Sounds a bit like the "God in the Gaps" line of reasoning. Well, to be fair, "lifeform creates methane" is testable and all ready been shown true on Earth. I guess I'm just cranky after debugging all night...
Wow, I almost wrote "to be fair", imagine the flame fest that would have started. What can I say, my fingers type the first word that matches phonically.
Except that Google only stores records for 24-48 hours and then deletes them and does not share the data with its ads department or any other Google services.
you really believe that?
For the most part.
and when the feds come knocking, you think that data will NOT be provided, wholesale, any way they want it?
Sadly, no. But OpenNIC has various anonymizing policies based on the server (from immediate to never) and I didn't find any promises that they'd go to jail so that I didn't have to. Nothing against OpenNIC and I guess some level of anonymity is more likely if you choose the right server and they follow through. I personally can't get that fired up about Google's potential for evil in this case and I'm way more concerned about my ISP. They can track everything and I KNOW they aren't taking any bullets or me.
The Google is not providing malware & phishing blocks and parental/SFW controls.
DynDNS's redirects are honest searches, not ad-choked.
Personally, I want my DNS server to serve the address of the host I asked for. If that host does not exist, I want to know that it doesn't exist, not get some educated guess about what I meant, or a page of search results. I have no problem that OpenDNS exists, and I think DynDNS is cool for the dynamic access to my non-static IP address. But as far as a free, non-ISP hijacked DNS server goes - Google seems to be providing exactly what I want.
Even an athiest can't find much fault with the purely philosophical religions like Taoism or Confucianism.
Sure, and as far as I know Bahai is a wonderful religion that promotes peace and I do like a lot of Zen Buddhism as well. What causes my head to explode is the tendency for arbitrary holy texts and dogma to overrule rational thought. In my opinion, most popular religions (like Scientology - see this is on topic) require the disciple to acquire irrational beliefs and actively practice twisted logic. Plus, they tend to have long rambling texts that can be interpreted to define pretty much anyone you don't like as an asshole. And for those with fundamentalist tendencies, the rambling texts can usually be used to justify killing, torturing or at a minimum, stripping the civil liberties of "assholes."
Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.
Because that's what makes it the scientific method....
I have mixed feelings. I'm a fan of transparency and the scientific method is vital to improve our knowledge. I'm pretty sure that the comment was made to Warwick Hughes who does seem to be on a mission to discredit anything "green" and/or government sponsored. I think another person that he denied data to was Steve McIntyre who runs Climate Audit which also seems pretty committed to discrediting global warming. Discrediting is not really the same thing as disproving. I can understand not wanting to give data to someone that you believe will not do a fair analysis but rather will highlight things that "seem" wrong - especially when taken out of context.
Obviously there are also blogs that are religiously pro-global warming. I have no idea if the data would be released by them.
) I've heard that the more sugar you eat, the less flavor you can taste. I cut out all sugar while in Japan (except for alcoholic drinks - yum). For me, it was true that I could really taste food again....
I have a feeling that this extra sugar leads to MORE extra sugar to taste said sugar and also to increased levels of 'flavor' in dishes.
I've had this experience as well. I'm hypo-glycemic and I experimented with cutting out all added sugar and sweeteners. I noticed several things. 1) Virtually every processed food has added sugar or some artificial sweetener. 2) Once I managed to cut out the extra sugar, all the sudden simple foods were MORE flavorful to me. Turns out raw broccoli tastes sweet to me when my taste buds aren't under constant sugar attack. 3) When I finally fell the wagon, it was amazing how quickly I just started craving and jamming food down my gullet. It was easy when I didn't eat ANY extra sugar. But once I had a little, I craved A LOT. I'm getting back on the wagon, I felt way better.
I have a completely unproven theory that artificial sweeteners are "bad" because they still dull our taste and add to cravings. But what the hell do I know?
I think promoting the pursuit of scientific knowledge in the US will chip away at the ignorance quotient. Screw the economy, I'm tired of dealing with the dumb. And I don't care that some people get Phds and are still idiots. Questioning attitude + scientific method is a good thing.
They wonder why they are going out of business...it's because they've changed their competition from Ace Hardware to Best Buy.....
Unfortunately, I don't think there is a market for a chain of brick-and-mortar stores that specializes in electronic components anymore. The only ones that still seem in business in my experience are mom-and-pop relics that are in seedy, low-rent areas. I'm sure someone can point out some store that is awesome and an exception to my experience, but I doubt there is enough of a market for a nationwide chain.
As to betting they'll be chapter 11, I have no idea. I just don't think selling electronic components would improve the outcome.
Because A) It restricts you to an -expensive- platform, x86 Mac OS X B) I believe you need to pay Apple I think like $99 to get it on the app store
A) $199: Apple Mac Mini Intel Core Duo Processor 1.66 Ghz 607LLA on aBay, free shipping.
B) True, but GPL is about Freedom, not freebeer, nor a free redistribution and marketing channel. I know you were just referring to a barrier for putting it on the app store as a free app, but I think a lot of people are confusing "Freedom" with "it shouldn't cost me any money for things that are completely out of the software developer's control."
1. Provide a good service, a tool, a format.
2. Make it cheap.
3. Wait 'til everyone uses it because it was cheap.
4. Jack up the price.
5. Profit.
eBay paid $2.6B for Skype, so I think the handful of people that created it made a (ridiculous) profit. eBay bought Skype and let the founders keep the rights to part of the software which is amazingly stupid IMHO. TFA doesn't even say why Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis revoked the license, but after getting $2.6B they better have a damn good reason. This blog seems to imply the founders want to buy Skype back. [1]
If your motives are not political, maybe you shouldn't spend so much time painting one side of the political spectrum as the driving force behind a vast scientific fraud which is hell bent on destroying our nation. Arguing the science is tainted by the politics of power, self-interest, lies, bribery and other "incentives" cuts both ways.
By the way, implying that attempts to address global warming [1] will destroy our economy and our entire way of life might be considered alarmist and "sky is falling"-esque.
[1] The great fraud perpetuated by spineless, cowardly or otherwise morally deficient scientist.
and then propose a conspiracy theory laced with ad hominem attacks:
... the vast majority (if not all) of the "man is destroying the planet" scientists are liberals...
throw in a reference to the Little Ice Age and wrap up with a little more needling of liberals.
What's the point? Liberals suck and presumably non-liberals are saints? Maybe the liberal scientists also built a time machine, went back to 1961 and forged Barrack Obama's birth certificate and put his birth announcement in both the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star Bulletin because they knew he was "The One." Wow, that Occam's Razor thing sure is clearing things up for me!
You know, I'm pretty sure some people have made a pretty penny by doing "research" and lobbying for the large energy interests. But at least they aren't pesky liberals that go around questioning the status quo, right?
1995 IEEE Std. 1394-1995 (Firewire - Developed initially by Apple)
1996 USB 1.0 (Intel, Compaq, Microsoft, Digital, IBM, and Northern Telecom)
Would the Internet have blossomed into the vast information network it is today without the aid of easy-to-use software from Microsoft?
Let's see. ARPANET, UUNET, PSINet, CERFNET, Usenet, BITNET, Telenet, Tymnet, Compuserve and JANET gave us the internet. CERN gave us the World Wide Web. Netscape popularized the world wide web. MS gave us Internet Explorer. I think the web would have somehow managed without Internet Explorer...
I'm not saying MS hasn't had a huge influence, the 800 pound gorilla usually does. But they are not the creators or even initial promoters of most world changing software and technologies. And generally speaking they've lagged in the "ease of use" department, not lead it.
The executive order is nothing but a marketing ploy, the best way to not have your administration not run by lobbyists is, oddly enough, to not let it be run by lobbyists. Making a grand declaration to the fact is a symbolic gesture, and I think it removes quite a bit of the symbolism when you have to ask for an exception shortly after it.
Let me try a non-car analogy. When programming on a team, good coding standards help create a more robust and supportable product. Every once in a while you run into a situation were the coding standard doesn't make sense and you make an exception. This doesn't make coding standards pointless, they are still valuable.
From wikipedia (hey, this isn't a civics class so it's valid enough for me.)
An executive order in the United States is a directive issued by the President, the head of the executive branch of the federal government. In other countries, similar edicts may be known as decrees, or orders-in-council. Executive orders may also be issued at the state level by a state's Governor. U.S. Presidents have issued executive orders since 1789, usually to help direct the operation of executive officers. Some orders do have the force of law when made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, when those acts give the President discretionary powers.
Obama wants to reduce the influence of lobbyist in his administration. An executive order is exactly the way to document that desire and the policies to implement it. Now, every time a appointee is outside the established guidelines, they have to publicly make, or ask for, an exception. They won't want to do that often because they know that people will make all sorts of accusations. It will limit the influence of lobbyist on the aggregate of appointees.
I would have preferred it if every appointee met the requirements of the executive order. But I really don't see how it's grandstanding or just marketing.
I think it's better have the executive order and ask for an exceptions than to not have the order at all. I assume the guy is really freakin' valuable because I'm pretty sure Obama knew that asking for the exception would be politically costly to all the ideologues and partisans on both sides of the aisle.
Five seconds of goggling yielded this:
Defense Secretary Gates said at his news briefing today that he had personally vetted Lynn and found him to be the best qualified for the job and that an exception had to be made to bring him aboard.
Gates said the Obama transition recognized his Raytheon position might become an issue. "I was very impressed with his credentials; he came with the highest recommendations of a number of people that I respect a lot. And I asked that an exception be made, because I felt that he could play the read of the deputy in a better manner than anybody else that I saw. He said that the White House Counsel's office, presidential personnel and the Pentagon's General Counsel are making arrangements to get the necessary information to Levin's committee."
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot Affective Disorder
Sounds a bit like the "God in the Gaps" line of reasoning. Well, to be fair, "lifeform creates methane" is testable and all ready been shown true on Earth. I guess I'm just cranky after debugging all night...
Wow, I almost wrote "to be fair", imagine the flame fest that would have started. What can I say, my fingers type the first word that matches phonically.
You can have your local K-9 unit run the dog through any car you buy if you ask nicely...
This is interesting and useful information. It's still pretty obscene that we would ever need to worry about being prosecuted for such things...
Except that Google only stores records for 24-48 hours and then deletes them and does not share the data with its ads department or any other Google services.
you really believe that?
For the most part.
and when the feds come knocking, you think that data will NOT be provided, wholesale, any way they want it?
Sadly, no. But OpenNIC has various anonymizing policies based on the server (from immediate to never) and I didn't find any promises that they'd go to jail so that I didn't have to. Nothing against OpenNIC and I guess some level of anonymity is more likely if you choose the right server and they follow through. I personally can't get that fired up about Google's potential for evil in this case and I'm way more concerned about my ISP. They can track everything and I KNOW they aren't taking any bullets or me.
The Google is not providing malware & phishing blocks and parental/SFW controls. DynDNS's redirects are honest searches, not ad-choked.
Personally, I want my DNS server to serve the address of the host I asked for. If that host does not exist, I want to know that it doesn't exist, not get some educated guess about what I meant, or a page of search results. I have no problem that OpenDNS exists, and I think DynDNS is cool for the dynamic access to my non-static IP address. But as far as a free, non-ISP hijacked DNS server goes - Google seems to be providing exactly what I want.
Even an athiest can't find much fault with the purely philosophical religions like Taoism or Confucianism.
Sure, and as far as I know Bahai is a wonderful religion that promotes peace and I do like a lot of Zen Buddhism as well. What causes my head to explode is the tendency for arbitrary holy texts and dogma to overrule rational thought. In my opinion, most popular religions (like Scientology - see this is on topic) require the disciple to acquire irrational beliefs and actively practice twisted logic. Plus, they tend to have long rambling texts that can be interpreted to define pretty much anyone you don't like as an asshole. And for those with fundamentalist tendencies, the rambling texts can usually be used to justify killing, torturing or at a minimum, stripping the civil liberties of "assholes."
... trying to lend legitimacy to Scientology as a religion?
if statement.contains("religion") and statement.contains("legit*"): head.explode()
I have mixed feelings. I'm a fan of transparency and the scientific method is vital to improve our knowledge. I'm pretty sure that the comment was made to Warwick Hughes who does seem to be on a mission to discredit anything "green" and/or government sponsored. I think another person that he denied data to was Steve McIntyre who runs Climate Audit which also seems pretty committed to discrediting global warming. Discrediting is not really the same thing as disproving. I can understand not wanting to give data to someone that you believe will not do a fair analysis but rather will highlight things that "seem" wrong - especially when taken out of context.
Obviously there are also blogs that are religiously pro-global warming. I have no idea if the data would be released by them.
) I've heard that the more sugar you eat, the less flavor you can taste. I cut out all sugar while in Japan (except for alcoholic drinks - yum). For me, it was true that I could really taste food again. ...
I have a feeling that this extra sugar leads to MORE extra sugar to taste said sugar and also to increased levels of 'flavor' in dishes.
I've had this experience as well. I'm hypo-glycemic and I experimented with cutting out all added sugar and sweeteners. I noticed several things. 1) Virtually every processed food has added sugar or some artificial sweetener. 2) Once I managed to cut out the extra sugar, all the sudden simple foods were MORE flavorful to me. Turns out raw broccoli tastes sweet to me when my taste buds aren't under constant sugar attack. 3) When I finally fell the wagon, it was amazing how quickly I just started craving and jamming food down my gullet. It was easy when I didn't eat ANY extra sugar. But once I had a little, I craved A LOT. I'm getting back on the wagon, I felt way better.
I have a completely unproven theory that artificial sweeteners are "bad" because they still dull our taste and add to cravings. But what the hell do I know?
I think promoting the pursuit of scientific knowledge in the US will chip away at the ignorance quotient. Screw the economy, I'm tired of dealing with the dumb. And I don't care that some people get Phds and are still idiots. Questioning attitude + scientific method is a good thing.
Green is the new Red.
And crazy-hyperbole is the new rational-argument...
They wonder why they are going out of business...it's because they've changed their competition from Ace Hardware to Best Buy. ....
Unfortunately, I don't think there is a market for a chain of brick-and-mortar stores that specializes in electronic components anymore. The only ones that still seem in business in my experience are mom-and-pop relics that are in seedy, low-rent areas. I'm sure someone can point out some store that is awesome and an exception to my experience, but I doubt there is enough of a market for a nationwide chain.
As to betting they'll be chapter 11, I have no idea. I just don't think selling electronic components would improve the outcome.
Must be the work of J. Jonah Jameson of the Daily Bugle.
Because A) It restricts you to an -expensive- platform, x86 Mac OS X B) I believe you need to pay Apple I think like $99 to get it on the app store
A) $199: Apple Mac Mini Intel Core Duo Processor 1.66 Ghz 607LLA on aBay, free shipping.
B) True, but GPL is about Freedom, not freebeer, nor a free redistribution and marketing channel. I know you were just referring to a barrier for putting it on the app store as a free app, but I think a lot of people are confusing "Freedom" with "it shouldn't cost me any money for things that are completely out of the software developer's control."
1. Provide a good service, a tool, a format.
2. Make it cheap.
3. Wait 'til everyone uses it because it was cheap.
4. Jack up the price.
5. Profit.
eBay paid $2.6B for Skype, so I think the handful of people that created it made a (ridiculous) profit. eBay bought Skype and let the founders keep the rights to part of the software which is amazingly stupid IMHO. TFA doesn't even say why Niklas Zennstrom and Janus Friis revoked the license, but after getting $2.6B they better have a damn good reason. This blog seems to imply the founders want to buy Skype back. [1]
[1] Preview didn't show the line, so just in case:
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/skype_as_we_know_it_may_not_exist_much_longer_ebay.php
If your motives are not political, maybe you shouldn't spend so much time painting one side of the political spectrum as the driving force behind a vast scientific fraud which is hell bent on destroying our nation. Arguing the science is tainted by the politics of power, self-interest, lies, bribery and other "incentives" cuts both ways.
By the way, implying that attempts to address global warming [1] will destroy our economy and our entire way of life might be considered alarmist and "sky is falling"-esque.
[1] The great fraud perpetuated by spineless, cowardly or otherwise morally deficient scientist.
OK, so you start with:
Actually, I choose to use Occam's Razor -- ...
and then propose a conspiracy theory laced with ad hominem attacks:
... the vast majority (if not all) of the "man is destroying the planet" scientists are liberals ...
throw in a reference to the Little Ice Age and wrap up with a little more needling of liberals.
What's the point? Liberals suck and presumably non-liberals are saints? Maybe the liberal scientists also built a time machine, went back to 1961 and forged Barrack Obama's birth certificate and put his birth announcement in both the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star Bulletin because they knew he was "The One." Wow, that Occam's Razor thing sure is clearing things up for me!
You know, I'm pretty sure some people have made a pretty penny by doing "research" and lobbying for the large energy interests. But at least they aren't pesky liberals that go around questioning the status quo, right?
Microsoft brought desktop computing to the home user.
Would the Internet have blossomed into the vast information network it is today without the aid of easy-to-use software from Microsoft?
Let's see. ARPANET, UUNET, PSINet, CERFNET, Usenet, BITNET, Telenet, Tymnet, Compuserve and JANET gave us the internet. CERN gave us the World Wide Web. Netscape popularized the world wide web. MS gave us Internet Explorer. I think the web would have somehow managed without Internet Explorer...
I'm not saying MS hasn't had a huge influence, the 800 pound gorilla usually does. But they are not the creators or even initial promoters of most world changing software and technologies. And generally speaking they've lagged in the "ease of use" department, not lead it.
The web was where the productivity turned out to be.
Yup, that's were all my productivity went.
A year is two AU wide, about 300 million km.
I'm pretty sure that a year is 9,460,730,472,580.8 km wide.
Breakout which is basically pong for people without friends.
How is this a troll? Sure a link pointing out one of the reasons it's a red herring would have been nice but I don't see how it's a troll.
The executive order is nothing but a marketing ploy, the best way to not have your administration not run by lobbyists is, oddly enough, to not let it be run by lobbyists. Making a grand declaration to the fact is a symbolic gesture, and I think it removes quite a bit of the symbolism when you have to ask for an exception shortly after it.
Let me try a non-car analogy. When programming on a team, good coding standards help create a more robust and supportable product. Every once in a while you run into a situation were the coding standard doesn't make sense and you make an exception. This doesn't make coding standards pointless, they are still valuable.
From wikipedia (hey, this isn't a civics class so it's valid enough for me.)
An executive order in the United States is a directive issued by the President, the head of the executive branch of the federal government. In other countries, similar edicts may be known as decrees, or orders-in-council. Executive orders may also be issued at the state level by a state's Governor. U.S. Presidents have issued executive orders since 1789, usually to help direct the operation of executive officers. Some orders do have the force of law when made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, when those acts give the President discretionary powers.
Obama wants to reduce the influence of lobbyist in his administration. An executive order is exactly the way to document that desire and the policies to implement it. Now, every time a appointee is outside the established guidelines, they have to publicly make, or ask for, an exception. They won't want to do that often because they know that people will make all sorts of accusations. It will limit the influence of lobbyist on the aggregate of appointees.
I would have preferred it if every appointee met the requirements of the executive order. But I really don't see how it's grandstanding or just marketing.
I think it's better have the executive order and ask for an exceptions than to not have the order at all. I assume the guy is really freakin' valuable because I'm pretty sure Obama knew that asking for the exception would be politically costly to all the ideologues and partisans on both sides of the aisle.
Five seconds of goggling yielded this:
Defense Secretary Gates said at his news briefing today that he had personally vetted Lynn and found him to be the best qualified for the job and that an exception had to be made to bring him aboard.
Gates said the Obama transition recognized his Raytheon position might become an issue. "I was very impressed with his credentials; he came with the highest recommendations of a number of people that I respect a lot. And I asked that an exception be made, because I felt that he could play the read of the deputy in a better manner than anybody else that I saw. He said that the White House Counsel's office, presidential personnel and the Pentagon's General Counsel are making arrangements to get the necessary information to Levin's committee."
Would you believe that I make errors to avoid offending the Gods with my perfection?