information from a free service offered by a company in another country. It boggles the mind.
Typically, these countries have little budget for their military. And military commanders may say that Google maps information - although sometimes wrong - is still better than no information at all.
I would be even happier if, when such proposals go to the European Parliament, someone will remember to add a clause mandating the member governments to respect this right.
Compared to government abuse, company data retention is much less dangerous.
Although I agree with the intentions you seem to have (less data on government databases), I think it is not smart to couple these two things.
Online data is the current topic... and the EU seems willing to improve this situation. What you talk about - those government databases - is considered state security. And it is gonna take a little more to convince those paranoid war hawks that they're just as safe when they cannot spy on every step that the population takes.
So, I think we should pursue both goals, but separately.
Doesn't Facebook have face recognition? Shouldn't be much of a problem to find out who is on a picture... many people actually consider it another privacy intrusion that Facebook is able to do this...:)
Most cases of things that need to be taken offline are quite harmless, and the benefits (at first glance) outweight the possible abuses. Also, it may be just a little more difficult than a single anonymous email to get content removed. Pranksters may not want to go that far.
You seem to suggest that laws cannot conflicht with each other... But laws are only as good as the people who wrote them, and that suggests that it is very possible indeed that laws conflict with each other.
Anyway, I am happy that at least online data can be removed now. All stored data (on a company database or a government database) will be another thing...
I can delete my Facebook account but I can't delete the photos someone else took with me in them.
All data on Facebook is property of Facebook, not of the people who put it there... so you should be able to ask Facebook to remove it... (according to the text, "companies (i.e. Facebook) will be forced to delete it when asked").
You can't turn the economy around in 2 years. Changing the economy involves creating new companies, and re-employing massive amounts of people in new sectors.
If you expect your government to do a magic trick which will make it all better, then I suggest drugs or alcohol. In the real world, however, we stopped measuring the economy just by the stock market which can make or break the economy in the course of a single day. We slowly start looking at the real economy. And fact is, that the American real economy mostly takes place in China nowadays.
Blame Obama for it all you like... it will take more than 2 years to fix this.
It's a damn shame that to make this thing street legal, you actually have to crash a bunch of them.
And building like 10 of them, is going to be a real issue.
the issue with street legality may not be a matter of paperwork and money (or crash testing it).
Laws often state that no sharp edges may be found on the outside. The car may legally be required to have a bumper too for example. Or the windscreen has certain requirements that this thing will fail to pass. Laws change everywhere, but what I am getting at is that the builder of this batmobile may not even have to try to pass a test for street legality, because he 'knows already that hell fail.
Obviously not in the article.. not even one damn picture of it..
It is very difficult to photograph something that is 80-160 km across and buried under many layers of sediments... that may have something to do with the lack of pictures. TFA doesn't mention when the discovery was made, so it is hard to say how much time they've had to produce some images for the media.
I can imagine that specialized satellites can scan the area for geological differences. But I imagine that Google Maps shows no sign of this crater at all.
Fear actually does increase security... well... in a way.
Consultants call this fear "awareness". And if you want a general group to implement any measures, you have to "create awareness". It's a well-known fact. So, because of the awareness, security measures are taken.
Not only the cyber security, but also physical security (security companies and weapons industry) thrive because of the awareness of all kinds of problems (security leaks, terrorism, etc). The real question is: is the threat as big as it is portrayed?
What the OP meant to say is that the peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine can be ruined by a single rocket propelled granade shot by a dissident Palestine who ignores whatever leadership they have there. Similarly, countries outside Iran will demand from Iran that it stops these cyber attacks... even though the group that did the attacks is not related to the official government.
The situation in the Middle East is older than the discussion about Iranian nuclear ambitions. Obama and Ahmadinejad give "a fuck" about whatever keeps the public busy on all sides of the conflict. They are politicians, and they care about the opinion of the people (because they try hard to influence and change that opinion). If that is a bunch of cyber kiddies, then they care.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm confused. Are we talking about midwest earthquakes or terrorist plots?
Both are just risks, both are difficult to estimate, and both are treated the same by lawmakers...
So, to answer your question: we talk about risks in general - not just terrorism or earthquakes.
It is a bold man that tells people that they shouldn't take out insurance - and even bolder given the level of uncertainties there are in seismology. That said, IANAS.
And it is a coward that tells people to remain very careful when danger is overestimated - and an even bigger coward if he does that so he doesn't have to take responsibility if it goes wrong. Especially when it is his job to estimate the risk.
TFA mentions that this is about the "campus" of a university.
Does that mean the university-owned computers that are meant only for educational purposes? Or does this mean the privately owned computers that students have in their own rooms where they live?
Makes a LOT of difference to me.
If I lived at a campus where the university would rat on me everytime I would download something that may be illegal (but isn't necessarily) - I would be out of there.
That's not a free country anymore... You'd be guilty until proven innocent.
However - if we talk about university owned computers for education - sure... they own it. They can block whatever they want on their own computers in their own buildings on their own networks... although I think it's childish.
I passed a free newspaper to someone else on the bus this morning. The police showed no interest when I told them.
Students should just start downloading legal p2p software... at a massive scale.
Make sure that the university and the police department are getting overworked from false claims of illegal downloading.
It's a peaceful, harmless and non-violent way of teaching stupid people that p2p is not always illegal.
Its the same with the drug companies who prefer treatments (with big ongoing costs) to cures (with a one-off cost and nothing further)
Would this myth fucking die already. Do you have ANY evidence that drug companies are actually hiding cures so they can continue giving "treatments"? Name me one disease that you have credible evidence that a cure can be found but the drug company killed it because it would hurt profits. And before you say "HIV", you might want to do some basic research first. There have been over 70, SEVENTY, trials of HIV vaccines and all have failed. And it's not like drug companies are the only ones looking for cures.
Yeah, that's a stupid myth.
Drug companies would have absolutely no problem getting rich selling a one-time cure as well as ongoing treatments. They will happily calculate the minimum price of a one-time cure in order to reach their planned profit margins within a set time, and add a nice percentage on top for profit.
These noble companies make no distinction between cures and treatments. Money is money after all.
It's one thing to buy cheap Chinese made consumer electronics goods, but would you really want to risk your life in an aircraft? They cant even get products specifically destined for children right without someone unscrupulous substituting something inferior or deadly (lead paint, melamine). Unfortunately as a country they have a long way to go to rebuild their reputation.
Most of your car parts are already made in China. So are important things like your fire alarm, the locks on the front door, parts for your heating system... not to mention an increasing amount of medicines and food.
You're already "risking your life" buying Chinese things (and surviving it too)... Just because your local manufacturing lobby screams fire whenever a Chinese product is faulty doesn't mean that those bad products are the only exports from China.
The Chinese try to dominate the world financially... if that means that they must build good quality aircraft, then they will. So, they will either improve their own technology up to a point that it competes with the European and American industries - or they will eventually buy the European and American industries with profits from other sectors.
I don't think China will ever undertake any military actions to dominate the world. They'll eventually just buy us all.
Manufacturers of stoves, ovens and all other kitchen equipment were sued by McDonalds for enabling people to make a hamburger at home.
Altitude is quite irrelevant. It's velocity we need!
The potential energy of 1 kg at 250 km is 2.5 MJ/kg.
The kinetic energy of 1 kg at 7000 m/s is 25 MJ (10x as much!).
The atmosperic drag adds less than 20% to the energy requirements.
The point I try to make? We need velocity! How fast does that Space Ship go? (No, I didn't RTFA - it may be in there...)
p.s. 100 km is half orbital only because low earth orbit is at about 200 km.
Shut down a losing concept, and another improved version will take its place.
A classic case of misinformation being worse than no information. However, Google does have a disclaimer on the service about possible errors.
Funny how the first thing that pops into some people's minds is the disclaimers, and possible lawsuits.
Regardless of the disclaimer - I do not think that any country would sue Google for misinformation which lead to a war. The claim would be astronomical... and unrealistic. :-)
It would be hilarious (and stupid) if a foreign company with a free service would be held accountable for military actions.
It shouldn't, but it amazes me how a military force from one country can take action based on information from a free service offered by a company in another country. It boggles the mind.
Typically, these countries have little budget for their military. And military commanders may say that Google maps information - although sometimes wrong - is still better than no information at all.
I would be even happier if, when such proposals go to the European Parliament, someone will remember to add a clause mandating the member governments to respect this right.
Compared to government abuse, company data retention is much less dangerous.
Although I agree with the intentions you seem to have (less data on government databases), I think it is not smart to couple these two things.
Online data is the current topic... and the EU seems willing to improve this situation.
What you talk about - those government databases - is considered state security. And it is gonna take a little more to convince those paranoid war hawks that they're just as safe when they cannot spy on every step that the population takes.
So, I think we should pursue both goals, but separately.
Doesn't Facebook have face recognition? :)
Shouldn't be much of a problem to find out who is on a picture... many people actually consider it another privacy intrusion that Facebook is able to do this...
Most cases of things that need to be taken offline are quite harmless, and the benefits (at first glance) outweight the possible abuses. Also, it may be just a little more difficult than a single anonymous email to get content removed. Pranksters may not want to go that far.
Probably a different department :)
You seem to suggest that laws cannot conflicht with each other... But laws are only as good as the people who wrote them, and that suggests that it is very possible indeed that laws conflict with each other.
Anyway, I am happy that at least online data can be removed now.
All stored data (on a company database or a government database) will be another thing...
-- A small step forward is still a stop forward.
I can delete my Facebook account but I can't delete the photos someone else took with me in them.
All data on Facebook is property of Facebook, not of the people who put it there... so you should be able to ask Facebook to remove it... (according to the text, "companies (i.e. Facebook) will be forced to delete it when asked").
...my ISP starts punishing me for using the Internet to do legal things that the Internet was designed for?
Don't you know that you're not supposed to use products for what they're supposed to be used for?
You can't turn the economy around in 2 years.
Changing the economy involves creating new companies, and re-employing massive amounts of people in new sectors.
If you expect your government to do a magic trick which will make it all better, then I suggest drugs or alcohol. In the real world, however, we stopped measuring the economy just by the stock market which can make or break the economy in the course of a single day. We slowly start looking at the real economy. And fact is, that the American real economy mostly takes place in China nowadays.
Blame Obama for it all you like... it will take more than 2 years to fix this.
Sputnik only made a beep. That was therefore completely worthless. Or was it?
Indeed... this article is better (thanks for pointing that out).
What I haven't found in the article though is how monkeys are supposed to cross over from Asia to Africa...
Here is a map of how the continents were connected about 50 million years ago. It seems to me that it would have been a long swim.
It would be nice to see the two fields of study (paleogeology and paleontology to combine their efforts.
And tomorrow's news: Budget cuts for schools to have more students in a classroom.
It's a damn shame that to make this thing street legal, you actually have to crash a bunch of them.
And building like 10 of them, is going to be a real issue.
the issue with street legality may not be a matter of paperwork and money (or crash testing it).
Laws often state that no sharp edges may be found on the outside. The car may legally be required to have a bumper too for example. Or the windscreen has certain requirements that this thing will fail to pass. Laws change everywhere, but what I am getting at is that the builder of this batmobile may not even have to try to pass a test for street legality, because he 'knows already that hell fail.
Obviously not in the article.. not even one damn picture of it..
It is very difficult to photograph something that is 80-160 km across and buried under many layers of sediments... that may have something to do with the lack of pictures.
TFA doesn't mention when the discovery was made, so it is hard to say how much time they've had to produce some images for the media.
I can imagine that specialized satellites can scan the area for geological differences. But I imagine that Google Maps shows no sign of this crater at all.
Fear actually does increase security... well... in a way.
Consultants call this fear "awareness". And if you want a general group to implement any measures, you have to "create awareness". It's a well-known fact.
So, because of the awareness, security measures are taken.
Not only the cyber security, but also physical security (security companies and weapons industry) thrive because of the awareness of all kinds of problems (security leaks, terrorism, etc).
The real question is: is the threat as big as it is portrayed?
What the OP meant to say is that the peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine can be ruined by a single rocket propelled granade shot by a dissident Palestine who ignores whatever leadership they have there.
Similarly, countries outside Iran will demand from Iran that it stops these cyber attacks... even though the group that did the attacks is not related to the official government.
The situation in the Middle East is older than the discussion about Iranian nuclear ambitions. Obama and Ahmadinejad give "a fuck" about whatever keeps the public busy on all sides of the conflict. They are politicians, and they care about the opinion of the people (because they try hard to influence and change that opinion). If that is a bunch of cyber kiddies, then they care.
It cartainly cannot pick a nose... so that robot better not get a virus.