There's no question mankind has abused the environment, but it's a slippery slope towards government mandated environment control.
Educate yourself, Mr. Libertarian. Start off by memorizing the definitions of "negative externality" and "tragedy of the commons". I would then direct you to the fact that the only solution to dealing with negative externalities is to internalize them. And that means government intervention.
And before you say it, libertarians typically attack this problem through private property ownership. ie, land pollution becomes a property rights issue, and is litigated in court accordingly. Unfortunately, air ownership makes no sense, and so there's no sensible way to deal with CO2 emissions in this way.
In short: your idealized theory is about as practical, in the real world, as communism. Deal.
ATK lobbied for the laws, and now NASA is trying to circumvent the laws
Bullshit. Read the second post. This quote is particularly relevant:
Hatch acknowledges in Thursday's statement that the act "does not require the new heavy-lift rocket to use solid rocket motors." However, it adds, "delegation members say the Utah experts they consulted say the legislation's requirements for the heavy-lift rocket can only be realistically met by using solid rocket motors."
Not even Hatch doesn't believe the law requires a particular design or vendor. He's just trying to protect his corporate puppetmaster. IOW, it's business as usual.
Actually, what confuses me is the apparent contradiction in the summary: how is it that the requirements mandate a solid-rocket design
That's not what the summary says.
The summary says:
According to the congressmen and their advisors from solid rocket producer ATK, the heavy-lift legislation's requirements can only be met by rockets utilizing ATK's solid rocket boosters.
All that means is that they claim ATK's rockets are the only ones that can meet the design requirements. The summary does *not* mention what those requirements actually are. If you read the second post in the summary, you discover the following text is part of the bill in question:
shall, to the extent practicable, extend or modify existing vehicle development and associated contracts... including contracts for ground testing of solid rocket motors, if necessary, to ensure their availability for development of the Space Launch System.
Of course, the choice phrase "to the extent practicable" gives NASA some leeway, here. Furthermore, that same post says:
Hatch acknowledges in Thursday's statement that the act "does not require the new heavy-lift rocket to use solid rocket motors." However, it adds, "delegation members say the Utah experts they consulted say the legislation's requirements for the heavy-lift rocket can only be realistically met by using solid rocket motors."
So not even Hatch believes the act requires a particular motor technology. They simply believe that a solid rocket design is the only one that can meet the design requirements for the heavy lift vehicle.
In short, no, the government isn't mandating a particular technology or vendor, despite the paranoid ramblings of the Slashbots around here. It's just some jackass senator and his puppet corporation trying to stir things up, lest ATK lose a decidedly lucrative government contract.
The elite prefer, at this time, to control the masses by fear.
Ahh, nothing like invoking a conspiracy theory where simple stupidity, short-sightedness, corruption, and good ol' fashion politicking would do just fine.
Do you have any idea how much freaking money that "security theater" costs? Lots of campaign contributions later, it turns out we have a need.
Uh. No. I understand what the term "artificial scarcity" means. You said:
My entire point is that they should stop trying to restrict an action that hurts no one and actually fix the broken system that forces artists to try to utilize artificial scarcity.
My entire point is that they should stop trying to restrict an action that hurts no one and actually fix the broken system that forces artists to try to utilize artificial scarcity.
Bullshit. Seriously, I have nothing else to say. That's just flat out *wrong*. Hell, a quick google search for "ubuntu local privilege exploit" gave me this gem for 10.04 from late September: http://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/15074/
Why don't they create a new test from scratch every time?
While I agree with the sentiment, the flipside of that is: why? If you have access to a repository of high-quality, vetted, proof-read questions that you know are based off the teaching resources you're using, why the hell *wouldn't* you take advantage of that resource, and sink more time into preparing solid lectures, mentoring students, or for tenured professors, doing research work?
Besides which, while it's an interesting philosophical debate, it doesn't change the fact that these little fuckers were cheating.
All larger companies do have a "facilities management" department, which does at least some of these:
Wow, way to highlight what, what, 0.01% of all US business do. For the rest of us, though, maintaining that kind of infrastructure would be utterly ludicrous. And the same is true of HA, scalable web infrastructure.
You've obviously never owned a Linux server on the web.
I have, for, oh, a decade or so, I'd say. I've had my machine rooted *once*, many many years ago. How? By having a POP3 server exposed to the world. Solution? Firewall. Problem == solved.
'course, the same is true of any other OS. The key to securing a server: minimize your surface area, and stay updated. If your server is directly exposed to the internet, you're doing it wrong. Period.
Furthermore, last I checked, rivers haven't caught fire in recent years, something for which you can thank government regulation.
Not that I expect you to understand this... your anti-government blinders have lead you to an erroneously black-and-white view of the role of government in society, and alas, that's unlikely to change simply because you're presented with evidence contrary to your beliefs. As recent studies have shown, evidence will likely just reinforce your already incorrect beliefs.
Try watching the video. Just once. Oh, and pay attention while it's on. No really, you might actually learn something!
In this case, he specifically mentioned a "test bank", which is a repository of canned questions available to the college, either internally or from outside test bank producers. The belief is that one or more of those test banks was compromised.
'course, that means the students need to study the contents of that test bank. Which is ironic, since you'd think it'd be less work to simply learn the damned material in the first place.
And guess what? We're starting to see multiple App Market's appearing, which removes that cudgel as well. Samsung is planning one for the Galaxy Tab. Amazon plans to build one. Barnes and Noble will be building one for the Nook. And I wouldn't be surprised to see carriers decide to just deploy their own app market, and lock their phones down to use that market and only that market (unless you jailbreak your phone).
You're right. The whole thing is security theatre at its finest. That's been true for years. Does anybody really think that an old ladies sewing needles are a threat to the airplane?
Funny thing about that example: Knitting needles are explicitly allowed. 'course, who knows that's what the TSA agents are doing on the ground. Luckily, I have a set of modular circular needles made of plastic. Pop the ends off, and in an x-ray, they look like a set of pens. *shrug* OTOH, the cable would make a rather handy garrote...
That's not at all true in Lucid. Ubuntu comes up to a desktop *remarkably* fast, in part because they do a parallel startup with the desktop appears before all the services have started up. Which is awfully nice on my little Asus Revo MythTV frontend, as it goes from cold boot to ready-to-watch in less than a minute.
No smart phone OS would do this unless there was a technical issue underlying it.
That's blatantly false. iOS always supported multitasking, as evidenced by the fact that jailbreakers could enable it. Apple simply *chose* to not allow it for performance reasons.
It certainly isn't for the lame and laughable "it uses too much CPU" excuse which iPhone apologists used to bandy around even when Android disproved that point.
What? Android has proven *exactly* this point. Hell, here's Page on the topic:
I have noticed there are a few people who have phones where there is software running in the background that just sort of exhausts the battery quickly. If you are not getting a day, there is something wrong.
It certainly isn't for the lame and laughable "it uses too much CPU" excuse which iPhone apologists used to bandy around even when Android disproved that point.
Uh, that's not multitasking, jackass. If the task can't continue to operate in the background because the OS has frozen it, it's single tasking with preemptive task switching.
No, it's clearly some underlying technical deficiency in the runtime.
No, that's not clear at all. But, hey, don't let reason and rationality get in the way of your anti-MS and anti-Apple ranting.
I bet that particular "feature" can be chalked up the the general craptitude of the.NET Compact Framework they've chosen to ship with. It probably uses too much memory, deadlocks, can't relinquish devices or otherwise does nasty things which assume only one running instance.
I love how a comment containing abject speculation based on absolutely *no* evidence gets modded up insightful. I mean, really, mods? Are you *that* fucking stupid?
What part of "small" don't you get? The AA batteries, alone, are far thicker than many laptops these days. As such, your post hardly invalidates the GPs point.
Why even write the article if you're going to be talking with people so unfamiliar with the software. You're arguing semantics whether it was in or on DOS for it wasn't until XP that the consumer line stopped using it.
The guy was probably just misremembering, and thinking of MS-DOS Executive. See this page. It wasn't until Windows 3.0 that the Program Manager made its appearance. Until that point, you basically got a file manager, and had to navigate, find your executable, and run it, at which point the executive hid itself away.
Slashdot Mirror
It has been discussed many, many times. Belief beats fact. Fear beats belief and fact.
Case in point: the use of dowsing rods for bomb detection in Iraq.
There's no question mankind has abused the environment, but it's a slippery slope towards government mandated environment control.
Educate yourself, Mr. Libertarian. Start off by memorizing the definitions of "negative externality" and "tragedy of the commons". I would then direct you to the fact that the only solution to dealing with negative externalities is to internalize them. And that means government intervention.
And before you say it, libertarians typically attack this problem through private property ownership. ie, land pollution becomes a property rights issue, and is litigated in court accordingly. Unfortunately, air ownership makes no sense, and so there's no sensible way to deal with CO2 emissions in this way.
In short: your idealized theory is about as practical, in the real world, as communism. Deal.
ATK lobbied for the laws, and now NASA is trying to circumvent the laws
Bullshit. Read the second post. This quote is particularly relevant:
Not even Hatch doesn't believe the law requires a particular design or vendor. He's just trying to protect his corporate puppetmaster. IOW, it's business as usual.
Actually, what confuses me is the apparent contradiction in the summary: how is it that the requirements mandate a solid-rocket design
That's not what the summary says.
The summary says:
All that means is that they claim ATK's rockets are the only ones that can meet the design requirements. The summary does *not* mention what those requirements actually are. If you read the second post in the summary, you discover the following text is part of the bill in question:
Of course, the choice phrase "to the extent practicable" gives NASA some leeway, here. Furthermore, that same post says:
So not even Hatch believes the act requires a particular motor technology. They simply believe that a solid rocket design is the only one that can meet the design requirements for the heavy lift vehicle.
In short, no, the government isn't mandating a particular technology or vendor, despite the paranoid ramblings of the Slashbots around here. It's just some jackass senator and his puppet corporation trying to stir things up, lest ATK lose a decidedly lucrative government contract.
The elite prefer, at this time, to control the masses by fear.
Ahh, nothing like invoking a conspiracy theory where simple stupidity, short-sightedness, corruption, and good ol' fashion politicking would do just fine.
Do you have any idea how much freaking money that "security theater" costs? Lots of campaign contributions later, it turns out we have a need.
See! Now you're gettin' it!
Artificial scarcity?
Uh. No. I understand what the term "artificial scarcity" means. You said:
I repeat: How, exactly?
My entire point is that they should stop trying to restrict an action that hurts no one and actually fix the broken system that forces artists to try to utilize artificial scarcity.
Err... how, exactly?
#1 is common, #2 is rare
Bullshit. Seriously, I have nothing else to say. That's just flat out *wrong*. Hell, a quick google search for "ubuntu local privilege exploit" gave me this gem for 10.04 from late September: http://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/15074/
And that was the *first hit*.
Favorite Poettering quote from this discussion
Oooh ooh, let me try! I love this game. Quote, here we go, my favorite quote from jensend about Poettering:
"Since he's so brilliant and all, his design (done without consulting much with lesser mortals ) must be right"
See, you love him, you just don't realize it!
Eh, then all you need is a local privilege exploit and you're hosed. And there's no shortage of those on Linux, that's for sure.
Why don't they create a new test from scratch every time?
While I agree with the sentiment, the flipside of that is: why? If you have access to a repository of high-quality, vetted, proof-read questions that you know are based off the teaching resources you're using, why the hell *wouldn't* you take advantage of that resource, and sink more time into preparing solid lectures, mentoring students, or for tenured professors, doing research work?
Besides which, while it's an interesting philosophical debate, it doesn't change the fact that these little fuckers were cheating.
All larger companies do have a "facilities management" department, which does at least some of these:
Wow, way to highlight what, what, 0.01% of all US business do. For the rest of us, though, maintaining that kind of infrastructure would be utterly ludicrous. And the same is true of HA, scalable web infrastructure.
You've obviously never owned a Linux server on the web.
I have, for, oh, a decade or so, I'd say. I've had my machine rooted *once*, many many years ago. How? By having a POP3 server exposed to the world. Solution? Firewall. Problem == solved.
'course, the same is true of any other OS. The key to securing a server: minimize your surface area, and stay updated. If your server is directly exposed to the internet, you're doing it wrong. Period.
Didn't our government launch that virus?
Maybe. Maybe not. No one actually knows.
But one thing I do know: Basing an entire post on an erroneous premise wastes everyone's time, including your own.
Three words: Clean Air Act.
Furthermore, last I checked, rivers haven't caught fire in recent years, something for which you can thank government regulation.
Not that I expect you to understand this... your anti-government blinders have lead you to an erroneously black-and-white view of the role of government in society, and alas, that's unlikely to change simply because you're presented with evidence contrary to your beliefs. As recent studies have shown, evidence will likely just reinforce your already incorrect beliefs.
Try watching the video. Just once. Oh, and pay attention while it's on. No really, you might actually learn something!
In this case, he specifically mentioned a "test bank", which is a repository of canned questions available to the college, either internally or from outside test bank producers. The belief is that one or more of those test banks was compromised.
'course, that means the students need to study the contents of that test bank. Which is ironic, since you'd think it'd be less work to simply learn the damned material in the first place.
The only power Google has is with the App Market.
And guess what? We're starting to see multiple App Market's appearing, which removes that cudgel as well. Samsung is planning one for the Galaxy Tab. Amazon plans to build one. Barnes and Noble will be building one for the Nook. And I wouldn't be surprised to see carriers decide to just deploy their own app market, and lock their phones down to use that market and only that market (unless you jailbreak your phone).
You're right. The whole thing is security theatre at its finest. That's been true for years. Does anybody really think that an old ladies sewing needles are a threat to the airplane?
Funny thing about that example: Knitting needles are explicitly allowed. 'course, who knows that's what the TSA agents are doing on the ground. Luckily, I have a set of modular circular needles made of plastic. Pop the ends off, and in an x-ray, they look like a set of pens. *shrug* OTOH, the cable would make a rather handy garrote...
That's not at all true in Lucid. Ubuntu comes up to a desktop *remarkably* fast, in part because they do a parallel startup with the desktop appears before all the services have started up. Which is awfully nice on my little Asus Revo MythTV frontend, as it goes from cold boot to ready-to-watch in less than a minute.
The evidence doesn't support any kind of modified gravity theory at this point. Hit Wikipedia on the Bullet Cluster and related results.
You know, the sad thing about comments like this, IMHO: it just betrays the bigotry directed at homosexuals...
No smart phone OS would do this unless there was a technical issue underlying it.
That's blatantly false. iOS always supported multitasking, as evidenced by the fact that jailbreakers could enable it. Apple simply *chose* to not allow it for performance reasons.
It certainly isn't for the lame and laughable "it uses too much CPU" excuse which iPhone apologists used to bandy around even when Android disproved that point.
What? Android has proven *exactly* this point. Hell, here's Page on the topic:
Source.
It certainly isn't for the lame and laughable "it uses too much CPU" excuse which iPhone apologists used to bandy around even when Android disproved that point.
Uh, that's not multitasking, jackass. If the task can't continue to operate in the background because the OS has frozen it, it's single tasking with preemptive task switching.
No, it's clearly some underlying technical deficiency in the runtime.
No, that's not clear at all. But, hey, don't let reason and rationality get in the way of your anti-MS and anti-Apple ranting.
I bet that particular "feature" can be chalked up the the general craptitude of the .NET Compact Framework they've chosen to ship with. It probably uses too much memory, deadlocks, can't relinquish devices or otherwise does nasty things which assume only one running instance.
I love how a comment containing abject speculation based on absolutely *no* evidence gets modded up insightful. I mean, really, mods? Are you *that* fucking stupid?
What part of "small" don't you get? The AA batteries, alone, are far thicker than many laptops these days. As such, your post hardly invalidates the GPs point.
Why even write the article if you're going to be talking with people so unfamiliar with the software. You're arguing semantics whether it was in or on DOS for it wasn't until XP that the consumer line stopped using it.
The guy was probably just misremembering, and thinking of MS-DOS Executive. See this page. It wasn't until Windows 3.0 that the Program Manager made its appearance. Until that point, you basically got a file manager, and had to navigate, find your executable, and run it, at which point the executive hid itself away.