I disagree. The problem here in the first instance, as someone else has already pointed out, is that the EPA doesn't actually test the emissions! How stupid is that? Hooking up a car's exhaust (tail pipe, for US slashdotters!) to an emissions tester should be the only way to get a new vehicle certified for sale. And the manufacturer doesn't get to supply the vehicle, the EPA should select a random one. To be repeated every month on a new set of random vehicles.
Yes, VW defrauded the EPA and them alone, unless they advertised specific emission standards to the public which were not achieved. However, that is what almost all corporations do, unless they know they can't get away with it. VW knew the EPA won't test their vehicles, so they said, what the hell, let's fool them since we can. And so they did.
This is what's wrong in the US. The watchdog asks Monsanto: Are your poisons safe. Monsanto says, yes, they are. Watchdog says it's safe now. Replace Monsanto with other corporation's name. Repeat.
Of course the next question is: What do they do with $18 billion annually??
Of course, the false assumption that CO2 is detrimental in any way to our environment, makes the whole house of cards that is built by wrong legislation, collapse. NO2 is heavy and doesn't float around and oxidises other materials easily, so in the long term ( a day or longer) it has no effect on our air. In the short term (high motor vehicle traffic volume) it is a problem, so lowering emissions of it is a good thing, but then do it for the right reasons, not for brain-dead AGW hysteria reasons.
"organized effort to disrupt climate change science" Really? It's very difficult to disrupt real proven science, if possible at all!
If the science was as good as Mann and his bunch of lynch-mob fans have claimed, it would be indisputable. But as it is, the science is poor and in cases downright fraudulent and pathetic by any real scientific standard. So of course it will be disputed and so-called consensus science will be denied it place, since it's not how science works. No matter how much the lynch-mob hollers and howls, no matter how much they wave their green pitch forks and sticks, they can't fix the fact that the climate hypothesis has been proven wrong time and time again by it's failure to meet the expected outcome. Only because journalists and politicians have been dumbed down to the astounding level of scientific stupidity that they have, is the political agenda of the catastrophic climate change bandwagon still rolling, albeit slower and slower. Soon it will come to a halt and be relegated to the trash-can of history where other hysterical history movements lie in wait for it.
To be fair, if you get your "placebo ~20% effect" from [treatment that does nothing other than convince you that it does something], that's great for health.
I completely agree with her statement that supporting it with public money is completely different from acknowledging that placebo effect can indeed provide help to some people.
But is it good use of public money if 80% of the time there's no positive outcome?
It's still way better than the 3% long term success rate with high-potency toxins like chemotherapy!
Is it just me or what?? You don't "light something on fire". You simply light it. The verb "light" in this context means "to set on fire". Clearly some dimwit started this "lighting on fire" nonsense and now everyone and their parrot is "lighting things on fire".
In summary:
1. You light a fire
2. You set fire to a bush
3. You set a pile of wood on fire
4. You strike a match to light it
You never light something on fire, unless you mean to say that you're setting fire to something that is somehow balanced on top of an existing fire.
No, dufus! A drone is not a person. If a stranger with a camera breaks into your property (since you have six foot fence to keep him out), you rip out the SD card or delete his pictures...
Ok, but you understand that infiltrating a computer in itself should be an offence right? At least I believe it should be if you weren't authorized to do so.
Nope, wrong. If a machine is connected to the internet, the implication is that the owner wants people to connect to it. If a port is open, the implication is that people can connect to it. Many of these cases are not cases when people hack into a system by brute force, but rather where someone find an open port or other door and simply enters. There are no "don't enter" signs on tcp/ip ports for most services. It's the owner's responsibility to close properly that which he doesn't want entered by.
See, I don't like that. If someone breaks into your house because you left a window open it's still punishable by law. The punishment may be minor but it's still clear cut. Why is it different with unauthorized computer entry?
Bad analogy. An open PC is not like an open house. Firstly you don't "see" a gate, walls, doors and windows. You "knock" on ports and when they open and say welcome, you go inside. If they open and don't welcome you, you ask for different ports or use different credentials to see what and who welcomes you. Putting yourself on the internet is inviting people to come and visit. Even dense people can learn to understand that. If you don't want anyone to visit, the responsibility is yours to close the (back)doors and windows. Pun intended.
A farmaceutical product can well take much longer than that between the time the compound was discovered and the time it has passed all clinical trials and gets approval.from the authorities.
I work in the high-tech industry, where it can easily take 5 years between the first conception and the actual sale of the product. Only for small, incremental changes of existing technology, we sometimes get below 2 years.
Ah, but there's the very first problem: Government regulation! Since companies are now practically exempt from prosecution for their mess, government, of all monsters that humans created, has to regulate. Scrap that. Llet companies carry the full brunt of the chances they take with products and it will soon stop. Than, while we're at it, get government out of education as well, so we won't have dumbed-down kids any more. Then people will be able to make good decisions again and not be bamboozled by media campaigns that deceive them currently.
The patent system is broken IMO, but not because of the 20-year term. The threshold for patentability is way too low IMO. Every big player in the industry is aggressively patenting every little idea just because the others do the same and nobody wants to be bitten in the ass by a competitor's patent or a patent troll. (I am personally in a strange position,since my employer provides various incentives to generate IP, so I end up contributing to the systemic problem.)
How about changing the patenting system to take into account the time needed and then give patent holders 5 years once they start selling? It also depends on the industry. A 20 year patent in software (which shouldn't exist in the first instance), is vastly different from a medical patent.
The problem with that is that the "patent protection" types and their funders (e.g. the big drug companies) will fight tooth and nail to prevent your products from being used and marketing, using all sorts of false claims and supposed dangers to do so.
Case in point is colloidal silver which is well known to have amazing anti-fungal and anti-microbial properties, can be used to undo anti-biotic resistance and has been shown to even kill HIV among many other things. (Do resist the trollish urge to post one of the gazillion ill-informed "blue-man" YouTube videos to show the "danger" of CS, which have nothing to do with what CS can or can't heal, but rather with how it can be applied badly. Strangely enough, even with "bad" applications, the results are good, despite the discolouration of the skin, which is nothing compared to dying of viral-infection)
CS is unpatentable, can be made at home with a proper device (which can also be self-built by a competent person) and removes the need for a lot of drugs, yet the FDA, funded and staffed by drug-money, forbids it.
If they do that to CS, what will they do with other free products that take a chunk out of the their obscene profits??
AC is a complete idiot, but then we always knew that.
So, when will that apply to domain names, dufus? It's a matter of first come, first serve. If Matthew Lush selected this name 10 years ago, then he gets to use it and stealing is from him by means of a robot (AI scare, as predicted, anyone?) does not make is ethical or right. Lush cosmetics, being a overly expensive bunch of soap-mongers, can use anything that is available, like lush-soap, for instance.
"The question may really be whether we can get past paid trolls, FUD, and finger pointing in order to act wisely in a timely manner." translated means: There should be not discussion, dissent or alternative opinions. You will only believe our version of the future.
Reminds me of the Y2K extinction event...
So here's your first opponent: Bolloks. Even if some of your assertions are true, the world is a living breathing organism. New life appears. Old life adapts. Things change. Climate changes. Things stay the same. Nothing new. Get over it.
My dying in a car accident will not release highly toxic radionucleotides which last tens of thousands of years into the environment...
There is no evidence whatsoever that the extremely low level of expose would pose any health risk. The trash most people eat is far more toxic than a few nucleotides floating around in the atmosphere. Even if you're eating healthy bananas, your radiation expose is substantial. How many people died of radiation exposure at Fukushima again? Yes, there you go. Nada. Zilch. Zero. So I don't even have to go into the evidence that indicates that much more made Fukushima happen than a clearly fake "9.1" earthquake, that had it been a real one, would have flattened Japan for the greater part, at least in the north.
To follow the car analogy: If you ran you car into a fuel tanker with trailer in next to an apartments block at night, you might kill more people than died at Chernobyl. So given the number of fuel tankers and cars on the road, driving is far more risky than sending nuclear spacecraft to investigate space.
You're trolling, right? How about the biggest security complex in the world trying to take a Russian company down that's just too good at detecting threats, especially if the threats may be emminating from said security complex??
Just make sure that you tell kids as much as possible about evolution and creationism. If they are informed, then they can see through the BS and make a good informed choice. If you try to hide things, well... then you'll end up with dumb people who can't make good choices.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. The problem here in the first instance, as someone else has already pointed out, is that the EPA doesn't actually test the emissions! How stupid is that? Hooking up a car's exhaust (tail pipe, for US slashdotters!) to an emissions tester should be the only way to get a new vehicle certified for sale. And the manufacturer doesn't get to supply the vehicle, the EPA should select a random one. To be repeated every month on a new set of random vehicles.
Yes, VW defrauded the EPA and them alone, unless they advertised specific emission standards to the public which were not achieved. However, that is what almost all corporations do, unless they know they can't get away with it. VW knew the EPA won't test their vehicles, so they said, what the hell, let's fool them since we can. And so they did.
This is what's wrong in the US. The watchdog asks Monsanto: Are your poisons safe. Monsanto says, yes, they are. Watchdog says it's safe now. Replace Monsanto with other corporation's name. Repeat.
Of course the next question is: What do they do with $18 billion annually??
Thank you! Probably the first sensible post in the this!
Of course, the false assumption that CO2 is detrimental in any way to our environment, makes the whole house of cards that is built by wrong legislation, collapse. NO2 is heavy and doesn't float around and oxidises other materials easily, so in the long term ( a day or longer) it has no effect on our air. In the short term (high motor vehicle traffic volume) it is a problem, so lowering emissions of it is a good thing, but then do it for the right reasons, not for brain-dead AGW hysteria reasons.
"organized effort to disrupt climate change science" Really? It's very difficult to disrupt real proven science, if possible at all!
If the science was as good as Mann and his bunch of lynch-mob fans have claimed, it would be indisputable. But as it is, the science is poor and in cases downright fraudulent and pathetic by any real scientific standard. So of course it will be disputed and so-called consensus science will be denied it place, since it's not how science works. No matter how much the lynch-mob hollers and howls, no matter how much they wave their green pitch forks and sticks, they can't fix the fact that the climate hypothesis has been proven wrong time and time again by it's failure to meet the expected outcome. Only because journalists and politicians have been dumbed down to the astounding level of scientific stupidity that they have, is the political agenda of the catastrophic climate change bandwagon still rolling, albeit slower and slower. Soon it will come to a halt and be relegated to the trash-can of history where other hysterical history movements lie in wait for it.
To be fair, if you get your "placebo ~20% effect" from [treatment that does nothing other than convince you that it does something], that's great for health.
I completely agree with her statement that supporting it with public money is completely different from acknowledging that placebo effect can indeed provide help to some people.
But is it good use of public money if 80% of the time there's no positive outcome?
It's still way better than the 3% long term success rate with high-potency toxins like chemotherapy!
Is it just me or what?? You don't "light something on fire". You simply light it. The verb "light" in this context means "to set on fire". Clearly some dimwit started this "lighting on fire" nonsense and now everyone and their parrot is "lighting things on fire".
In summary:
1. You light a fire
2. You set fire to a bush
3. You set a pile of wood on fire
4. You strike a match to light it
You never light something on fire, unless you mean to say that you're setting fire to something that is somehow balanced on top of an existing fire.
:-P
showing yet again the poor science perpetrated by the warmist lynch-mob
No, dufus! A drone is not a person. If a stranger with a camera breaks into your property (since you have six foot fence to keep him out), you rip out the SD card or delete his pictures...
Enterprise DB (Postgresql) is the alternative. Ask Sony. They moved to EDB.
You're incorrectly assuming that adding CO2 increases temperature. Let me help you understand.
Ok, but you understand that infiltrating a computer in itself should be an offence right? At least I believe it should be if you weren't authorized to do so.
Nope, wrong. If a machine is connected to the internet, the implication is that the owner wants people to connect to it. If a port is open, the implication is that people can connect to it. Many of these cases are not cases when people hack into a system by brute force, but rather where someone find an open port or other door and simply enters. There are no "don't enter" signs on tcp/ip ports for most services. It's the owner's responsibility to close properly that which he doesn't want entered by.
See, I don't like that. If someone breaks into your house because you left a window open it's still punishable by law. The punishment may be minor but it's still clear cut. Why is it different with unauthorized computer entry?
Bad analogy. An open PC is not like an open house. Firstly you don't "see" a gate, walls, doors and windows. You "knock" on ports and when they open and say welcome, you go inside. If they open and don't welcome you, you ask for different ports or use different credentials to see what and who welcomes you. Putting yourself on the internet is inviting people to come and visit. Even dense people can learn to understand that. If you don't want anyone to visit, the responsibility is yours to close the (back)doors and windows. Pun intended.
What a handy tax-free way to get rid of a very nasty and efficient competitor...
A farmaceutical product can well take much longer than that between the time the compound was discovered and the time it has passed all clinical trials and gets approval.from the authorities.
I work in the high-tech industry, where it can easily take 5 years between the first conception and the actual sale of the product. Only for small, incremental changes of existing technology, we sometimes get below 2 years.
Ah, but there's the very first problem: Government regulation! Since companies are now practically exempt from prosecution for their mess, government, of all monsters that humans created, has to regulate. Scrap that. Llet companies carry the full brunt of the chances they take with products and it will soon stop. Than, while we're at it, get government out of education as well, so we won't have dumbed-down kids any more. Then people will be able to make good decisions again and not be bamboozled by media campaigns that deceive them currently.
The patent system is broken IMO, but not because of the 20-year term. The threshold for patentability is way too low IMO. Every big player in the industry is aggressively patenting every little idea just because the others do the same and nobody wants to be bitten in the ass by a competitor's patent or a patent troll. (I am personally in a strange position,since my employer provides various incentives to generate IP, so I end up contributing to the systemic problem.)
How about changing the patenting system to take into account the time needed and then give patent holders 5 years once they start selling? It also depends on the industry. A 20 year patent in software (which shouldn't exist in the first instance), is vastly different from a medical patent.
The problem with that is that the "patent protection" types and their funders (e.g. the big drug companies) will fight tooth and nail to prevent your products from being used and marketing, using all sorts of false claims and supposed dangers to do so.
Case in point is colloidal silver which is well known to have amazing anti-fungal and anti-microbial properties, can be used to undo anti-biotic resistance and has been shown to even kill HIV among many other things. (Do resist the trollish urge to post one of the gazillion ill-informed "blue-man" YouTube videos to show the "danger" of CS, which have nothing to do with what CS can or can't heal, but rather with how it can be applied badly. Strangely enough, even with "bad" applications, the results are good, despite the discolouration of the skin, which is nothing compared to dying of viral-infection)
CS is unpatentable, can be made at home with a proper device (which can also be self-built by a competent person) and removes the need for a lot of drugs, yet the FDA, funded and staffed by drug-money, forbids it. If they do that to CS, what will they do with other free products that take a chunk out of the their obscene profits??
AC is a complete idiot, but then we always knew that.
So, when will that apply to domain names, dufus? It's a matter of first come, first serve. If Matthew Lush selected this name 10 years ago, then he gets to use it and stealing is from him by means of a robot (AI scare, as predicted, anyone?) does not make is ethical or right. Lush cosmetics, being a overly expensive bunch of soap-mongers, can use anything that is available, like lush-soap, for instance.
Tox & Venom
So encryption = margarine? ;-P
Free upgrade? My Ubuntu 4.04, 6.04, 8.04, 10.04 and 12.04 was free. Both types, libre and gratis. So was my 14.04.
"The question may really be whether we can get past paid trolls, FUD, and finger pointing in order to act wisely in a timely manner." translated means: There should be not discussion, dissent or alternative opinions. You will only believe our version of the future.
Reminds me of the Y2K extinction event...
So here's your first opponent: Bolloks. Even if some of your assertions are true, the world is a living breathing organism. New life appears. Old life adapts. Things change. Climate changes. Things stay the same. Nothing new. Get over it.
My dying in a car accident will not release highly toxic radionucleotides which last tens of thousands of years into the environment...
There is no evidence whatsoever that the extremely low level of expose would pose any health risk. The trash most people eat is far more toxic than a few nucleotides floating around in the atmosphere. Even if you're eating healthy bananas, your radiation expose is substantial. How many people died of radiation exposure at Fukushima again? Yes, there you go. Nada. Zilch. Zero. So I don't even have to go into the evidence that indicates that much more made Fukushima happen than a clearly fake "9.1" earthquake, that had it been a real one, would have flattened Japan for the greater part, at least in the north.
To follow the car analogy: If you ran you car into a fuel tanker with trailer in next to an apartments block at night, you might kill more people than died at Chernobyl. So given the number of fuel tankers and cars on the road, driving is far more risky than sending nuclear spacecraft to investigate space.
You're trolling, right? How about the biggest security complex in the world trying to take a Russian company down that's just too good at detecting threats, especially if the threats may be emminating from said security complex??
If you change the grass on golf courses to this http://www.paspalumgrass.com/ and fund and promote the use of http://www.miracosta.edu/home/... the problem may be resolved with very little investment and logn-term benefits.
Now, if they had been using Open Source Sofware, the process of hunting down what's happening would have infinitely easier and productive.
Seems they have been the authors of their own misery. So replace everything and start with clean PCBSD...
Just make sure that you tell kids as much as possible about evolution and creationism. If they are informed, then they can see through the BS and make a good informed choice. If you try to hide things, well... then you'll end up with dumb people who can't make good choices.
Oh, wait... that's what we have already.