It's not about being lazy. Feynman famously addressed this in his "Cargo Cult Science" rant in his Caltech commencement address given in 1974. [...]
Fwiw, Richard Feynam's Caltech commencement address, "Cargo Cult Science" — in your own voice.:)
His description, near the end, of an A-number-one experiment done in psychology and its subsequent disregard is a satandalone classic and probably the best part, imho.
... To overcome this you need either really good labeling, or you have to add architectural landmarks to (virtually) break up the circle into physically "different" segments.
Another solution to add to that list of several likely solutions: Eveyone will need a really good compass.
And, it'll most likely be something like that as an iPhone app.
"Winston Smith . . . . . resorted to hiding the bushes with his lover "
I don't remember any bushes in that story.
You know, neither did I, so I checked and there was a new paged taped in with bushes in the story. I guess I was wrong, there were always bushes in the story.
Congratulations citizen; you have at last achieved a victory over yourself and will begin to realize that all is well now.
I believe that Google already has craploads of servers local to their customers. That is how they work. They have servers in America for... Americans. They have them in Europe and many other places as well.
Google does have crap-loads of servers worldwide, localized into 7 different regions, 2 in North America; an eight region was recently activated during the last year or so. IIRC, the regionalization allows the data centers as a whole to never experience a sunset; also, the data itself being redundant, is optimized locally to minimize delays.
I've actually donated to both organizations. Though the ACLU generally does much more good than the NRA.
This is awesome vindication from a personal perspective. I've been an active, card carrying member of both the NRA and the ACLU for more than a decade and could never quite understand how most members of each organization could dislike each other so much. Although I never went out of the way to keep it a secret from either side, I had a tendency to avoid conflict with members when they would express their blanket dislike of the other organization — due to when it was known, I would get what I felt was undeserved hostility.
Occasionally I regret not taking a stronger stand and being a little more outspoken about my position, especially in light of recent events.
Hi, Mark Fucking Zuckerberg here. I own you're fucking asses, you pathetic like pukes. If I want to sell your left fucking kidney, I can do it because I'm Mark Fucking Zuckerberg and you're pathetic addicts.
That's probably a decent description of his present state of mind, considering he also supports the idea in his original business card in a succinctly summarized but less eloquent form. Funnier then when it was without any hindsight about the ramifications.
The guy should give his original works a little more respect. It was a simple story, impressively told. Although the special effects (if any at all) were limited to analog tricks, the unique production — excellent for its time — would still work today. If he felt it was outdated, a remake or a sequel to THX's story would have been the preferably better route.
Freshening up his films with CGI, seems to imply an easy way to get more money with little effort; showing a lack of interest, perhaps laziness, with making any more new movies.
On the other hand... if they allow power to be not operating in San Francisco for a significant length of time;
global warming could be reduced due to reduction in capacity requirements from power plants in the area, resulting in more generators being turned off.
However, there are factors making the global warming thing go in the opposite direction. Fwiw, 15% of California's electricity is generated by hydroelectric plants. A legend showing all of the operational plants in California makes it easier to see what might happen if they stop producing power — the oil powered plants will compensate for the loss by kicking in with extra output. This is what happened during the Enron fiasco 12 years ago when the State experimented with private sector market pricing.
It's more likely that some, perhaps a lot of these fires, including this one, are arson — initially started by people directly or indirectly related to fire departments:
The purpose in the first part of my reply was to express that I was not oblivious to and in agreement with the point being made in the question's intent posed by the parent comment. It had nothing to do with the improperly used sophomoric indignation done by some people to counter an idea they disliked. I've rarely used the word with others, perhaps at most 3 or 4 different times in my life; once in writing — the one (properly used) in the previous comment — and the rest verbally (and improperly used) as a way to "diplomatically" challenge a stranger or the police checking me out with a fake question. Regardless of the meaning's accuracy, this is what it was supposed to have meant.
This seemed to be a polite way to segue into the remaining part of my comment: opining about trust being relative to how much risk is involved on what's being gambled. The idea of the phrase, represented as a sound bite, has been around for a long time and used by a lot of people with differing political views; it's originally attributed to the Russian people. I'd forgotten it had been used by Reagan as a slogan (he didn't dream up) when dealing with the Soviet Union. There wasn't any intent meant on my part to support the idea by identifying it with Reagan, then subsequently getting side-tracked with debatable qualities of unrelated issues about his Presidential accomplishments.
In hindsight, it would have been better to have replaced the unsuspected "loaded" terminology done to shorten writing time in my previous comment with a type of definition that's personalized as a descriptive phrase. It may or may not work. However, since it's something I'll consider from now on, perhaps I'll find out then, when there's a next time with similar conditions. (Fwiw, I know this is a standalone reply, since an AC doesn't get an email notification. The clarification is done to avoid the slim possibility of getting improperly tagged with inaccurate spin. It's also possible the AC is the parent comment, but making that assumption and replying to it instead would create... problems.)
Knowing when it was created improves reading comprehension about the writer's point of view.
Since this distraction has been happening a lot more often during the past decade, is it time to consider another legal word to distinguish between the author's first date of creation of an original work and the date of financial ownership — presently, a more accurate definition of copyright.
And we have what guarantee, exactly, that they're telling the truth?
Following up on your rhetorical question: None really; that's why the expression "Trust, but verify." exists. Without some type of enforceable checks and balances in place, our only hope is for the operators to be benevolent. Even then, we're not in the decision making process; they may think their decisions are in our best interests and we might be lucky enough once in awhile for it to be the right one. Usually though, without informed personal experiences to temper the outcome, it won't; especially if there aren't any incentives to be benevolent.
What would happen if someone figured out a perfectly enforceable verifiable transparency without creating any compromise — and they still don't want to do it? For myself, it would confirm what I've always strongly suspected: Any modicum of accountability has disappeared. There're too many disinterested well financed draft exempt connected families in government, snickering behind our backs about what they do and say to the rest of us. Someone will probably yawn out, "We're not doing it. Your problems are none of our business. Love it or leave it."
I also miss the day when the client-server architecture was considered better than the dumb terminal-mainframe model, a variation of that model now being being marketed as the cloud.
Do they mean orbit (around the Sun) or revolution (around the Earth's axis)? I know the Earth's revolution has changed quite a bit in the past, but I thought the orbit was pretty stable. The use of the term "wobble" also leads me to believe they are talking about the revolution of the Earth, and not it's orbit.
Trying to decipher what was happening in both the summary and the article was difficult for myself. The lack of clarity seems to be due to the article's informal explanation; their not being concerned about the accepted definitions of the terms they were using. I don't know if it was laziness or confusion on their part or my understanding about present day astronomy.
The original article in Nature probably does a better job.
Although I haven't seen the Nature article (due to the payed wall), I suspect it's about, or related to, observations by Milutin Milankovitch, his understanding of orbital variations and the resulting climate theory explaining how the very long term cycles interact and affect the climate in major ways.
The theory, in excruciating mathematical detail, points out positions, cycles and temperature correlations over the past 600,000 years occurring between axial obliquity, axial precession and orbital precession caused by the eccentricity of the Earth's elliptical orbit. Interesting stuff in itself, even if it turns out to not be related to the Nature article.
Because of many successful correlations, including with deep sea sediment cores, Milankovitch theory has been accepted by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
How? Seriously? How do we put that genie back in the bottle?
Transistors and memory keep getting cheaper, and there's so much interconnection between companies, partners, advertisers, etc that the data goes everywhere. How do we stop anyone from surveilling in this environment?
I honestly don't know if we can. I think our best bet is to mandate *transparent* surveillance. There has to be a middle ground between "don't tip off the mob about our wiretap" and "we'll jail you for leaking our interpretation of the law".
If a fundamental shift in our philosophy forcing a lasting change for the better is ever going to happen, it'll probably happen when it becomes fearfully unbearable, when most of the public realizes no one, including themselves, are immune from the abuse and when people from all walks of life sees someone they know and revere, become a victim of that abuse. If that person, who's risking their reputation and drawing attention to their problem, possibly making it worse for themselves, is able to stand up to the authorities and successfully make a cathartic speech that galvanizes the country into taking action, then it would happen. The country would work together to eliminate illegal surveillance once and for all.
It's idealistic to think it could happen and there are a lot of ifs, demanding a lot of variables that may never come into play, but it has happened before. Although technology plays a heavy role this time around, making one wonder if it's unbeatable, the parallels seem strikingly similar to today's ever increasing violations of civil rights and the problems occurring during the 1950's when Communism was the issue instead of Terrorism.
Excerpts from the first three paragraphs in the Wikipedia article on McCarthyism:
During the McCarthy era (1950 to 1956), thousands of Americans were accused of being communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies. The primary targets of such suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated.
Many people suffered loss of employment and/or destruction of their careers; some even suffered imprisonment. Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts later overturned, laws that would be declared unconstitutional, dismissals for reasons later declared illegal or actionable, or extra-legal procedures that would come into general disrepute. The most famous examples include the speeches, investigations, and hearings of Senator McCarthy himself; the Hollywood blacklist, associated with hearings conducted by the House Un-American Activities Committee; and the various anti-communist activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under Director J. Edgar Hoover.
McCarthyism was a widespread social and cultural phenomenon that affected all levels of society and was the source of a great deal of debate and conflict in the United States.
From the section of the Wikipedia article including the conclusion of the speech by former London War Correspondent Edward R. Murrow:
In his concluding comment, Murrow said:
We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men.
After Lavabit, Silent Circle also shuts down email service. Silent Circle also shuttered its encrypted email service a few hours after Lavabit shut down citing an ongoing legal battle. They seem to be another victim of FISA "gag orders" that prohibit the service providers from discussing in public the orders for disclosure of customer data.
Your penis is a weapon. The military needs to what ever it takes to ensure its fighting readiness.
The military is on the record about the actual purpose of one's penis. To insure new recruits properly call their firearm a weapon, they're required to memorize (and point to the appropriate place) while shouting in unison with the rest of the troops in the platoon or company the following:
This is my weapon,
This is my gun,
This one's for fighting,
And this one's for fun.
This is brought to everyone's attention after the drill instructor entraps a "volunteer" into answering a question about what he's holding. After everyone is punished with push ups due to his mistake, anyone stupid enough to make the same mistake — calling it anything besides a weapon, usually a gun — will be in a world of hurt.
On a separate note, I vaguely recall reading somewhere how the military, during the first world war, openly campaigned the idea to potential recruits that winning France back from the Germans would make them a hero in the eyes of all the French women. Additionally, they were informed about all the prostitutes in France they would be able to meet.
Ahem, if you're going to point out a grammar mistake, it might be worthwhile checking your own correction:
"Cybercriminals Had Heroin Delivered To Brian Krebs, Then Call Police" (Cybercriminals call the police)
Or:
"Cybercriminal Has Heroin Delivered To Brian Krebs, Then Calls Police" (Cybercriminal calls the police)
In addition to the singular verb not matching the plural subject, there may be additionalf mistakes with the two phrases separated by the comma — related to another singular/plural problem combined with the mixing of past and present tenses. However, since IANAE[nglish Major], not only will this reply probably have its own list of errors, there's probably some obscure style rule allowing this for headlines. Perhaps the following examples helps my explanation (and are better sounding titles that works for me):
Cyber Criminals Send Heroin to Brian Krebs, Then They Called the Police (plural-past) Cyber Criminal Sent Heroin to Brian Krebs, Then Called the Police (singular-past) Cyber Criminals Sending Heroin to Brian Krebs, Then Calling the Police (plural-present) Cyber Criminal Sends Heroin to Brian Krebs, Then Calls the Police (singular-present)
Slashdot Mirror
It's not about being lazy. Feynman famously addressed this in his "Cargo Cult Science" rant in his Caltech commencement address given in 1974. [...]
Fwiw, Richard Feynam's Caltech commencement address, "Cargo Cult Science" — in your own voice. :)
His description, near the end, of an A-number-one experiment done in psychology and its subsequent disregard is a satandalone classic and probably the best part, imho.
Linda Boreman, iirc, learned about Ada Lovelace in a computer class she was taking prior to becoming a porn star.
Another solution to add to that list of several likely solutions: Eveyone will need a really good compass.
And, it'll most likely be something like that as an iPhone app.
"Winston Smith . . . . . resorted to hiding the bushes with his lover "
I don't remember any bushes in that story.
You know, neither did I, so I checked and there was a new paged taped in with bushes in the story. I guess I was wrong, there were always bushes in the story.
Congratulations citizen; you have at last achieved a victory over yourself and will begin to realize that all is well now.
...The once powerful Yahoo grasps at straws to attract developers back after fucking them over for a few years...
Perhaps even the non-developers — the Yahoo! Yodeler, Wylie Gustafson is one that comes to mind from over a decade ago.
I believe that Google already has craploads of servers local to their customers. That is how they work. They have servers in America for ... Americans. They have them in Europe and many other places as well.
Google does have crap-loads of servers worldwide, localized into 7 different regions, 2 in North America; an eight region was recently activated during the last year or so. IIRC, the regionalization allows the data centers as a whole to never experience a sunset; also, the data itself being redundant, is optimized locally to minimize delays.
I've actually donated to both organizations. Though the ACLU generally does much more good than the NRA.
This is awesome vindication from a personal perspective. I've been an active, card carrying member of both the NRA and the ACLU for more than a decade and could never quite understand how most members of each organization could dislike each other so much. Although I never went out of the way to keep it a secret from either side, I had a tendency to avoid conflict with members when they would express their blanket dislike of the other organization — due to when it was known, I would get what I felt was undeserved hostility.
Occasionally I regret not taking a stronger stand and being a little more outspoken about my position, especially in light of recent events.
Hi, Mark Fucking Zuckerberg here. I own you're fucking asses, you pathetic like pukes. If I want to sell your left fucking kidney, I can do it because I'm Mark Fucking Zuckerberg and you're pathetic addicts.
That's probably a decent description of his present state of mind, considering he also supports the idea in his original business card in a succinctly summarized but less eloquent form. Funnier then when it was without any hindsight about the ramifications.
Another tragic victim of Lucas Editing Disease.
The guy should give his original works a little more respect. It was a simple story, impressively told. Although the special effects (if any at all) were limited to analog tricks, the unique production — excellent for its time — would still work today. If he felt it was outdated, a remake or a sequel to THX's story would have been the preferably better route.
Freshening up his films with CGI, seems to imply an easy way to get more money with little effort; showing a lack of interest, perhaps laziness, with making any more new movies.
[im(h)o]
"Please put down your weapon! You have 20 seconds to comply!"
Is this a worthy comparison? An alternative remembrance, THX 1138 being interrogated; also, the main focus of its movie's poster.
My UID is lower, and this is indeed the lowest of the low.
2^0 + 2^1 + 2^1 + 2^3 + 2^3 + 2^1 + 2^3 = 2^5 - 1
Being low may not always be indicative of being better.
On the other hand... if they allow power to be not operating in San Francisco for a significant length of time; global warming could be reduced due to reduction in capacity requirements from power plants in the area, resulting in more generators being turned off.
However, there are factors making the global warming thing go in the opposite direction. Fwiw, 15% of California's electricity is generated by hydroelectric plants. A legend showing all of the operational plants in California makes it easier to see what might happen if they stop producing power — the oil powered plants will compensate for the loss by kicking in with extra output. This is what happened during the Enron fiasco 12 years ago when the State experimented with private sector market pricing.
Or you could live in Australia where there are Fire Tondados!
Apparently the land down under was actually meant to be a direct reference to Hell itself — Australia: occasionally strange and subtly bad-ass.
It's more likely that some, perhaps a lot of these fires, including this one, are arson — initially started by people directly or indirectly related to fire departments:
California Arsons by Firefighters
Firefighter Arsons
Percentage of Arsons by Firefighters
Putting constructive criticism aside ... even one, is one too many.
The purpose in the first part of my reply was to express that I was not oblivious to and in agreement with the point being made in the question's intent posed by the parent comment. It had nothing to do with the improperly used sophomoric indignation done by some people to counter an idea they disliked. I've rarely used the word with others, perhaps at most 3 or 4 different times in my life; once in writing — the one (properly used) in the previous comment — and the rest verbally (and improperly used) as a way to "diplomatically" challenge a stranger or the police checking me out with a fake question. Regardless of the meaning's accuracy, this is what it was supposed to have meant.
This seemed to be a polite way to segue into the remaining part of my comment: opining about trust being relative to how much risk is involved on what's being gambled. The idea of the phrase, represented as a sound bite, has been around for a long time and used by a lot of people with differing political views; it's originally attributed to the Russian people. I'd forgotten it had been used by Reagan as a slogan (he didn't dream up) when dealing with the Soviet Union. There wasn't any intent meant on my part to support the idea by identifying it with Reagan, then subsequently getting side-tracked with debatable qualities of unrelated issues about his Presidential accomplishments.
In hindsight, it would have been better to have replaced the unsuspected "loaded" terminology done to shorten writing time in my previous comment with a type of definition that's personalized as a descriptive phrase. It may or may not work. However, since it's something I'll consider from now on, perhaps I'll find out then, when there's a next time with similar conditions. (Fwiw, I know this is a standalone reply, since an AC doesn't get an email notification. The clarification is done to avoid the slim possibility of getting improperly tagged with inaccurate spin. It's also possible the AC is the parent comment, but making that assumption and replying to it instead would create ... problems.)
Knowing when it was created improves reading comprehension about the writer's point of view.
Since this distraction has been happening a lot more often during the past decade, is it time to consider another legal word to distinguish between the author's first date of creation of an original work and the date of financial ownership — presently, a more accurate definition of copyright.
And we have what guarantee, exactly, that they're telling the truth?
Following up on your rhetorical question: None really; that's why the expression "Trust, but verify." exists. Without some type of enforceable checks and balances in place, our only hope is for the operators to be benevolent. Even then, we're not in the decision making process; they may think their decisions are in our best interests and we might be lucky enough once in awhile for it to be the right one. Usually though, without informed personal experiences to temper the outcome, it won't; especially if there aren't any incentives to be benevolent.
What would happen if someone figured out a perfectly enforceable verifiable transparency without creating any compromise — and they still don't want to do it? For myself, it would confirm what I've always strongly suspected: Any modicum of accountability has disappeared. There're too many disinterested well financed draft exempt connected families in government, snickering behind our backs about what they do and say to the rest of us. Someone will probably yawn out, "We're not doing it. Your problems are none of our business. Love it or leave it."
I miss the day when clouds were called servers...
I also miss the day when the client-server architecture was considered better than the dumb terminal-mainframe model, a variation of that model now being being marketed as the cloud.
Do they mean orbit (around the Sun) or revolution (around the Earth's axis)? I know the Earth's revolution has changed quite a bit in the past, but I thought the orbit was pretty stable. The use of the term "wobble" also leads me to believe they are talking about the revolution of the Earth, and not it's orbit.
Trying to decipher what was happening in both the summary and the article was difficult for myself. The lack of clarity seems to be due to the article's informal explanation; their not being concerned about the accepted definitions of the terms they were using. I don't know if it was laziness or confusion on their part or my understanding about present day astronomy.
The original article in Nature probably does a better job.
Although I haven't seen the Nature article (due to the payed wall), I suspect it's about, or related to, observations by Milutin Milankovitch, his understanding of orbital variations and the resulting climate theory explaining how the very long term cycles interact and affect the climate in major ways.
The theory, in excruciating mathematical detail, points out positions, cycles and temperature correlations over the past 600,000 years occurring between axial obliquity, axial precession and orbital precession caused by the eccentricity of the Earth's elliptical orbit. Interesting stuff in itself, even if it turns out to not be related to the Nature article.
Because of many successful correlations, including with deep sea sediment cores, Milankovitch theory has been accepted by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
They lie awake all night wondering if there really is a DOG!
Unfortunately, this means dyslexics — not realizing it was a joke — will read your comment and mistakenly think you're talking about God .
It's a quarter horse? What are the other 3/4?
It's a metric hating faster horse, designed to run a quarter mile faster than other type of horses.
How? Seriously? How do we put that genie back in the bottle?
Transistors and memory keep getting cheaper, and there's so much interconnection between companies, partners, advertisers, etc that the data goes everywhere. How do we stop anyone from surveilling in this environment?
I honestly don't know if we can. I think our best bet is to mandate *transparent* surveillance. There has to be a middle ground between "don't tip off the mob about our wiretap" and "we'll jail you for leaking our interpretation of the law".
If a fundamental shift in our philosophy forcing a lasting change for the better is ever going to happen, it'll probably happen when it becomes fearfully unbearable, when most of the public realizes no one, including themselves, are immune from the abuse and when people from all walks of life sees someone they know and revere, become a victim of that abuse. If that person, who's risking their reputation and drawing attention to their problem, possibly making it worse for themselves, is able to stand up to the authorities and successfully make a cathartic speech that galvanizes the country into taking action, then it would happen. The country would work together to eliminate illegal surveillance once and for all.
It's idealistic to think it could happen and there are a lot of ifs, demanding a lot of variables that may never come into play, but it has happened before. Although technology plays a heavy role this time around, making one wonder if it's unbeatable, the parallels seem strikingly similar to today's ever increasing violations of civil rights and the problems occurring during the 1950's when Communism was the issue instead of Terrorism.
Excerpts from the first three paragraphs in the Wikipedia article on McCarthyism:
From the section of the Wikipedia article including the conclusion of the speech by former London War Correspondent Edward R. Murrow:
Unfortunately, there's more:
After Lavabit, Silent Circle also shuts down email service. Silent Circle also shuttered its encrypted email service a few hours after Lavabit shut down citing an ongoing legal battle. They seem to be another victim of FISA "gag orders" that prohibit the service providers from discussing in public the orders for disclosure of customer data.
Your penis is a weapon. The military needs to what ever it takes to ensure its fighting readiness.
The military is on the record about the actual purpose of one's penis. To insure new recruits properly call their firearm a weapon, they're required to memorize (and point to the appropriate place) while shouting in unison with the rest of the troops in the platoon or company the following:
This is brought to everyone's attention after the drill instructor entraps a "volunteer" into answering a question about what he's holding. After everyone is punished with push ups due to his mistake, anyone stupid enough to make the same mistake — calling it anything besides a weapon, usually a gun — will be in a world of hurt.
On a separate note, I vaguely recall reading somewhere how the military, during the first world war, openly campaigned the idea to potential recruits that winning France back from the Germans would make them a hero in the eyes of all the French women. Additionally, they were informed about all the prostitutes in France they would be able to meet.
Ahem, if you're going to point out a grammar mistake, it might be worthwhile checking your own correction:
"Cybercriminals Had Heroin Delivered To Brian Krebs, Then Call Police" (Cybercriminals call the police)
Or:
"Cybercriminal Has Heroin Delivered To Brian Krebs, Then Calls Police" (Cybercriminal calls the police)
In addition to the singular verb not matching the plural subject, there may be additionalf mistakes with the two phrases separated by the comma — related to another singular/plural problem combined with the mixing of past and present tenses. However, since IANAE[nglish Major], not only will this reply probably have its own list of errors, there's probably some obscure style rule allowing this for headlines. Perhaps the following examples helps my explanation (and are better sounding titles that works for me):
Cyber Criminals Send Heroin to Brian Krebs, Then They Called the Police (plural-past)
Cyber Criminal Sent Heroin to Brian Krebs, Then Called the Police (singular-past)
Cyber Criminals Sending Heroin to Brian Krebs, Then Calling the Police (plural-present)
Cyber Criminal Sends Heroin to Brian Krebs, Then Calls the Police (singular-present)