an underdog wanting freedom for himself against an oppressive regime is the fundamental belief of the Right,right?
Ah , now I know why the right wants to ban gays from everything, punish women for getting terminations, break the unions and increase criminal penalties. Its because freedom.
But now I've moved to the Philippines. We recently had a high of 37 degrees in the shade - the temperature when fans stop cooling you and start warming you up. And the thing is, most people in this town can't afford air conditioning. Many of them don't have electricity. And among those with AC and electricity, some of them have to work outdoors in the daytime.
Try a month of 40c+ like we had a few years back in west australia. That was hellish.
And the fun part is some of the areas in the north of australia had regular 50c days. Thats the point where people start dying without some sort of cooling.
I should note the article states "Since we started talking about global warning in the 1970s" or something to that effect. No, we've been talking about it since the late 1800s when the greenhouse effect was first discovered and worried scientist started wondering if all the coal being sooted into the air from the industrial revolution might have unintended consequences. The science was always fairly solid. CO2 (and other gases like methane) absorb gases at various spectra, which then becomes either heat (warming) or disipates into kinetic energy (storms and general chaos). There has never really been any proposed new physics that would prevent this happening, nor reliable observations that it isn't, yet unfortunately a large population still thinks its this whacky idea invented by environmentalists in the 70s and then adopted by some spooky lizard people cartel looking to lie about physics for some reason nobody seems to be able to explain.So I still call it the greenhouse effect, because thats what it is.
Anything deemed 'self research' or 'fringe science' or 'unpopular' is removed. lol.
Ok, crazy person, let me get this straight. Basic tenants of peer review and institutionally supported science are "lol", but a website that says;-
"Who wants to be pulvarized, pressurized, raped, and hurt with electronic warfare/interferometry (projected radiation) without their consent, in total secrecy? It's happening to me right now.:)" is not "lol".
Jesus fucking Christ what is this obsession with nuclear power. Yes, it's part of the solution, but nuclear power still requires nonrenewable resources in the form of radioactive elements to actually work.
To be honest I understand the concern with uranium fusion. Its part of the weapon enrichment cycle and Chenobyl and Fukushima have left a bad taste in the mouth, even if Fukushima really wasnt as bad as made out , and chenobyl (which WAS a genuinely bad turn of events) had more to do with the failings of a reactor (positive coeficient) design we simply dont make anymore for obvious reasons.
Thorium seems like the obvious way forward here. Its super abundant. The waste products have lifespans in the tens rather than tens-of-thousands of year half lifes, and should we derp up again, its not going to have the same meltdown characteristics which uranium reactors can.
It'll just take a bit more research. But not like Fusion which STILL seems like its decades away from being even remotely useful.
Not in Europe, and European Christians wouldn't consider anyone reading the bible literally a true Christian, more a Muslim Christian if anything, because what separates Christians from Muslims is that they read their holy book literally.
Islamic theology isn't "what in book=true. what not in book=shaitan". Theres a long long history of islamic theology based on interpretting the quoran as a symbolic and poetic document full of allegories and metaphors.
Just because some nutty goddamn jihadis seem to have skipped that part of theology class, doesnt mean super-fundamentalism is a feature of all islam.
Hell, look at the sufis. Its *all* symbolism for those mystical cats.
Maybe does. I am however certain you dont understand cryptography.
Almost no online service saves passwords. They save a one way hash of the password. When the user puts their own password in, if the hashes match then authentication happens. For basic cloud data theres no need to have any way at all for the *server* to decrypt it.
It gets a bit more complicated when the data needs to be complicated, invoving row level encryption and all sorts of drama around how that stuff interacts, but its entirely possible.
Those things where great little units. Expensive, but really well built. We had a couple of them back in the day and they had to be some of the most elegantly designed rack fodder I've come across.
The term JIT predates compilers and goes back to automobile manufacturing practices where companies would minimise excess stock by optimizing manufacture workflow so that parts come online just as they are needed.
As you've noted, Mr. Webster runs the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Healthâ(TM)s Center for Gun Policy and Research; his job is basically to fund and promote anti-gun research, so when Daniel Webster comes out and says a [/snip]
Whilst I realise Slashdots taken somewhat of an anti-intellectual nose-dive lately (as evidenced by a preponderance of anti climate science crackpottery), I believe the term you are looking for is "gun research", not "anti-gun research". Its a university research lab. It looks at the numbers and deduces what the statistics say.
I really wish people like this got booted out of office by the fed up constituency. How much tax payer money was just wasted on drafting this piece of worthless paper? I fully realize how fed up and cynical I have become.
The worst part is they *cant* pass this law. Its straight up unconstitutional. Section 9 of the constitution straight up forbids pasing bills of atainder (A law targetting a specific individual and declaring them guilty) or retrospective laws. This would last 5 minutes in court before being turfed out without even a hearing.
I think theres a point where you'd have to go "I can literally fly to space as a space tourist on the interest of my bank account". I have no reason at all to be unhappy when 3/4 of the world are on or under $100 a week
Im not sure this is a helpful distinction. Fascism was a much more complicated beast than simply the collusion of government and capitalism. There was an underlying mythology of the nation and of violence. Fascism was the glorification of the dictatorship of the nationalists, and all had to fall into compliance, citizens, companies, the military and so on, and any opponent was to be smashes with maximum violence. I dont know this exactly describes this. Certainly the tendency towards unreasonable patriotism certainly doesnt help, but its not quite fascism, its something else....
It *does* account for those. The probability is based on how many people would have to be in on it. The moonlanding hoax and the "climate change is a hoax" conspiracy theories require incredibly large numbers of people to be involved and thus would have been quickly discovered, but since theres no evidence either of them are a hoax and the time scale involved, we can thus conclude theres no conspiracy. The nixon vietnam talks conspiracy however involved a small number of conspirators, and this greatly increases the likelihood of a conspiracy succeeding.
Does he mean that blockchain that is already having trouble scaling in a Bitcoin market of meth dealers and Russian ransomware jockeys? What would happen if we tried using it to, say, keep track of the world's Visa transactions?
Internet humor is defined as tragedy that ends with the words "and then I lost my bitcoins".
Pray that doesn't become "and then I lost my visa".
The first amendment right is a right to speak. Its not a right to force others to listen.
No first amendment rights are being violated here. There is a do not call list that people opt into that means "This person does not wish to recieve your phone calls". If you think that allowing people to be forced into hearing others speech is OK, then fine, but lets not pretend that position is about defending rights.
So then it's something completely different? The current trend of 'lets play' has, afaik, nothing to do with watching each other and everything to do with being watched.
In some ways yes. However term itself did come from SomethingAwful. The actual youtube video format that emerged since can be attributed to a dude called "slowbeef" who, not surprisingly, was a somethingawful member.
We did the same here in Australia, maybe in the 80s or early 90s. Removed the 1 and 2 cent copper coins. Around the same time we moved 1 and 2 dollar notes to coins. Didn't have a lot of effect, other than making the minimum bag of lollies 5c instead of 2c (Hey, I was a kid at the time!).
The term actually came from Something Awful forums and the "Lets play" threads where they'd take turns playing a game and posting the results. Dwarf fortress "succession" games would be the cannonical example here.
Sony has had no role in this, and they are trademarking something they have no right to.
myGov has to be one of the worst executions of a good idea I've come across. Basicallly its a single sign on portal to other government services that appears to be designed by a committee of very user unfriendly elderly people. You dont get to have a username, you get a user number. The system insists on a *very* strict password, and if you get it wrong three times, your account is locked for the day, even if your on a welfare payment that requires you to log in that day by law. It also asks you to answer various questions ("What is your mothers maiden name" type things, and its anal about input to the point of paranoia. Capitals wrong? One day account lock!). I get that they are worried about security , but how about letting us have a user name we can remember, and setting that auth question to case insensitive!
If Freeman Dyson says your science is rubbish, it is.
Confirming once again that a lot of slashdot posters appear highly incapable of judging expertise.
Dysons a smart guy, we all know that, but he's not qualified on the topic (and says so himself) and has opinions somewhat at odds with those who are qualified on the topic. his claims on fluid dynamics are decades out of date, he's consistently misrepresented the models (possibly by incompetence rather than dishonesty, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt here) and pushes the idea that increasing CO2 would be "good for the ecosystem" despite the abundantly clear evidence that so far the CO2 has had utterly chaotic effects on ocean acidity.
These so-called "Atomic Scientists" don't actually do any "Atomic Science" (whatever the fuck that is), because they're staunchly anti-nuclear, so this would preclude any type of "Atomic Science".
No, they oppose atomic *weapons*, which is an eminently sensible position to take. They are not anti nuclear power, however, and in fact their stance is that Nuclear power is probably the best way forward in reducing greenhouse emissions.
Their staff are mostly nuclear or related hard scientists with some policy experts. They are about as respectable as you get for a policy thinktank.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah the Trump swastikas suggest that its probably the patriotic nigras /b/tards.
Unless its genuine, in which case, uh, get your shit together America.
But its almost certainly just adolecents having fun trolling the true believers.
Ah , now I know why the right wants to ban gays from everything, punish women for getting terminations, break the unions and increase criminal penalties. Its because freedom.
MEANWHILE IN BIZARO WORLD.
Try a month of 40c+ like we had a few years back in west australia. That was hellish.
And the fun part is some of the areas in the north of australia had regular 50c days. Thats the point where people start dying without some sort of cooling.
I should note the article states "Since we started talking about global warning in the 1970s" or something to that effect. No, we've been talking about it since the late 1800s when the greenhouse effect was first discovered and worried scientist started wondering if all the coal being sooted into the air from the industrial revolution might have unintended consequences. The science was always fairly solid. CO2 (and other gases like methane) absorb gases at various spectra, which then becomes either heat (warming) or disipates into kinetic energy (storms and general chaos). There has never really been any proposed new physics that would prevent this happening, nor reliable observations that it isn't, yet unfortunately a large population still thinks its this whacky idea invented by environmentalists in the 70s and then adopted by some spooky lizard people cartel looking to lie about physics for some reason nobody seems to be able to explain.So I still call it the greenhouse effect, because thats what it is.
Ok, crazy person, let me get this straight. Basic tenants of peer review and institutionally supported science are "lol", but a website that says;-
To be honest I understand the concern with uranium fusion. Its part of the weapon enrichment cycle and Chenobyl and Fukushima have left a bad taste in the mouth, even if Fukushima really wasnt as bad as made out , and chenobyl (which WAS a genuinely bad turn of events) had more to do with the failings of a reactor (positive coeficient) design we simply dont make anymore for obvious reasons.
Thorium seems like the obvious way forward here. Its super abundant. The waste products have lifespans in the tens rather than tens-of-thousands of year half lifes, and should we derp up again, its not going to have the same meltdown characteristics which uranium reactors can.
It'll just take a bit more research. But not like Fusion which STILL seems like its decades away from being even remotely useful.
Islamic theology isn't "what in book=true. what not in book=shaitan". Theres a long long history of islamic theology based on interpretting the quoran as a symbolic and poetic document full of allegories and metaphors.
Just because some nutty goddamn jihadis seem to have skipped that part of theology class, doesnt mean super-fundamentalism is a feature of all islam.
Hell, look at the sufis. Its *all* symbolism for those mystical cats.
Maybe does. I am however certain you dont understand cryptography.
Almost no online service saves passwords. They save a one way hash of the password. When the user puts their own password in, if the hashes match then authentication happens. For basic cloud data theres no need to have any way at all for the *server* to decrypt it.
It gets a bit more complicated when the data needs to be complicated, invoving row level encryption and all sorts of drama around how that stuff interacts, but its entirely possible.
Those things where great little units. Expensive, but really well built. We had a couple of them back in the day and they had to be some of the most elegantly designed rack fodder I've come across.
The term JIT predates compilers and goes back to automobile manufacturing practices where companies would minimise excess stock by optimizing manufacture workflow so that parts come online just as they are needed.
Whilst I realise Slashdots taken somewhat of an anti-intellectual nose-dive lately (as evidenced by a preponderance of anti climate science crackpottery), I believe the term you are looking for is "gun research", not "anti-gun research". Its a university research lab. It looks at the numbers and deduces what the statistics say.
The worst part is they *cant* pass this law. Its straight up unconstitutional. Section 9 of the constitution straight up forbids pasing bills of atainder (A law targetting a specific individual and declaring them guilty) or retrospective laws. This would last 5 minutes in court before being turfed out without even a hearing.
apple do not make guns.
Although if they did, they'd be amazing looking
and only shoot rubber bullets
Why would you even bother posting if you havent even read the article?
What more does the FBI want? The suspects are dead. Stop spending money on diminishing returns.
Presumably they want info on who they where talking to. If the shooters had accomplices, the FBI wants to know who they are.
I think theres a point where you'd have to go "I can literally fly to space as a space tourist on the interest of my bank account". I have no reason at all to be unhappy when 3/4 of the world are on or under $100 a week
Im not sure this is a helpful distinction. Fascism was a much more complicated beast than simply the collusion of government and capitalism. There was an underlying mythology of the nation and of violence. Fascism was the glorification of the dictatorship of the nationalists, and all had to fall into compliance, citizens, companies, the military and so on, and any opponent was to be smashes with maximum violence. I dont know this exactly describes this. Certainly the tendency towards unreasonable patriotism certainly doesnt help, but its not quite fascism, its something else....
It *does* account for those. The probability is based on how many people would have to be in on it. The moonlanding hoax and the "climate change is a hoax" conspiracy theories require incredibly large numbers of people to be involved and thus would have been quickly discovered, but since theres no evidence either of them are a hoax and the time scale involved, we can thus conclude theres no conspiracy. The nixon vietnam talks conspiracy however involved a small number of conspirators, and this greatly increases the likelihood of a conspiracy succeeding.
Internet humor is defined as tragedy that ends with the words "and then I lost my bitcoins".
Pray that doesn't become "and then I lost my visa".
The first amendment right is a right to speak. Its not a right to force others to listen.
No first amendment rights are being violated here. There is a do not call list that people opt into that means "This person does not wish to recieve your phone calls". If you think that allowing people to be forced into hearing others speech is OK, then fine, but lets not pretend that position is about defending rights.
In some ways yes. However term itself did come from SomethingAwful. The actual youtube video format that emerged since can be attributed to a dude called "slowbeef" who, not surprisingly, was a somethingawful member.
We did the same here in Australia, maybe in the 80s or early 90s. Removed the 1 and 2 cent copper coins. Around the same time we moved 1 and 2 dollar notes to coins. Didn't have a lot of effect, other than making the minimum bag of lollies 5c instead of 2c (Hey, I was a kid at the time!).
The term actually came from Something Awful forums and the "Lets play" threads where they'd take turns playing a game and posting the results. Dwarf fortress "succession" games would be the cannonical example here.
Sony has had no role in this, and they are trademarking something they have no right to.
myGov has to be one of the worst executions of a good idea I've come across. Basicallly its a single sign on portal to other government services that appears to be designed by a committee of very user unfriendly elderly people. You dont get to have a username, you get a user number. The system insists on a *very* strict password, and if you get it wrong three times, your account is locked for the day, even if your on a welfare payment that requires you to log in that day by law. It also asks you to answer various questions ("What is your mothers maiden name" type things, and its anal about input to the point of paranoia. Capitals wrong? One day account lock!). I get that they are worried about security , but how about letting us have a user name we can remember, and setting that auth question to case insensitive!
Confirming once again that a lot of slashdot posters appear highly incapable of judging expertise.
Dysons a smart guy, we all know that, but he's not qualified on the topic (and says so himself) and has opinions somewhat at odds with those who are qualified on the topic. his claims on fluid dynamics are decades out of date, he's consistently misrepresented the models (possibly by incompetence rather than dishonesty, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt here) and pushes the idea that increasing CO2 would be "good for the ecosystem" despite the abundantly clear evidence that so far the CO2 has had utterly chaotic effects on ocean acidity.
Why would you take his word over an expert?
These so-called "Atomic Scientists" don't actually do any "Atomic Science" (whatever the fuck that is), because they're staunchly anti-nuclear, so this would preclude any type of "Atomic Science".
No, they oppose atomic *weapons*, which is an eminently sensible position to take. They are not anti nuclear power, however, and in fact their stance is that Nuclear power is probably the best way forward in reducing greenhouse emissions.
Their staff are mostly nuclear or related hard scientists with some policy experts. They are about as respectable as you get for a policy thinktank.