In the first sentence, Karpeles is reported to have said he "suspected hundreds of thousands of bitcoins were missing". In the second sentence, the submitter, and by extension Timothy the editor, turn this suspicion of into "knowing that its bitcoin stash was wiped out". Let me demonstrate the problem with this:
A person suspects Timothy of being a murderer and panning a second murder thus that person knows that Timothy is a murderer and will be killing again and thus can kill Timothy and claim defense of another based solely on that suspicion.
So, you have named two kids in one class and have jumped to the conclusion it must be common core and not the teacher and not the students.
My stats are the most current I could find on such short notice and there was no information on India. But, what I notice is you offered NOT ONE SINGLE REFERENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS AT ALL, and that makes your entire post "irrelevant".
When I was in third grade, we didn't write out the times tables, we wrote out every single number between one and a thousand in numbers and in letters by ones, one and ten thousand by fives, tens, and fifties, and one and one million by hundreds as homework. It took about a week. That is a form of rote memorization and it works.
You talk about Common Core producing "confused, bitter adults.. or the worker drones they really want", yet the current curriculum is based more on memorization and parroting back the "correct" answers and gives partial credit for utilizing the correct method even if the answer is wrong (that, by the way, boils down to "it doesn't matter what you get as long as you do things my way") rather than critical thinking which many say is a hallmark of Common Core
It really sounds like your "bright" kid liked science and school when it was easier and as he has gotten older he has, like so many kids, started to dislike school and you are blaming Common Core instead of actually finding out why your kid doesn't like it. Maybe you should start spending more time with your kid and helping him with his studies, something called "being a parent", instead of making excuses.
They can't go on any building roofs that have a taller building to the south or that offer roof access as perk, or that would end up reflecting light onto another building especially the windows.
The particulates from smoke/smog/etc. can build up and who will spray them? Remember, the building owners don't own them and may not want them.
Snow occasionally falls off of a tilted surface, and only when it reaches a certain mass. If the snow builds up to that level over the course of a week or two, that is all lost generation time.
Oh, sure, it works in the desert, but In the North East, North West or Mid West with storms, snow, etc? Not likely to do much good. And, you get a major environmental impact due to the blocking of sunlight.
Oh yeah. Another hard part would be finding places that they won't be hit by building shadows AND won't cast entire neighborhoods in shadow. SAD all year round doesn't sound fun.
New York City is one of the most electrically efficient places in the U.S. It would take 85 square miles of solar panels to power NYC assuming 4 hours of bright direct sunlight per day, every day of the year on each panel. The area under those 85 square miles will be, at best, in permanent shadow. Where are you going to put the panels so that they receive such good sunshine? What will the environmental effects be? How will you keep snow, ice, dust, dirt, bird shit, etc. off them? How will you prevent vandalization?
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
People are often careless, lazy, stupid, or some combination thereof so someone may have fucked up a DNS server or 3 by accident. And, seeing as it works in some locations, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.
That is a false analogy. They are not "leaving the car running". A more appropriate one would be having a cheap lock on their back door, and in this case having a bowl with copies of all her of keys in the house.
Saying "That car thief was AWSOME! You deserved to get your car stolen, you fucking shithead! Next time turn off your car and lock the door, n00b!" Isn't "suggesting that they not leave their car running and walking away".
Please go read the comments where they are not suggesting she "take reasonable security precautions" but rather are simply insulting her. Also, read her article where people are praising "Guccifier" and wanting to start defense funds, etc.
The end result is abuse of the victim and praise/support of the perpetrator.
No offense, but not only are the cows out of the barn on this one, but the barn has pretty much burned down. I remember the attempts to get people to call them crackers, worms, etc. It didn't work. I do agree with your observation on the hat distinction. But, complaining about the use of "hacker" or saying it shouldn't be this way is irrelevant, and refusing to accept the popular convention is just, well, stupid.
I don't think I have seen one comment that "Guccifier" did was wrong. But, there are plenty of posts calling McWhorter an idiot, a pinhead, a shithead, etc. and telling her to shut up and that it is her own fault she was hacked.
Most comments on here are verbally abusing the victim while completely ignoring the person who compromised her account and posted her personal details on line. And, I am willing to bet that if that happened to any of those posting said comments, the victim would want to kill the perpetrator.
The problem comes from telling the victim it is his own fault while simultaneously either praising or dismissing the perpetrator's bad acts.
There is a big difference in saying
That shouldn't happen to anyone and the person that did it is a dick. Here are some steps to help protect you.
and
Whoever did that is AWESOME! You should have done this instead, but because you didn't you deserved to get your passwords stolen and your life fucked, ya n00b!
The definition of a word is defined by usage. You have stated that you don't care what popular usage is, therefore you are stating that you don't care what the actual definition of a word is, you are going to use it how you think it should be used.
Now, who is stupid: the person who is using the word as most of the human race uses it; or you, who is insisting on using the word according to the preference of a small group of people?
P.S. if you say "him and everyone else", you should see a psychologist about your narcissistic delusions.
The hackers who stole the bitcoins generated fake evidence to show that the owners of MtGOX still control the coins, thus muddying the waters for any investigation.
Really, any "digital evidence" is suspect because it can be digitally generated and/or manipulated.
And, remember to take full responsibility when the school locks it down internet access, m'kay? Oh, and worry about the next step: Requiring the installation of actual spyware on all computers connected to the school's network.
According to your own link, his "provisional theory"(this should really be labeled an hypothesis) was replaced by Mendel's laws of inheritance. In his time, no one knew the mechanism of inheritance and genetics. Darwin proposed a possible answer, but his possible answer was replaced by current genetics. It may surprise you to learn that science is not religion and if a better explanation of observations and facts can be found, then the new explanation is adopted. Darwin proposed his hypothesis in 1838. Mendel proposed his in 1865.
reminescent of how the Nazi's invented the "frost" cosmology
You do know that the Nazis came about 100 years after Darwin came up with his hypotheses, right? Darwin didn't copy them as you seem to imply.
because they were embarrased by all the advances made by Jewish cosmologists (who incidentally were mostly Germans themselves)
I am not sure what this has to with anything. I can only guess the entire Nazi thing was just a pathetic combination of red herring and poisoning the well
To put it bluntly, your entire post is bullshit and shows your ignorance of both the scientific method, how scientific advancement works, and the current state of the Theory of Evolution. You should go read an actual scientific book on the Theory of Evolution before you spout off and make a fool of yourself again.
Let's take a look at your "evolutionary criticism"
missing intermediate species or disputed claims of finding them
The "missing intermediate species" boils down to moving the goalpost. Creationists, such as yourself say "Find a link between these two thing you claim are related." An intermediate species is found and they say "Find one one between that one and this then!". It is a handful of unqualified crackpots, such as creationist engineers, disputing the claims.without evidence. Their personal incredulity is not evidence against anything.
Darwin's doubled-down denial of genetics
I have no idea what you are talking about with this. Nothing in Darwin's theory denies genetics. In fact, the Theory of Evolution relies on genetics for both a mechanism and evidence.
What we don't need is a return to the dark ages creationists would love.
Slashdot Mirror
A person suspects Timothy of being a murderer and panning a second murder thus that person knows that Timothy is a murderer and will be killing again and thus can kill Timothy and claim defense of another based solely on that suspicion.
So, you have named two kids in one class and have jumped to the conclusion it must be common core and not the teacher and not the students.
My stats are the most current I could find on such short notice and there was no information on India. But, what I notice is you offered NOT ONE SINGLE REFERENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS AT ALL, and that makes your entire post "irrelevant".
rates per 100,000 young persons aged 15-19
country year Total
USA 2000 8
Japan 2000 4
China 1999 4
To be quite blunt, your entire argument seems to be that high standards and expectations are a bad thing. That, of course, flies in the face of the recently validated idea that high expectations lead to high performance
When I was in third grade, we didn't write out the times tables, we wrote out every single number between one and a thousand in numbers and in letters by ones, one and ten thousand by fives, tens, and fifties, and one and one million by hundreds as homework. It took about a week. That is a form of rote memorization and it works.
You talk about Common Core producing "confused, bitter adults.. or the worker drones they really want", yet the current curriculum is based more on memorization and parroting back the "correct" answers and gives partial credit for utilizing the correct method even if the answer is wrong (that, by the way, boils down to "it doesn't matter what you get as long as you do things my way") rather than critical thinking which many say is a hallmark of Common Core
It really sounds like your "bright" kid liked science and school when it was easier and as he has gotten older he has, like so many kids, started to dislike school and you are blaming Common Core instead of actually finding out why your kid doesn't like it. Maybe you should start spending more time with your kid and helping him with his studies, something called "being a parent", instead of making excuses.
Lost generation from the non-optimal angle should be less than that from snow buildup.
Resulting in a need for a larger generation surface due to both non-optimal angle of incidence and the fact that the panels will get less light.
The Antartic has so little precipitation that is qualifies as a desert.
Oh, sure, there goes the environmental benefits of not burning coal.
They can't go on any building roofs that have a taller building to the south or that offer roof access as perk, or that would end up reflecting light onto another building especially the windows.
The particulates from smoke/smog/etc. can build up and who will spray them? Remember, the building owners don't own them and may not want them.
Snow occasionally falls off of a tilted surface, and only when it reaches a certain mass. If the snow builds up to that level over the course of a week or two, that is all lost generation time.
Bam, the problems are not solved.
Oh, sure, it works in the desert, but In the North East, North West or Mid West with storms, snow, etc? Not likely to do much good. And, you get a major environmental impact due to the blocking of sunlight.
Oh yeah. Another hard part would be finding places that they won't be hit by building shadows AND won't cast entire neighborhoods in shadow. SAD all year round doesn't sound fun.
You can't park on them and they must be high enough not to have shadows cast on them. That results in them casting an even bigger shadow.
New York City is one of the most electrically efficient places in the U.S. It would take 85 square miles of solar panels to power NYC assuming 4 hours of bright direct sunlight per day, every day of the year on each panel. The area under those 85 square miles will be, at best, in permanent shadow. Where are you going to put the panels so that they receive such good sunshine? What will the environmental effects be? How will you keep snow, ice, dust, dirt, bird shit, etc. off them? How will you prevent vandalization?
Just explain how they are going to replace over one third of the electrical generation capacity of the United States.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
People are often careless, lazy, stupid, or some combination thereof so someone may have fucked up a DNS server or 3 by accident. And, seeing as it works in some locations, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.
That is a false analogy. They are not "leaving the car running". A more appropriate one would be having a cheap lock on their back door, and in this case having a bowl with copies of all her of keys in the house.
Saying "That car thief was AWSOME! You deserved to get your car stolen, you fucking shithead! Next time turn off your car and lock the door, n00b!" Isn't "suggesting that they not leave their car running and walking away".
Please go read the comments where they are not suggesting she "take reasonable security precautions" but rather are simply insulting her. Also, read her article where people are praising "Guccifier" and wanting to start defense funds, etc.
The end result is abuse of the victim and praise/support of the perpetrator.
No offense, but not only are the cows out of the barn on this one, but the barn has pretty much burned down. I remember the attempts to get people to call them crackers, worms, etc. It didn't work. I do agree with your observation on the hat distinction. But, complaining about the use of "hacker" or saying it shouldn't be this way is irrelevant, and refusing to accept the popular convention is just, well, stupid.
I don't think I have seen one comment that "Guccifier" did was wrong. But, there are plenty of posts calling McWhorter an idiot, a pinhead, a shithead, etc. and telling her to shut up and that it is her own fault she was hacked.
Most comments on here are verbally abusing the victim while completely ignoring the person who compromised her account and posted her personal details on line. And, I am willing to bet that if that happened to any of those posting said comments, the victim would want to kill the perpetrator.
No true Scotsman fallacy in action.
There is a big difference in saying
That shouldn't happen to anyone and the person that did it is a dick. Here are some steps to help protect you.
and
Whoever did that is AWESOME! You should have done this instead, but because you didn't you deserved to get your passwords stolen and your life fucked, ya n00b!
The definition of a word is defined by usage. You have stated that you don't care what popular usage is, therefore you are stating that you don't care what the actual definition of a word is, you are going to use it how you think it should be used.
Now, who is stupid: the person who is using the word as most of the human race uses it; or you, who is insisting on using the word according to the preference of a small group of people?
P.S. if you say "him and everyone else", you should see a psychologist about your narcissistic delusions.
That "woosh" you heard was the sarcasm of my post flying over your head.
We just pour water into cattle and nothing wet ever comes out. Instead, all the water is converted directly into meat.
The hackers who stole the bitcoins generated fake evidence to show that the owners of MtGOX still control the coins, thus muddying the waters for any investigation.
Really, any "digital evidence" is suspect because it can be digitally generated and/or manipulated.
Why do you think you have any privacy while using someone else's, especially a government's, network?
And, remember to take full responsibility when the school locks it down internet access, m'kay? Oh, and worry about the next step: Requiring the installation of actual spyware on all computers connected to the school's network.
so he came up with a bizarro view of heredity
According to your own link, his "provisional theory"(this should really be labeled an hypothesis) was replaced by Mendel's laws of inheritance. In his time, no one knew the mechanism of inheritance and genetics. Darwin proposed a possible answer, but his possible answer was replaced by current genetics. It may surprise you to learn that science is not religion and if a better explanation of observations and facts can be found, then the new explanation is adopted. Darwin proposed his hypothesis in 1838. Mendel proposed his in 1865.
reminescent of how the Nazi's invented the "frost" cosmology
You do know that the Nazis came about 100 years after Darwin came up with his hypotheses, right? Darwin didn't copy them as you seem to imply.
because they were embarrased by all the advances made by Jewish cosmologists (who incidentally were mostly Germans themselves)
I am not sure what this has to with anything. I can only guess the entire Nazi thing was just a pathetic combination of red herring and poisoning the well
To put it bluntly, your entire post is bullshit and shows your ignorance of both the scientific method, how scientific advancement works, and the current state of the Theory of Evolution. You should go read an actual scientific book on the Theory of Evolution before you spout off and make a fool of yourself again.
missing intermediate species or disputed claims of finding them
The "missing intermediate species" boils down to moving the goalpost. Creationists, such as yourself say "Find a link between these two thing you claim are related." An intermediate species is found and they say "Find one one between that one and this then!". It is a handful of unqualified crackpots, such as creationist engineers, disputing the claims.without evidence. Their personal incredulity is not evidence against anything.
Darwin's doubled-down denial of genetics
I have no idea what you are talking about with this. Nothing in Darwin's theory denies genetics. In fact, the Theory of Evolution relies on genetics for both a mechanism and evidence.
What we don't need is a return to the dark ages creationists would love.