no, they were expecting someone to try and view their data... that is why they encrypted it... and then someone did make that attempt, just like they planned for... and from the way you describe it, it sounds like your jail rotter was not successful....
you're dumber than i thought. why would you be waiting to see if i could make it worth your trouble after i already said i don't want anything that you're selling. it troubles you to provide the services you offer? because of the hypocrisy or your incompetence?
how are they keeping you from having it? the corporation unwilling to fight with the government is keeping you from having it. RIM offered the service. RIM is now not offering the service. the people you've entrusted (to provide you with services you are in no way guaranteed) have let you down. you have no one to blame but yourself.
trust me, i'd win regardless if the government was corrupt or not... "republocrat" or not, or even existed or not. you are a whining child. you want to provide a channel for terrorists to secretively communicate? go ahead. don't do it believing no one should care or will attempt to stop you... or do you believe people don't have the right to attempt to stop people doing things they disagree with? the whining child turns hypocritical awfully quickly.
well if you don't have the resources, or are not willing, what are you complaining about? i don't recall reading about the right to encryption in the constitution.
that story did say they were following india's example... so it's worse than a dupe... it's breaking a story that another story already referenced in the past tense.
As Jeff Goldblum said in Jurassic Park, 'scientists will find a way.'
uh.... he said "life finds a way", implying that the scientist's assumptions will be proven false, and their efforts will have been proven ineffective.
they probably set the whole thing up so they could document the attempts rather than dream them up on their own so they could develop a counter procedure policy.
you don't think this debate has happened 20,000 times already? no one has shown conclusively that reducing CO2 alone would do anything, and there is a counter-argument (ozone) that also hasn't been be proven false.
you shouldn't let it anger you that i'm more aware than you about the ways you miscalculate.
Your questions make suppositions about my position and imply claims I've not made.
uh.... NO THEY DIDN'T. you're just not capable of answering them without contradicting yourself, and you'd rather not continue to be proven irrational and small minded.
you said we needed to be cautious to preserve the future of "the species"... i asked questions directly related to that... no suppositions, no implications. the human species has a single method of survival in the long term: procreation. or are you convinced you're developing a new method with all that lotion and kleenex?
you said "I would rather not risk the future of the species"... i asked what made you think anyone would allow you to take that risk if you wanted to... no suppositions, no implications
your failure to attempt to answer my questions has allowed me to learn much about you and your ability to defend the claims you have made. i don't think you'll ever learn. i agree that you do not possess the the capacity to learn going forward. my forecasting model puts that capacity beyond the event horizon... i call the trend "globalmorono idiocification"... WE ALL GONNA DIE()*^!#&)*(!&#%^
so is being cautious having more children to directly extend the future of humans ("the species"), or is being cautious not having more children because of the implied carbon footprint of each individual?
perhaps one of your super smart scientist friends can decide which people get the right to breed. perhaps it should be illegal to burn coal so the end of humanity's ability to survive directly in earth's atmosphere is delayed a few millennia. a few really great millennia, i'm sure, where we all sit around and watch plants grow and sleep next to the donkey hut.
what makes you think you have the right to risk or not risk the future of earth or any species?
(side note: "THE species"??? really? not "OUR species"? what are you?)
What you should really be asking is "are unmodeled factors of the system dominant in the near time horizon?" If the data continues to match the predictions of the hypothesis (within acceptable measurement error), then the answer is no
uggg... and MY ENTIRE POINT is that there is no reason to assume the data will continue to match the predictions. that is one of the reasons they are called "predictions". the answer is NOT no... the GUESS is no.
can you prove to me that a bacteria doesn't exist that lays dormant until average global temperature levels don't reach a certain low over a certain period, then it thrives and expels great quantities of a waste product that will serve to directly cool the planet?
solar orbits decay... of course all planets will have long term warming trends. short term, today's models are laughable at best.
Slashdot Mirror
it sounds more like a trap to me.
do you assume i don't expect to be paid to be off? why would i not?
you're dumber than i thought. why would you be waiting to see if i could make it worth your trouble after i already said i don't want anything that you're selling. it troubles you to provide the services you offer? because of the hypocrisy or your incompetence?
well then, if you are already expecting privacy, then why do you need to encrypt?
go sell your FUD to someone else.
it's not very practical to expect privacy while broadcasting on a public network.
unlike a world where encryption is necessary to communicate? what are you afraid of?
trust me, i'd win regardless if the government was corrupt or not... "republocrat" or not, or even existed or not. you are a whining child. you want to provide a channel for terrorists to secretively communicate? go ahead. don't do it believing no one should care or will attempt to stop you... or do you believe people don't have the right to attempt to stop people doing things they disagree with? the whining child turns hypocritical awfully quickly.
well if you don't have the resources, or are not willing, what are you complaining about? i don't recall reading about the right to encryption in the constitution.
that story did say they were following india's example... so it's worse than a dupe... it's breaking a story that another story already referenced in the past tense.
not rely on a corporation to provide the service for you
As Jeff Goldblum said in Jurassic Park, 'scientists will find a way.'
uh.... he said "life finds a way", implying that the scientist's assumptions will be proven false, and their efforts will have been proven ineffective.
they probably set the whole thing up so they could document the attempts rather than dream them up on their own so they could develop a counter procedure policy.
i'd rather determine for myself who is worthy of a positive reputation.
you are saying NOTHING.
gravity is a singular force. climate is the culmination of all forces. your analogy is flawed.
you shouldn't let it anger you that i'm more aware than you about the ways you miscalculate.
#3 PENCILS!
so the CO2 isn't buffering the holes in the ozone and saving us all from solar radiation anymore?
Your questions make suppositions about my position and imply claims I've not made.
uh.... NO THEY DIDN'T. you're just not capable of answering them without contradicting yourself, and you'd rather not continue to be proven irrational and small minded.
you said we needed to be cautious to preserve the future of "the species"... i asked questions directly related to that... no suppositions, no implications. the human species has a single method of survival in the long term: procreation. or are you convinced you're developing a new method with all that lotion and kleenex?
you said "I would rather not risk the future of the species"... i asked what made you think anyone would allow you to take that risk if you wanted to... no suppositions, no implications
you're an idiot. you're welcome.
your failure to attempt to answer my questions has allowed me to learn much about you and your ability to defend the claims you have made. i don't think you'll ever learn. i agree that you do not possess the the capacity to learn going forward. my forecasting model puts that capacity beyond the event horizon... i call the trend "globalmorono idiocification"... WE ALL GONNA DIE()*^!#&)*(!&#%^
perhaps one of your super smart scientist friends can decide which people get the right to breed. perhaps it should be illegal to burn coal so the end of humanity's ability to survive directly in earth's atmosphere is delayed a few millennia. a few really great millennia, i'm sure, where we all sit around and watch plants grow and sleep next to the donkey hut.
what makes you think you have the right to risk or not risk the future of earth or any species?
(side note: "THE species"??? really? not "OUR species"? what are you?)
What you should really be asking is "are unmodeled factors of the system dominant in the near time horizon?" If the data continues to match the predictions of the hypothesis (within acceptable measurement error), then the answer is no
uggg... and MY ENTIRE POINT is that there is no reason to assume the data will continue to match the predictions. that is one of the reasons they are called "predictions". the answer is NOT no... the GUESS is no.
can you prove to me that a bacteria doesn't exist that lays dormant until average global temperature levels don't reach a certain low over a certain period, then it thrives and expels great quantities of a waste product that will serve to directly cool the planet?
solar orbits decay... of course all planets will have long term warming trends. short term, today's models are laughable at best.
you're certainly not claiming such factors don't exist, are you?
He wants to know what other people charge
article:
What Do You Pay?
uh... NO. he doesn't want to know what people charge, he wants to know what people pay. WHAT THEIR COSTS ARE.