I have no evidence but I strongly suspect this kind of news story is part of a sophisticated PR attempt by the telcos to help lay the groundwork for their attempt to tier the internet.
I read a recent NYT article which said if we had faster broadband speeds like in other first world countries, the problems with bottlenecks simply vanish. Let's see if the telcos champion that solution.
Power companies have also finally awoken to the fact that Google has been getting a free ride on the power they are supplying to customers. "We've invested billions of dollars in the world's most stable electrical grid system. Without us, Google's dead."
Ah, so when there is no higher authority, it's OK to throw ethics out the window?
And there is, in fact, a higher authority. It's called world opinion. But Google's unabashed acceptance of human rights crimes as a cost of doing business just made China's crimes more acceptable to the rest of the world.
...you so you decide to go over there and see if he needs a hand with his new deck. Oh, and you also give him a nice new baseball bat that he says he needs for, uh, batting practice. After all, you have a far better chance of reforming him by rewarding him, right?
I am saying that when there's a general consensus about human-induced global warming amongst many people who study it for a living, it's time to stop quibbling about what is absolute scientific truth.
I suppose if 80% of all reputable astronomers thought a 10 mile asteroid spotted on the edge of the solar system was going to collide with the earth and the other 20% said it wouldn't, you would argue that we shouldn't do anything because the data we have isn't solid enough.
The issue of global warming is a practical problem, not a scientific problem. There comes a time when you look at the data you have and you determine there's a strong enough correlation here that we'd be foolish to not take action against a problem of catastrophic proportions.
It's never been tested that the sun will rise tomorrow. Nor is it a "truth" that the sun will rise tomorrow. But I'd say based on the amount of data we've collected and based on our understanding of astronomy that it's a pretty safe bet.
You are forgetting that at some point, theories start having practical consequences. You seem to want to argue that science is just one big theoretical head game that has no bearing on real life existence. While your specious argument is true---that there is no such thing as absolute truth---you ignores the simple fact that we can apply usually apply well-examined and tested theories to reality and can use them to explain and predict phenomena around us.
Surveillance like this is not bad with the proper checks and balances on access to the data and how it is used. But those checks can erode. Sure the data may not be abused this year or the next, but what about 20 years from now, or 100? Can we really be so certain that our democratic institutions will hold together? Sure, today's leaders might have our trust (barely), but how can we possibly put trust in people who aren't even in power yet?
I, for one, am worried about the world my 3-year-old will come to know.
Yes, but there is latency between the time incorrect information gets posted to the wikipedia article and the time it gets corrected. Whether that period is seconds, hours, or days, it's wise to take nothing in a wikipedia article as factual or accurate.
Also, there's no guarantee that any of the articles are written by anyone who knows what they are talking about, especially the articles about more obscure topics. Ideally, an article about jupe production in the early 1900s would be written by some expert on early industrial manufacturing processes. The reality is, that's not always going to be the case.
No resource, no matter who it's written by, is absolutely definitive. Any thorough research will require going to many different sources to arrive at the best approximation of the "truth." Any person who relies on just one source for their information any topic is making a mistake. Wikipedia, Britannica, and other reference works should be considered only as starting points for further research. They should be considered nothing more than signposts for finding your way to other ideas and avenues to explore a topic.
That's the whole point of Neitzshce. We need to be able to stare into the chasm, face it, and overcome it. Life is meaningless. The challenge is to find the meaning.
I'm interested to know if those living overseas can participate. If so, they would drive down the labor costs so much that only truly desperate Americans would participate in this piecework scheme.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no evidence but I strongly suspect this kind of news story is part of a sophisticated PR attempt by the telcos to help lay the groundwork for their attempt to tier the internet.
I read a recent NYT article which said if we had faster broadband speeds like in other first world countries, the problems with bottlenecks simply vanish. Let's see if the telcos champion that solution.
Don't put that subwoofer next to my computer!
Power companies have also finally awoken to the fact that Google has been getting a free ride on the power they are supplying to customers. "We've invested billions of dollars in the world's most stable electrical grid system. Without us, Google's dead."
Yes, probably more accurate to say that.
Ah, so when there is no higher authority, it's OK to throw ethics out the window?
And there is, in fact, a higher authority. It's called world opinion. But Google's unabashed acceptance of human rights crimes as a cost of doing business just made China's crimes more acceptable to the rest of the world.
...you so you decide to go over there and see if he needs a hand with his new deck. Oh, and you also give him a nice new baseball bat that he says he needs for, uh, batting practice. After all, you have a far better chance of reforming him by rewarding him, right?
Censorship leads to freedom.
Totalitarianism births democracy.
Benevolent societies are a natural byproduct following shareholder interests.
I'll voice my opinion at the polls. I hope you don't run for office.
Too bad, indeed. Let us know when you've decided that we have so we can get to work on this problem.
I am saying that when there's a general consensus about human-induced global warming amongst many people who study it for a living, it's time to stop quibbling about what is absolute scientific truth.
I suppose if 80% of all reputable astronomers thought a 10 mile asteroid spotted on the edge of the solar system was going to collide with the earth and the other 20% said it wouldn't, you would argue that we shouldn't do anything because the data we have isn't solid enough.
The issue of global warming is a practical problem, not a scientific problem. There comes a time when you look at the data you have and you determine there's a strong enough correlation here that we'd be foolish to not take action against a problem of catastrophic proportions.
It's never been tested that the sun will rise tomorrow. Nor is it a "truth" that the sun will rise tomorrow. But I'd say based on the amount of data we've collected and based on our understanding of astronomy that it's a pretty safe bet.
You are forgetting that at some point, theories start having practical consequences. You seem to want to argue that science is just one big theoretical head game that has no bearing on real life existence. While your specious argument is true---that there is no such thing as absolute truth---you ignores the simple fact that we can apply usually apply well-examined and tested theories to reality and can use them to explain and predict phenomena around us.
We're committed to making money no matter the cost to human freedom.
It's always easier and often more profitable to take the money and run then build for the future.
What kind of crime, thought crime?
Surveillance like this is not bad with the proper checks and balances on access to the data and how it is used. But those checks can erode. Sure the data may not be abused this year or the next, but what about 20 years from now, or 100? Can we really be so certain that our democratic institutions will hold together? Sure, today's leaders might have our trust (barely), but how can we possibly put trust in people who aren't even in power yet?
I, for one, am worried about the world my 3-year-old will come to know.
Typo: I meant "jute" not "jupe"
Yes, but there is latency between the time incorrect information gets posted to the wikipedia article and the time it gets corrected. Whether that period is seconds, hours, or days, it's wise to take nothing in a wikipedia article as factual or accurate.
Also, there's no guarantee that any of the articles are written by anyone who knows what they are talking about, especially the articles about more obscure topics. Ideally, an article about jupe production in the early 1900s would be written by some expert on early industrial manufacturing processes. The reality is, that's not always going to be the case.
No resource, no matter who it's written by, is absolutely definitive. Any thorough research will require going to many different sources to arrive at the best approximation of the "truth." Any person who relies on just one source for their information any topic is making a mistake. Wikipedia, Britannica, and other reference works should be considered only as starting points for further research. They should be considered nothing more than signposts for finding your way to other ideas and avenues to explore a topic.
This is great. But does anyone know the min. hardware specs? I can't find it on their rather sparse site.
That's the whole point of Neitzshce. We need to be able to stare into the chasm, face it, and overcome it. Life is meaningless. The challenge is to find the meaning.
The only thing I can add is that Drupal CMS is affected by this but they supplied a patch quite a while ago: http://drupal.org/drupal-4.6.3
Dude, I love that cheap-labor conservative label. Good stuff.
Yeah, just like the homeless aluminum can collectors.
I'm interested to know if those living overseas can participate. If so, they would drive down the labor costs so much that only truly desperate Americans would participate in this piecework scheme.