it may also be used to track who is going to a political rally or protest, or who is visiting a dissident.
This would've been a valid concern, if being a "dissident" were in any way dangerous in our country. And it is not.
Certainly not lately — on the contrary, supporting the elected President or the majority-holding Party is what can get you beaten up or reported to your employer (and subsequently fired).
So, no, any concern over police identifying "dissidents" in a free country is invalid. But helping the officers separate known rioters from peaceful — even if excited — protesters is a useful thing.
Is that enough proof.It is not proof at all. If tinkering with the device made it go away, you weren't throttled. Period.
Maybe, just maybe, the sinister "guy with a clue" quietly — without telling you — fixed something else with your account, while lying to you, that you need to reset/reboot. Seems unlikely though...
"You are definitely nowhere near over your limit."
That's good, but is no proof, you are being throttled.
It causes the phone to reboot and then the data speed was restored to 'normal' speeds.
This means, something was wrong with your phone or, possibly, its settings. If a reset/reboot of the device fixed the problem, than it is most unlikely, that AT&T was deliberately throttling you. Had they really been doing that, no amount of tinkering with the phone itself would've helped.
The average ATT store employee has NO CLUE.
Yes, we all love to bash the front-line clerks. But that's irrelevant to the strong-worded claim you made. What you believe is "proof" is not — you owe AT&T an apology...
They do it on the iPhone on my account routinely, even though I'm not over my data limit.
I'm curious, how you established that. What's the evidence, it is AT&T's throttling and not something else between you and the server(s) you are talking to?
Maybe the child lives in constant pain? Has missing limbs? Three eyes?
These are questions for Biology in general and Genetics in particular. Not for Ethics. And that's my point.
Will it be available to everyone? Or just the 0.1%?
These might be questions for Ethics, but we already have the answer: there is nothing unethical about richer people having better things. FYI, in the 19th century, flush toilet was only for the 0.1%...
"Independent" as in "free of conflict of interest". Trump was elected promising to "drain the swamp". The alligators are now all busy protesting their own importance. Maybe the bridges really are crumbling — but the people, who'd most benefit from our attention to the problem can not be trusted to justify it.
Even if the evil RethugliKKKunt$ have limited the benevolent Democrats' attempts to fix these 55000 bridges for eight years (including when the Democrats controlled the entire Congress and the White House), there was enough money to fix the 10000 most in need...
Yes, you should know C well enough to be able to read somebody else's code. At least. You may even switch to it for good, unexpectedly.
No, IoT-devices are a poor reason to start learning the language. By the time you are done, Moore's Law will make this devices powerful enough to run Ruby, Perl, and PHP, and you'll be able to go back to those...
Everyone wants to micromanage everyone else all in the name of safety/efficiency/feelings etc.
My employer, for example, encourages people to work from home. The new office, for example, has very few permanently-assigned desks — and there are only 3 cubicles for every 5 employees. It is expected, that, on average, two out of five (40%) people will be working from home on any given day.
There is no presence-monitoring hardware mandated for home offices and the company-issued laptops don't run any such software either (yes, I know for sure).
You can citate my older posts on this topic, or of the parent "dunkelfalke" as we both live in this area.
That's not, how it works — you claim something, you cite evidence.
Besides, your own posts is not evidence even if you properly cited them. And their contents — local observations — aren't evidence of planet-wide climate change either. Otherwise, you'll have to accept my citations of the local electric company-data average temperatures for, which show this winter to be (much) colder than the previous.
I'm asking for citations where the predictions were way off.
These are a dime-a-dozen. The Internet is full of such lists assembled. But they don't necessarily disprove anything — it is normal for a scientific discipline to fail sometimes. This article even analyzes different ways of detecting and dealing with such failures.
Trouble is, successful ones are so hard to find...
Scientists predicted in 2000 that kids would grow up without snow.
Dr. David Viner, a scientist with the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia, told the UK Independent in 2000. Fail.
“End of skiing” in Scotland.
Predicted in 2004:
With the pace of global warming increasing, some climate change experts predict that the Scottish ski industry will cease to exist within 20 years.
The Arctic would be “ice-free”
The 2007 prediction, echoed by Al Gore, promised "ice-fre Arctic":
“you can argue that may be our projection of [an ice-free Arctic by 2013] is already too conservative.”
Whether or not Arctic sea ice is at "record low" or not, the Arctic Ocean is decidedly not "ice-free" today.
Yet you've provided zero. Odd.
I made no claims requiring citations. I merely pointed out, that folks claiming "science is settled" typically disappear, when asked for successful prediction of their favorite science.
Nope. If you actually believe in science, I have to provide you with successful ones that survived peer review and replication
That may be too onerous a requirement in the case of Climate Science — the experiments take many years, so any replication is difficult.
Thank you for trying, AaronW, but you missed the first requirement I posted:
a link to the published prediction;
Your list of four "successes" does not include a single prediction being made. You only cite the confirmations. Why do I insist on this first requirement? It is because without it, anyone can be "a scientist" — by making multitude of "predictions" and then publishing only those, that materialize.
For example, when tossing a coin, I can write down two "predictions" — heads and tails — and, after the coin settles, publish the successful paper while quietly discarding the failed one. So, no, any citations you wish to make answering my challenge must include separate links — to prediction and its confirmation. And, the third requirement, the links' publication dates need to be some years apart...
Would you actually accept that or would you just punt saying lucky guess.
In the 20+ years since "Global Warming" became "a thing", there should by now be plenty of successful predictions. If you can cite just 3, I'll concede, that the discipline is not entirely hopeless.
Ca has indeed experienced an extended drought and is now seeing floods
Ok, post your citations demonstrating that the predictions have not come true
This is not symmetrical — what you demand is that I prove a negative. It is equivalent to demanding from a man claiming to be single an affidavit from every woman, stating, she is not his wife.
There are plenty of patently failed predictions by Climate Scientists, but that does not prove, none have come true. All you need to prove me wrong is find a couple of successful ones. And yet, you can't...
drought in one place doesn't mean a drought elsewhere
The flooding happening now and the drought blamed on AGW last year are happening in the same place. That same Oroville lake was "water starved" only a couple of months ago.
Last January I saw birds trying to find food for their chicks. In January. That is global warming
AGW will bring about more droughts and more floods
Both predictions have failed to materialize. As have (nearly) all predictions made by climate scientists. Do try to cite any successful ones, I'll wait...
Before you begin, here is what each citations must have:
a link to the published prediction;
a link to confirmation of the prediction coming true — within, say, 20% of the predicted value (if quantifiable);
the two links must be published at least several years apart — predicting tomorrow's weather does not count;
the prediction must be marginally useful — a statement like "it may become hotter or colder" can not be accepted.
So busy declaring their unwavering support for the idea of Global Warming — and its contribution to drought, none of these guys would raise an alarm over the possibility of a flood.
Both have happened before — early settlers in California have died due to drought-induced famine, and 1863 has seen a spectacular flooding, for example.
The ultimate troll is to make an argument based on an ambiguity in Wikipedia law, which then causes the other lawyers to turn on each other.
Yep. When it first appeared, Wikipedia did seem like an awesome new thing. But the humans running it are the same ones running everything else and, by not anticipating the problems of self-governance in advance and coming up only with the ad-hoc rules, which are written, interpreted, and applied by the same people, Wikipedia became (much) worse, than it could've been...
That the rules are awfully ambiguous and often equivocate common dictionary terms with W-only special meaning makes it outright terrible. I used to be an enthusiastic contributor — there are still a few photographs of mine there — but I stopped long ago. In disgust.
Godwin's Law/prov./ [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups.
This crushes the vital components inside the device, destroying any information stored on board.
I doubt that last part rather strongly. A local police department may be stumbled getting the child porn out of a phone so destroyed, but an FBI lab will have no problem.
I thought, they'll release a drop of special acid onto the memory chip. But 80 degrees Celsius is not all that hot... Overclockers, supposedly, go up to 85 before their computers crash. The memory ought to avoid permanent damage at even higher temperatures.
Slashdot Mirror
This would've been a valid concern, if being a "dissident" were in any way dangerous in our country. And it is not.
Certainly not lately — on the contrary, supporting the elected President or the majority-holding Party is what can get you beaten up or reported to your employer (and subsequently fired).
Dissidents in the US denounce the sitting President to the ovations from audiences, fearing not one bit neither for personal safety nor for job-prospects.
So, no, any concern over police identifying "dissidents" in a free country is invalid. But helping the officers separate known rioters from peaceful — even if excited — protesters is a useful thing.
That's good, but is no proof, you are being throttled.
This means, something was wrong with your phone or, possibly, its settings. If a reset/reboot of the device fixed the problem, than it is most unlikely, that AT&T was deliberately throttling you. Had they really been doing that, no amount of tinkering with the phone itself would've helped.
Yes, we all love to bash the front-line clerks. But that's irrelevant to the strong-worded claim you made. What you believe is "proof" is not — you owe AT&T an apology...
So, Trump wins, appoints a free maket (spit!) RethugliKKKunt as the head of FCC and services improve?
I'm curious, how you established that. What's the evidence, it is AT&T's throttling and not something else between you and the server(s) you are talking to?
These are questions for Biology in general and Genetics in particular. Not for Ethics. And that's my point.
These might be questions for Ethics, but we already have the answer: there is nothing unethical about richer people having better things. FYI, in the 19th century, flush toilet was only for the 0.1%...
Yes.
No, Ethics has no part in it.
Worse. The objections are justified by ethics. As if it were unethical to want your children to be smarter, stronger, and better-looking.
Maybe, the changes are "dangerous" from the point of view of Biology and population health. But dragging Ethics into it is utter nonsense.
"Independent" as in "free of conflict of interest". Trump was elected promising to "drain the swamp". The alligators are now all busy protesting their own importance. Maybe the bridges really are crumbling — but the people, who'd most benefit from our attention to the problem can not be trusted to justify it.
Even if the evil RethugliKKKunt$ have limited the benevolent Democrats' attempts to fix these 55000 bridges for eight years (including when the Democrats controlled the entire Congress and the White House), there was enough money to fix the 10000 most in need...
Remember the wonderful term "shovel ready"?
Well, if the government is to be trusted on this one, the government is failing to maintain the bridges properly...
This reckless blaming of Russian hackers only serves to recruit more Russian hackers.
Yes, you should know C well enough to be able to read somebody else's code. At least. You may even switch to it for good, unexpectedly.
No, IoT-devices are a poor reason to start learning the language. By the time you are done, Moore's Law will make this devices powerful enough to run Ruby, Perl, and PHP, and you'll be able to go back to those...
My employer, for example, encourages people to work from home. The new office, for example, has very few permanently-assigned desks — and there are only 3 cubicles for every 5 employees. It is expected, that, on average, two out of five (40%) people will be working from home on any given day.
There is no presence-monitoring hardware mandated for home offices and the company-issued laptops don't run any such software either (yes, I know for sure).
That's not, how it works — you claim something, you cite evidence.
Besides, your own posts is not evidence even if you properly cited them. And their contents — local observations — aren't evidence of planet-wide climate change either. Otherwise, you'll have to accept my citations of the local electric company-data average temperatures for, which show this winter to be (much) colder than the previous.
Citations?
These are a dime-a-dozen. The Internet is full of such lists assembled. But they don't necessarily disprove anything — it is normal for a scientific discipline to fail sometimes. This article even analyzes different ways of detecting and dealing with such failures.
Trouble is, successful ones are so hard to find...
Scientists predicted in 2000 that kids would grow up without snow. Dr. David Viner, a scientist with the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia, told the UK Independent in 2000. Fail. “End of skiing” in Scotland. Predicted in 2004:It is now 2017, but snow is still plentiful in Scotland. Indeed, the 2014 was the snowiest since 1945. Do you think, the 2004 prediction will come true by 2024?
The Arctic would be “ice-free” The 2007 prediction, echoed by Al Gore, promised "ice-fre Arctic":Whether or not Arctic sea ice is at "record low" or not, the Arctic Ocean is decidedly not "ice-free" today.
I made no claims requiring citations. I merely pointed out, that folks claiming "science is settled" typically disappear, when asked for successful prediction of their favorite science.
That may be too onerous a requirement in the case of Climate Science — the experiments take many years, so any replication is difficult.
Thank you for trying, AaronW, but you missed the first requirement I posted:
Your list of four "successes" does not include a single prediction being made. You only cite the confirmations. Why do I insist on this first requirement? It is because without it, anyone can be "a scientist" — by making multitude of "predictions" and then publishing only those, that materialize.
For example, when tossing a coin, I can write down two "predictions" — heads and tails — and, after the coin settles, publish the successful paper while quietly discarding the failed one. So, no, any citations you wish to make answering my challenge must include separate links — to prediction and its confirmation. And, the third requirement, the links' publication dates need to be some years apart...
In the 20+ years since "Global Warming" became "a thing", there should by now be plenty of successful predictions. If you can cite just 3, I'll concede, that the discipline is not entirely hopeless.
Both happened before — and I do offer citations.
Yeah, and asteroids are passing closer and closer more and more often — must be all of that bovine meteorism (pun intended).
There, there. That's how logical people win arguments — even while losing the popular vote.
OMG! "Reactionary"?!? That takes me back to my childhood in the USSR — with weekly denunciations of "reactionary" capitalist oppressors in school...
This is not symmetrical — what you demand is that I prove a negative. It is equivalent to demanding from a man claiming to be single an affidavit from every woman, stating, she is not his wife.
There are plenty of patently failed predictions by Climate Scientists, but that does not prove, none have come true. All you need to prove me wrong is find a couple of successful ones. And yet, you can't...
Don't be hating, suchechka.
The flooding happening now and the drought blamed on AGW last year are happening in the same place. That same Oroville lake was "water starved" only a couple of months ago.
Last January I saw birds trying to find food for their chicks. In January. That is global warming
No, dumbass, that's merely weather.
Yep. So, why worry about flooding, if we are in the middle of a drought — made worse by Trump and his Nazis?..
Both predictions have failed to materialize. As have (nearly) all predictions made by climate scientists. Do try to cite any successful ones, I'll wait...
Before you begin, here is what each citations must have:
Ready? Set! Go!!
So busy declaring their unwavering support for the idea of Global Warming — and its contribution to drought , none of these guys would raise an alarm over the possibility of a flood.
Both have happened before — early settlers in California have died due to drought-induced famine, and 1863 has seen a spectacular flooding, for example.
The science is settled my tail.
Yep. When it first appeared, Wikipedia did seem like an awesome new thing. But the humans running it are the same ones running everything else and, by not anticipating the problems of self-governance in advance and coming up only with the ad-hoc rules, which are written, interpreted, and applied by the same people, Wikipedia became (much) worse, than it could've been...
That the rules are awfully ambiguous and often equivocate common dictionary terms with W-only special meaning makes it outright terrible. I used to be an enthusiastic contributor — there are still a few photographs of mine there — but I stopped long ago. In disgust.
Remember to logout, loser.
I doubt that last part rather strongly. A local police department may be stumbled getting the child porn out of a phone so destroyed, but an FBI lab will have no problem.
I thought, they'll release a drop of special acid onto the memory chip. But 80 degrees Celsius is not all that hot... Overclockers, supposedly, go up to 85 before their computers crash. The memory ought to avoid permanent damage at even higher temperatures.