The alternative is that everyone and their brother gets to scour the code for a flaw?
I think open source is great, and something the government should be using for non-confidential or lower classified systems.
Open Source is fine for secret applications too. In this case, it's the data that are secret, not the software! There's a big difference.
The newsgroups are totally flooded with crap. It's pointless to even try to initiate any meaningful dialogue. The only good newsgroups out there are the binaries with free mp3's:) And even they're getting overrun with porn messages.
Re:If these guys had any sense at all...
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 1
1. Releasing a little mercury will not destroy the environment as much as 100,000 miles on the engine... with gasoline and oil.
2. See #1
3. Freon (R12) hasn't really been used in cars since 1994... meaning these SUVs did not have it.
Actually, mercury is extremely toxic. It is one of the most lethal CNS toxins with the exception of nerve agents. 100,000 miles on the engine with 2 grams of pollutants/mile = 200 kg of pollutants (CO and NOx - smog pollutants, but not lethal) over the life of the vehicle. Further, you are correct that Freon (R12) hasn't been used for a few years. In their place, CFCs have been replaced by HFCs. They are still potent greenhouse gasses (hundereds of times more potent than CO2) and under combustion yield HF (hydrofluoric acid) which will scar your sinuses, lungs, and eyes. It's much better for the environment (not to mention the firemen - many of whom are volunteers in the USA) if the SUV were driven through its life-expectancy than torched.
Try to be a little better informed.
Violence is not always wrong
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 1
Everyone posting seems to jump on the "violence is bad under any circumstances" bandwagon. Violence is certainly justified under the right circumstances. I just don't think the so-called environmental threats everyone is crying about have become so dangerous that violence is justified - YET. When Manhatten is underwater from global warming, will violence be justified? Probably not, because it will be too late by then. But would violence be justified sometime between now and then? Maybe. All I'm trying to say is that your response to a threat is appropriate when it is of the same magnitude as the threat. Right now there is still quite a bit of uncertainty in the science, but if we are ever certain that something bad is going to happen, then we are OBLIGATED to stop it, with whatever means necessary. Note: this doesn't advocate violence as a first or even second option, but eventually it may be necessary to rough some people up. Nobody ever gets what they want in history without a little muscle.
High-tech scanners -- dubbed "X-rated X-rays" by critics -- that can show a clear image of your naked body under your clothes. The machine, called the BodySearch, has already been installed by the FAA in airports around the nation, and is used to examine suspected smugglers. This may or may not be a big deal. If they are using them to scan domestic passengers, I'd cry foul. However, if they are being used at international airports as an aid for Customs Agents, then I'm all for it. You have to realize that your rights are virtually non-existent at the border or when entering another country.
The problem is the assumption that if your house is a little warmer than your neighbor's, that you must be doing something illegal and therefore they have the right to search your house. I have a big problem with that. They're free to do all the thermal imaging of my house that they want, but they can't use it as a basis for assuming I'm a criminal.
... It basically covered both sides of the argument really well. On one hand, the global population is growing so large that organic farming methods CAN NOT feed the world's population. Since natural fisheries are overfished and farmland is being overfarmed, something must be done. Whether GM foods are the answer is another question entirely. For example is it ok to insert one or two genes into rice so that is produces Vitamin A and prevents blindness in impoverished third world nations? It is extremely unlikely that the Vitamin A gene will lead to a runaway crop that can't be controlled. However, genetically inducing fish to grow four times faster could easily have environmental consequences. In the end, there will have to be reasoned debate and some compromise.
It is a parallel argument to energy consumption. Fossil fuels are depleting and have negative environmental effects. Are we really willing to go nuclear? There's a big debate in the northwest right now about removing dams from the salmon fisheries. If we want clean power, we're going to have to dam some rivers and rely on some nuclear power.
Still, I kind of like the guy giving away 50% of his fortune (wouldn't see old $Bill doing that!)
Actually, you would. While Microsoft may be a predatory company, Bill has given away shitloads of money in the last few years. Remember when Ted Turner made a big deal about his $1 billion donation to the UN? Bill has been giving away a hell of a lot more than that. A recent story on 60 Minutes or Dateline or something estimated that Bill has already given away more money than Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Vanderbilt combined AND adjusted for inflation!
The lesson that "No, you don't have to give up all your rights to your work in exchange for publication anymore" is one that musicians could stand to learn as well. Actually, I disagree. Many modern top 40 style musicians need the marketing blitz that comes from the major publishers. So much of the music is crap, it wouldn't survive in an open competitive market. On the other hand, scientific papers will survive peer review with or without publishers. Musicians (especially the bad ones) have to make a deal with the devil to get their product in the market. Scientists are less susceptible to that problem. The main reason for this is that most people who listen to music are not musicians and can't really separate the wheat from the chaff. However, most people who read scientific articles can tell the difference and no amount of marketing or hype will change the outcome.
Anyone click over to Adcops web site? Go to their "member login" page and notice its not even a secure connection! And these people are signing up cusotmers to protect them from stolen credit cards and passwords? I think the whole thing is a joke.
The adjustment comes from whatever the comapny wants it to. It is usually for extraneous items like rent, leases, long-term debt, etc. That way the adjusted numbers, in theory, reflect the health of the core business model and are not impacted by outside factors. All things considered, only breaking even on your core business is still not very good.
On a reported basis, the net loss was $24.2 million, or $0.14 per share, compared with a net loss of $24.6 million, or $0.17 per share in fiscal 2000.
They only broke even for one quarter using adjusted numbers. The actual losses are actually quite stunning. The term adjusted losses is just accounting voodoo to hide the company's deteriorating cash position.
The real problem isn't limited to just geeks. Nobody wants to live there. I think it is highly correlated with the puritanical religious society in Utah. Geeks won't relocate there for many of the same reasons as other people. The quality and quantity of social and cultural experiences can be very limited in SLC. This is tough for anyone who wants to raise a family. Educated people want access to good schools, good hospitals, high culture, and other pursuits. Take Boulder, Colorado as an example. The average adult in Boulder has a Master's Degree!
I think Utah won't attract a critical mass of tech (or other professional) people until its social norms are modified. I, for one, would love to live in the desert instead of the Northeast, but won't move to SLC because of the very conservative social atmosphere. It's certainly not the climate that keeps people away. SLC (and greater Utah) is not a choice as long as other alternatives exist such as Las Vegas, Phoenix, etc.
The problem with CO2 isn't how to get it out of the air. The problem is where to put it (especially the carbon, since we'd like to keep the oxygen around) once it IS out of the air. All that carbon used to be locked up inside plants/animals (some living, some dead--like coal and oil).
Agreed. However, remember Earth Science 101? The earth's original atmosphere had no O2, only CO2. Where did all the C go over millions of years? Not petroleum, but into rocks. Limestone (CaCO3) is a fantastic sink for CO2. If we could find an efficient way to convert the CO2 into limestone or another inert mineral, we could prevent further accumulations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
If this works, you'd have to handle millions of tons of biomass that would be generated by the bacteria. What do you do with that? Ideally you could burn it to reduce the demand for fossil fuels. Theoretically, you could convert a coal plant to "recycle" the bacterial carbon and supplement it with much smaller amounts of coal than are currently consumed. Just a thought...
But it's not the people who clicked OK that are complaining. It's all the people who are getting spammed that are pissed. If MS is offering what appears to be a neat feature of change-of-address notification to actually target marketing at people without the sender's knowledge, doesn't this violate some law? Like maybe theft of computer services?
Being a public employee, I am a daily witness to the theory that, "Don't blame on malice what could be explained by incompetence."
Too often people assume the government is trying to hide something, when in fact, a FOIA reqest is just sitting on somebody's desk who's been on vacation for two weeks.
For everyone who wants to ensure the future of file sharing, a boycott of the music industry won't change the fact that they will sue anyone big enough to be a threat. If you want to ensure that your right to trade files is protected, contact your House Representative and your two Senators. Tell them you want to have the definition of "Fair Use" clarified and to specifically include non-commercial digital file sharing. Without the legal ground rules being very clear, the record industry will continue to harrass anyone that they believe is hurting their precious bottom-line.
20,000,000 emails, letters, and phone calls WILL get a response from Congress.
Slashdot Mirror
The alternative is that everyone and their brother gets to scour the code for a flaw? I think open source is great, and something the government should be using for non-confidential or lower classified systems. Open Source is fine for secret applications too. In this case, it's the data that are secret, not the software! There's a big difference.
The newsgroups are totally flooded with crap. It's pointless to even try to initiate any meaningful dialogue. The only good newsgroups out there are the binaries with free mp3's :) And even they're getting overrun with porn messages.
1. Releasing a little mercury will not destroy the environment as much as 100,000 miles on the engine... with gasoline and oil. 2. See #1 3. Freon (R12) hasn't really been used in cars since 1994... meaning these SUVs did not have it. Actually, mercury is extremely toxic. It is one of the most lethal CNS toxins with the exception of nerve agents. 100,000 miles on the engine with 2 grams of pollutants/mile = 200 kg of pollutants (CO and NOx - smog pollutants, but not lethal) over the life of the vehicle. Further, you are correct that Freon (R12) hasn't been used for a few years. In their place, CFCs have been replaced by HFCs. They are still potent greenhouse gasses (hundereds of times more potent than CO2) and under combustion yield HF (hydrofluoric acid) which will scar your sinuses, lungs, and eyes. It's much better for the environment (not to mention the firemen - many of whom are volunteers in the USA) if the SUV were driven through its life-expectancy than torched. Try to be a little better informed.
Everyone posting seems to jump on the "violence is bad under any circumstances" bandwagon. Violence is certainly justified under the right circumstances. I just don't think the so-called environmental threats everyone is crying about have become so dangerous that violence is justified - YET. When Manhatten is underwater from global warming, will violence be justified? Probably not, because it will be too late by then. But would violence be justified sometime between now and then? Maybe. All I'm trying to say is that your response to a threat is appropriate when it is of the same magnitude as the threat. Right now there is still quite a bit of uncertainty in the science, but if we are ever certain that something bad is going to happen, then we are OBLIGATED to stop it, with whatever means necessary. Note: this doesn't advocate violence as a first or even second option, but eventually it may be necessary to rough some people up. Nobody ever gets what they want in history without a little muscle.
High-tech scanners -- dubbed "X-rated X-rays" by critics -- that can show a clear image of your naked body under your clothes. The machine, called the BodySearch, has already been installed by the FAA in airports around the nation, and is used to examine suspected smugglers. This may or may not be a big deal. If they are using them to scan domestic passengers, I'd cry foul. However, if they are being used at international airports as an aid for Customs Agents, then I'm all for it. You have to realize that your rights are virtually non-existent at the border or when entering another country.
The problem is the assumption that if your house is a little warmer than your neighbor's, that you must be doing something illegal and therefore they have the right to search your house. I have a big problem with that. They're free to do all the thermal imaging of my house that they want, but they can't use it as a basis for assuming I'm a criminal.
It is a parallel argument to energy consumption. Fossil fuels are depleting and have negative environmental effects. Are we really willing to go nuclear? There's a big debate in the northwest right now about removing dams from the salmon fisheries. If we want clean power, we're going to have to dam some rivers and rely on some nuclear power.
We can't have our cake and eat it too.
Actually, you would. While Microsoft may be a predatory company, Bill has given away shitloads of money in the last few years. Remember when Ted Turner made a big deal about his $1 billion donation to the UN? Bill has been giving away a hell of a lot more than that. A recent story on 60 Minutes or Dateline or something estimated that Bill has already given away more money than Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Vanderbilt combined AND adjusted for inflation!
The lesson that "No, you don't have to give up all your rights to your work in exchange for publication anymore" is one that musicians could stand to learn as well. Actually, I disagree. Many modern top 40 style musicians need the marketing blitz that comes from the major publishers. So much of the music is crap, it wouldn't survive in an open competitive market. On the other hand, scientific papers will survive peer review with or without publishers. Musicians (especially the bad ones) have to make a deal with the devil to get their product in the market. Scientists are less susceptible to that problem. The main reason for this is that most people who listen to music are not musicians and can't really separate the wheat from the chaff. However, most people who read scientific articles can tell the difference and no amount of marketing or hype will change the outcome.
Anyone click over to Adcops web site? Go to their "member login" page and notice its not even a secure connection! And these people are signing up cusotmers to protect them from stolen credit cards and passwords? I think the whole thing is a joke.
The adjustment comes from whatever the comapny wants it to. It is usually for extraneous items like rent, leases, long-term debt, etc. That way the adjusted numbers, in theory, reflect the health of the core business model and are not impacted by outside factors. All things considered, only breaking even on your core business is still not very good.
On a reported basis, the net loss was $24.2 million, or $0.14 per share, compared with a net loss of $24.6 million, or $0.17 per share in fiscal 2000.
They only broke even for one quarter using adjusted numbers. The actual losses are actually quite stunning. The term adjusted losses is just accounting voodoo to hide the company's deteriorating cash position.
I think Utah won't attract a critical mass of tech (or other professional) people until its social norms are modified. I, for one, would love to live in the desert instead of the Northeast, but won't move to SLC because of the very conservative social atmosphere. It's certainly not the climate that keeps people away. SLC (and greater Utah) is not a choice as long as other alternatives exist such as Las Vegas, Phoenix, etc.
Agreed. However, remember Earth Science 101? The earth's original atmosphere had no O2, only CO2. Where did all the C go over millions of years? Not petroleum, but into rocks. Limestone (CaCO3) is a fantastic sink for CO2. If we could find an efficient way to convert the CO2 into limestone or another inert mineral, we could prevent further accumulations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.
If this works, you'd have to handle millions of tons of biomass that would be generated by the bacteria. What do you do with that? Ideally you could burn it to reduce the demand for fossil fuels. Theoretically, you could convert a coal plant to "recycle" the bacterial carbon and supplement it with much smaller amounts of coal than are currently consumed. Just a thought...
Wow. Microsoft must have had a hand in the licensing agreement for that book!
But it's not the people who clicked OK that are complaining. It's all the people who are getting spammed that are pissed. If MS is offering what appears to be a neat feature of change-of-address notification to actually target marketing at people without the sender's knowledge, doesn't this violate some law? Like maybe theft of computer services?
Too often people assume the government is trying to hide something, when in fact, a FOIA reqest is just sitting on somebody's desk who's been on vacation for two weeks.
20,000,000 emails, letters, and phone calls WILL get a response from Congress.