Not at all. I don't care, not yet, how the prediction was arrived to. Only that it was made and turned out accurate. Once I see at least two or three such, we can dig deeper. But I'm yet to see any.
The fact this information is so easy to find
Yes, yes. The Prince of Darkness must be very busy the last 10 or so years preparing that special place in his Realm for people, who claim information to be "easy to find" without providing links to any...
At least, a child, however petulant, would not use words like "fucker".
Yes, I am lazy — but the burden of proof is not on me, it is on those people, who want me to change my ways to fight a problem. They (including you) have to prove, the problem exists in the first place.
So, instead of posting attacks on my (deeply flawed) person, how about you either put up — the format I am asking for is perfectly reasonable — or shut up?..
Most of the model predict an average earth temperature around 290K.
I'm not asking for a "model" — I just want to see a successful prediction. And I am willing to consider "within 80%" as "successful".
They are therefore all correct, as the measured mean earth temperature is each year between 80% of this value and 120% of it.
Once I see citations of successful predictions, we can switch into discussing their usefulness. But we aren't there yet, despite there being so many responses here already...
my comment meets your expectation
Your comment included no links at all and therefore can not possibly meet my expectations. FAIL.
Link points to a report which contains numerous links
Whether true or not, that's not, what I was asking for.
actual reports and paper providing what was asked.
If this were true, you — and countless others bothering to reply in this subthread — would've been able to form the links into the shape I ask for in minutes. Just to prove me wrong. And yet, despite there being so many responses already, nobody has done it...
Models make specific predictions over a period of time, when most of the predictions made by the model are accurate to a reasonable degree (no model is perfect).
You are right, no model is perfect. Can you link to a prediction, that materialized within, say, 80% of the predicted value(s)?
If I really had been, you would've included those link-pairs I asked for — for everyone's benefit... In fact, you would, likely, have linked to the post refuting me on this matter in your signature! But you can't, because it was never done. So far two people tries to answer my challenge and both failed.
The post accepted by Slashdot cites European Space Agency's satellite as evidence of ice-loss.
And earlier submission citing NASA's satellites leading to the opposite conclusion was not accepted. Kind a strange for a normally unabashedly US-centric Slashdot to so openly favour European satellite-data over American — makes one suspect a certain pre-existing bias...
People have been talking about global warming/climate change/politically-correct-term since the last two decades but some countries just keep their head in the sand.
They certainly have. But, to the best of my knowledge, none of the actual predictions made over these years by the "alarmists" have ever materialized.
Would you care to prove the above statement wrong? Try to post a list of link-pairs: first link in each pair shall point to a prediction and the second — to its materializing... Note, that entries containing only the latter will not be accepted — when a result is known, it is too easy to find somebody having "predicted" it.
The prediction and the materialization would have to be at least 3 years apart too — successfully predicting tomorrow's weather does not count, that is.
Some people within the United States may disagree with you. [blacklivesmatter.com]
Seriously? BlackLivesMatter? If you have to refer to a "movement" born out of a lie — that the robber Michael Brown, supposedly, had his arms up when he was shot — your whole position gets seriously compromised.
Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, meet Pot. [mxgm.org]
An inflammatory collection of lies and innuendo based, once again, on the sorry fate of another thug, whose reaction to being followed in the street was to "whoop the shit out of the cracker".
If, while alleging "historical" and "nationwide" victimhood, you don't have decent poster-boys, something must be wrong with your premise.
The anonymous GP is right: we aren't actively killing nor seriously repressing a large number of our own people. Not usually. And if/when it happens, it is a cause of outrage here in the US, whereas in China, North Korea, Cuba or under ISIS it is accepted, grudgingly or otherwise...
But then, I suppose that proverbial kettle of Joseph McCarthy and the pot of Lavrenty Beria are equally "black" to you too...
Yes, I am curious too. That and the high concentration of such "tools" in one spot. Perhaps, an early colony existed around the lake?
Were they tools? According to the legend under one of the images in TFA: "Both the core and the flake display a series of dispersed percussion marks" and another says "Hammerstone showing isolated impact points". If that's true — and the free image is too small to say for sure — the rocks were used to hit something hard, Ok. And such use of rocks, or sticks, or anything not part of body is quite amazing for any creature, although Homo Anythingaren't unique in this.
But I don't think, such use makes them officially "hammers" and "anvils", to be honest. For it does not appear, the "tools" themselves were deliberately worked on: the creatures grabbed whatever lied around and used it...
I asked my mom to to break crypto with open-source software...
She'd also have to be in a position to intercept the traffic to begin with. The article's problem-description is rather silly, indeed.
I also do not see, who would still be allowing weak ciphers on their servers — after all the earlier SSL-vulnerabilities we went through in the last 6 months, that is... But the report on the matter estimates 8.4% of the top million web-sites and 3.4% of all HTTPS-using sites as still vulnerable. Shrug...
From the article I linked to. Did you bother reading it?
Yeah, their only source for this particular claim is the guy's own words: "He told the Times: “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter.”
That's both flimsy evidence (hearsay and not under oath) and evasive. For example, if he is ever confronted with evidence of having been told by Clinton, how to vote, he'll be able to claim, that it was not "interference", but direct instructions from his official boss at the time.
And yet, you took his flimsy statement about lack of "interference" and turned it into a far wider-reaching "had no contact with her about it". Am I being picky? The other Clinton once claimed, "oral sex is not sex", for crying out loud — you can not be too picky with these weasels...
Yes. That's exactly what they did. *eyeroll*
Eye-rolling does not prove anything. I'll take it as another concession.
Yeah, no. This is about the vote to give a Russian country control of 20% of US uranium production and Sec. Clinton's (non)involvement in it.
You defended the Secretary here with two arguments:
That a FactCheck-article concludes, there is no evidence of her wrong-doing — only "speculations"
That any money (bribe) were given not to any of the Clintons, but to the Clinton Foundation
The first claim makes my "rant" — about the need to use a reverse of the usual burden-of-proof principle for Executive government officials — on-topic and otherwise appropriate. The second (false) claim likewise legitimizes my counter-argument about the Foundation being a slush-fund and a power-brokerage vehicle, even if it does not enrich the Clintons directly.
Legitimacy of my counter-arguments now established, absence of any other rebuttals from you evident, the only conclusion is that your original arguments in defense of Madame Secretary are null and void. Have a nice day.
Yes, folks, those problems and more besides can be solved by radical individualism and its close friend, laissez-faire capitalism!
Yes, indeed. I wouldn't use the charged term "radical", but Individualism certainly is it.
Sure, some people will be free to starve, others will be free to die of preventable illnesses
No idea, where you got this from...
your freedom to amass wealth and keep it all to yourself will be safe.
That, definitely, is — or ought to be — among the top-priority freedoms to preserve, yes. I fail to see, how anyone can argue against it. Give it a try, if you feel like it: tell me, what — other than force majeure circumstances like need to defend the country — justifies confiscating one's honestly-earned property?
Is completely wrong if it's implying that Sec. Clinton was the only person involved in approving the deal.
"Completely" wrong? No, it is quite right to suspect her. With government officials the famous legal standard is — or ought to be — backwards: guilty until proven innocent. With the amount of sheer power and influence the Executive government has, they must be constantly under scrutiny, and any time there is a suspicion, then must be presumed guilty. These cases are all the same:
Policeman shoots a citizen
A citizen dies in police custody
A government agency "loses" e-mails
A government official uses personal e-mail server to discuss financial contributions
We, the people, do not — or should not — have to prove their guilt, they must be proving innocence instead. And until they do, they must be deemed guilty of the worst crime reasonably suspected. For example: could the shooting have been malicious, or the could "lost" e-mails have contained evidence of rape or treason? If yes, than the charges of murder, rape, and treason ought to stand against all involved until innocence is proven.
She didn't have veto authority (only the president does) and she was part of a panel of 8 other members who also approved the deal.
Nonsense. She was the most influential person on that panel and among the 10 most influential members of the government. Her approval or lack thereof was, in all likelihood, the deciding factor.
there's little indication that she personally profits from money donated to the Clinton Foundation
Except the foundation is a slush fund. In 2013, for example, it took in $140mln, but spent only $9 mln on actual charity:
On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.
It does not need to be a source of direct financial enrichment — it is perfectly fine as a vehicle for power.
But given that the USA's largest employer is using the government subsidized process
Instead of trying to alleviate this travesty with a new one — minimum wage — why not undo such subsidies? If somebody does not pay "enough" for your goods or services (including labor), people look for another buyer. And if they don't, then the pay is enough — by definition.
The government inserting itself between private parties willingly engaging in a lawful transaction is an abomination. That it is done under the pretext of fixing, what it broke in the first place, makes it worse.
This is a destruction of liberty and path to totalitarianism:
We must help the poor!
We must force everyone to be helping the poor.
Now that we are helping the poor, we must control their lives to prevent them from doing "stupid" things. Depending on the kind of Statist in power, these may include:
All under the excuse, that we — the Collective — pay you, so you must do as we say. And, no, you can not opt-out either — our compassionate bleeding hearts would not allow you to make that stupid thing either.
As the definition of "poor" expands, the government's control of us all solidifies. Mandatory minimum wage is no different from NSA-spying and other manifestations of Collective (Glorious) trampling the rights of the Individual (cantankerous and unreasonable) — both are imposed on us "for our own good" by the people, who consider themselves our betters.
Are you saying they are more successful because blacks are inferior, or are you saying they are more successful for some other reason?
Just like you, I do not know the reasons. But I can see, that Asian Americans are more successful than White Americans, and White Americans — more successful than Black ones. It is evidenced in disproportional college admittance, arrest-records and other measures.
Whatever the reasons, the results are indisputable. Calling me "racist" over this is as stupid as blaming someone for stating, Blacks have more melanin in their skin...
I see you only responded to my assertion
Once again, my person is not the topic of this — nor any other forum on/. Not yet, anyway. Turning the conversation onto the person of your opponent is, by definition, an ad hominem attack. You automatically lose whatever the debate was about...
See why I said you wouldn't survive in an academic setting?
Darling, I handed your sorry ass back to you so many times already, I'm surprised, it is not yet falling off on its own. Or maybe it does? That would explain a thing or two...
Seek help — your obsession with my person, however illustrious, has already lead you to stalking — it is not healthy...
Governments worldwide that are marching to fascism want encryption banned.
Encryption is but a tiny side-show in the global march towards Collectivism — the coin, of which Fascism and Socialism are indistinguishable sides. As predicted long ago:
The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.
— Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, Paris, May 27, 1788
It starts with concern for the poor, that inevitably causes the government to undertake support of the downtrodden with various "War on Poverty" initiatives.
A few decades and trillion-dollars into it, there are not only millions of recipients of the dole, there are also tens of thousands of government officials involved in distributing it. The combination makes it impossible to stop the foolish undertaking — it may be reformed and rearranged, but it can not be ended.
And then comes the idea, that, if we must support the unsuccessful among us, we should try to prevent them from doing (what we consider to be) stupid things: take drugs, drive too fast, eat fat (no, not fat, sugar!). Right here on Slashdot, the idea that our self-imposed responsibility for others allows us to control their actions, is alive and well.
And then government types begin to deliberately rearrange things to be able to attach their own strings to various incentives you can not refuse. The first example of this was, probably, the imposition of federal speed-limit by mandating, that States receiving federal Federal highway funds implement them.
The most recent example here is the federal take-over of education loans, which allows the Administration to better control, what the colleges teach and what students do. Because it raises the tuition costs so much, fewer and fewer students will be able to forgo such federal aid and will be forced to accept it — with all of the strings attached to them and the colleges they attend.
Compared to these aspects of the Collective increasingly controlling the Individual's life, use of encryption is of little to no consequence. Maybe, a new Republic in Antarctica, on the Moon or Mars will take the lessons of our errors to heart — the way our Founding Fathers studied those of the Romans...
So you are in favor of The government and industry conspiring to take your tax money.
While you are pulling accusations out from where the Sun don't shine, tovarisch, why not accuse him of being in favor of raping puppies? Sounds a lot more impressive and is just as well-substantiated...
Citation needed. Or would've been needed, if this article was about my (deeply flawed) person. It is not, so shove your little impotent vendetta where the sun don't shine and leave me alone. If you can...
Slashdot Mirror
Not at all. I don't care, not yet, how the prediction was arrived to. Only that it was made and turned out accurate. Once I see at least two or three such, we can dig deeper. But I'm yet to see any.
Yes, yes. The Prince of Darkness must be very busy the last 10 or so years preparing that special place in his Realm for people, who claim information to be "easy to find" without providing links to any...
Hugs and kisses, hater.
At least, a child, however petulant, would not use words like "fucker".
Yes, I am lazy — but the burden of proof is not on me, it is on those people, who want me to change my ways to fight a problem. They (including you) have to prove, the problem exists in the first place.
So, instead of posting attacks on my (deeply flawed) person, how about you either put up — the format I am asking for is perfectly reasonable — or shut up?..
I'd be happy to — could you post any? Being as "intellectually honest" as you are?
I'm not asking for a "model" — I just want to see a successful prediction. And I am willing to consider "within 80%" as "successful".
Once I see citations of successful predictions, we can switch into discussing their usefulness. But we aren't there yet, despite there being so many responses here already...
Your comment included no links at all and therefore can not possibly meet my expectations. FAIL.
Whether true or not, that's not, what I was asking for.
If this were true, you — and countless others bothering to reply in this subthread — would've been able to form the links into the shape I ask for in minutes. Just to prove me wrong. And yet, despite there being so many responses already, nobody has done it...
Sorry, but posting the same link twice does not count. FAIL.
Yes, I would accept some of such. For example: "By 2015 Arctic will be ice-free". Do you have any?
You are right, no model is perfect. Can you link to a prediction, that materialized within, say, 80% of the predicted value(s)?
So? How does this refute my allegation of a bias? Both area and volume are, presumably, important parameters...
Thank you, yes, I'd like to think that I am.
Why? That it contains only one link is immediately obvious and enough to return it otherwise "unopened".
Ah, ad-hominems, they prove everything!
If I really had been, you would've included those link-pairs I asked for — for everyone's benefit... In fact, you would, likely, have linked to the post refuting me on this matter in your signature! But you can't, because it was never done. So far two people tries to answer my challenge and both failed.
Here is another, just FYI.
Your post in response to a request for pairs of links contained only a single link and was thus automatically rejected. FAIL.
Please, try again.
The post accepted by Slashdot cites European Space Agency's satellite as evidence of ice-loss.
And earlier submission citing NASA's satellites leading to the opposite conclusion was not accepted. Kind a strange for a normally unabashedly US-centric Slashdot to so openly favour European satellite-data over American — makes one suspect a certain pre-existing bias...
I don't see any substantial changes here, do you?
They certainly have. But, to the best of my knowledge, none of the actual predictions made over these years by the "alarmists" have ever materialized.
Would you care to prove the above statement wrong? Try to post a list of link-pairs: first link in each pair shall point to a prediction and the second — to its materializing... Note, that entries containing only the latter will not be accepted — when a result is known, it is too easy to find somebody having "predicted" it.
The prediction and the materialization would have to be at least 3 years apart too — successfully predicting tomorrow's weather does not count, that is.
Game?
Seriously? BlackLivesMatter? If you have to refer to a "movement" born out of a lie — that the robber Michael Brown, supposedly, had his arms up when he was shot — your whole position gets seriously compromised.
An inflammatory collection of lies and innuendo based, once again, on the sorry fate of another thug, whose reaction to being followed in the street was to "whoop the shit out of the cracker".
If, while alleging "historical" and "nationwide" victimhood, you don't have decent poster-boys, something must be wrong with your premise.
The anonymous GP is right: we aren't actively killing nor seriously repressing a large number of our own people. Not usually. And if/when it happens, it is a cause of outrage here in the US, whereas in China, North Korea, Cuba or under ISIS it is accepted, grudgingly or otherwise...
But then, I suppose that proverbial kettle of Joseph McCarthy and the pot of Lavrenty Beria are equally "black" to you too...
Yes, I am curious too. That and the high concentration of such "tools" in one spot. Perhaps, an early colony existed around the lake?
Were they tools? According to the legend under one of the images in TFA: "Both the core and the flake display a series of dispersed percussion marks" and another says "Hammerstone showing isolated impact points". If that's true — and the free image is too small to say for sure — the rocks were used to hit something hard, Ok. And such use of rocks, or sticks, or anything not part of body is quite amazing for any creature, although Homo Anything aren't unique in this.
But I don't think, such use makes them officially "hammers" and "anvils", to be honest. For it does not appear, the "tools" themselves were deliberately worked on: the creatures grabbed whatever lied around and used it...
She'd also have to be in a position to intercept the traffic to begin with. The article's problem-description is rather silly, indeed.
I also do not see, who would still be allowing weak ciphers on their servers — after all the earlier SSL-vulnerabilities we went through in the last 6 months, that is... But the report on the matter estimates 8.4% of the top million web-sites and 3.4% of all HTTPS-using sites as still vulnerable. Shrug...
Yeah, their only source for this particular claim is the guy's own words: "He told the Times: “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter.”
That's both flimsy evidence (hearsay and not under oath) and evasive. For example, if he is ever confronted with evidence of having been told by Clinton, how to vote, he'll be able to claim, that it was not "interference", but direct instructions from his official boss at the time.
And yet, you took his flimsy statement about lack of "interference" and turned it into a far wider-reaching "had no contact with her about it". Am I being picky? The other Clinton once claimed, "oral sex is not sex", for crying out loud — you can not be too picky with these weasels...
Eye-rolling does not prove anything. I'll take it as another concession.
You defended the Secretary here with two arguments:
The first claim makes my "rant" — about the need to use a reverse of the usual burden-of-proof principle for Executive government officials — on-topic and otherwise appropriate. The second (false) claim likewise legitimizes my counter-argument about the Foundation being a slush-fund and a power-brokerage vehicle, even if it does not enrich the Clintons directly.
Legitimacy of my counter-arguments now established, absence of any other rebuttals from you evident, the only conclusion is that your original arguments in defense of Madame Secretary are null and void. Have a nice day.
Yes, indeed. I wouldn't use the charged term "radical", but Individualism certainly is it.
No idea, where you got this from...
That, definitely, is — or ought to be — among the top-priority freedoms to preserve, yes. I fail to see, how anyone can argue against it. Give it a try, if you feel like it: tell me, what — other than force majeure circumstances like need to defend the country — justifies confiscating one's honestly-earned property?
And you know this from?..
And, maybe, they did... But seeing Clinton being in favor decided not to rock the boat and alienate the probably next President...
A rather backwards way of conceding a point, but I'll take it. It must've been hard for you as it is.
"Completely" wrong? No, it is quite right to suspect her. With government officials the famous legal standard is — or ought to be — backwards: guilty until proven innocent. With the amount of sheer power and influence the Executive government has, they must be constantly under scrutiny, and any time there is a suspicion, then must be presumed guilty. These cases are all the same:
We, the people, do not — or should not — have to prove their guilt, they must be proving innocence instead. And until they do, they must be deemed guilty of the worst crime reasonably suspected. For example: could the shooting have been malicious, or the could "lost" e-mails have contained evidence of rape or treason? If yes, than the charges of murder, rape, and treason ought to stand against all involved until innocence is proven.
Nonsense. She was the most influential person on that panel and among the 10 most influential members of the government. Her approval or lack thereof was, in all likelihood, the deciding factor.
Except the foundation is a slush fund . In 2013, for example, it took in $140mln, but spent only $9 mln on actual charity:
It does not need to be a source of direct financial enrichment — it is perfectly fine as a vehicle for power.
Instead of trying to alleviate this travesty with a new one — minimum wage — why not undo such subsidies? If somebody does not pay "enough" for your goods or services (including labor), people look for another buyer. And if they don't, then the pay is enough — by definition.
The government inserting itself between private parties willingly engaging in a lawful transaction is an abomination. That it is done under the pretext of fixing, what it broke in the first place, makes it worse.
This is a destruction of liberty and path to totalitarianism:
All under the excuse, that we — the Collective — pay you, so you must do as we say. And, no, you can not opt-out either — our compassionate bleeding hearts would not allow you to make that stupid thing either.
As the definition of "poor" expands, the government's control of us all solidifies. Mandatory minimum wage is no different from NSA-spying and other manifestations of Collective (Glorious) trampling the rights of the Individual (cantankerous and unreasonable) — both are imposed on us "for our own good" by the people, who consider themselves our betters.
Just like you, I do not know the reasons. But I can see, that Asian Americans are more successful than White Americans, and White Americans — more successful than Black ones. It is evidenced in disproportional college admittance, arrest-records and other measures.
Whatever the reasons, the results are indisputable. Calling me "racist" over this is as stupid as blaming someone for stating, Blacks have more melanin in their skin...
Once again, my person is not the topic of this — nor any other forum on /. Not yet, anyway. Turning the conversation onto the person of your opponent is, by definition, an ad hominem attack. You automatically lose whatever the debate was about...
Darling, I handed your sorry ass back to you so many times already, I'm surprised, it is not yet falling off on its own. Or maybe it does? That would explain a thing or two...
Seek help — your obsession with my person, however illustrious, has already lead you to stalking — it is not healthy...
I certainly will not encourage you any more.
Encryption is but a tiny side-show in the global march towards Collectivism — the coin, of which Fascism and Socialism are indistinguishable sides. As predicted long ago:
It starts with concern for the poor, that inevitably causes the government to undertake support of the downtrodden with various "War on Poverty" initiatives.
A few decades and trillion-dollars into it, there are not only millions of recipients of the dole, there are also tens of thousands of government officials involved in distributing it. The combination makes it impossible to stop the foolish undertaking — it may be reformed and rearranged, but it can not be ended.
And then comes the idea, that, if we must support the unsuccessful among us, we should try to prevent them from doing (what we consider to be) stupid things: take drugs, drive too fast, eat fat (no, not fat, sugar!). Right here on Slashdot, the idea that our self-imposed responsibility for others allows us to control their actions, is alive and well.
And then government types begin to deliberately rearrange things to be able to attach their own strings to various incentives you can not refuse. The first example of this was, probably, the imposition of federal speed-limit by mandating, that States receiving federal Federal highway funds implement them.
The most recent example here is the federal take-over of education loans, which allows the Administration to better control, what the colleges teach and what students do. Because it raises the tuition costs so much, fewer and fewer students will be able to forgo such federal aid and will be forced to accept it — with all of the strings attached to them and the colleges they attend.
Compared to these aspects of the Collective increasingly controlling the Individual's life, use of encryption is of little to no consequence. Maybe, a new Republic in Antarctica, on the Moon or Mars will take the lessons of our errors to heart — the way our Founding Fathers studied those of the Romans...
While you are pulling accusations out from where the Sun don't shine, tovarisch, why not accuse him of being in favor of raping puppies? Sounds a lot more impressive and is just as well-substantiated...
Citation needed. Or would've been needed, if this article was about my (deeply flawed) person. It is not, so shove your little impotent vendetta where the sun don't shine and leave me alone. If you can...