When you say "leftists" do you mean anyone who thinks climate change is a problem (meaning everyone outside of the fossil fuel industry and the republican party?) Because that's not really true. Or do you mean a small subset of us? Because I can tell you, I'm a leftist, and you're stretching the truth a lot. For example, "surveillance" in the sense of "government watching the citizens" is not something the left is at large suggesting as a solution to climate change. You might mean allowing the EPA to monitor carbon emissions of companies, but it would be disingenuous to call that "surveillance."
I think your fix would be more reasonable if you cited examples of when liberal politicians ignored science to match their agendas.
Preferably some example where the vast majority of peer-reviewed studies support the opposite side. Like climate change, where 97% of studies conclude that climate change is real. Or evolution. As opposed to some other issue where there is much more support for either side.
I've been saying for a while now that the most effective conservative leaders are elected democrats. Obama apologizing for the IRS correctly identifying the tea party as a political group that should be taxed as a political group? I can't really see any other explanation for that other than Obama wanted to help out his friends in the Tea Party. A close second would be that everyone in the administration suffers from a weird disease where they are decent political strategists during the elections then they immediately become absolutely horrible at it in every way.
I imagine Mr. Burns sitting watching the TV as the conservative supreme court declares Bush the winner. "Checkmate, hippies! Lets see you legalize marijuana or fight 'global warming' now!" Cut to a disgruntled hippie "Man, I'm gonna move to Canada!" Mr Burns:... We'll see about that. MWHAHAHAHAH!
I know it was the Koch brothers probably talking to each other, but Mr. Burns is who I picture.
Also true. And i haven't tried the new site with the ipad. Maybe it is better. Alright, I realize that it's not really that important. Still, odd exception.
Indeed. Apple, EA, MS, Facebook, AT&T, Verizon and Sony for example all insulted their customer bases in various ways, some of which were outright insults in press conferences, and immediately went belly up. ~
Flickr can, in fact, get rid of the high-power users in exchange for more of the instagram crowd and gain marketshare and profits. The changes seem to be aimed squarely at that. Yahoo undoubtedly has far more data on their users than we do. Whether the decision is based on a reasonable interpretation of that data or whether they're all braindead idiots (or some combination) only time will tell, but I don't think it's certain that insulting a small part of their user base in a press conference will doom them.
They redesigned their webpage? Well great, approximately no one was complaining about the page being ugly. Meanwhile flickr has yet to embrace this tablet trend. That's right, there's still no ipad app. If you want to use your ipad to look at your photos... you can do that. Using the iphone app. Half resolution.
I'm really surprised at that. Tablets are good for little more than looking at pictures and video, and the ipad is the most popular tablet. Annoucing a revamp of flickr by redesigning the front page and not by improving tablet support is a little like announcing you're going to fight street crime by enforcing jaywalking laws and saying nothing about drugs, guns, or gang activity.
I honestly can't understand the point of shooting the messenger here. Is it entirely to try to convince their customers (who are likely not very tech savvy) that they have nothing to worry about? I can understand the letter they sent out blaming the reporters for that, but to actually sue them doesn't make sense. Do they actually believe they can spin this to the FCC as the reporters going all James Bond to access files that were reasonably secured? Or is this just a lawyer who is racking up more billable hours, and his clients are too stupid to realize what a waste it is? Is this actually a roomful of executives saying "FUCK THOSE GUYS! Send the lawyers after them! That'll learn the press to google us!"
I realize these companies have made some seriously bad decisions, and dumb decisions by committee are even worse, but this makes no sense.
Bacteria can get viruses. They have antivirals which show some promise against ebola, but if the ebola is INSIDE OF A BACTERIUM, it would render the drugs useless.
Alternatively I was intentionally making it ridiculous to make the joke.
Only the ignorant hypochondriacs. The better informed ones are more concerned about triclosan affecting their epigenetics and giving them multiple drug resistant hand-ebola bacteria.
If India were actually behind this, why would it appear to come from India?
Perhaps because the Pakistanis would blame India even if the government knew it was from someone else, so why bother. TFA also makes it sound like there's no smoking gun implicating the Indian government, so saying "These attacks came from within India!" is probably not enough to bring much international heat on India (or shouldn't anyway, the UN has shown once or twice it doesn't understand how the internet works, or at least that it doesn't care.) TFA also mentions that it's possible someone is trying to make it LOOK like an Indian security firm, while it may not actually be.
Lastly, and perhaps most simply, it could be incompetence.
I'd not really heard of Tumblr before, and went to their site, and to even get in and find out WTF the site is about, they seem to insist on you setting up an account with email.
You went to www.tumblr.com rather than a specific tumblr feed. I'm at work, so I couldn't provide you with any specific tumblr feed I'm familiar with, which brings us to your original question.
Tumblr is porn. Lots and lots of reasonably well organized porn. I'm sure there's other stuff there, but I have no idea why you'd bother.
"Irrelevant?" I found his legal troubles far more interesting than any antivirus software. "Attention whore?" If you read news, even news for nerds, you will come across people who are trying to get attention. Actually, let me back up further. If you take part in the human world, you will encounter people who are seeking attention. This guy isn't particularly bad either. It seems that he actually has an interesting story beyond the usual attention whore "Oops, I had sex while a camera was pointed at me and now it's everywhere."
... That said, samzenpus and McAfee, don't get any ideas. Please do not release a sex tape involving John McAfee. Ever.
Sounds like they had two routers on in one room and none at all in the control room. If they had two routers and didn't bother doing the obvious control of one that wasn't powered, then they don't deserve to be on slashdot, let alone win a junior high science fair.
what a sad ending to a country with great promise.
You appear to be overlooking our sadder beginning. I'd also argue you were mislead about the "great promise."
Also, what's this "ending" business? Nothing is ending, the matter of trading freedom for security is far from settled. The idea that history is ended and everything will forevermore be as it is now is a common illusion, but is an illusion nonetheless. From my perspective, our freedoms are staying about the same at the current time. Floridians may have lost some freedom from nosy paranoid neighbors, but in Minnesota, they just said "The government will no longer follow your religion in limiting who can marry and who can't." If you ask me, that's maybe a half step back but two steps forward.
I don't know about the Koran, but "Sitting on a front porch in Florida" should probably be a red flag of imminent drunken lewd behavior in public and/or violence.
I wasn't. The taxes were an example of what would have been rash in the 70's given what we knew then. How I wrote it did perhaps suggest that I thought taxes were the only solution now, but that was a mistake, I didn't mean to suggest those were the only solution, nor did I mean to imply that science was telling us taxes were the only solution.
I think given the scale of the problem and how long we've procrastinated, it will take more than one act. I do think fossil fuel taxes are an essential part of any real solution. Government doesn't do much well besides tax, fine, and jail people. Making alternative energy solutions economically viable is pretty much the only thing the government can do, anything else is just a PR move to avoid real change. Additionally, fossil fuels have always had most of their costs externalized, making people pay for the carbon they are emitting from fossil fuels, I don't see anything wrong with that.
Without regard to whether or not gravity is real, almost all physicists are INCREDIBLY biased in favor of gravity.
There are a lot of ideas or theories that, if you ignore reality, the relevant fields are incredibly biased towards or against. Bias doesn't mean incorrect, and the "reality" of a theory matters a lot. At least, to most researchers. Less so for paid shills for, say, the fossil fuel industry.
Strawman argument: no one is saying the studies are valid because there's a consensus about it. They're valid based on the science IN those studies. What the consensus means is that we are idiots to not invest in trying to avoid it. Perhaps it would have been foolish to start heavily taxing coal and oil back in the 70's or 80's, as climate change may have proven to be a false hypothesis, but now it's foolish not to. Or at least extraordinarily selfish and short-sighted.
They don't need to make it impossible for EVERYONE, just the people who are dumb enough to buy the music they're selling. The "Taylor Swift" listening tweens who make up most of the market will get frustrated after one attempt and will go back to buying it on itunes. At least that's probably the powerpoint math that went behind this.
Full disclosure, I'm listening to Taylor Swift right now. That's right, I just called myself dumb and am admitting to listening to "Trouble" by Taylor Swift.
So they put these files on a thumb drive and put it onto this computer which can't be hacked. How are they getting it from the strongbox server to the USB thumb stick? Are the files only decrypted once they're on the super secure laptop?
Plot twist: Marijuana summons Cthulhu to destroy the world. The "assholes" knew this whole time, they genuinely were acting in our best interests. Had they told us the reason why they wanted it illegal, we'd laugh them off. They were hoping we could get to the point where we could fight back, sometime in 2050, but no, the dirty hippies won and we were no match for the ancient ones.
that goat urine the US markets as beer is less than 1 standard drink.
Just to clarify something, you're talking about US beer like a lot of people talk about "music these days." You're focusing on the stuff that's aggressively marketed, not an actual representative sample. The microbrewed domestic beer is much better and has much more diversity than most beer that hops the pond that way. Much like I'm sure you have better beer down under than fosters, yet fosters is basically the only Australian beer that's available here. In my opinion, abbey beer is about the only type of beer that domestic micro-brew beer doesn't beat out imported beer that is available here, and that's largely because those damned Trappist monks religiously guard their secrets.
Bud light vs Fosters... maybe you have a point there, but they're both shit. End of Days vs Fosters, no way, American beer wins. You take your weak ass 5% ABV and I'll take my delicious 8.5%.
Also, you have a very strange idea of freedom. The ability to endanger other people's lives is sacrosanct and must be protected? This I do not understand. What about the rights of other road users not to be put in undue danger?
Not sure if that was an intentional strawman or your simply misunderstood. The loss of freedom was over what you could drink at dinner. It's not loss of an essential freedom on the level of free speech, but keep in mind that every law restricting something you can do does impinge on your freedom. Hopefully, most freedoms the government takes away from you aren't things you would want to do anyway (murder for example.) But you do lose freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
When you say "leftists" do you mean anyone who thinks climate change is a problem (meaning everyone outside of the fossil fuel industry and the republican party?) Because that's not really true. Or do you mean a small subset of us? Because I can tell you, I'm a leftist, and you're stretching the truth a lot. For example, "surveillance" in the sense of "government watching the citizens" is not something the left is at large suggesting as a solution to climate change. You might mean allowing the EPA to monitor carbon emissions of companies, but it would be disingenuous to call that "surveillance."
I think your fix would be more reasonable if you cited examples of when liberal politicians ignored science to match their agendas.
Preferably some example where the vast majority of peer-reviewed studies support the opposite side. Like climate change, where 97% of studies conclude that climate change is real. Or evolution. As opposed to some other issue where there is much more support for either side.
I've been saying for a while now that the most effective conservative leaders are elected democrats. Obama apologizing for the IRS correctly identifying the tea party as a political group that should be taxed as a political group? I can't really see any other explanation for that other than Obama wanted to help out his friends in the Tea Party. A close second would be that everyone in the administration suffers from a weird disease where they are decent political strategists during the elections then they immediately become absolutely horrible at it in every way.
I imagine Mr. Burns sitting watching the TV as the conservative supreme court declares Bush the winner. "Checkmate, hippies! Lets see you legalize marijuana or fight 'global warming' now!" Cut to a disgruntled hippie "Man, I'm gonna move to Canada!" Mr Burns:... We'll see about that. MWHAHAHAHAH!
I know it was the Koch brothers probably talking to each other, but Mr. Burns is who I picture.
Also true. And i haven't tried the new site with the ipad. Maybe it is better. Alright, I realize that it's not really that important. Still, odd exception.
Indeed. Apple, EA, MS, Facebook, AT&T, Verizon and Sony for example all insulted their customer bases in various ways, some of which were outright insults in press conferences, and immediately went belly up. ~
Flickr can, in fact, get rid of the high-power users in exchange for more of the instagram crowd and gain marketshare and profits. The changes seem to be aimed squarely at that. Yahoo undoubtedly has far more data on their users than we do. Whether the decision is based on a reasonable interpretation of that data or whether they're all braindead idiots (or some combination) only time will tell, but I don't think it's certain that insulting a small part of their user base in a press conference will doom them.
They redesigned their webpage? Well great, approximately no one was complaining about the page being ugly. Meanwhile flickr has yet to embrace this tablet trend. That's right, there's still no ipad app. If you want to use your ipad to look at your photos... you can do that. Using the iphone app. Half resolution.
I'm really surprised at that. Tablets are good for little more than looking at pictures and video, and the ipad is the most popular tablet. Annoucing a revamp of flickr by redesigning the front page and not by improving tablet support is a little like announcing you're going to fight street crime by enforcing jaywalking laws and saying nothing about drugs, guns, or gang activity.
I honestly can't understand the point of shooting the messenger here. Is it entirely to try to convince their customers (who are likely not very tech savvy) that they have nothing to worry about? I can understand the letter they sent out blaming the reporters for that, but to actually sue them doesn't make sense. Do they actually believe they can spin this to the FCC as the reporters going all James Bond to access files that were reasonably secured? Or is this just a lawyer who is racking up more billable hours, and his clients are too stupid to realize what a waste it is? Is this actually a roomful of executives saying "FUCK THOSE GUYS! Send the lawyers after them! That'll learn the press to google us!"
I realize these companies have made some seriously bad decisions, and dumb decisions by committee are even worse, but this makes no sense.
Bacteria can get viruses. They have antivirals which show some promise against ebola, but if the ebola is INSIDE OF A BACTERIUM, it would render the drugs useless.
Alternatively I was intentionally making it ridiculous to make the joke.
Third alternative, I'm stupid.
Only the ignorant hypochondriacs. The better informed ones are more concerned about triclosan affecting their epigenetics and giving them multiple drug resistant hand-ebola bacteria.
Source: I am an over-informed hypochondriac. I cringe when I have to touch receipts.
If India were actually behind this, why would it appear to come from India?
Perhaps because the Pakistanis would blame India even if the government knew it was from someone else, so why bother. TFA also makes it sound like there's no smoking gun implicating the Indian government, so saying "These attacks came from within India!" is probably not enough to bring much international heat on India (or shouldn't anyway, the UN has shown once or twice it doesn't understand how the internet works, or at least that it doesn't care.) TFA also mentions that it's possible someone is trying to make it LOOK like an Indian security firm, while it may not actually be.
Lastly, and perhaps most simply, it could be incompetence.
I'd not really heard of Tumblr before, and went to their site, and to even get in and find out WTF the site is about, they seem to insist on you setting up an account with email.
You went to www.tumblr.com rather than a specific tumblr feed. I'm at work, so I couldn't provide you with any specific tumblr feed I'm familiar with, which brings us to your original question.
Tumblr is porn. Lots and lots of reasonably well organized porn. I'm sure there's other stuff there, but I have no idea why you'd bother.
(alright, there are some which are memes which start out as funny and then you get tired of after five minutes, such as this one popular during the last election.)
"Irrelevant?" I found his legal troubles far more interesting than any antivirus software. "Attention whore?" If you read news, even news for nerds, you will come across people who are trying to get attention. Actually, let me back up further. If you take part in the human world, you will encounter people who are seeking attention. This guy isn't particularly bad either. It seems that he actually has an interesting story beyond the usual attention whore "Oops, I had sex while a camera was pointed at me and now it's everywhere."
... That said, samzenpus and McAfee, don't get any ideas. Please do not release a sex tape involving John McAfee. Ever.
Sounds like they had two routers on in one room and none at all in the control room. If they had two routers and didn't bother doing the obvious control of one that wasn't powered, then they don't deserve to be on slashdot, let alone win a junior high science fair.
Do explain, please.
what a sad ending to a country with great promise.
You appear to be overlooking our sadder beginning. I'd also argue you were mislead about the "great promise."
Also, what's this "ending" business? Nothing is ending, the matter of trading freedom for security is far from settled. The idea that history is ended and everything will forevermore be as it is now is a common illusion, but is an illusion nonetheless. From my perspective, our freedoms are staying about the same at the current time. Floridians may have lost some freedom from nosy paranoid neighbors, but in Minnesota, they just said "The government will no longer follow your religion in limiting who can marry and who can't." If you ask me, that's maybe a half step back but two steps forward.
I don't know about the Koran, but "Sitting on a front porch in Florida" should probably be a red flag of imminent drunken lewd behavior in public and/or violence.
I wasn't. The taxes were an example of what would have been rash in the 70's given what we knew then. How I wrote it did perhaps suggest that I thought taxes were the only solution now, but that was a mistake, I didn't mean to suggest those were the only solution, nor did I mean to imply that science was telling us taxes were the only solution.
I think given the scale of the problem and how long we've procrastinated, it will take more than one act. I do think fossil fuel taxes are an essential part of any real solution. Government doesn't do much well besides tax, fine, and jail people. Making alternative energy solutions economically viable is pretty much the only thing the government can do, anything else is just a PR move to avoid real change. Additionally, fossil fuels have always had most of their costs externalized, making people pay for the carbon they are emitting from fossil fuels, I don't see anything wrong with that.
Without regard to whether or not gravity is real, almost all physicists are INCREDIBLY biased in favor of gravity.
There are a lot of ideas or theories that, if you ignore reality, the relevant fields are incredibly biased towards or against. Bias doesn't mean incorrect, and the "reality" of a theory matters a lot. At least, to most researchers. Less so for paid shills for, say, the fossil fuel industry.
Strawman argument: no one is saying the studies are valid because there's a consensus about it. They're valid based on the science IN those studies. What the consensus means is that we are idiots to not invest in trying to avoid it. Perhaps it would have been foolish to start heavily taxing coal and oil back in the 70's or 80's, as climate change may have proven to be a false hypothesis, but now it's foolish not to. Or at least extraordinarily selfish and short-sighted.
There's no goat porn on youtube! I mean... that's what I heard... from a guy I know.
They don't need to make it impossible for EVERYONE, just the people who are dumb enough to buy the music they're selling. The "Taylor Swift" listening tweens who make up most of the market will get frustrated after one attempt and will go back to buying it on itunes. At least that's probably the powerpoint math that went behind this.
Full disclosure, I'm listening to Taylor Swift right now. That's right, I just called myself dumb and am admitting to listening to "Trouble" by Taylor Swift.
So they put these files on a thumb drive and put it onto this computer which can't be hacked. How are they getting it from the strongbox server to the USB thumb stick? Are the files only decrypted once they're on the super secure laptop?
Plot twist: Marijuana summons Cthulhu to destroy the world. The "assholes" knew this whole time, they genuinely were acting in our best interests. Had they told us the reason why they wanted it illegal, we'd laugh them off. They were hoping we could get to the point where we could fight back, sometime in 2050, but no, the dirty hippies won and we were no match for the ancient ones.
that goat urine the US markets as beer is less than 1 standard drink.
Just to clarify something, you're talking about US beer like a lot of people talk about "music these days." You're focusing on the stuff that's aggressively marketed, not an actual representative sample. The microbrewed domestic beer is much better and has much more diversity than most beer that hops the pond that way. Much like I'm sure you have better beer down under than fosters, yet fosters is basically the only Australian beer that's available here. In my opinion, abbey beer is about the only type of beer that domestic micro-brew beer doesn't beat out imported beer that is available here, and that's largely because those damned Trappist monks religiously guard their secrets.
Bud light vs Fosters... maybe you have a point there, but they're both shit. End of Days vs Fosters, no way, American beer wins. You take your weak ass 5% ABV and I'll take my delicious 8.5%.
Also, you have a very strange idea of freedom. The ability to endanger other people's lives is sacrosanct and must be protected? This I do not understand. What about the rights of other road users not to be put in undue danger?
Not sure if that was an intentional strawman or your simply misunderstood. The loss of freedom was over what you could drink at dinner. It's not loss of an essential freedom on the level of free speech, but keep in mind that every law restricting something you can do does impinge on your freedom. Hopefully, most freedoms the government takes away from you aren't things you would want to do anyway (murder for example.) But you do lose freedom.