Bah, I just typed about 3 pages of crap and then erased it...not worth it.
Bottom line: There are dozens of great reasons why moving to sustainable green energy is desirable besides climate, and many examples at the state level where mandates for green energy have been met and exceeded.
Its not hard to get moving on this issue. Someone at the federal level needs to step up and get us moving. At this point... at any pace is fine. Because as of the last 30 years, we've done absolutely NOTHING.
At what point will the evidence be clear enough? 50/50 chance? 75/25 chance? Every single scientist in the world screaming all at once?
My bet, is no level of consensus will ever move policy on this issue. It is too wrapped up in the backbone of our economy. It is going to take a few brave politicians to ease us into a green transition, show us it isn't scary, show us it won't destroy the economy, and then we can gradually increase the rate at which we transition and just get it done.
So... you claim it is a double standard to harshly criticize someone speaking without evidence backing his points, while agreeing with someone with evidence backing their points, just because neither are qualified to gather said evidence?
"Through some click-click-clicking, I end up on that damn myspace page"
Wasn't it a protected, invite only part of her myspace page? (If not, then yes, I agree. If she made the images public, she should be in trouble).
"So she gets my cellphone number somehow and sends me topless pictures"
But she didn't send you the pictures. She sent/provided them to her boyfriend. That is the issue. They can stand in a room and look at each other naked, but they can't capture that image and keep it privately between each other.
If she sent it to you, she should be in trouble. Of course that makes sense, but she didn't.
Likewise, I know people that have licenses to buy/create/detonate explosives. They could mail me an explosive or drop it off at my house. At that point, they broke the law because I don't have a license. But if they dropped it off at another person's house who also has a license, its OK.
The point is... given that this was between two consenting partners.. it is as if they have (should have) a license to do that.
Send it to you: illegal. Send it to each other: legal.
"So until the day that fourteen year-old can take pictures of herself, publish them, sell them"
Yes, I really don't understand what the law is trying to accomplish here.
Two teens can stand in a room and look at each other naked. The second it becomes digital, even if kept private between those two, it is somehow wrong.
Cloud computing keeps coming back every so often, because ever so often, a power hungry CEO thinks:
"Oh... I just had a great idea. What if we could sell a complete computing 'experience' to someone instead of selling software. We could control...err I mean provide all the updates, and everything would be seamless, virus free, be backed up, and work. Oh.. another great idea. We could just rent it like cable TV. I bet people would love that".
Then marketing goes out and takes some polls and gauges people's reactions, comes back, and tells the CEO to shut up.
We can all trade anecdotal evidence for days and still have no idea what the average linux desktop experience is.
Mine: ubuntu 8.04 Dell Optiplex 740. 2 video problems preventing startx after updates. Managed to fix it by reverting to vesa, then a later update came out and I could re-enable fglrx.
Ubuntu 8.10: 1 video error, preventing startx from booting. Reverted back to vesa. Next update, fglrx starting working. Month later, hda-intel alsa sound stopped working after an update. Still doesn't work today. Had to install oss to get sound working.
We've got an entire help desk down stairs that 'tried linux', had too many problems with it, gave up, and now use mac/parallels.
Is any of this evidence for or against linux on the desktop? Nope. Just a bunch of stories.
Linux distro's will be "ready for the desktop" when they can standardize more, and combine their marketing efforts to get their desktops on more systems. Dell, HP, Gateway, etc.. , thereby causing more incentive for better drivers and application support.
Linux Servers took off because they are just plain better in many ways. The desktop isn't really better or worse. Just different. But without a single company/entity pushing it at vendors, they won't voluntarily market it when it is really no better.
Dell allows it as an option, but that is far different from seeing a TV commercial touting it as a 'better experience' like you see Microsoft and Mac doing.
I use ubuntu for my desktop at work. All my servers run either Solaris or Linux.
That said, I've never had my home gaming XP machine refuse to boot windows or have the sound not work after any upgrade (system or driver).
This year alone, my ubuntu desktop X has refused to startx 2 times after various updates, and hda-intel alsa sound has not worked for months after an update. I finally had to purge alsa and install oss by hand to make it work.
I might be in the minority, and this could purely be anecdotal, but linux distro's on the desktop still are not ready imo.
I suppose if no one updated drivers or their system ever, it would be nice and stable:), but that isn't very realistic.
>How about this for a compromise: You teach what you want to in church, or a class on religion/philosophy, and scientists will teach what they want to in science class.
>>Sorry, that's just too sensible.
It also continues the myth that science and religion are mutually exclusive.
I think if I taught in a small town in Texas, I could convince more students that the theory of evolution was correct, if I could address their religious concerns alongside it.
You have to know your audience. If more science teachers were educated in the philosophies of religion/spirtuality, I think we'd have far fewer of these "conflicts".
Until this story got out, I didn't even know it was legal for a school to perform a strip search.
Check a locker, check a bag... OK.. I suppose. Tell my kid to take her clothes off? WTF?
I don't have any kids, but if I did, they'd be home schooled if I couldn't get a sworn written statement by the principle and her teacher for that year that this invasive 'protection' was not condoned by that school.
I do have two very young nieces. I think I'll be having a chat with their teacher and principle once they reach an age that they can attend school.
No matter what she was accused of having, it shouldn't be legal to strip search any child in school.
Hate someone?
'Hey Principle Johnson, I heard a rumor that Michelle is selling Heroin.'
This should be something that is coordinated with the police, and in full cooperation with the parents.
Although I suppose I could 'tip off' the police that someone I dislike is making bombs (when of course they are not) and their home would probably be raided asap.
Still, it seems like a child ought to have a bit more protection from people outside their family, given that they have no power apart from their parents.
"The fact that the child was so used to following authority that she did not say 'fuck you' when told to strip is the third thing that should worry us. "
That is an interesting point. I wonder if this is one of the rare situations where an additional law needs to be passed:
Schools at any level must require all teachers and staff to attend civil liberty training.
Further, all schools must teach civil liberty basis to students.
The 'save the children' mantra is going way too far. Yet another spin off ramification from the last 8 years where 'officials' have tended to justify any draconian means to justify just about any end.
""We have been running these (experiments) for so long," Swartz told the audience, "that the question now is not just can we (generate) excess heat, it's can we get a kilowatt? Can we get a small car moving on this stuff?""
Aspects of it are interesting enough for this list to exist. I would assume that there is enough repeatability for the below well respected institutes to take it seriously.
"Religion is the anti-thesis of science because you are not allowed to question in religion."
You don't think that Theologians constantly question interpretations of religious texts/concepts? Of course they do.
I think what you are getting at, is the "axioms" are rarely questioned. For a most Christians, an axiom might be, "Jesus was holy, is the path to salvation, that is unquestionable, unprovable, yet we start our dialogue with that assumption on faith".
Pure thought science, like Math, also use axioms as a starting point for a sequence of logically thoughts.
In terms of changing over time, just look at the Pope/Catholics. Religion constantly changes to match what that generation "thinks" the texts mean. But of course, certain axioms remain.
"Religion is the antithesis of science, logically. Creationism is more of a specific rejection of science."
Err no. Science is the how, religion is the why.
They seek to answer completely different questions. Perpetuating that myth that one can't exist alongside the other, is what propped up the creationist movement in the first place.
How much do you enjoy purely programming? Just cranking out code with nothing else to do?
If the answer is, "I live for it, bring it on" then either C# or Java will get you many opportunities. In my world, Education, the dominate language is Java. But really, studying for a few months won't get you up to speed at all. You just need to find a programming job that is willing to hire a newbie and let him learn on the job.
If the answer is, "Well I enjoy it, but I'm not sure I want to get locked in a code monkey cubicle just yet", then find a more generic programming/analyst job.
That is what I did fresh out of college some 11 years ago. Smaller IT shop, but for a big company who's business was not IT. It allowed me to learn multiple languages and systems, learn about the business world, learn what I liked and didn't like, but most importantly, the assignments were varied, so I never got bored.
One month, the project would be, make the VMS Lab system with database X, feed data to the Windows NT machine with database Y, based on some trigger event in database X, using any language you want. We don't care, just do it.
Next month, make a web site that allows managers to enter their budget information and save it as an excel spreadsheet, and also put it in our SQL server, and generate reports x y and z on spending for us. Oh, and we don't have any web servers yet, so you need to install us one.
Worked during the Great Depression. Thats the only good data point we have.
However, the great increase in tax cuts pushed in by the Republicans, as opposed to higher infrastructure dollars, makes the stimulus less stimulating that the great depression example.
local.gov/crsinfo has some good stats on how a dollar of tax cuts versus a dollar of infrastructure actually effects the GDP.
#1 How much McCain benefited from AIG is not relevant since he would have bailed out the banks too
Yes, I'm just saying, everyone got AIG money. Your bringing it up about Obama might lead some people to think he's biased in their favor just because they gave him money.
#2: Do I really need to point out that the ENTIRE reason companies make contributions to the presidential candidates is precisely in case something like this economic meltdown happens, to cover their asses, and to ensure they get backed up?
I don't think you can say the entire reason companies give money is to expect bailouts during great depressions.... I would argue that the #1 reason is shaping policy over time by giving money to people who's ideology is beneficial to their business.
#3: Had this been McCain bailing out the banks, "we" (the left-leaning Slashdot community) would have had his head
True. And Fox/Blogs/and here on Slashdot, I'm already seeing it versus Obama. Implications that he's AIG's bought and payed for Buddy, etc...
Err I forgot to add. So yes... tax cuts do stimulate, but it is a net loss.
It is like giving a corporation 1 dollar in tax cuts, and it only puts 30 cents back into the economy. So ya... we get 30 cents of stimulus, but it is a horrible bang for the tax payer buck.
Slashdot Mirror
Bah, I just typed about 3 pages of crap and then erased it...not worth it.
Bottom line: There are dozens of great reasons why moving to sustainable green energy is desirable besides climate, and many examples at the state level where mandates for green energy have been met and exceeded.
Its not hard to get moving on this issue. Someone at the federal level needs to step up and get us moving. At this point... at any pace is fine. Because as of the last 30 years, we've done absolutely NOTHING.
At what point will the evidence be clear enough? 50/50 chance? 75/25 chance? Every single scientist in the world screaming all at once?
My bet, is no level of consensus will ever move policy on this issue. It is too wrapped up in the backbone of our economy. It is going to take a few brave politicians to ease us into a green transition, show us it isn't scary, show us it won't destroy the economy, and then we can gradually increase the rate at which we transition and just get it done.
So... you claim it is a double standard to harshly criticize someone speaking without evidence backing his points, while agreeing with someone with evidence backing their points, just because neither are qualified to gather said evidence?
That makes no sense whatsoever.
Darn it, I spaced and forgot my last sentence.
So if the photos were posted public, the most she should get charged with is public indecency. Not child porn.
"Through some click-click-clicking, I end up on that damn myspace page"
Wasn't it a protected, invite only part of her myspace page? (If not, then yes, I agree. If she made the images public, she should be in trouble).
"So she gets my cellphone number somehow and sends me topless pictures"
But she didn't send you the pictures. She sent/provided them to her boyfriend. That is the issue. They can stand in a room and look at each other naked, but they can't capture that image and keep it privately between each other.
If she sent it to you, she should be in trouble. Of course that makes sense, but she didn't.
Likewise, I know people that have licenses to buy/create/detonate explosives. They could mail me an explosive or drop it off at my house. At that point, they broke the law because I don't have a license. But if they dropped it off at another person's house who also has a license, its OK.
The point is... given that this was between two consenting partners.. it is as if they have (should have) a license to do that.
Send it to you: illegal. Send it to each other: legal.
"So until the day that fourteen year-old can take pictures of herself, publish them, sell them"
To reinforce that point, wasn't the number one ranked question on the change.gov site about legalizing pot?
And yet, when brought up in Obama's recent 'town hall' style forum, it was laughed off by him with some glib remark.
Yes, I really don't understand what the law is trying to accomplish here.
Two teens can stand in a room and look at each other naked. The second it becomes digital, even if kept private between those two, it is somehow wrong.
Exactly. Say a "dissident" in a country like China wanted to upload/download torrents deemed "inappropriate" by the state.
With a VPN, they would surely be safer.
Cloud computing keeps coming back every so often, because ever so often, a power hungry CEO thinks:
"Oh... I just had a great idea. What if we could sell a complete computing 'experience' to someone instead of selling software. We could control...err I mean provide all the updates, and everything would be seamless, virus free, be backed up, and work. Oh.. another great idea. We could just rent it like cable TV. I bet people would love that".
Then marketing goes out and takes some polls and gauges people's reactions, comes back, and tells the CEO to shut up.
We can all trade anecdotal evidence for days and still have no idea what the average linux desktop experience is.
Mine: ubuntu 8.04 Dell Optiplex 740. 2 video problems preventing startx after updates. Managed to fix it by reverting to vesa, then a later update came out and I could re-enable fglrx.
Ubuntu 8.10: 1 video error, preventing startx from booting. Reverted back to vesa. Next update, fglrx starting working. Month later, hda-intel alsa sound stopped working after an update. Still doesn't work today. Had to install oss to get sound working.
We've got an entire help desk down stairs that 'tried linux', had too many problems with it, gave up, and now use mac/parallels.
Is any of this evidence for or against linux on the desktop? Nope. Just a bunch of stories.
Linux distro's will be "ready for the desktop" when they can standardize more, and combine their marketing efforts to get their desktops on more systems. Dell, HP, Gateway, etc.. , thereby causing more incentive for better drivers and application support.
Linux Servers took off because they are just plain better in many ways. The desktop isn't really better or worse. Just different. But without a single company/entity pushing it at vendors, they won't voluntarily market it when it is really no better.
Dell allows it as an option, but that is far different from seeing a TV commercial touting it as a 'better experience' like you see Microsoft and Mac doing.
I use ubuntu for my desktop at work. All my servers run either Solaris or Linux.
That said, I've never had my home gaming XP machine refuse to boot windows or have the sound not work after any upgrade (system or driver).
This year alone, my ubuntu desktop X has refused to startx 2 times after various updates, and hda-intel alsa sound has not worked for months after an update. I finally had to purge alsa and install oss by hand to make it work.
I might be in the minority, and this could purely be anecdotal, but linux distro's on the desktop still are not ready imo.
I suppose if no one updated drivers or their system ever, it would be nice and stable:), but that isn't very realistic.
>How about this for a compromise: You teach what you want to in church, or a class on religion/philosophy, and scientists will teach what they want to in science class.
>>Sorry, that's just too sensible.
It also continues the myth that science and religion are mutually exclusive.
I think if I taught in a small town in Texas, I could convince more students that the theory of evolution was correct, if I could address their religious concerns alongside it.
You have to know your audience. If more science teachers were educated in the philosophies of religion/spirtuality, I think we'd have far fewer of these "conflicts".
Until this story got out, I didn't even know it was legal for a school to perform a strip search.
Check a locker, check a bag... OK.. I suppose.
Tell my kid to take her clothes off? WTF?
I don't have any kids, but if I did, they'd be home schooled if I couldn't get a sworn written statement by the principle and her teacher for that year that this invasive 'protection' was not condoned by that school.
I do have two very young nieces. I think I'll be having a chat with their teacher and principle once they reach an age that they can attend school.
No matter what she was accused of having, it shouldn't be legal to strip search any child in school.
Hate someone?
'Hey Principle Johnson, I heard a rumor that Michelle is selling Heroin.'
This should be something that is coordinated with the police, and in full cooperation with the parents.
Although I suppose I could 'tip off' the police that someone I dislike is making bombs (when of course they are not) and their home would probably be raided asap.
Still, it seems like a child ought to have a bit more protection from people outside their family, given that they have no power apart from their parents.
"The fact that the child was so used to following authority that she did not say 'fuck you' when told to strip is the third thing that should worry us. "
That is an interesting point. I wonder if this is one of the rare situations where an additional law needs to be passed:
Schools at any level must require all teachers and staff to attend civil liberty training.
Further, all schools must teach civil liberty basis to students.
The 'save the children' mantra is going way too far. Yet another spin off ramification from the last 8 years where 'officials' have tended to justify any draconian means to justify just about any end.
I agree. I just cannot conceive of anyone working in any level of education thinking that this was remotely reasonable.
We are either missing some gigantic piece to this puzzle, or those school officials need to be in jail.
There isn't much disagreement whether the effect is there or not.
However, there are a wide range of levels of effect. MIT had a conference in 2007 on it:
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/08/cold_fusion?currentPage=all#
""We have been running these (experiments) for so long," Swartz told the audience, "that the question now is not just can we (generate) excess heat, it's can we get a kilowatt? Can we get a small car moving on this stuff?""
Aspects of it are interesting enough for this list to exist. I would assume that there is enough repeatability for the below well respected institutes to take it seriously.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/fusionaries.html
MIT, DOE, Navy, lots of people are still researching it. They are just careful to not cry wolf anymore.
That is true. It is also true that many folks have continued working on it in various forms ever since the original "debacle".
I couldn't find the site I stumbled across a while back, but it had dozens of papers and conference transcripts of the people working on it still.
"Something" weird is going on. Whether it turns out to be useful remains to be seen.
I think he was making fun of the concept of a creationism science degree... not a degree in religion. The two are very different.
"Religion is the anti-thesis of science because you are not allowed to question in religion."
You don't think that Theologians constantly question interpretations of religious texts/concepts? Of course they do.
I think what you are getting at, is the "axioms" are rarely questioned. For a most Christians, an axiom might be, "Jesus was holy, is the path to salvation, that is unquestionable, unprovable, yet we start our dialogue with that assumption on faith".
Pure thought science, like Math, also use axioms as a starting point for a sequence of logically thoughts.
In terms of changing over time, just look at the Pope/Catholics. Religion constantly changes to match what that generation "thinks" the texts mean. But of course, certain axioms remain.
"Religion is the antithesis of science, logically. Creationism is more of a specific rejection of science."
Err no.
Science is the how, religion is the why.
They seek to answer completely different questions. Perpetuating that myth that one can't exist alongside the other, is what propped up the creationist movement in the first place.
How much do you enjoy purely programming? Just cranking out code with nothing else to do?
If the answer is, "I live for it, bring it on" then either C# or Java will get you many opportunities. In my world, Education, the dominate language is Java. But really, studying for a few months won't get you up to speed at all. You just need to find a programming job that is willing to hire a newbie and let him learn on the job.
If the answer is, "Well I enjoy it, but I'm not sure I want to get locked in a code monkey cubicle just yet", then find a more generic programming/analyst job.
That is what I did fresh out of college some 11 years ago. Smaller IT shop, but for a big company who's business was not IT. It allowed me to learn multiple languages and systems, learn about the business world, learn what I liked and didn't like, but most importantly, the assignments were varied, so I never got bored.
One month, the project would be, make the VMS Lab system with database X, feed data to the Windows NT machine with database Y, based on some trigger event in database X, using any language you want. We don't care, just do it.
Next month, make a web site that allows managers to enter their budget information and save it as an excel spreadsheet, and also put it in our SQL server, and generate reports x y and z on spending for us. Oh, and we don't have any web servers yet, so you need to install us one.
Worked during the Great Depression. Thats the only good data point we have.
However, the great increase in tax cuts pushed in by the Republicans, as opposed to higher infrastructure dollars, makes the stimulus less stimulating that the great depression example.
local.gov/crsinfo has some good stats on how a dollar of tax cuts versus a dollar of infrastructure actually effects the GDP.
#1 How much McCain benefited from AIG is not relevant since he would have bailed out the banks too
Yes, I'm just saying, everyone got AIG money. Your bringing it up about Obama might lead some people to think he's biased in their favor just because they gave him money.
#2: Do I really need to point out that the ENTIRE reason companies make contributions to the presidential candidates is precisely in case something like this economic meltdown happens, to cover their asses, and to ensure they get backed up?
I don't think you can say the entire reason companies give money is to expect bailouts during great depressions.... I would argue that the #1 reason is shaping policy over time by giving money to people who's ideology is beneficial to their business.
#3: Had this been McCain bailing out the banks, "we" (the left-leaning Slashdot community) would have had his head
True. And Fox/Blogs/and here on Slashdot, I'm already seeing it versus Obama. Implications that he's AIG's bought and payed for Buddy, etc...
Err I forgot to add. So yes... tax cuts do stimulate, but it is a net loss.
It is like giving a corporation 1 dollar in tax cuts, and it only puts 30 cents back into the economy. So ya... we get 30 cents of stimulus, but it is a horrible bang for the tax payer buck.