How much more forgettable will Arnold be now that he's just some old white guy with an illegitimate child and former career as a Republican? Maybe he can have Karl Rove do a cameo. That would be truly shocking.
I'm amazed at how simplistic the UN 'report' seems to be. They don't begin to mirror the complexity of the modeling that was begun by MIT for the Club of Rome, beginning in the early 1970's. The report that was commissioned then, called The Limits to Growth, attempted to take into consideration those factors that relate to human population growth such as: climate, agricultural productivity, natural resource availability (particularly potable water and arable land), marginal costs of resource extraction (accounting for the fact that man his already begun to exhaust the most easily obtained sources of materials and energy).
It's obvious that economics, education, culture and geopolitics also play rolls in determining growth and population, as do disease and technological advancement, but extrapolating future population growth rates based on simple mathematics, in the absence of some attempt to factor in the detriment we do collectively to the global environment and it's ability to sustain indefinite and increasing rates of consumption seems irresponsible. As does the reporting that would allow one to consider such gibberish without due consideration for the quality of life. Particularly when business clamors for increased opportunity for production and consumption based on some idealized notion of western industrial lifestyles as the likely model for the developing world.
Malthus and the Ehrlichs may have been ahead of their time and presented by the critics as doomsayers, but they are worth listening to, given that man has recently succeeded in populating the vast majority of easily and economically inhabitable niches in the biosphere and it's our population's energetics and habitat competition that are accelerating extinction rates beyond anything heretofore evidenced in paleontology.
The Tea Potty people are fearful to the core, and there is a hierarchy of fears. Xenophobia is a more primal fear than fear of government, notwithstanding the conundrum presented by (*gasp*) black people in office, so it's higher on the totem pole of fear.
Don't forget, those good Christians know that their ancestors were doing battle with Muslims a millenium ago. They may not know why, but they know that the crusades were fought in the name of Christianity, and they're all about clinging to the old ways, ahem... tradition.
Besides, no one ever expects... (wait for it!) The Spanish Inquisition!
Why would Apple feed Google when they already own the most affluent consumers? The faithful pay a premium for Apple's superior interface, consistent experience and assurance that when there's an update, it's actually an improvement. Aside from which iTunes may not be perfect but it performs everything anyone needs it do without having to leave the farm, scrutinize a haystack of search result or wonder if you're going to download a virus, receive a notice of indiscretion from one's ISP or end up with a file that was planted by the RIAA to corrupt a file sharing database.
Aside from that, Google's no panacea for the average user. For example, I waited til Jelly Bean was available on the Android phone I waited to buy, just so I could avoid the pain of early adoption. And when I 'upgraded' from Ice Cream Sandwich to Jelly Bean, T-Mobiles ironically named Sense service broke Apps and Widgets alike. One of the most useful Widgets was actually engineered by the same developers responsible for maintaining the Sense update system, itself. Such discourtesy only leaves me scratching my head. To top it off, there's no rollback option.
Google may have opened up another profit center, but as a user who doesn't really want to waste time with issues like this, my experience has only added to my admiration for Apple and diminished the credibility quotient I apply to Google.
This experience has only solidified my respect for Apple and my belief that the most successful catering to the least common denominator among UX designers usually leaves the average user at a disadvantage. Apple has less than nothing to gain from depending on search when the experience they provide is superior.
Life adapts, but only given the opportunity. There are 5 massive epochal die-offs that prove your point. They also prove that you're not thinking this through very well. Many of the humans you're talking about adapt using rather violent tactics. It's called war. If you believe that the geopolitical considerations will just sort themselves out, then you haven't read much history. The logical limits to growth are also the logical variables that lead to armed conflict if and when diplomacy fails.
Currently a good portion of the cause for the success of the world's dominant economic powers revolves around the development of technology, but it's also predated by the accident of unimpeded access to abundant natural resources. Accidental in the sense that water, arable land, lumber and minerals existed as those political powers developed their technologies. The modern construct of ownership has always been enforced through warfare.
What do you think will happen when climate challenges the ability of the current geopolitical regimes? It's not going to be orderly or pretty if, "humans (attempt) to evacuate equatorial regions and inhabit a wider world." The Maldives and other island populations are the first to confront such a reality, but they'll easily be able to integrate into other areas. What do you think will happen if most of the existing population below 30 degress latitude in both hemispheres is forced to evacuate?
The interesting part is that they looked at the "habitats that these species now live in". They did not look at habitats that are not currently suitable for the species to live in. For all we know there could be more area that species could live in when the climate changed. By concentrating on current species ranges the scientists are skewing the results. One should look at the whole system before coming to a conclusion.
I see your point, but you seem to be oversimplifying the complexity of 'the problem'. Some plants are capable of dispersing their seeds on the wind. Others don't use mechanisms which allow them to 'migrate' as quickly. Regardless of the natural methods they depend upon, including dispersion via carriage in the guts of birds or mammals, the environment in which the seed finds itself has to be favorable for germination, growth and reproduction, including pollination.
With or without human intervention, the probability that existing plant species will find favorable habitat and do so in a timely manner so as to avoid extinction is a crap shoot. Even animals can't outrun climate change if there's no path suitable; case in point, the Golden Toad that used to exist in the cloud forests of Costa Rica. Remember, Man has to support +7 billion people and therefore, we're competitors for the habitat that wild species need as well. Farmers that depend upon the 'conventional' means of production are apt to be far more concerned with finding reliable fields for their monocultures and pesticides than they will be interested in taking on the task of assisting the rest of the naturally occurring species. The destruction of rainforests in Brazil is accelerating due to just such 'free market' forces.
And lest ye forget, there are plenty of specialized relationships between plants and pollinators. In many scientifically documented cases, earlier and earlier warm weather causes the plant to flower before the insect has pupated. Fewer and fewer flowers feed decreasing numbers of butterflies or moths. The feedback loop dooms both the plant and the insect.
The Checkerspot butterfly (now endangered) used to be so common that vast clouds were seen in California. Now up and down the west coast, there are only isolated pockets left. They depended upon a relatively common plant which is also in decline. A subspecies in the northwest, the Edith's checkerspot, exists in only 5 small micro-niches. The temperature and timing of the plant's life cycle caused these populations to exist in concert at higher and higher elevations where the plant would grow and butterflies would hatch out consistently within the appropriate time frame. This mutualism is common place in nature, but it's developed over vast amounts of time.
Raising the temperature of the earth an average of 4 degrees Celsius over 100 years is hardly enough time for Man to respond in order to protect his infrastructure and interconnected economies. If you think the current crises in Europe, the U.S. or those that recently preceded in Japan, Thailand, Argentina or Chile were large or that they took a while to iron out, get ready for what's likely to come with increasingly frequent drought, decreased snow pack and agricultural yield volatility which results from these two phenomena in tandem. The notion that nature will be able to respond to such radical change while competing with the 800 lb. hairless gorilla who now dominates the entire world with his agricultural needs is ludicrous.
Unless we develop our collective prefrontal cortex and create a plan to deal the predictable results of the last 150 years of accelerating environmental abuse, it really won't matter
On the other hand, so to speak, if you give a thief your fingerprint to unlock your phone when he steels it, he will have its use until it locks again. But if you teach the thief to reset this security feature with his own fingerprint, then it will be recorded in the system memory. And if the phone were traceable, then you could teach him a lesson for the rest of his life.
Note: I didn't intend to be sexist when writing this comment. On the off chance anyone feels left out, please feel free to switch the gender of the thief in the last sentence.
OMG... how dare you disparage a U.S. Senator, our entire military, law enforcement, the CIA, and defenders of the Confederacy and all other batshit-crazy people everywhere, all in the same sentence! You better watch out. Homeland Insecurity has a label for people like you.
BTW Nice job, usually it takes tiny littlte balls of lead for such a scatter-shot approach.
Get this straight. There is no attack on your second amendment rights, you thumb sucker. Furthermore, even if there is a national gun registry, as all you paranoid 4F jackasses seem to believe, it wouldn't abridge your right to own a gun anymore than the requirement for a concealed weapons permit.
I hear real estate in Idaho is appreciating rapidly. Perhaps you'd better look into to it before the Ruby Ridge Gated Home for Minute Minds is beyond your means.
Internal oversight is a bad joke. There's the huge, obvious conflict of interest - foxes are in charge of watching the henhouse. And there are no repercussions when it fails.
Oh, you mean like FINRA, the financial industry regulatory authority, Inc., which bills itself as, "the largest independent securities regulator in the U.S." Whose chief mission is to protect (investors by maintaining the fairness of) the U.S. capital markets." It's actually private corporation, itself. And if you know anything about the nature of law and ownership, the implication is clear. Their responsibility is to their shareholders. How do they do this? By "acting" like a "self-regulatory organization," providing the mediators which your brokerage contract requires you to use in lieu of your right to sue. The one you sign away when you contract with any brokerage firm.
Or would you use the Constitution as an example by acknowledging that only reason state citizens actually elect their U.S. senators directly results from the 17th Amendment. That didn't get passed 'til after the Robber Barons (not exactly a pejorative term when you really think about it) had so egregiously harmed the public interest that the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was passed. Then Roosevelt 'had' to go after Standard Oil since Rockefeller hid behind "the Oil & Gas Legislature" in Ohio, which he owned. It was journalists like Stone, Sinclair Lewis and Ida Tarbell who blew the whistle and stirred reaction.
Internal oversight is only a joke if you let it be. Nothing stands alone if you're right there next to it.
If Mr. Thomas "Editor-at-Large" Claburn wants to claim he's doing investigative journalism, he has a long way to go before he's in the same league as Edward R. Murrow, I.F. Stone (The Life and Times of Rebel Journalist) I.F. Stone, or Si Hersh. Granted, the issues here don't seem like they have the same importance, but he does have a point.
If states see fit to argue successfully in federal court that their citizen's rights are impinged upon by a multi-national corporation, you might be tempted to believe that it would be in all our best interest to have the opportunity to understand how and why the decision was reached as well as to perform the public service of monitoring the offender's compliance with the orders of the court. We have certainly seen this play out in the context of "sex offenders." Why not corporate monopolists?
The legal standard used for sealing federal court records might provide some direction. Or perhaps it could and should be argued that in any case involving of a company with the size, power and reach of Microsoft, particularly with respect to it's opportunity to do harm in the scope of its control over a product like Windows which has nearly monopolistic market share and ubiquitous effects on the citizenry at large, the public has a right to know and an interest in the outcome of the case as well as the judgment of the court and the terms any settlement.
On the other hand, you might just as well believe, as Mitt Romney does, that Google and Microsoft deserve to be treated just like people... oh, wait... wouldn't that imply that since they have been shown to be utterly disrespectful of any reasonable expectation of privacy, along with your ISP, your POTS and wireless telecomm providers and your local police department, they should be listed and tracked on a serial offenders list? And they should be required to update government with any change of address? (You'll just have to use the NYSE or Lexis/Nexis.)
Sigh... It's too overwhelming. Even global commerce just isn't that important. I mean, how is it that any of the investment banks that nearly brought the world's system of economic exchange to and end can settle any case with the federal government, have the terms of deal sealed and avoid admitting any wrong doing? I guess we'll just never know...
-- Time to put on your critical thinking caps kiddies!! --
People who use a handheld computer while driving should have their license suspended, and the circumstances should be used to determine the amount of time they spend in jail... no exceptions should be allowed, in my not-so-humble and somewhat emotionally outraged opinion.
There are very few people I know who are adept at utilizing the interface to most of the Apps or other built-in functionality of a complex device like a smarphone, without error or distraction, while they are concentrating on it alone. Doing it while operating a 2-4 ton vehicle jeopardizes the lives of others. Professional drivers shouldn't be excepted either. If Fedex or UPS needs GPS routing, it should be predetermined and the relevant segment should be set before it's begun. I see people, even truck drivers, almost every day who have their little plastic digital appendage hanging off the side of their heads, oblivious to some subset of the information around them.
The only reason the law isn't severe in this regard is the whim ("interests") of the industrial heads who want to enhance so-called "worker productivity." By and large we just aren't equipped to split our consciousness effectively between the complex metaphorical representations of information processing commands and the tasks inherent to safely operating a vehicle while it's moving among other vehicles and pedestrians, while also trying to discern between irrelevant commercial signage and nearby road markers and traffic signage which might be critical for the lawful operation of said vehilce. It's hard enough to write a brief description of the variables, let alone executing the tasks in a timely fashion.
There's plenty of research that's be done, and we've all been directed to it from time to time. Some of the latest indicts adults more than kids. (Not that this should surprise anyone since the distinction is arbitrary as far as brain science is concerned.) Whether that direction comes from television, newspaper reporting, academic journals or news aggregators like Slashdot doesn't really matter. The courts need to be empowered to stop punish people who use lethal devices under circumstances where it's not reasonable to expect due care and consideration are possible for your fellow citizens.
People need clear rules as well as swift and sure punishment when they endanger others through lack of adequate concern.
Of all the commentary offered on this post, I found yours most interesting and valuable. You offered a creative, evidence-based, practical solution without preaching, and you softly supported your view with personal experience and an evaluation of others' successful struggles, no unnecessary judgment included.
I also enjoyed the means by which you chose to embed your social commentary. "...why STEM is pressed so hard..." (I would argue that it's because we need creatively engineered solutions that will connect a desirable future to our present situation. Given our current trajectory, how we characterize the politics of the string pullers will become less important over time.)
Follow your bliss, but be practical. Observe the world and be flexible enough to respond to the opportunities it presents. Realize that loving an activity may not be enough to sustain you in the fashion to which you might like to become accustomed, unless the society you live in values your particular predilection commensurately with the level or your desire.
Observe, evaluate, imagine, respond. (Repeat as necessary.) And reserve the right to be happy, even if it's not for pay.
I imagine that the none-too-distant future will be littered with STEM grads who might benefit from your kind counsel.
I know you think you're protecting your rights, but it doesn't mean you aren't facilitating trafficking meth, heroin or the next big thing in soma-jolting chemistry when you advocate for an untappable form of communication.
Your right to privacy is actually a proscription against unreasonable use of governmental power. It's not absolute, and it's not guaranteed the 'evil corporation' we all like to whine and bitch about shouldn't be subject to compliance for such measures as reasonable surveillance.
I don't like assuming that there's an unfriendly, obtrusive ear, eye or nose pressed to my privates either, but there are bigger evils out there than the DEA.
Yes, he was smart enough to realize that he was in the right place, at the right time, with a skill set and personality that were better suited to entrepreneurialism, at that point, than the opportunities academia might have afforded over time. And, it's a good thing Microsoft was able to buy QDOS from Tim Paterson when it did, or we might not be having this trivial exchange.
So that simple-minded corporations won't confuse themselves wondering if it might be cheaper to risk getting caught.
There's no excuse for allowing energy companies, some of the most profitable in existence to off-load (externalize) the cost of their operations and subsidize their profits by burdening public utilities with the clean up expense, especially when those facilities were never intended to deal with substances like those used in the 'proprietary mixtures' that fracking companies have protected from the prying eyes of the public.
Setting standards that require these morons to clean up their own mess, and attaching penalties for failure that put violartors out of business is the only thing U.S. corporations understand.
It's environmentalism theater, just like we have security theater. If I turn out the lights for an hour I can say I've done "my part" to help the environment and raise awareness then go back to ignoring it the rest of the year.
Nice! All I have to do is remember to turn out your lights?
Then think of the future, don't have children, and stay out of the way. No one wants to look back on the kind of world that kind of attitude ends up promoting.
... choose to ignore your rights when Congress fails to respect them?
"A public interest coalition known as Citizens Trade Campaign published a draft of the Trans Pacific Parnership chapter on “investment” revealing information about the “international tribunal” which would allow corporations to directly sue governments that have barriers to “potential profits.”
This is exactly the type of domestic situtaion that allows real estate developers to sue state or local governments for inflated valuation based on the claim of 'lost future profits' when eminent domain is used to condemn property, even though the purpose requires that the action be in the better interest of the general public. I've never understood why the courts don't make it clear that an investor's freedom to risk does not imply an inherent 'right' to expect a profit, but now the Obama administration appears likely to codify it for transnational corporations?
Additionally, I've never been able to fathom the short-sightedness of the U.S. ratifying trade agreements that allow companies in other countries that lack the same environmental protections, equivalent to our Federal EPA's, to import goods here without meeting the same standards or suffering economic sanctions that would offset the advantage. If we made international polluters pay for the access to our markets, we could use the fees to support clean development overseas. Unfortunately, if we subsidize clean operations here, other countries can argue for the right to sanction us under the rules of the WTO treaty.
These international treaties, that promote commerce while diminishing respect for environmental justice, hurt us all in the long run. It makes the task of promoting social justice harder as well. Focusing on trade while subordinating the health of the environment makes it easier for governments to avoid the inevitable questions of sustainability or population growth.
We already live in a world where the West promotes the futility of population control because it's just to difficult to imagine trying to convince people that we're actually subject to the same constraints that science, religion or globalization are exacerbating for the rest of the life.
I wonder who will die last, with all the toys... the lucky stiff.
Espionage is old news, it's ongoing, and it's hyped beyond reason. ("Cyber-espionage is old news. What’s new is the rhetoric...")
We individuals aren't informed by our governments, and our ignorance is preyed upon. ("Unfortunately, both the reality and the rhetoric play right into the hands of the military and corporate interests that are behind the cyberwar arms race in the first place... Arms races are fueled by two things: ignorance and fear.")
We're purposely being fed fear, uncertainty and doubt. ("Nationalism is rife on the Internet, and it’s getting worse.")
He then went on to suggest that medi-hype and jingoistic nationalistic rhetoric breed fear, obfuscate ignorance and fuel arms races.
You should be more concerned about what your are being asked to ignore. The systematic dismantling of progressive politics in this country is diminishing social stability by creating a permanent underclass in a country that claims to be the world's most powerful and encouraging a hubris among those who believe they can have everything they ever wanted by leaving our future to the benign management of a formal corporate cleptocracy.
BTW if you really want to give up a little freedom for enhanced security from government or the benevolence of wealthy people who will run things for you, perhaps you should consider hopping over to the other side of the Pacific Ocean.
Just because I don't speak to you directly doesn't mean you're blind, deaf or dumb.
Russia & the U.S. initiated an incredibly expensive arms race based on fear, uncertainty and doubt. Both now stand to benefit significantly from a reduction of nuclear force. We still devote too many resources; time & money to maintenance of these weapons, supporting infrastructure, manpower, training and security. The discussion has been fairly open in this country, and the security concerns about Russia's nuclear arsenal have been openly addressed in the Western press.
China's leaders aren't stupid, and they don't need us to tell them there's a trade-off between pea-shooters and commerce. If we're scaling back, they may not feel the need to scale up as much.
Slashdot Mirror
How much more forgettable will Arnold be now that he's just some old white guy with an illegitimate child and former career as a Republican? Maybe he can have Karl Rove do a cameo. That would be truly shocking.
Especially with all the hot air they depend on for traffic, revenue and stock price inflation.
I'm amazed at how simplistic the UN 'report' seems to be. They don't begin to mirror the complexity of the modeling that was begun by MIT for the Club of Rome, beginning in the early 1970's. The report that was commissioned then, called The Limits to Growth, attempted to take into consideration those factors that relate to human population growth such as: climate, agricultural productivity, natural resource availability (particularly potable water and arable land), marginal costs of resource extraction (accounting for the fact that man his already begun to exhaust the most easily obtained sources of materials and energy). It's obvious that economics, education, culture and geopolitics also play rolls in determining growth and population, as do disease and technological advancement, but extrapolating future population growth rates based on simple mathematics, in the absence of some attempt to factor in the detriment we do collectively to the global environment and it's ability to sustain indefinite and increasing rates of consumption seems irresponsible. As does the reporting that would allow one to consider such gibberish without due consideration for the quality of life. Particularly when business clamors for increased opportunity for production and consumption based on some idealized notion of western industrial lifestyles as the likely model for the developing world. Malthus and the Ehrlichs may have been ahead of their time and presented by the critics as doomsayers, but they are worth listening to, given that man has recently succeeded in populating the vast majority of easily and economically inhabitable niches in the biosphere and it's our population's energetics and habitat competition that are accelerating extinction rates beyond anything heretofore evidenced in paleontology.
The Tea Potty people are fearful to the core, and there is a hierarchy of fears. Xenophobia is a more primal fear than fear of government, notwithstanding the conundrum presented by (*gasp*) black people in office, so it's higher on the totem pole of fear.
Don't forget, those good Christians know that their ancestors were doing battle with Muslims a millenium ago. They may not know why, but they know that the crusades were fought in the name of Christianity, and they're all about clinging to the old ways, ahem... tradition.
Besides, no one ever expects... (wait for it!) The Spanish Inquisition!
Why would Apple feed Google when they already own the most affluent consumers? The faithful pay a premium for Apple's superior interface, consistent experience and assurance that when there's an update, it's actually an improvement. Aside from which iTunes may not be perfect but it performs everything anyone needs it do without having to leave the farm, scrutinize a haystack of search result or wonder if you're going to download a virus, receive a notice of indiscretion from one's ISP or end up with a file that was planted by the RIAA to corrupt a file sharing database.
Aside from that, Google's no panacea for the average user. For example, I waited til Jelly Bean was available on the Android phone I waited to buy, just so I could avoid the pain of early adoption. And when I 'upgraded' from Ice Cream Sandwich to Jelly Bean, T-Mobiles ironically named Sense service broke Apps and Widgets alike. One of the most useful Widgets was actually engineered by the same developers responsible for maintaining the Sense update system, itself. Such discourtesy only leaves me scratching my head. To top it off, there's no rollback option.
Google may have opened up another profit center, but as a user who doesn't really want to waste time with issues like this, my experience has only added to my admiration for Apple and diminished the credibility quotient I apply to Google.
This experience has only solidified my respect for Apple and my belief that the most successful catering to the least common denominator among UX designers usually leaves the average user at a disadvantage. Apple has less than nothing to gain from depending on search when the experience they provide is superior.
Wrong... you forgot the involvement of the French and the Iroquois.
Life adapts, but only given the opportunity. There are 5 massive epochal die-offs that prove your point. They also prove that you're not thinking this through very well. Many of the humans you're talking about adapt using rather violent tactics. It's called war. If you believe that the geopolitical considerations will just sort themselves out, then you haven't read much history. The logical limits to growth are also the logical variables that lead to armed conflict if and when diplomacy fails.
Currently a good portion of the cause for the success of the world's dominant economic powers revolves around the development of technology, but it's also predated by the accident of unimpeded access to abundant natural resources. Accidental in the sense that water, arable land, lumber and minerals existed as those political powers developed their technologies. The modern construct of ownership has always been enforced through warfare.
What do you think will happen when climate challenges the ability of the current geopolitical regimes? It's not going to be orderly or pretty if, "humans (attempt) to evacuate equatorial regions and inhabit a wider world." The Maldives and other island populations are the first to confront such a reality, but they'll easily be able to integrate into other areas. What do you think will happen if most of the existing population below 30 degress latitude in both hemispheres is forced to evacuate?
The interesting part is that they looked at the "habitats that these species now live in". They did not look at habitats that are not currently suitable for the species to live in. For all we know there could be more area that species could live in when the climate changed. By concentrating on current species ranges the scientists are skewing the results. One should look at the whole system before coming to a conclusion.
I see your point, but you seem to be oversimplifying the complexity of 'the problem'. Some plants are capable of dispersing their seeds on the wind. Others don't use mechanisms which allow them to 'migrate' as quickly. Regardless of the natural methods they depend upon, including dispersion via carriage in the guts of birds or mammals, the environment in which the seed finds itself has to be favorable for germination, growth and reproduction, including pollination.
With or without human intervention, the probability that existing plant species will find favorable habitat and do so in a timely manner so as to avoid extinction is a crap shoot. Even animals can't outrun climate change if there's no path suitable; case in point, the Golden Toad that used to exist in the cloud forests of Costa Rica. Remember, Man has to support +7 billion people and therefore, we're competitors for the habitat that wild species need as well. Farmers that depend upon the 'conventional' means of production are apt to be far more concerned with finding reliable fields for their monocultures and pesticides than they will be interested in taking on the task of assisting the rest of the naturally occurring species. The destruction of rainforests in Brazil is accelerating due to just such 'free market' forces.
And lest ye forget, there are plenty of specialized relationships between plants and pollinators. In many scientifically documented cases, earlier and earlier warm weather causes the plant to flower before the insect has pupated. Fewer and fewer flowers feed decreasing numbers of butterflies or moths. The feedback loop dooms both the plant and the insect.
The Checkerspot butterfly (now endangered) used to be so common that vast clouds were seen in California. Now up and down the west coast, there are only isolated pockets left. They depended upon a relatively common plant which is also in decline. A subspecies in the northwest, the Edith's checkerspot, exists in only 5 small micro-niches. The temperature and timing of the plant's life cycle caused these populations to exist in concert at higher and higher elevations where the plant would grow and butterflies would hatch out consistently within the appropriate time frame. This mutualism is common place in nature, but it's developed over vast amounts of time.
Raising the temperature of the earth an average of 4 degrees Celsius over 100 years is hardly enough time for Man to respond in order to protect his infrastructure and interconnected economies. If you think the current crises in Europe, the U.S. or those that recently preceded in Japan, Thailand, Argentina or Chile were large or that they took a while to iron out, get ready for what's likely to come with increasingly frequent drought, decreased snow pack and agricultural yield volatility which results from these two phenomena in tandem. The notion that nature will be able to respond to such radical change while competing with the 800 lb. hairless gorilla who now dominates the entire world with his agricultural needs is ludicrous.
Unless we develop our collective prefrontal cortex and create a plan to deal the predictable results of the last 150 years of accelerating environmental abuse, it really won't matter
On the other hand, so to speak, if you give a thief your fingerprint to unlock your phone when he steels it, he will have its use until it locks again. But if you teach the thief to reset this security feature with his own fingerprint, then it will be recorded in the system memory. And if the phone were traceable, then you could teach him a lesson for the rest of his life.
Note: I didn't intend to be sexist when writing this comment. On the off chance anyone feels left out, please feel free to switch the gender of the thief in the last sentence.
OMG... how dare you disparage a U.S. Senator, our entire military, law enforcement, the CIA, and defenders of the Confederacy and all other batshit-crazy people everywhere, all in the same sentence! You better watch out. Homeland Insecurity has a label for people like you.
BTW Nice job, usually it takes tiny littlte balls of lead for such a scatter-shot approach.
Get this straight. There is no attack on your second amendment rights, you thumb sucker. Furthermore, even if there is a national gun registry, as all you paranoid 4F jackasses seem to believe, it wouldn't abridge your right to own a gun anymore than the requirement for a concealed weapons permit. I hear real estate in Idaho is appreciating rapidly. Perhaps you'd better look into to it before the Ruby Ridge Gated Home for Minute Minds is beyond your means.
Internal oversight is a bad joke. There's the huge, obvious conflict of interest - foxes are in charge of watching the henhouse. And there are no repercussions when it fails.
Oh, you mean like FINRA, the financial industry regulatory authority, Inc., which bills itself as, "the largest independent securities regulator in the U.S." Whose chief mission is to protect (investors by maintaining the fairness of) the U.S. capital markets." It's actually private corporation, itself. And if you know anything about the nature of law and ownership, the implication is clear. Their responsibility is to their shareholders. How do they do this? By "acting" like a "self-regulatory organization," providing the mediators which your brokerage contract requires you to use in lieu of your right to sue. The one you sign away when you contract with any brokerage firm.
Or would you use the Constitution as an example by acknowledging that only reason state citizens actually elect their U.S. senators directly results from the 17th Amendment. That didn't get passed 'til after the Robber Barons (not exactly a pejorative term when you really think about it) had so egregiously harmed the public interest that the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was passed. Then Roosevelt 'had' to go after Standard Oil since Rockefeller hid behind "the Oil & Gas Legislature" in Ohio, which he owned. It was journalists like Stone, Sinclair Lewis and Ida Tarbell who blew the whistle and stirred reaction.
Internal oversight is only a joke if you let it be. Nothing stands alone if you're right there next to it.
If Mr. Thomas "Editor-at-Large" Claburn wants to claim he's doing investigative journalism, he has a long way to go before he's in the same league as Edward R. Murrow, I.F. Stone (The Life and Times of Rebel Journalist) I.F. Stone, or Si Hersh. Granted, the issues here don't seem like they have the same importance, but he does have a point.
If states see fit to argue successfully in federal court that their citizen's rights are impinged upon by a multi-national corporation, you might be tempted to believe that it would be in all our best interest to have the opportunity to understand how and why the decision was reached as well as to perform the public service of monitoring the offender's compliance with the orders of the court. We have certainly seen this play out in the context of "sex offenders." Why not corporate monopolists?
The legal standard used for sealing federal court records might provide some direction. Or perhaps it could and should be argued that in any case involving of a company with the size, power and reach of Microsoft, particularly with respect to it's opportunity to do harm in the scope of its control over a product like Windows which has nearly monopolistic market share and ubiquitous effects on the citizenry at large, the public has a right to know and an interest in the outcome of the case as well as the judgment of the court and the terms any settlement.
On the other hand, you might just as well believe, as Mitt Romney does, that Google and Microsoft deserve to be treated just like people... oh, wait... wouldn't that imply that since they have been shown to be utterly disrespectful of any reasonable expectation of privacy, along with your ISP, your POTS and wireless telecomm providers and your local police department, they should be listed and tracked on a serial offenders list? And they should be required to update government with any change of address? (You'll just have to use the NYSE or Lexis/Nexis.)
Sigh... It's too overwhelming. Even global commerce just isn't that important. I mean, how is it that any of the investment banks that nearly brought the world's system of economic exchange to and end can settle any case with the federal government, have the terms of deal sealed and avoid admitting any wrong doing? I guess we'll just never know...
-- Time to put on your critical thinking caps kiddies!! --
People who use a handheld computer while driving should have their license suspended, and the circumstances should be used to determine the amount of time they spend in jail... no exceptions should be allowed, in my not-so-humble and somewhat emotionally outraged opinion. There are very few people I know who are adept at utilizing the interface to most of the Apps or other built-in functionality of a complex device like a smarphone, without error or distraction, while they are concentrating on it alone. Doing it while operating a 2-4 ton vehicle jeopardizes the lives of others. Professional drivers shouldn't be excepted either. If Fedex or UPS needs GPS routing, it should be predetermined and the relevant segment should be set before it's begun. I see people, even truck drivers, almost every day who have their little plastic digital appendage hanging off the side of their heads, oblivious to some subset of the information around them. The only reason the law isn't severe in this regard is the whim ("interests") of the industrial heads who want to enhance so-called "worker productivity." By and large we just aren't equipped to split our consciousness effectively between the complex metaphorical representations of information processing commands and the tasks inherent to safely operating a vehicle while it's moving among other vehicles and pedestrians, while also trying to discern between irrelevant commercial signage and nearby road markers and traffic signage which might be critical for the lawful operation of said vehilce. It's hard enough to write a brief description of the variables, let alone executing the tasks in a timely fashion. There's plenty of research that's be done, and we've all been directed to it from time to time. Some of the latest indicts adults more than kids. (Not that this should surprise anyone since the distinction is arbitrary as far as brain science is concerned.) Whether that direction comes from television, newspaper reporting, academic journals or news aggregators like Slashdot doesn't really matter. The courts need to be empowered to stop punish people who use lethal devices under circumstances where it's not reasonable to expect due care and consideration are possible for your fellow citizens. People need clear rules as well as swift and sure punishment when they endanger others through lack of adequate concern.
Of all the commentary offered on this post, I found yours most interesting and valuable. You offered a creative, evidence-based, practical solution without preaching, and you softly supported your view with personal experience and an evaluation of others' successful struggles, no unnecessary judgment included.
I also enjoyed the means by which you chose to embed your social commentary. "...why STEM is pressed so hard..." (I would argue that it's because we need creatively engineered solutions that will connect a desirable future to our present situation. Given our current trajectory, how we characterize the politics of the string pullers will become less important over time.)
Follow your bliss, but be practical. Observe the world and be flexible enough to respond to the opportunities it presents. Realize that loving an activity may not be enough to sustain you in the fashion to which you might like to become accustomed, unless the society you live in values your particular predilection commensurately with the level or your desire.
Observe, evaluate, imagine, respond. (Repeat as necessary.) And reserve the right to be happy, even if it's not for pay.
I imagine that the none-too-distant future will be littered with STEM grads who might benefit from your kind counsel.
I know you think you're protecting your rights, but it doesn't mean you aren't facilitating trafficking meth, heroin or the next big thing in soma-jolting chemistry when you advocate for an untappable form of communication. Your right to privacy is actually a proscription against unreasonable use of governmental power. It's not absolute, and it's not guaranteed the 'evil corporation' we all like to whine and bitch about shouldn't be subject to compliance for such measures as reasonable surveillance. I don't like assuming that there's an unfriendly, obtrusive ear, eye or nose pressed to my privates either, but there are bigger evils out there than the DEA.
Yes, he was smart enough to realize that he was in the right place, at the right time, with a skill set and personality that were better suited to entrepreneurialism, at that point, than the opportunities academia might have afforded over time. And, it's a good thing Microsoft was able to buy QDOS from Tim Paterson when it did, or we might not be having this trivial exchange.
So that simple-minded corporations won't confuse themselves wondering if it might be cheaper to risk getting caught.
There's no excuse for allowing energy companies, some of the most profitable in existence to off-load (externalize) the cost of their operations and subsidize their profits by burdening public utilities with the clean up expense, especially when those facilities were never intended to deal with substances like those used in the 'proprietary mixtures' that fracking companies have protected from the prying eyes of the public.
Setting standards that require these morons to clean up their own mess, and attaching penalties for failure that put violartors out of business is the only thing U.S. corporations understand.
It's environmentalism theater, just like we have security theater. If I turn out the lights for an hour I can say I've done "my part" to help the environment and raise awareness then go back to ignoring it the rest of the year.
Nice! All I have to do is remember to turn out your lights?
Then think of the future, don't have children, and stay out of the way. No one wants to look back on the kind of world that kind of attitude ends up promoting.
... choose to ignore your rights when Congress fails to respect them?
"A public interest coalition known as Citizens Trade Campaign published a draft of the Trans Pacific Parnership chapter on “investment” revealing information about the “international tribunal” which would allow corporations to directly sue governments that have barriers to “potential profits.”
This is exactly the type of domestic situtaion that allows real estate developers to sue state or local governments for inflated valuation based on the claim of 'lost future profits' when eminent domain is used to condemn property, even though the purpose requires that the action be in the better interest of the general public. I've never understood why the courts don't make it clear that an investor's freedom to risk does not imply an inherent 'right' to expect a profit, but now the Obama administration appears likely to codify it for transnational corporations?
Additionally, I've never been able to fathom the short-sightedness of the U.S. ratifying trade agreements that allow companies in other countries that lack the same environmental protections, equivalent to our Federal EPA's, to import goods here without meeting the same standards or suffering economic sanctions that would offset the advantage. If we made international polluters pay for the access to our markets, we could use the fees to support clean development overseas. Unfortunately, if we subsidize clean operations here, other countries can argue for the right to sanction us under the rules of the WTO treaty.
These international treaties, that promote commerce while diminishing respect for environmental justice, hurt us all in the long run. It makes the task of promoting social justice harder as well. Focusing on trade while subordinating the health of the environment makes it easier for governments to avoid the inevitable questions of sustainability or population growth.
We already live in a world where the West promotes the futility of population control because it's just to difficult to imagine trying to convince people that we're actually subject to the same constraints that science, religion or globalization are exacerbating for the rest of the life.
I wonder who will die last, with all the toys... the lucky stiff.
Schneier points out three things that make sense.
He then went on to suggest that medi-hype and jingoistic nationalistic rhetoric breed fear, obfuscate ignorance and fuel arms races.
You should be more concerned about what your are being asked to ignore. The systematic dismantling of progressive politics in this country is diminishing social stability by creating a permanent underclass in a country that claims to be the world's most powerful and encouraging a hubris among those who believe they can have everything they ever wanted by leaving our future to the benign management of a formal corporate cleptocracy.
BTW if you really want to give up a little freedom for enhanced security from government or the benevolence of wealthy people who will run things for you, perhaps you should consider hopping over to the other side of the Pacific Ocean.
Wow. Did you cease learning the day your graduated, or ... oops, sorry.
My bad.
Just because I don't speak to you directly doesn't mean you're blind, deaf or dumb.
Russia & the U.S. initiated an incredibly expensive arms race based on fear, uncertainty and doubt. Both now stand to benefit significantly from a reduction of nuclear force. We still devote too many resources; time & money to maintenance of these weapons, supporting infrastructure, manpower, training and security. The discussion has been fairly open in this country, and the security concerns about Russia's nuclear arsenal have been openly addressed in the Western press.
China's leaders aren't stupid, and they don't need us to tell them there's a trade-off between pea-shooters and commerce. If we're scaling back, they may not feel the need to scale up as much.
That way no one will miss the arrival of the new phone book!