They aren't involved in anything except breaking the Europeran data protection laws, you mean. If it's an automated process then whoever set it up that way broke the law, and any manager who allowed the set up to continue also broke the law. And so did the corporation.
The problem here appears to be that the Irish subsidiary of MS is a wholly owned subsidiary, so MS (the US corporation) has control over it. If MS were an Irish corporation, and the US corporation were a wholly owned subsidiary of it, then the US corporation would not have control over the Irish corporation.
A secondary problem is that currently the US corporation is being ordered to force the Irish corporation (which it controls) to violate Irish law. Presumably if the ownership were inverted the Irish court would not do some equivalent ruling (being a bit less megalomaniacal). But even if it did something stricktly analogous, the US doesn't protect the data on consumers so there would be no law violated. (Which, of course, means that it's not strictly analogous....analogies are slippery.)
There's evidence, but I don't think there's any proof. And some of the evidence is pretty shaky. But do you have any reasonable reason to doubt that they have a backdoor?
Your mistake is assuming monolithic intent. Even a single judge has intentions that vary from minute to minute...just as yours do. When you factor in a large number of judges you get a large variation in intent. Sometimes they are even worse than you are currently imagining. Sometimes they are focused on the rule of law. Sometimes they are of some idealistic bent or other.
So the kind of result that you are expecting is possible, but not inevitable, even with a judge that usually bends to the wind. And some judges rarely do that.
Even so, I figure that the trend toward centralized authoritarianism is designed into they sysstem, given the greatly improved speed of communication and transportation. And, of course, the closing of the frontier. There's now nowhere to go to escape them. This makes designs that were only a bit authoritarian at the start ("I smell a rat. It squints towards monarchy."--Patrick Henry on the US Constitution) much more authoritarian now. The British system, with all its faults, is a lot better, but then it *evolved* under tyranny. (Unfortunately, they've been disabling their safeguards over the recent decades. Now Lords can be members of the House of Commons, IIUC, and that's totally insecure. The change they *should* have made would be to continue the separation, but so automatically promote into the aristocracy anyone who is sufficiently rich and powerful. Possibly also a provision to demote from the aristocracy the heirs of anyone who loses their wealth and power...but with a time lag to allow them to recover without loss of "status".)
There really *is* a difference. It rarely translates into action, but it infuses the rhetoric used. The Democrats want more people to like them, and the Republicans want more powerful people to like them. So they say the things they think will cause that to happe, while acting as self-serving greedy immoral power-seeking proto-despots (who are trying to lose the "proto-").
I take it you haven't known many. I'll agree that many of them believe that "all rights belong to the proprietor", and many of them don't stop to think that the title to the property is given by the state.
Or maybe the people I knew were just anarchists who called themselves libertarians.
Depends on your metric, and not everyone uses the same one.
Example: Do you count Snowden's revelations as a part of Obama's transparency? Some do. Some don't. You can argue either way. Arguments over "sound bite" ideas aren't worth much. And quantity isn't as important as quality, but how do you measure quality?
FWIW, I could Bush's Iranian missles as a strong and important example of lack of transparency. (Most people couldn't see through it...even years later many people still believed it.) It's hard to think of anything quite as "qualitatively important" that Obama has hidden...though we may find out one in a few years, or decades.
Why not a generation ship? We are probably on 50-60 years from being able to build a generation ship, if we can handle the sociology. Perhaps up to a century. It's not clear that we'll *EVER* be able to do it in any other way.
If you're in a hurry, you were already born too soon.
Do you really think voting for a third party, or refusing to vote, makes any difference?
If nothing you do makes any difference, is it really your fault? There might have been something that would have made a difference, but voting isn't on that list. That became quite clear when they refused to even count the votes for Pat Paulson. (I suspect he would have won, but there's no way to tell.)
FWIW, in Fukishima one of the main problems was with the cooling of spent reactor rods that were stored on site. Being SCRAMmed wouldn't help there. And they were a problem even on the reactors that had shut down normally.
Now Diablo Canyon wouldn't need to worry about corrosion due to using sea water to cool it in an emergency, but just how *would* they cool it in such an emergency?
Except that it's my understanding that there has been explosive releases from methyl cathlates in the past. LARGE explosive releases (or we couldn't tell from this distance in time).
IIRC, they decided not to mine the methyl cathlates because: 1. It would be too expensive. 2. There was too much chance of setting them off explosively. (State change explosion, not a normal chemical reaction.)
Apparently they're only stable at low temperatures, and the ocean is warm enough that they're iffy, and could be set off by an attempt at mining.
I think there are about as many positive feedback loops as positive feedback loops. The thing is, if a positive feedback loop isn't offset by an aligned negative feedback loop (or set of loops) then that part of the system tends to be unstable, and the system moves away from that point.
Heating the planet strengthens the positive feedback loops involving methane release. The initial heating was caused by an increase in CO2, which is continuing, so it's continuing to strengthen the release of methane. The corresponding negative feedback loop involves the degradation of methane to CO2 which is a less powerful greenhouse gas...but, whoops! it's still a greenhouse gas.
There are LOTS of sources of methane. Rotting pools of what used to be permafrost is going to be a big one. This identifies one under the ocean. It could be a big one, but might not be...because the methane might degrade to the weaker greenhouse gas CO2 before it reaches the atmosphere. Of course, CO2 will still contribut to global warming, just not as much. The real question mark (in my mind) is the methyl cathlates, which may become increasingly unstable if they get warmer. They *could* release explosively, in which case there will be a sudden large increase in the amount of methane in the atmosphere, Or they could release slowly, in which case there will be a slow rise of CO2. Or, if the ocean were cold enough, they could just remain in place. They appear to have released explosively a time or two long in the past, but I don't know how certain that is, or what the results were. Or how quickly they reform during periods when the ocean is colder. (Perhaps they've already done all the explosive releases they're going to do.)
IIRC, the half life of methane in the atmosphere is around a decade (loosely speaking) but it converts to CO2 in most of its degradation modes (like being eaten by bacteria).
Why? I'm not considering supporting them, and I'm not considering their opposition, so why should i watch it? I'm sure I could see as bad if I went down to the hospital emergency room and waited for awhile.
I really don't think that snuff fliks add anything of benefit to human society, no matter who does them. What I find most repellant about this thing is that some people want to watch it. All states claim the right to decide when and for what to kill people, and this is just ISIS claiming that they're as good as any other government. (Some governments have decided not to kill people, but they have reserved the right to change their mind.)
Slashdot Mirror
They aren't involved in anything except breaking the Europeran data protection laws, you mean. If it's an automated process then whoever set it up that way broke the law, and any manager who allowed the set up to continue also broke the law. And so did the corporation.
Sorry, but I think you're wrong.
The problem here appears to be that the Irish subsidiary of MS is a wholly owned subsidiary, so MS (the US corporation) has control over it. If MS were an Irish corporation, and the US corporation were a wholly owned subsidiary of it, then the US corporation would not have control over the Irish corporation.
A secondary problem is that currently the US corporation is being ordered to force the Irish corporation (which it controls) to violate Irish law. Presumably if the ownership were inverted the Irish court would not do some equivalent ruling (being a bit less megalomaniacal). But even if it did something stricktly analogous, the US doesn't protect the data on consumers so there would be no law violated. (Which, of course, means that it's not strictly analogous....analogies are slippery.)
There's evidence, but I don't think there's any proof. And some of the evidence is pretty shaky. But do you have any reasonable reason to doubt that they have a backdoor?
That's your metric. It's a fair one, but it's not the only one.
Your mistake is assuming monolithic intent. Even a single judge has intentions that vary from minute to minute...just as yours do. When you factor in a large number of judges you get a large variation in intent. Sometimes they are even worse than you are currently imagining. Sometimes they are focused on the rule of law. Sometimes they are of some idealistic bent or other.
So the kind of result that you are expecting is possible, but not inevitable, even with a judge that usually bends to the wind. And some judges rarely do that.
Even so, I figure that the trend toward centralized authoritarianism is designed into they sysstem, given the greatly improved speed of communication and transportation. And, of course, the closing of the frontier. There's now nowhere to go to escape them. This makes designs that were only a bit authoritarian at the start ("I smell a rat. It squints towards monarchy."--Patrick Henry on the US Constitution) much more authoritarian now. The British system, with all its faults, is a lot better, but then it *evolved* under tyranny. (Unfortunately, they've been disabling their safeguards over the recent decades. Now Lords can be members of the House of Commons, IIUC, and that's totally insecure. The change they *should* have made would be to continue the separation, but so automatically promote into the aristocracy anyone who is sufficiently rich and powerful. Possibly also a provision to demote from the aristocracy the heirs of anyone who loses their wealth and power...but with a time lag to allow them to recover without loss of "status".)
There really *is* a difference. It rarely translates into action, but it infuses the rhetoric used. The Democrats want more people to like them, and the Republicans want more powerful people to like them. So they say the things they think will cause that to happe, while acting as self-serving greedy immoral power-seeking proto-despots (who are trying to lose the "proto-").
I take it you haven't known many. I'll agree that many of them believe that "all rights belong to the proprietor", and many of them don't stop to think that the title to the property is given by the state.
Or maybe the people I knew were just anarchists who called themselves libertarians.
You're neglecting the time element. After Obama is out of office expect shocking revelations...about something.
Depends on your metric, and not everyone uses the same one.
Example: Do you count Snowden's revelations as a part of Obama's transparency? Some do. Some don't. You can argue either way. Arguments over "sound bite" ideas aren't worth much. And quantity isn't as important as quality, but how do you measure quality?
FWIW, I could Bush's Iranian missles as a strong and important example of lack of transparency. (Most people couldn't see through it...even years later many people still believed it.) It's hard to think of anything quite as "qualitatively important" that Obama has hidden...though we may find out one in a few years, or decades.
I thought Fermilab decided to go with bison.
Actually "egghead" was a creation of Mussolini. But it's true that the UStatians adopted it.
Why not a generation ship? We are probably on 50-60 years from being able to build a generation ship, if we can handle the sociology. Perhaps up to a century. It's not clear that we'll *EVER* be able to do it in any other way.
If you're in a hurry, you were already born too soon.
Actually, I didn't recognize the name "John Connor". But then I intentionally avoid anything sponsored or paying to the MPAA.
Each one is a custom job. Not that many are produced per year. It's "high tech".
I must admit that it's expensive, but not rediculously so.
You've got it. The plurality wins system of voting is a near guarantee of only two parties, too. But those in power have no interest in reforming it.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to read large ext4 volumes. Gentoo is looking like the better option.
The saying "Laws are for the little people" used to be funny, now, not so much.
Was only ever funny if you still had your eyes closed. OTOH, it *is* getting worse.
Do you really think voting for a third party, or refusing to vote, makes any difference?
If nothing you do makes any difference, is it really your fault? There might have been something that would have made a difference, but voting isn't on that list. That became quite clear when they refused to even count the votes for Pat Paulson. (I suspect he would have won, but there's no way to tell.)
FWIW, in Fukishima one of the main problems was with the cooling of spent reactor rods that were stored on site. Being SCRAMmed wouldn't help there. And they were a problem even on the reactors that had shut down normally.
Now Diablo Canyon wouldn't need to worry about corrosion due to using sea water to cool it in an emergency, but just how *would* they cool it in such an emergency?
Except that it's my understanding that there has been explosive releases from methyl cathlates in the past. LARGE explosive releases (or we couldn't tell from this distance in time).
I think this is a different source of methane.
IIRC, they decided not to mine the methyl cathlates because:
1. It would be too expensive.
2. There was too much chance of setting them off explosively. (State change explosion, not a normal chemical reaction.)
Apparently they're only stable at low temperatures, and the ocean is warm enough that they're iffy, and could be set off by an attempt at mining.
I think there are about as many positive feedback loops as positive feedback loops. The thing is, if a positive feedback loop isn't offset by an aligned negative feedback loop (or set of loops) then that part of the system tends to be unstable, and the system moves away from that point.
Heating the planet strengthens the positive feedback loops involving methane release. The initial heating was caused by an increase in CO2, which is continuing, so it's continuing to strengthen the release of methane. The corresponding negative feedback loop involves the degradation of methane to CO2 which is a less powerful greenhouse gas...but, whoops! it's still a greenhouse gas.
There are LOTS of sources of methane. Rotting pools of what used to be permafrost is going to be a big one. This identifies one under the ocean. It could be a big one, but might not be...because the methane might degrade to the weaker greenhouse gas CO2 before it reaches the atmosphere. Of course, CO2 will still contribut to global warming, just not as much. The real question mark (in my mind) is the methyl cathlates, which may become increasingly unstable if they get warmer. They *could* release explosively, in which case there will be a sudden large increase in the amount of methane in the atmosphere, Or they could release slowly, in which case there will be a slow rise of CO2. Or, if the ocean were cold enough, they could just remain in place. They appear to have released explosively a time or two long in the past, but I don't know how certain that is, or what the results were. Or how quickly they reform during periods when the ocean is colder. (Perhaps they've already done all the explosive releases they're going to do.)
IIRC, the half life of methane in the atmosphere is around a decade (loosely speaking) but it converts to CO2 in most of its degradation modes (like being eaten by bacteria).
But if you make the battery blow up, you can't track the phone anymore.
Why? I'm not considering supporting them, and I'm not considering their opposition, so why should i watch it? I'm sure I could see as bad if I went down to the hospital emergency room and waited for awhile.
I really don't think that snuff fliks add anything of benefit to human society, no matter who does them. What I find most repellant about this thing is that some people want to watch it. All states claim the right to decide when and for what to kill people, and this is just ISIS claiming that they're as good as any other government. (Some governments have decided not to kill people, but they have reserved the right to change their mind.)