Yes, but that's the AGPL license, which isn't at the root of most code for two reasons: 1) It's too recent, and 2) Corporations don't like it.
There's also the GPL3 license which addresses other problems, but to address *this* problem you would need to use the AGPL. And, IIUC, GPL2 code cannot be relicensed to AGPL by anyone except the original author(s).
Well, it claims to be an open platform, though I haven't checked it out. But it advertises itself as a haven for neo-nazi extremists. I think that if you wanted it to appeal to anyone who'd already heard of it, you'ld need to rename it, and give it a separate interface. It's not clear whether this "Dissenter" is such an attempt or not, though, on the face of it, not.
This is a problem, however, that all "free speech" mechanisms have. A lot of people will use them for socially unacceptable purposes, whether actively criminal (at the moment) or not. TOR has the same problem. The essence of the problem is that when you hand someone a megaphone, and say "anything you shout into this can't be blamed on you" the ones who want to use it are the ones who normally don't dare say what they want.
OTOH, we are evolved tropical apes, so we'd likely find the climate tolerable in Antarctica and northern Canada and Siberia. The reason we'd likely go extinct would be fighting over access to the remaining habitable turf.
FWIW, there are two (or more) important caveats. 1) The current climate models don't make accurate predictions. This is so true that what is used is an ensemble prediction, where several different models are run, and their points of agreement is what is used as the working prediction. This gives fairly good results, but clearly shows that the process isn't understood. Either that or it's so sensitive to initial conditions that only the attractors can be reasonably predicted.
2) This is a prediction of a single model far beyond the range of variation within which the current models have been validated. Whoops! Take this as a warning, not as a serious claim.
P.S.: IIUC, the original paper didn't make a serious claim to be more than "This is analogous to what happened in this prior time, so watch out!", which *is* a true claim, though points of analogy are always of dubious validity. (But CO2 levels are a reasonable thing to tie your model to.)
If you want to say global warming is essentially a consensus, I'll agree. But this study is still an outlier. 8C warming is considerably higher than most projections. They say that it's because they included a factor that other models didn't include, but that's going to need considerable confirmation.
That said, don't trust the models when the warming projected gets over 2C warming, as they are then operating beyond the range within which they have been validated. And expect that there are feedback loops, both positive and negative, that will become important in that range which haven't been needed up until now. So saying that it will be considerably worse than the current projections isn't unreasonable. Certainly when not when you include an additional feedback loop. But there are likely to be others that will act as dampers. Their argument against it is that "last time this is what happened", but "last time" isn't a close match against current conditions, so there may be other effects.
All that said, the conservative approach would be to consider that they might be right.
But in this case he has a point, if not a good one. To claim that this would be the result (which they don't do, but which the headline suggests) is unreasonable. But what they claim is that this is analogous to what happened in a prior time. This appears true, but analogies are notoriously tricky, and it's not clear that this one would hold. Which is what they say in their paper.
The problem here is people reacting against headlines as if they were claims of solid evidence. And those who write the headlines to this on purpose and with the intent to mislead.
The trouble with the argument about antibiotics is that many doctors only reluctantly prescribe them when they shouldn't be used. It *is* a problem that they let the patients browbeat them into issuing the prescriptions, I'll agree, but that's different from pushing something.
More of the problem with the antibiotics is caused by the agri-business.
They've got different priors and different goals. So they reach different conclusions even with the same thought process.
They *don't* act the same way. They act in ways that have certain similarities, but differ in other ways. And there is no such thing as "general intelligence". There is "executive function" which is correlated with many different kinds of intelligence, but is not in and of itself any intelligence. (It's rather like having a large RAM buffer.) It's lets you hold ideas longer while processing them. But, say, being clever with words is not included in this "executive function", even though it acts as an enabler allowing a particular amount of skill with words to accomplish more. The same function is used differently by those skilled with numbers or those skilled at music. (Here I'm using "skill" as a built-in capability that exists even before being trained and developed. It is often used only to describe only level of training and development currently achieved, but that's not what I mean. This despite the fact that training a skill can improve the base level to an extent [and in that case it's the improved base level that I mean].)
While you have a small point, it's worth noting that people tend to continue to believe the first version of a story that they hear, even when they are (temporarily) convinced that it was an accident or fraud.
So apologies and retractions are insufficient to repair the harm done. But rarely is any further action either undertaken, or even attempted. And it's usually not clear how the harm *could* be repaired. (No, money is not a universal solvent.)
Actually, it *is* how a society loses free speech, but you need to frame the argument in a more general form, thus: Communication channels being governed by a small group controlling what content can go over them is how societies lose free speech.
Now if the question becomes, "Is this a worse than average infringement on free speech?" the answer is clearly no, but it *is* a component of the way societies lose free speech, just as trolls and astroturfers are.
No, that's not the same experiment. That's showing that flies don't prefer white skin over black skin. The duplicate would compare the bites on a striped animal against the bites on a non-striped animal..and for picking the color of the non-striped animal the experiment you referred to (which I don't know about) would be valuable as a "don't care" modifier.
Definitely. Where ever you're wearing the clothing the files wouldn't bite you. Just be sure to also wear gloves and a decent head covering. And seal the cracks.
FWIW, some flies are attracted more by scent than by color. But clothing is still a defense.
No. Common sense cannot trump rigorous scientific study. It can either agree or disagree, but when it disagrees, it's wrong. The earth does revolve around the sun.
I don't think you understand what xkcd is about. It often points out true things that people have are hard time grasping. The referred chart is one of those instances. It's not as if you can't check their data points in other references.
Well, a major series of volcanic eruptions could make global cooling the problem. You could probably achieve the same effect with a few asteroid impactors...but scaling them to be small enough to be relatively safe could be a problem.
Most of the other "geo-engineering" approaches are seriously untested, and we can't guess what the side effects would be. The proponents claim there wouldn't be any, or that they'd be minimal. But they haven't been (and can't be) be tested at beyond a pilot stage scale without being committed to.
E.g. A solar sail sunshade will cool the equatorial regions more than the poles, further decreasing the strength of the jet stream, and making weather much more irregular. What would it do to the ocean currents? What effect would that have? Etc. etc. etc.
So there are still answers, but the answers have their own problems.
Sorry, but due to network effects Facebook is a de-facto monopoly. *I* may choose to avoid it, but I was past 30 before I had a choice.
Now you can reasonably claim that this is an inappropriate use of the word "censor", and arguments can be found to support that claim. But language is not "set in stone", and the use of "censor" to denote authoritarian removal of content from a communication dates back to at least the 1940's, and probably earlier.
Even if it didn't, one could argue that since IP assignment is controlled by the government that a company using IP based communication is acting as an arm of the government. One doesn't hear complaints about using the word "censored" when privately owned newspapers in China remove a story that the newspaper guesses would be politically offensive, even though the action is performed by a private party without any government intervention. (OK, that's an extreme example, but it demonstrates that the letter of the dictionary definition doesn't control the meaning of the word.)
For me the normal size smartphone is both too small and too large. It's too large to fit conveniently in a pants pocket (though close) and it's too small to do much with. The question is, is this (unfolded) screen large enough. The first consensus seems to be "No, it's too small. Also too expensive."
For me it might be "slightly usable when unfolded, but by no means comfortable", but I'm a person who finds a full size keyboard slightly too small.
If Apple had made it a decade ago, when they cared about quality, it would be worth $2000. This decade... there've been so many cases where it was blatantly obvious that they didn't care about quality, that I wouldn't pay a two cent bonus for "Apple standing behind it".
I'm rather certain that I've read the phrase in something that was written either in the 1940's or the early 1950's, and it didn't seem a unique turn of phrase in the place where I read it.
FWIW, James Joyce says, in "Portrait of the Artist"
It is peopled by the images of fabulous kings, set in stone. Their
I don't know why Google didn't find that for you. OTOH, I haven't enough google-fu to use Google search to search for a range of dates.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but that's the AGPL license, which isn't at the root of most code for two reasons:
1) It's too recent, and
2) Corporations don't like it.
There's also the GPL3 license which addresses other problems, but to address *this* problem you would need to use the AGPL. And, IIUC, GPL2 code cannot be relicensed to AGPL by anyone except the original author(s).
OK. But personally, seeing the potential for this kind of action is what caused me to prefer the AGPL, or at least the GPL3 license.
Of course, I'm a proponent of free software rather than open source.
Well, it claims to be an open platform, though I haven't checked it out. But it advertises itself as a haven for neo-nazi extremists. I think that if you wanted it to appeal to anyone who'd already heard of it, you'ld need to rename it, and give it a separate interface. It's not clear whether this "Dissenter" is such an attempt or not, though, on the face of it, not.
This is a problem, however, that all "free speech" mechanisms have. A lot of people will use them for socially unacceptable purposes, whether actively criminal (at the moment) or not. TOR has the same problem. The essence of the problem is that when you hand someone a megaphone, and say "anything you shout into this can't be blamed on you" the ones who want to use it are the ones who normally don't dare say what they want.
That's not clear. But probably.
OTOH, we are evolved tropical apes, so we'd likely find the climate tolerable in Antarctica and northern Canada and Siberia. The reason we'd likely go extinct would be fighting over access to the remaining habitable turf.
FWIW, there are two (or more) important caveats.
1) The current climate models don't make accurate predictions. This is so true that what is used is an ensemble prediction, where several different models are run, and their points of agreement is what is used as the working prediction. This gives fairly good results, but clearly shows that the process isn't understood. Either that or it's so sensitive to initial conditions that only the attractors can be reasonably predicted.
2) This is a prediction of a single model far beyond the range of variation within which the current models have been validated. Whoops! Take this as a warning, not as a serious claim.
P.S.: IIUC, the original paper didn't make a serious claim to be more than "This is analogous to what happened in this prior time, so watch out!", which *is* a true claim, though points of analogy are always of dubious validity. (But CO2 levels are a reasonable thing to tie your model to.)
If you want to say global warming is essentially a consensus, I'll agree. But this study is still an outlier. 8C warming is considerably higher than most projections. They say that it's because they included a factor that other models didn't include, but that's going to need considerable confirmation.
That said, don't trust the models when the warming projected gets over 2C warming, as they are then operating beyond the range within which they have been validated. And expect that there are feedback loops, both positive and negative, that will become important in that range which haven't been needed up until now. So saying that it will be considerably worse than the current projections isn't unreasonable. Certainly when not when you include an additional feedback loop. But there are likely to be others that will act as dampers. Their argument against it is that "last time this is what happened", but "last time" isn't a close match against current conditions, so there may be other effects.
All that said, the conservative approach would be to consider that they might be right.
But in this case he has a point, if not a good one. To claim that this would be the result (which they don't do, but which the headline suggests) is unreasonable. But what they claim is that this is analogous to what happened in a prior time. This appears true, but analogies are notoriously tricky, and it's not clear that this one would hold. Which is what they say in their paper.
The problem here is people reacting against headlines as if they were claims of solid evidence. And those who write the headlines to this on purpose and with the intent to mislead.
You underrate the skills required by management. A good manager is nearly as rare as a good plumber. Both exist.
The $500K was an exception. Usually the victim doesn't get ANY recompense.
The trouble with the argument about antibiotics is that many doctors only reluctantly prescribe them when they shouldn't be used. It *is* a problem that they let the patients browbeat them into issuing the prescriptions, I'll agree, but that's different from pushing something.
More of the problem with the antibiotics is caused by the agri-business.
They've got different priors and different goals. So they reach different conclusions even with the same thought process.
They *don't* act the same way. They act in ways that have certain similarities, but differ in other ways. And there is no such thing as "general intelligence". There is "executive function" which is correlated with many different kinds of intelligence, but is not in and of itself any intelligence. (It's rather like having a large RAM buffer.) It's lets you hold ideas longer while processing them. But, say, being clever with words is not included in this "executive function", even though it acts as an enabler allowing a particular amount of skill with words to accomplish more. The same function is used differently by those skilled with numbers or those skilled at music. (Here I'm using "skill" as a built-in capability that exists even before being trained and developed. It is often used only to describe only level of training and development currently achieved, but that's not what I mean. This despite the fact that training a skill can improve the base level to an extent [and in that case it's the improved base level that I mean].)
While you have a small point, it's worth noting that people tend to continue to believe the first version of a story that they hear, even when they are (temporarily) convinced that it was an accident or fraud.
So apologies and retractions are insufficient to repair the harm done. But rarely is any further action either undertaken, or even attempted. And it's usually not clear how the harm *could* be repaired. (No, money is not a universal solvent.)
Actually, it *is* how a society loses free speech, but you need to frame the argument in a more general form, thus:
Communication channels being governed by a small group controlling what content can go over them is how societies lose free speech.
Now if the question becomes, "Is this a worse than average infringement on free speech?" the answer is clearly no, but it *is* a component of the way societies lose free speech, just as trolls and astroturfers are.
No, that's not the same experiment. That's showing that flies don't prefer white skin over black skin. The duplicate would compare the bites on a striped animal against the bites on a non-striped animal..and for picking the color of the non-striped animal the experiment you referred to (which I don't know about) would be valuable as a "don't care" modifier.
Definitely. Where ever you're wearing the clothing the files wouldn't bite you. Just be sure to also wear gloves and a decent head covering. And seal the cracks.
FWIW, some flies are attracted more by scent than by color. But clothing is still a defense.
No. Common sense cannot trump rigorous scientific study. It can either agree or disagree, but when it disagrees, it's wrong. The earth does revolve around the sun.
They are, indeed, color blind, but if I understand correctly they're only red-green color blind, not totally so.
I don't think you understand what xkcd is about. It often points out true things that people have are hard time grasping. The referred chart is one of those instances. It's not as if you can't check their data points in other references.
Always is a bit dubious, since penguins haven't always existed. But they are, indeed, long term residents.
Well, a major series of volcanic eruptions could make global cooling the problem. You could probably achieve the same effect with a few asteroid impactors...but scaling them to be small enough to be relatively safe could be a problem.
Most of the other "geo-engineering" approaches are seriously untested, and we can't guess what the side effects would be. The proponents claim there wouldn't be any, or that they'd be minimal. But they haven't been (and can't be) be tested at beyond a pilot stage scale without being committed to.
E.g. A solar sail sunshade will cool the equatorial regions more than the poles, further decreasing the strength of the jet stream, and making weather much more irregular. What would it do to the ocean currents? What effect would that have? Etc. etc. etc.
So there are still answers, but the answers have their own problems.
Sorry, but due to network effects Facebook is a de-facto monopoly. *I* may choose to avoid it, but I was past 30 before I had a choice.
Now you can reasonably claim that this is an inappropriate use of the word "censor", and arguments can be found to support that claim. But language is not "set in stone", and the use of "censor" to denote authoritarian removal of content from a communication dates back to at least the 1940's, and probably earlier.
Even if it didn't, one could argue that since IP assignment is controlled by the government that a company using IP based communication is acting as an arm of the government. One doesn't hear complaints about using the word "censored" when privately owned newspapers in China remove a story that the newspaper guesses would be politically offensive, even though the action is performed by a private party without any government intervention. (OK, that's an extreme example, but it demonstrates that the letter of the dictionary definition doesn't control the meaning of the word.)
You tempt me to stop browsing at -1.
For me the normal size smartphone is both too small and too large. It's too large to fit conveniently in a pants pocket (though close) and it's too small to do much with. The question is, is this (unfolded) screen large enough. The first consensus seems to be "No, it's too small. Also too expensive."
For me it might be "slightly usable when unfolded, but by no means comfortable", but I'm a person who finds a full size keyboard slightly too small.
If Apple had made it a decade ago, when they cared about quality, it would be worth $2000. This decade... there've been so many cases where it was blatantly obvious that they didn't care about quality, that I wouldn't pay a two cent bonus for "Apple standing behind it".
I'm rather certain that I've read the phrase in something that was written either in the 1940's or the early 1950's, and it didn't seem a unique turn of phrase in the place where I read it.
FWIW, James Joyce says, in "Portrait of the Artist"
It is peopled by the images of fabulous kings, set in stone. Their
I don't know why Google didn't find that for you. OTOH, I haven't enough google-fu to use Google search to search for a range of dates.