A clever criminal would use this as a planning tool. No need to sit outside a bank in a car doing your recon. Take your time identifying patterns of movement/behaviour. Spend some time finding out the blind-spots and how best to utilise them. Determine just how good the resolution is and how much obfuscation/masking of identifying features is required to remain anonymous.
To all the idiots who modded me "Offtopic" - get a dictionary.
The poster is trying to get rid of an XBox and asking for opinions on how to get rid of it. A FUCKING XBOX!!! That's a "game console". Games...you know, like BrutalLegend (or even Bonestorm:-). I offered to take his Xbox, and the reason I offered, is that BrutalLegend is being released next week...FOR THE XBOX (and PS3).
I meant it to be funny. Maybe it isn't, and maybe it's a bit similar to the prior "give it to me" posts, possibly garnering a "-1, Redundant". To mod it Offtopic however is just dumb...
Where are the bloody meta-moderators when you need'em?
Don't listen to any of these other twits banging on about charities this and Linux that. I absolutely MUST have it to play Brutal Legend! (due for release next week)
This is no coincidence...Fate demands you give it me.
In fact, Oracle's websites seem to be designed by the same guys that create those intertwined porn-link sites where you keep clicking through a million screens and never get what you're after......or so I'm told.
I've read most of the posts in this thread so far and can quite honestly say most of you have nothing to complain about. I've been working with Oracle software for the last 8 years and have to deal with their various "portals" (OTN, Metalink, Forums, eDelivery) and can state with absolute certainty that their sites are completely and utterly useless without Google. In fact, if Google didn't exist, someone would have to invent it to act as a usable front-end for Oracle's sites.
The worst by FAR is Metalink - that ultra-fragile, uber-bloated, flash-based abortion. Quite obviously conceived in the 8th circle of hell. Metalink is the only web site Chuck Norris cannot navigate.
Haven't run Linux as my personal OS since 2003 but I had a lot of time (pun intended) for CK's schedulers. Now a whole new generation of youngsters can finally learn what a _REAL_ LKML flamewar looks like;-)
Hahaha! Spoken like a true gringo! Dude, get your head out of your arse for just a second and ask, well, just about ANYONE from just about anywhere in South or Central America who was born before 1980, about your country's wonderful record in that region over say the last 100 years. From arming, funding and training murderous bastards to propping up dictators that "disappeared" thousands of their own people, to rigging elections, to assassinating elected leaders. Oh yeah, Hugo has a wonderful precedent, in fact, almost "template" to follow that was created by your country. Tthere's only so much hypocrisy the rest of the world can handle. Or is this yet another case of do as I say, not as I do?
Don't put words in my mouth. I am not advocating any such thing. However the people that espouse the "informed choice" argument fail to see the flaw in their logic. What's the answer? I don't know. But I'd be far happier with policy based on the balance of scientific reasoning as opposed to policy based on Fox News polls.
Oh, and by the way, whether you see it or not, whether you accept it or not, the "pyramid" you talk about exists in a way (not based on intelligence but on power). Its called the pecking order.
As one scientist complained recently about the climate change "debate", "they (the deniers) are free to argue any number of contradictory positions, we however are constrained by the truth".
What I love most about contrarians is precisely that. The vast array of totally contradictory positions that they can simultaneously throw back in the face of the evidence.
"CO2 doesn't lead it lags" - ergo, CO2 doesn't cause global warming. "Sure there's warming, but human CO2 emissions are no match for natural emissions" - so now CO2 causes warming?
"Warming, cooling, warming, cooling - its a natural cycle! Just wait another 5 minutes" - humans aren't causing it - don't worry "Sure its warming, but its natural - we'll just have to adjust" - humans aren't causing it - worry just a little bit "Sure, we're warming the planet - but that's a good thing! Check out these Canadian pineapples!" - OK we ARE causing it but it will all be sweet! Promise!
"How can we trust climate models validated against ice-core data?" "Hey it was called Greenland. GREEN-land! Geddit?"
"Its the sunspots!" "Its the magnetic field" "Its the methane" "Its the water vapour" "Its the aliens" - OK, I just added that one to see if you were paying attention. Basically, its anything but the CO2 (unless of course its "natural" CO2).
> So, the climate has always been changing, and while it's almost certain that humans have made an impact on the environment, I find it very hard to believe that the results will be catastrophic.
> Adult human beings are not game pieces to be manipulated for your own ends, or young children--or pets--requiring your governance "for their own good". They are free agents, self-owners, deserving of a chance to make their own choices, and mistakes, regarding both themselves and their property.
In order to make good choices, people need to be: (a) informed (b) capable of understanding
I would argue, that (a) is not effectively possible given the overwhelming amount of disinformation in the mass media (as opposed to the broadly consistent views to be found in scientific literature). I would also argue, that any society in which the majority think the earth was created 6000 years ago is not actually capable of (b).
Finally, it seems to me that you are essentially advocating a "free market" position. The problem with such a position with respect to large-time-scale problems such as climate change is that the effects of the forcings are largely felt way after they have occurred. The system is such that regardless of what we do in, say, the next 10 years, the effects for the next several decades are already locked in. That kind of lag does not usually make for good market responses.
Me thinks someone is stirring the pot and flinging the FUD around. There are those whose interests are best served by the free- and open-source movements eating each other. Don't get sucked in. ALL licenses share the same fundamental freedom which is: DON'T LIKE IT? DON'T USE IT!
Maybe he has cut *his* emissions. Maybe his "mansion" use to use 100 times the average and now its down to 20 times. Or are you suggesting we should all have our resources doled out to us equally comrade? He arguably does more than I do to deserve his cut of the "resource pie". Why should I begrudge him that?
In fact, lets say he cut his energy use from 30 times to 20 times the average. He has just made more of an impact than you or I ever will in our personal emissions.
That's exactly how I recall it playing out. And I must add that my perception of Linus was permanently altered by those events. I too found Con eminently approachable and helpful. The initial flakiness with Ingo's scheduler and the sour taste left by Linus's self-righteous excuses for behaving like a complete c*nt put me off Linux for good (FWIW I switched to Macs - good enough for work and play).
Yes. FoxNews. Although the article is clearly meant to demean him "he doesn't pay for the offsets himself - in fact he's making money! Boo! Evil!", what is clear is that he IS taking action to mitigate the effects of his lifestyle. I find it odd that FoxNews should castigate him for doing something that some-people won't be able to afford. I thought we lived in a capitalist paradise and were all for market-based solutions? You can argue about the long-term usefulness of offsets in terms of actually reducing CO2 emmissions. I would argue that they're predominantly about getting people used to the concept that carbon has a cost - be prepared to pay.
COMPANY: Aaargh! These f*cking Belgians are being royally dumb.
GOVERNMENT: Ahh yes. I see the problem now. Tricky isn't it? Obviously we don't want to make life hard for business, so the solution must be... equalise all laws everywhere. Yes, that will do. Of course it will be hard to convince some countries, but if we show a willingness to put law and order first I'm certain that most countries will jump on board. That will provide business with the consistent operating environment it needs.
To add to my earlier post, it occurs to me that its the "widget" view that has led to the viral broadening of what is considered to constitute intellectual "property". When I observe a performance there is no "property" involved and certainly none changing hands.
Another thought that comes to mind is the million-monkeys-bashing-out-Shapeskpeare view that says, if it can be thought-up someone will eventually think of it. It seems to lend itself to the view that its the use of the creation that adds value not the creations in and of themselves regardless whether that value is inspiration from art or the utility of some service provided. Its better to enrich the commons by contribution rather than deny it by exclusion. This does not deny the possibility for the creator to earn a living from the service provided through their work.
Shakespeare's value is in the countless thousands his works have inspired. Is it possible to calculate how much poorer we would culturally be if the use of his work was strictly curtailed?
You get points for a cleverly presented argument. Here are a few thoughts of my own, slightly less entertainingly put:
Consider the music industry. Originally, musicians were recompensed for performances. Musicians were service providers. Then the ability to record music came along, and the model switched from service provision, to primarily widget distribution. In this instance, the widgets were LPs whose manufacture and supply was limited due to the difficulty of making perfect copies (each generation of copy would degrade the signal).
The current music industry organisations would love to perpetuate the "widget distribution" model. Unfortunately, the advent of digital technology means the constraint on perfect copies has been smashed. The industry is trying its hardest to close the stable door after the horse has bolted by throwing up various technical and legal hurdles to "perfect copy" distribution. Despite their best attempts they are failing. The market quite clearly is answering with its feet. If copyright violation is a crime then a massive chunk of the population are criminals.
What the music industry need to accept is that the business model is changing back from widget distribution to primarily service provision (i.e. performances). This is similar to the effect open source is having on the software industry, changing the model (in some spaces) to profit from service provision rather than box sales.
Having accepted that the industry model is changing back to service provision, free digital music distribution can be considered low cost advertising for the performers. The fact that some segments of the music industry around packaging and sales (arguably less important than the artists) will be made redundant is just tough. They will find other jobs and the title of "record industry executive" will join blacksmith, phrenologist and horse-and-buggy repairman in the history books.
The same transition happened with performance art: live performances/plays turned into movies. What will movies turn into? Will there be a resurgence of live performances? Or perhaps the astronomical costs of movies needs to just come down a bit to make them more statistically likely to be profitable?
Software is already making the transition as stated before. Open source as well as the advent of leased services from the cloud are putting a slow but inexorable end to box sales.
Books are an interesting case. I don't know how that industry will pan out. Some authors however are embracing the new opportunities. Some people - even "selfish leechers" like myself - are happy to pay for books. On that point, I should point out that in the last 12 months I have been to the concerts of three big acts and forked over almost $500 in tickets and merchandising. A large proportion of that money will go straight to the artists' pockets - far more so than if I had spent $500 on their CDs/DVDs.
Slashdot Mirror
Bingo! Very succinctly put.
A clever criminal would use this as a planning tool. No need to sit outside a bank in a car doing your recon. Take your time identifying patterns of movement/behaviour. Spend some time finding out the blind-spots and how best to utilise them. Determine just how good the resolution is and how much obfuscation/masking of identifying features is required to remain anonymous.
Oh yes, what a lovely little tool.
To all the idiots who modded me "Offtopic" - get a dictionary.
The poster is trying to get rid of an XBox and asking for opinions on how to get rid of it. A FUCKING XBOX!!! That's a "game console". Games...you know, like BrutalLegend (or even Bonestorm :-). I offered to take his Xbox, and the reason I offered, is that BrutalLegend is being released next week...FOR THE XBOX (and PS3).
I meant it to be funny. Maybe it isn't, and maybe it's a bit similar to the prior "give it to me" posts, possibly garnering a "-1, Redundant". To mod it Offtopic however is just dumb...
Where are the bloody meta-moderators when you need'em?
Don't listen to any of these other twits banging on about charities this and Linux that.
I absolutely MUST have it to play Brutal Legend! (due for release next week)
This is no coincidence...Fate demands you give it me.
Even trolls need feeding from time to time...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/
We know this because we can look for these...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogenic_isotope#Natural
in the geological record.
Unless of course they were planted there by [insert diety] in which case - ha ha you've been punk'd(TM)!
> It's just yet another technology invented in a lab for academics' sake.
Yeah, and what's that ever given us?
http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~ianb/history/ ...
http://www.research.ibm.com/about/past_history.shtml
http://www.research.ibm.com/resources/awards.shtml
http://www.parc.com/about/milestones.html
> Does anybody have a SFW link? Something like this certainly must have more than one FA.
http://mashable.com/2009/09/27/reddit-attack/
> Eye owl wise ewes a spill chucker sew eye no my spilling is core wrecked.
Hey, whadda ya know? A sig with a New Zealand accent.
(Yeah, yeah, I know, offtopic, blah, blah, mod-away...)
In fact, Oracle's websites seem to be designed by the same guys that create those intertwined porn-link sites where you keep clicking through a million screens and never get what you're after... ...or so I'm told.
I've read most of the posts in this thread so far and can quite honestly say most of you have nothing to complain about. I've been working with Oracle software for the last 8 years and have to deal with their various "portals" (OTN, Metalink, Forums, eDelivery) and can state with absolute certainty that their sites are completely and utterly useless without Google. In fact, if Google didn't exist, someone would have to invent it to act as a usable front-end for Oracle's sites.
The worst by FAR is Metalink - that ultra-fragile, uber-bloated, flash-based abortion. Quite obviously conceived in the 8th circle of hell. Metalink is the only web site Chuck Norris cannot navigate.
Haven't run Linux as my personal OS since 2003 but I had a lot of time (pun intended) for CK's schedulers. Now a whole new generation of youngsters can finally learn what a _REAL_ LKML flamewar looks like ;-)
Hahaha! Spoken like a true gringo! Dude, get your head out of your arse for just a second and ask, well, just about ANYONE from just about anywhere in South or Central America who was born before 1980, about your country's wonderful record in that region over say the last 100 years. From arming, funding and training murderous bastards to propping up dictators that "disappeared" thousands of their own people, to rigging elections, to assassinating elected leaders. Oh yeah, Hugo has a wonderful precedent, in fact, almost "template" to follow that was created by your country.
Tthere's only so much hypocrisy the rest of the world can handle. Or is this yet another case of do as I say, not as I do?
Jeez Louise!
Don't put words in my mouth. I am not advocating any such thing. However the people that espouse the "informed choice" argument fail to see the flaw in their logic. What's the answer? I don't know. But I'd be far happier with policy based on the balance of scientific reasoning as opposed to policy based on Fox News polls.
Oh, and by the way, whether you see it or not, whether you accept it or not, the "pyramid" you talk about exists in a way (not based on intelligence but on power). Its called the pecking order.
As one scientist complained recently about the climate change "debate", "they (the deniers) are free to argue any number of contradictory positions, we however are constrained by the truth".
What I love most about contrarians is precisely that. The vast array of totally contradictory positions that they can simultaneously throw back in the face of the evidence.
"CO2 doesn't lead it lags" - ergo, CO2 doesn't cause global warming.
"Sure there's warming, but human CO2 emissions are no match for natural emissions" - so now CO2 causes warming?
"Warming, cooling, warming, cooling - its a natural cycle! Just wait another 5 minutes" - humans aren't causing it - don't worry
"Sure its warming, but its natural - we'll just have to adjust" - humans aren't causing it - worry just a little bit
"Sure, we're warming the planet - but that's a good thing! Check out these Canadian pineapples!" - OK we ARE causing it but it will all be sweet! Promise!
"How can we trust climate models validated against ice-core data?"
"Hey it was called Greenland. GREEN-land! Geddit?"
"Its the sunspots!"
"Its the magnetic field"
"Its the methane"
"Its the water vapour"
"Its the aliens" - OK, I just added that one to see if you were paying attention.
Basically, its anything but the CO2 (unless of course its "natural" CO2).
> So, the climate has always been changing, and while it's almost certain that humans have made an impact on the environment, I find it very hard to believe that the results will be catastrophic.
You find it hard to believe? Well, that's OK then. We'll just inform the worlds biggest insurance companies that Will Fisher "finds it hard to believe the results will be catastrophic". I'm sure they'll be pleased to hear that.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/22/news/economy/pluggedin_gunther.fortune/index.htm
> Adult human beings are not game pieces to be manipulated for your own ends, or young children--or pets--requiring your governance "for their own good". They are free agents, self-owners, deserving of a chance to make their own choices, and mistakes, regarding both themselves and their property.
In order to make good choices, people need to be:
(a) informed
(b) capable of understanding
I would argue, that (a) is not effectively possible given the overwhelming amount of disinformation in the mass media (as opposed to the broadly consistent views to be found in scientific literature).
I would also argue, that any society in which the majority think the earth was created 6000 years ago is not actually capable of (b).
Finally, it seems to me that you are essentially advocating a "free market" position. The problem with such a position with respect to large-time-scale problems such as climate change is that the effects of the forcings are largely felt way after they have occurred. The system is such that regardless of what we do in, say, the next 10 years, the effects for the next several decades are already locked in. That kind of lag does not usually make for good market responses.
> Yet if they were to paint the streets white to reflect sunlight, that could potentially help a lot more and be significantly cheaper.
Yes, increasing reflectivity helps the temperature. The continuing acidification of the oceans however is another matter.
http://www.google.com/search?q=acidification+oceans
It seems to me that some very successful companies are happily using GPL and LGPL in concert with commercial licensing. In fact, one company was so successful that they were bought by Nokia (I'm referring to Trolltech - developers of Qt):
http://qt.nokia.com/products/licensing
http://qt.nokia.com/about/open-source-business-model/open-source-business-model
Me thinks someone is stirring the pot and flinging the FUD around. There are those whose interests are best served by the free- and open-source movements eating each other. Don't get sucked in. ALL licenses share the same fundamental freedom which is: DON'T LIKE IT? DON'T USE IT!
Maybe he has cut *his* emissions. Maybe his "mansion" use to use 100 times the average and now its down to 20 times.
Or are you suggesting we should all have our resources doled out to us equally comrade? He arguably does more than I do to deserve his cut of the "resource pie". Why should I begrudge him that?
In fact, lets say he cut his energy use from 30 times to 20 times the average. He has just made more of an impact than you or I ever will in our personal emissions.
That's exactly how I recall it playing out. And I must add that my perception of Linus was permanently altered by those events. I too found Con eminently approachable and helpful. The initial flakiness with Ingo's scheduler and the sour taste left by Linus's self-righteous excuses for behaving like a complete c*nt put me off Linux for good (FWIW I switched to Macs - good enough for work and play).
Al Gore offsets his energy consumption/CO2 generation.
5 seconds googling "al gore offset" found this:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257958,00.html
Yes. FoxNews. Although the article is clearly meant to demean him "he doesn't pay for the offsets himself - in fact he's making money! Boo! Evil!", what is clear is that he IS taking action to mitigate the effects of his lifestyle. I find it odd that FoxNews should castigate him for doing something that some-people won't be able to afford. I thought we lived in a capitalist paradise and were all for market-based solutions?
You can argue about the long-term usefulness of offsets in terms of actually reducing CO2 emmissions. I would argue that they're predominantly about getting people used to the concept that carbon has a cost - be prepared to pay.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
COMPANY: Aaargh! These f*cking Belgians are being royally dumb.
GOVERNMENT: Ahh yes. I see the problem now. Tricky isn't it? Obviously we don't want to make life hard for business, so the solution must be...
equalise all laws everywhere. Yes, that will do. Of course it will be hard to convince some countries, but if we show a willingness to put law and order first I'm certain that most countries will jump on board. That will provide business with the consistent operating environment it needs.
CITIZEN: WTF?
To add to my earlier post, it occurs to me that its the "widget" view that has led to the viral broadening of what is considered to constitute intellectual "property". When I observe a performance there is no "property" involved and certainly none changing hands.
Another thought that comes to mind is the million-monkeys-bashing-out-Shapeskpeare view that says, if it can be thought-up someone will eventually think of it. It seems to lend itself to the view that its the use of the creation that adds value not the creations in and of themselves regardless whether that value is inspiration from art or the utility of some service provided. Its better to enrich the commons by contribution rather than deny it by exclusion. This does not deny the possibility for the creator to earn a living from the service provided through their work.
Shakespeare's value is in the countless thousands his works have inspired. Is it possible to calculate how much poorer we would culturally be if the use of his work was strictly curtailed?
You get points for a cleverly presented argument. Here are a few thoughts of my own, slightly less entertainingly put:
Consider the music industry. Originally, musicians were recompensed for performances. Musicians were service providers. Then the ability to record music came along, and the model switched from service provision, to primarily widget distribution. In this instance, the widgets were LPs whose manufacture and supply was limited due to the difficulty of making perfect copies (each generation of copy would degrade the signal).
The current music industry organisations would love to perpetuate the "widget distribution" model. Unfortunately, the advent of digital technology means the constraint on perfect copies has been smashed. The industry is trying its hardest to close the stable door after the horse has bolted by throwing up various technical and legal hurdles to "perfect copy" distribution. Despite their best attempts they are failing. The market quite clearly is answering with its feet. If copyright violation is a crime then a massive chunk of the population are criminals.
What the music industry need to accept is that the business model is changing back from widget distribution to primarily service provision (i.e. performances). This is similar to the effect open source is having on the software industry, changing the model (in some spaces) to profit from service provision rather than box sales.
Having accepted that the industry model is changing back to service provision, free digital music distribution can be considered low cost advertising for the performers. The fact that some segments of the music industry around packaging and sales (arguably less important than the artists) will be made redundant is just tough. They will find other jobs and the title of "record industry executive" will join blacksmith, phrenologist and horse-and-buggy repairman in the history books.
The same transition happened with performance art: live performances/plays turned into movies. What will movies turn into? Will there be a resurgence of live performances? Or perhaps the astronomical costs of movies needs to just come down a bit to make them more statistically likely to be profitable?
Software is already making the transition as stated before. Open source as well as the advent of leased services from the cloud are putting a slow but inexorable end to box sales.
Books are an interesting case. I don't know how that industry will pan out. Some authors however are embracing the new opportunities. Some people - even "selfish leechers" like myself - are happy to pay for books. On that point, I should point out that in the last 12 months I have been to the concerts of three big acts and forked over almost $500 in tickets and merchandising. A large proportion of that money will go straight to the artists' pockets - far more so than if I had spent $500 on their CDs/DVDs.