> > You have free healthcare? Where do I sign up. I currently pay nearly > > $1,000 a month for health care, not including my out-of-pockets and co-pays.
> Canada.
Oh, you mean "health care". I thought you meant health care.
Indeed, until the underlying event model of the operating system is changed, no amount of.NET VM-level checking can secure Windows against untrusted code.
> And that is as things should be. As Carl Sagan said [while stoned out of his mind], extraordinary views require extraordinary evidence. Contrary views should require out-of-the-ordinary evidence.
Hardly. One accurate contrary observation invalidates a categorical claim. Sagan's red-eyed dictum promotes a fallacy of herd dominance. Sagan may "require" what he likes, but the truth is the truth quite independently of his "requirements".
There is, of course, a very real difference between fraud and blackmail. Blackmail is often legal, for example, while fraud is generally not legal. If he had operated the program to Google's detriment he would have been perpetrating a fraud. The fact that the offer to Google was an offer to not commit an illegal act makes the offer an illegal form of blackmail.
Well, they won't get my contributions any more. Not since they stopped being useful and turned from a community of contributors into a warring nest of political factions.
I simply can't imagine what neuroscience has to do with religion. Or rather, I can imagine what it has to do with religion in the mind of a person who regards materialistic reductionism as a refutation of religion, but I can't imagine how anyone could take such a view seriously, and simultaneously consider themselves intellectually honest.
If biological carbon cycles were zero-sum games, we wouldn't be ramping up the CO2 by burning fossil fuels.
> Tree planting has its place, but isn't nearly as effective as reduction in man-made CO2 levels.
This statement is content-free (being so weakly phrased as to be a meaningless phatic expression), but it is also malicious, because it promulgates a demonstrable falsehood, to the detriment of all humanity.
That would be, let me see... everybody? On the one hand you have those who want to redistribute wealth from people who are rich to people who are poor, from war criminals and corrupt politicians and generally nasty pigs, to dirt farmers with children to feed, and on the other hand you have people who want to do the reverse. Okay, pick your side. From your writing, it seems reasonable to conclude that you are among the latter. It seems reasonable to ask, therefore, whether it wouldn't be a benefit to mankind if you were to be removed from the gene pool.
> There are NUMEROUS (easy and cheap, in fact) ways to REVERSE global warming, no matter how much CO2 there is.
Indeed, according to estimates by the global cooling foundation, it would cost just north of $1bn/year to balance the global atmospheric carbon budget, using biological sequestration methods. Compare that to the cost of either (1) fighting against global carbon controls on the political front or (2) reducing industrial output, and I am absolutely befuddled as to why this project isn't already underweigh. Surely the Gates foundation would be willing and able to demonstrate the program, and the Chinese government would be willing to pay the tab after proof-of-concept, wouldn't they?
If you don't attach politics to the deaths of billions of people due to starvation and disease, I call you a sociopathic monster and place you on moral par with an anthrax spore. Or you could just be dumb, I suppose.
Anyone who doesn't have a political agenda regarding the deaths of billions of people from starvation and disease is either a sociopathic monster or a scientist. Or more likely, both.
> we cannot predict the economy for the next 12 years (or we'd be rich)
I can predict the economy (I'm rich) and I can tell you this much: It's not pretty. Food is scarce and fuel is more so. Industrial production will face a global catastrophe in 2011. The concept of a sovereign nation-state will be on the brink of total obsolescence by 2016. By 2018 global population is below it's current 6bn mark, but food production is down by 35% more, and oil pumping is down by a similar amount. On the plus side, I'm even richer.
There is no such thing as "living sustainably" with 6bn people on the planet. There are two choices: Fix the problem, or kill off the people. Yes, reverting to 18th century technology will allow homeostatic impulses to rise above the enormous driving forces that have overwhelmed them in the past century or more, but, no, there's no real reason to believe that those homeostatic impulses will suffice to restore climatic equilibrium to even current levels, let alone historical ones: The system is profoundly complex, and has been disturbed substantially. We must expect many run-away subsystems to accellerate for decades or centuries to come, even if other subsystems are restored to a more comfortable mean state.
Frankly, I think everyone who protests against effective remediation strategies is a genocidal moron. Coincidentally, the majority of them are among the worst abusers of the carbon balance.
I protest, sir. I live in Minnesota, where we actually count the real votes. Of course any serious candidate will die in a plane crash, but at least the remaining sock puppets get a fair election!
No, in the U.S. it literally means "emperor", as in a person who, without any democratically derived legitimate authority, excercises control over the systems of government for their personal gain, regardless of public detriment. See "drug czar".
> A government will never desire to annihilate its own population.
Unless that government is operated as part of a plan to reduce the global population to "sustainable" levels, in order to create a better world for their children to rule.
No, the charge suggested, were it filed, would be ludicrous. He didn't conspire to file a false claim. Yes, conspiracy laws are an affront to justice and a mechanism of mayhem in the hands of evil men, but you would have to know very well that the court, and its appeal system, was entirely in your pocket before filing such a frivolous charge.
Deep submicron is done with UVA and now X-ray photolithography. The optical process has kept up with the curve, but the electronics are going south as leakage current predominates and parasitic capacitance explodes out of control.
Slashdot Mirror
> > You have free healthcare? Where do I sign up. I currently pay nearly
> > $1,000 a month for health care, not including my out-of-pockets and co-pays.
> Canada.
Oh, you mean "health care". I thought you meant health care.
Comparatives are not superlatives.
Indeed, until the underlying event model of the operating system is changed, no amount of .NET VM-level checking can secure Windows against untrusted code.
> And that is as things should be. As Carl Sagan said [while stoned out of his mind], extraordinary views require extraordinary evidence. Contrary views should require out-of-the-ordinary evidence.
Hardly. One accurate contrary observation invalidates a categorical claim. Sagan's red-eyed dictum
promotes a fallacy of herd dominance. Sagan may "require" what he likes, but the truth is the truth
quite independently of his "requirements".
There is, of course, a very real difference between fraud and blackmail. Blackmail is often legal, for example, while fraud is generally not legal. If he had operated the program to Google's detriment he would have been perpetrating a fraud. The fact that the offer to Google was an offer to not commit an illegal act makes the offer an illegal form of blackmail.
Well, they won't get my contributions any more. Not since they stopped being useful and turned from a community of contributors into a warring nest of political factions.
that bank worker was certainly alert to the opportunity to screw a foreigner.
I simply can't imagine what neuroscience has to do with religion. Or rather, I can
imagine what it has to do with religion in the mind of a person who regards materialistic
reductionism as a refutation of religion, but I can't imagine how anyone could take
such a view seriously, and simultaneously consider themselves intellectually honest.
That's called webstart.
If biological carbon cycles were zero-sum games, we wouldn't be ramping up the CO2 by burning fossil fuels.
> Tree planting has its place, but isn't nearly as effective as reduction in man-made CO2 levels.
This statement is content-free (being so weakly phrased as to be a meaningless phatic expression), but it is also malicious, because it promulgates a demonstrable falsehood, to the detriment of all humanity.
> I hope you'll forgive me if I choose to believe NASA over a bunch of loons who like to invent their own facts.
Why choose? It's a false dilemma. You *can* have it all!
> the "wealth-redistribution" crowd.
That would be, let me see... everybody? On the one hand you have those who want to redistribute wealth from people who are rich to people who are poor, from war criminals and corrupt politicians and generally nasty pigs, to dirt farmers with children to feed, and on the other hand you have people who want to do the reverse. Okay, pick your side. From your writing, it seems reasonable to conclude that you are among the latter. It seems reasonable to ask, therefore, whether it wouldn't be a benefit to mankind if you were to be removed from the gene pool.
> There are NUMEROUS (easy and cheap, in fact) ways to REVERSE global warming, no matter how much CO2 there is.
Indeed, according to estimates by the global cooling foundation, it would cost just north of $1bn/year to balance the global atmospheric carbon budget, using biological sequestration methods. Compare that to the cost of either (1) fighting against global carbon controls on the political front or (2) reducing industrial output, and I am absolutely befuddled as to why this project isn't already underweigh. Surely the Gates foundation would be willing and able to demonstrate the program, and the Chinese government would be willing to pay the tab after proof-of-concept, wouldn't they?
globalcooling.org
If you don't attach politics to the deaths of billions of people due to starvation and disease, I call you a sociopathic monster and place you on moral par with an anthrax spore. Or you could just be dumb, I suppose.
> a political agenda
Anyone who doesn't have a political agenda regarding the deaths of billions of people from starvation and disease is either a sociopathic monster or a scientist. Or more likely, both.
> we cannot predict the economy for the next 12 years (or we'd be rich)
I can predict the economy (I'm rich) and I can tell you this much:
It's not pretty. Food is scarce and fuel is more so. Industrial
production will face a global catastrophe in 2011. The concept of
a sovereign nation-state will be on the brink of total obsolescence
by 2016. By 2018 global population is below it's current 6bn mark,
but food production is down by 35% more, and oil pumping is down by a
similar amount. On the plus side, I'm even richer.
There is no such thing as "living sustainably" with 6bn people on the planet. There are two choices: Fix the problem, or kill off the people. Yes, reverting to 18th century technology will allow homeostatic impulses to rise above the enormous driving forces that have overwhelmed them in the past century or more, but, no, there's no real reason to believe that those homeostatic impulses will suffice to restore climatic equilibrium to even current levels, let alone historical ones: The system is profoundly complex, and has been disturbed substantially. We must expect many run-away subsystems to accellerate for decades or centuries to come, even if other subsystems are restored to a more comfortable mean state.
Frankly, I think everyone who protests against effective remediation strategies is a genocidal moron. Coincidentally, the majority of them are among the worst abusers of the carbon balance.
Funny thing is, if there were a free and democratic election in Iraq today, Saddam Hussein would win by a landslide.
I protest, sir. I live in Minnesota, where we actually count the real votes. Of course any serious candidate will die in a plane crash, but at least the remaining sock puppets get a fair election!
Sorry, but unless you're Lenny Bruce, you can't call me a nigger and protest that I'm mudslinging because I call you an asshat bigot right back.
No, in the U.S. it literally means "emperor", as in a person who, without any democratically derived legitimate authority, excercises control over the systems of government for their personal gain, regardless of public detriment. See "drug czar".
> A government will never desire to annihilate its own population.
Unless that government is operated as part of a plan to reduce the global population to "sustainable" levels, in order to create a better world for their children to rule.
No, the charge suggested, were it filed, would be ludicrous. He didn't conspire to file a false claim. Yes, conspiracy laws are an affront to justice and a mechanism of mayhem in the hands of evil men, but you would have to know very well that the court, and its appeal system, was entirely in your pocket before filing such a frivolous charge.
All the T2xxx series Core 2 chips are 32-bit, and will never address large flat memory.
Deep submicron is done with UVA and now X-ray photolithography. The optical process has kept up with the curve, but the electronics are going south as leakage current predominates and parasitic capacitance explodes out of control.