The geek's made-up stats do not inspire confidence.
Very well. How about this: 100% know somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody who can read code.
Incidentally, I wonder how many degrees of separation in the meta-data it takes for the NSA to consider someone suspicious.
The irony is that the solution he proposes, "would be for some third-party review company to rate each new phone on the Stupid S#!% Index." In other words, he's proposing a market based solution that already exists. One thinks first, of course, of Consumer Reports, but there are countless publication which review products as a business. It looks rather like he didn't even bother checking reviews.
Does he even know what market forces are? Does he even grasp the concept of voting with your money?
Nah. His failure to research the product he'll spend his hard earned money on just proves his point that the market doesn't fix problems for you. You see, there's a little bug in human firmware I like to call, "Shut up and take my money!"
Heh. You're right. When you put it that way it is a wonder. I live near some military bases and occasionally the Blackhawks are literally flying over my house, so it wouldn't be a big detour for them. Good thing I've got the muzzle-loader and tin-foil body armor to defend myself.
In all seriousness though, I buy items like gun powder with cash rather than online to avoid ending up with a profile somewhere. Doubtless I still have one, but there's no reason to offer the hangman access to your collection of handmade cordage. Of course, I say hangman even though I've done and will do nothing with such purchases. I just figure using cash to buy things like gun powder or basic chemicals which can be turned into many other things like sodium hydroxide is sort of like not talking to the police--it's to defend innocent activity that can be falsely construed, not for hiding criminal activity. Still, sometimes I feel like everything I want to do is illegal.
These risks are too high to be subjecting large swaths of innocent people to.
You'll get no disagreement here. I'd add that people actually engaged in nonviolent crime (and therefore unlikely to be found innoncent after a raid) ought not to be subject to such levels of force, but this is the consequence of the 'war on drugs'.
These risks are too high to be subjecting large swaths of innocent people to.
You'll get no disagreement here. I'd add that many who are actually engaged in nonviolent criminal activities (and, therefore, may be found guilty after the raid) ought not to be subjected to such force, but this is the consequence of the 'war on drugs'.
Partly because we like to avoid the shear quantity of unknown components that go into most industrial goods. Soaps and lotions, for example, often have chemicals like parabens in them which can mimic estrogens. The jury's still out on whether exposure to these leads to higher incidences of cancers, etc., but we don't really care to be part of this over-sized experiment to which industry has managed to subject us all. We don't go all organic and avoid all industrial products--indeed we're unable to do so as we don't have the capital to do so. But we do what we can, where we can.
Partly because we have an interest in old traditions and dying arts. My wife is a weaver and a spinner by trade and I often at least try the older methods when I do something (thus e.g. making my own bows for archery, mixing egg tempura for when I paint, or learning to build fire with flint and steel). Even if one decides that modern methods are more convenient, doing things the older way can give a better since of quality in goods and what goes into them than one would otherwise have. At one point, my wife decided to give soap-making a try and it just stuck. It was easy enough and gave her enough control over the product (using different fats, applying different scents from the garden and elsewhere) that she found she preferred this over buying soap. I might also add that it's cheaper.
Above all because we don't want to be like Arthur Dent who, during his sojourn on Lamuella, assumed that as a modern man he would be able to introduce to the primitive natives a great many modern conveniences. Then he realized that he actually didn't know how to do or make much of anything. Fortunately for him, he still fared well as the sandwich maker.
Taking an extra shift at their third part-time job, trying to pay down student loans. One has to wonder how much the bad economy is covering for the growth of the national security state, since folks are doubtless expending most of their political concerns over how to stay afloat financially for the next year.
This is another reason why I hate the, "if you've nothing to hide" nonsense. In the past year, I've bought a pressure cooker, large capacity backpacks, fairly sizable quantities of pure sodium hydroxide (more, anyway, than one needs to unclog the drain), soldering irons and other equipment to work on electronics, numerous tanks of propane, gun powder, and we go to shops and run in social circles frequented by Arabic speakers. Why? Because, respectively, we (my wife and I) have a garden and can vegetables, we like to go hiking, we make our own soap and detergent, I like to fool around with electronics for fun, we use propane to heat our kettles while brewing beer, I hunt with a muzzle-loader, and as Orthodox Christians a great many of our coreligionists are Palestinian or Lebanese.
Of course the protectionist or supporter of the national security state will say, "See, you had nothing to hide. No big deal." But that's just the point. With enough information on people's activities, even the innocent ones can be construed as potentially dangerous. With enough information, anyone and everyone becomes a suspect. To say nothing of the fact that this subjects people to unreasonable searches, it lessens the chances of actually finding a legitimate focus for suspicion.
Linux is bigger and more important than 'beating' Microsoft. Sure, many of us go through the puerile stage of trying to win people over from Windows, but that usually ends when maturity teaches us two things: first, to be content having free as in freedom software we can use; second, not to volunteer ourselves for tech support by telling giving friends and relatives unsolicited advice to make significant changes to their computers.
Well then. Now we see the textbook publisher's response to SCOTUS upholding the first-sale doctrine. If a Thai student can import to the U.S. cheaper copies of the same book by the same publisher, that's all well and good. The textbook makers will just stop making paper textbooks.
Paper books can be used over the course of several years with several classes of students. I wonder if the licenses in this case will only apply to a single student.
Of course they wouldn't. I rather doubt that was msobkow's point. The point, rather, is that we're far less likely to violate the sovereignty of a nuclear power like Russia so directly--just as we'd hesitate to do with China. Of course, Pakistan has nukes but nothing like the capacity Russia has to deliver them and, besides, we've had an 'understanding' with Pakistan where we habitually violate their sovereignty more than $1,000,000,000 in foreign aid.
Okay, I'll bite. What precisely do you have in mind? What will China do if the NSA does not engage in dragnet surveillance?
(Mind you, I think we should engage in counter-intelligence. My point was merely that spying does not improve trust and that cooperation can be productive.)
First off, it is NOT the senate. It is one subcommittee.
Quite right. One of the most important committees (TFA is explicit, this is not a subcommittee but the "30-member Senate Appropriations Committee") and one that includes the Majority Whip, the Minority Leader, and the President pro Tempore among other influential senior senators. The appropriations committee is extremely powerful and has the ability to dispense or withhold both political patronage and discretionary appropriations (the kinds of pork that gets people elected). If the appropriations committee votes unanimously you can rest assured how the bulk of the Senate will view things.
However, it is republican heavy [...]
I'm afraid this isn't accurate. Democrats are a slim majority (16 D: 14 R) and hold the chair. More to the point, both parties have lost their minds.
As such, with less understanding on each side, you are far more likely to go to war.
With regard to China at least, I don't think they're less likely to be put out if we avoid misunderstanding through espionage.
The committee responsible is the Appropriations Committee. The membership may be found here. Vote against them--it'll be a start anyway. (Though, I've been voting against the only one on the list representing my state for years. Unfortunately, as the minority leader he has too much clout. At least our junior Senator has some good ideas about the Fourth Amendment.)
First, let me say that I think Snowden has done us all a service. Setting that aside, however, the Senate has some seriously skewed priorities. One of the real foreign policy accomplishments of the President's first term was the 'reset' with Russia, which helped improve relations after the mistakes made during the Bush era. Among other things, this allowed the supply of our troops in Afghanistan over Russian territory when it hit the fan in Pakistan. I'm certainly not a fan of that war, but if we're going to have soldiers over there it's much better that they be supplied.
Is the Senate really willing to sacrifice the gains made with Russia "to get a 29-year-old hacker" (as he's been termed) who likely has already given away all the information he possesses? Is it worth the strength of our relationship with one of the world's great powers to get at one guy whom Lindsey Graham regards as a traitor? What exactly are the Senate's priorities anyway?
The irony here, from what I've been reading, its folks on the far left and the far right that voted in support of the Amash amendment. The media in this country likes to lionize moderates, treating them as the reasonable few amidst uncompromising wingnuts. They're overly literal in their interpretation of the political spectrum, treating the middle as though it were actually a measured response to two extremes. But this isn't the case.
The center in this country has its own agenda and it's uncompromising in the support thereof. It's hegemonist in foreign policy. It's statist with regard to national security. And it favors an economy built on finance capitalism and low wages domestically. The center is consistent in these elements and the far left and far right (such as they are) are little more than rhetorical foils that allow the center to present any policy as reasonable. Somehow the compromises they come up with consistently end up with us spilling blood in foreign affairs, further undermining the Bill of Rights, and externalizing costs for corporations (e.g. the studies which show that a given WalMart might cost as much as $900,000 in public assistance for underpaid employees), supporting "free trade" agreements, or simply giving banks free loans.
Personally, I identify most closely with the paleo-conservatives who, favoring tradition and experience as a guide to policy, tend to be suspicious of over-confident ideologies and their proponents. Even so, given the state of things I shouldn't mind to see a few more libertarian right and far left ideologues running about. I'll happily take more gold-bugs and Austrian school fanatics; people who can quote von Mises, Bakunin, Schumacher or Röpke; some social and Christian democrats, Greens, and a few honest-to-goodness socialists. Then at least we can have a real conversation. The center in this country is a real problem--it's too uncompromising.
Which, oddly enough, is located in British Columbia. They picked the site because the surrounding countryside coincidentally resembles every habitable planet in the galaxy.
And you didn't just ask about my motivations, you stated your false assumption in clear English.
I said nothing of your motivations. I really don't care what those are, though I would charitably assume that your interest in the truth of this matter would prompt your questioning (perhaps shown such charity you'll extend the same the scientists' motivations). I spoke of your assumptions and that because you make them clear. Consider the following:
It still seems to me that THEY (scientists, followed by the media) are playing self-serving word games.
This implies that you've concluded the scientist are self-interested. Your words; not mine.
[...] their predictions have gone so demonstrably awry.
Here you imply that they are consciously aware of their failings (otherwise, why would this be a plausible motivation, as you suggest). Combined with the previous statement, one can only concluded that scientists are potentially deceivers out of their own self-interest.
The motives are made questionable by the very act referred to.
This is the reason you give for both of the above claims. But you reject any explanation given to you about why scientists use the term "climate change" as unconvincing. These include (but are not limited to): 1) the term fits the data; 2) they've been using the term all along. I'd like to consider the second explanation, but allow me to provide context. Here's your claim:
They have certainly made arguments, which were largely baseless. And presented NO evidence whatever. The only actual evidence that was presented WAS irrelevant, because it was backing an argument that had nothing to do with the actual question I asked.
But FriendlyPrimate had provided a relevant response which included a citation with several helpful bits of evidence to support it:
That has absolutely nothing to do with my comment. The phrase "climate change" has almost certainly been around a lot longer than that. So what?
The conversation began when you wanted to know why there was a big switch from "global warming" to "climate change". This assumes that there was a big change (and, please, don't tell me that since I infer an assumption here that is a necessary corollary to your question that I'm "assuming [YOUR] motivations"; if you're unfamiliar with how an inference is made then I can recommend several textbooks on this thing you call 'pseudo-logic'). When people--and FriendlyPrimate was not the only one--have pointed out that there was no such switch, that in reality the term has been in use all along and the press is just now catching up, you've dismissed their responses as irrelevant. Incidentally, you've never provided evidence for the shift you claim. You just state it. Sometimes, when you really want to make a point, you preface it with "Fact:". Maybe if you tried using capital letters when you say "Fact" it'd be more convincing, but I'd recommend evidence instead.
I could say more, but I should return to the first explanation offered you, i.e. that the term better fits the data. This you have rejected as "unconvincing." Now I will grant that you never said, "I think that's unconvincing because [...]" You just stated what "seems" to you, i.e. that the scientist play games with the public out of their own self-interest (see quote two above, your words). Now, if you think I have gone too far in inferring assumptions from this you have my apologies. After all, I was left with a riddle. But I can give you every assurance that I answered the riddle only with what you provided me. So,
Slashdot Mirror
Very well. How about this: 100% know somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody who can read code.
Incidentally, I wonder how many degrees of separation in the meta-data it takes for the NSA to consider someone suspicious.
I'm not sure I'd do that if I were you. I read a rant by a guy on Slashdot who said his experience with the Stratosphere I and II had been awful.
The irony is that the solution he proposes, "would be for some third-party review company to rate each new phone on the Stupid S#!% Index." In other words, he's proposing a market based solution that already exists. One thinks first, of course, of Consumer Reports, but there are countless publication which review products as a business. It looks rather like he didn't even bother checking reviews.
Nah. His failure to research the product he'll spend his hard earned money on just proves his point that the market doesn't fix problems for you. You see, there's a little bug in human firmware I like to call, "Shut up and take my money!"
Have you tried making your texts more concise? I find brevity sometimes facilitates communication.
Heh. You're right. When you put it that way it is a wonder. I live near some military bases and occasionally the Blackhawks are literally flying over my house, so it wouldn't be a big detour for them. Good thing I've got the muzzle-loader and tin-foil body armor to defend myself.
In all seriousness though, I buy items like gun powder with cash rather than online to avoid ending up with a profile somewhere. Doubtless I still have one, but there's no reason to offer the hangman access to your collection of handmade cordage. Of course, I say hangman even though I've done and will do nothing with such purchases. I just figure using cash to buy things like gun powder or basic chemicals which can be turned into many other things like sodium hydroxide is sort of like not talking to the police--it's to defend innocent activity that can be falsely construed, not for hiding criminal activity. Still, sometimes I feel like everything I want to do is illegal.
The Golden Age of Hollywood.
You'll get no disagreement here. I'd add that people actually engaged in nonviolent crime (and therefore unlikely to be found innoncent after a raid) ought not to be subject to such levels of force, but this is the consequence of the 'war on drugs'.
You'll get no disagreement here. I'd add that many who are actually engaged in nonviolent criminal activities (and, therefore, may be found guilty after the raid) ought not to be subjected to such force, but this is the consequence of the 'war on drugs'.
Partly because we like to avoid the shear quantity of unknown components that go into most industrial goods. Soaps and lotions, for example, often have chemicals like parabens in them which can mimic estrogens. The jury's still out on whether exposure to these leads to higher incidences of cancers, etc., but we don't really care to be part of this over-sized experiment to which industry has managed to subject us all. We don't go all organic and avoid all industrial products--indeed we're unable to do so as we don't have the capital to do so. But we do what we can, where we can.
Partly because we have an interest in old traditions and dying arts. My wife is a weaver and a spinner by trade and I often at least try the older methods when I do something (thus e.g. making my own bows for archery, mixing egg tempura for when I paint, or learning to build fire with flint and steel). Even if one decides that modern methods are more convenient, doing things the older way can give a better since of quality in goods and what goes into them than one would otherwise have. At one point, my wife decided to give soap-making a try and it just stuck. It was easy enough and gave her enough control over the product (using different fats, applying different scents from the garden and elsewhere) that she found she preferred this over buying soap. I might also add that it's cheaper.
Above all because we don't want to be like Arthur Dent who, during his sojourn on Lamuella, assumed that as a modern man he would be able to introduce to the primitive natives a great many modern conveniences. Then he realized that he actually didn't know how to do or make much of anything. Fortunately for him, he still fared well as the sandwich maker.
Taking an extra shift at their third part-time job, trying to pay down student loans. One has to wonder how much the bad economy is covering for the growth of the national security state, since folks are doubtless expending most of their political concerns over how to stay afloat financially for the next year.
This is another reason why I hate the, "if you've nothing to hide" nonsense. In the past year, I've bought a pressure cooker, large capacity backpacks, fairly sizable quantities of pure sodium hydroxide (more, anyway, than one needs to unclog the drain), soldering irons and other equipment to work on electronics, numerous tanks of propane, gun powder, and we go to shops and run in social circles frequented by Arabic speakers. Why? Because, respectively, we (my wife and I) have a garden and can vegetables, we like to go hiking, we make our own soap and detergent, I like to fool around with electronics for fun, we use propane to heat our kettles while brewing beer, I hunt with a muzzle-loader, and as Orthodox Christians a great many of our coreligionists are Palestinian or Lebanese.
Of course the protectionist or supporter of the national security state will say, "See, you had nothing to hide. No big deal." But that's just the point. With enough information on people's activities, even the innocent ones can be construed as potentially dangerous. With enough information, anyone and everyone becomes a suspect. To say nothing of the fact that this subjects people to unreasonable searches, it lessens the chances of actually finding a legitimate focus for suspicion.
Linux is bigger and more important than 'beating' Microsoft. Sure, many of us go through the puerile stage of trying to win people over from Windows, but that usually ends when maturity teaches us two things: first, to be content having free as in freedom software we can use; second, not to volunteer ourselves for tech support by telling giving friends and relatives unsolicited advice to make significant changes to their computers.
Well then. Now we see the textbook publisher's response to SCOTUS upholding the first-sale doctrine. If a Thai student can import to the U.S. cheaper copies of the same book by the same publisher, that's all well and good. The textbook makers will just stop making paper textbooks.
Paper books can be used over the course of several years with several classes of students. I wonder if the licenses in this case will only apply to a single student.
Of course they wouldn't. I rather doubt that was msobkow's point. The point, rather, is that we're far less likely to violate the sovereignty of a nuclear power like Russia so directly--just as we'd hesitate to do with China. Of course, Pakistan has nukes but nothing like the capacity Russia has to deliver them and, besides, we've had an 'understanding' with Pakistan where we habitually violate their sovereignty more than $1,000,000,000 in foreign aid.
Okay, I'll bite. What precisely do you have in mind? What will China do if the NSA does not engage in dragnet surveillance?
(Mind you, I think we should engage in counter-intelligence. My point was merely that spying does not improve trust and that cooperation can be productive.)
Quite right. One of the most important committees (TFA is explicit, this is not a subcommittee but the "30-member Senate Appropriations Committee") and one that includes the Majority Whip, the Minority Leader, and the President pro Tempore among other influential senior senators. The appropriations committee is extremely powerful and has the ability to dispense or withhold both political patronage and discretionary appropriations (the kinds of pork that gets people elected). If the appropriations committee votes unanimously you can rest assured how the bulk of the Senate will view things.
I'm afraid this isn't accurate. Democrats are a slim majority (16 D: 14 R) and hold the chair. More to the point, both parties have lost their minds.
With regard to China at least, I don't think they're less likely to be put out if we avoid misunderstanding through espionage.
Where do you rank AC's who can't count?
The committee responsible is the Appropriations Committee. The membership may be found here. Vote against them--it'll be a start anyway. (Though, I've been voting against the only one on the list representing my state for years. Unfortunately, as the minority leader he has too much clout. At least our junior Senator has some good ideas about the Fourth Amendment.)
First, let me say that I think Snowden has done us all a service. Setting that aside, however, the Senate has some seriously skewed priorities. One of the real foreign policy accomplishments of the President's first term was the 'reset' with Russia, which helped improve relations after the mistakes made during the Bush era. Among other things, this allowed the supply of our troops in Afghanistan over Russian territory when it hit the fan in Pakistan. I'm certainly not a fan of that war, but if we're going to have soldiers over there it's much better that they be supplied.
Is the Senate really willing to sacrifice the gains made with Russia "to get a 29-year-old hacker" (as he's been termed) who likely has already given away all the information he possesses? Is it worth the strength of our relationship with one of the world's great powers to get at one guy whom Lindsey Graham regards as a traitor? What exactly are the Senate's priorities anyway?
The irony here, from what I've been reading, its folks on the far left and the far right that voted in support of the Amash amendment. The media in this country likes to lionize moderates, treating them as the reasonable few amidst uncompromising wingnuts. They're overly literal in their interpretation of the political spectrum, treating the middle as though it were actually a measured response to two extremes. But this isn't the case.
The center in this country has its own agenda and it's uncompromising in the support thereof. It's hegemonist in foreign policy. It's statist with regard to national security. And it favors an economy built on finance capitalism and low wages domestically. The center is consistent in these elements and the far left and far right (such as they are) are little more than rhetorical foils that allow the center to present any policy as reasonable. Somehow the compromises they come up with consistently end up with us spilling blood in foreign affairs, further undermining the Bill of Rights, and externalizing costs for corporations (e.g. the studies which show that a given WalMart might cost as much as $900,000 in public assistance for underpaid employees), supporting "free trade" agreements, or simply giving banks free loans.
Personally, I identify most closely with the paleo-conservatives who, favoring tradition and experience as a guide to policy, tend to be suspicious of over-confident ideologies and their proponents. Even so, given the state of things I shouldn't mind to see a few more libertarian right and far left ideologues running about. I'll happily take more gold-bugs and Austrian school fanatics; people who can quote von Mises, Bakunin, Schumacher or Röpke; some social and Christian democrats, Greens, and a few honest-to-goodness socialists. Then at least we can have a real conversation. The center in this country is a real problem--it's too uncompromising.
Which, oddly enough, is located in British Columbia. They picked the site because the surrounding countryside coincidentally resembles every habitable planet in the galaxy.
I said nothing of your motivations. I really don't care what those are, though I would charitably assume that your interest in the truth of this matter would prompt your questioning (perhaps shown such charity you'll extend the same the scientists' motivations). I spoke of your assumptions and that because you make them clear. Consider the following:
This implies that you've concluded the scientist are self-interested. Your words; not mine.
Here you imply that they are consciously aware of their failings (otherwise, why would this be a plausible motivation, as you suggest). Combined with the previous statement, one can only concluded that scientists are potentially deceivers out of their own self-interest.
This is the reason you give for both of the above claims. But you reject any explanation given to you about why scientists use the term "climate change" as unconvincing. These include (but are not limited to): 1) the term fits the data; 2) they've been using the term all along. I'd like to consider the second explanation, but allow me to provide context. Here's your claim:
But FriendlyPrimate had provided a relevant response which included a citation with several helpful bits of evidence to support it:
To which you responded:
The conversation began when you wanted to know why there was a big switch from "global warming" to "climate change". This assumes that there was a big change (and, please, don't tell me that since I infer an assumption here that is a necessary corollary to your question that I'm "assuming [YOUR] motivations"; if you're unfamiliar with how an inference is made then I can recommend several textbooks on this thing you call 'pseudo-logic'). When people--and FriendlyPrimate was not the only one--have pointed out that there was no such switch, that in reality the term has been in use all along and the press is just now catching up, you've dismissed their responses as irrelevant. Incidentally, you've never provided evidence for the shift you claim. You just state it. Sometimes, when you really want to make a point, you preface it with "Fact:". Maybe if you tried using capital letters when you say "Fact" it'd be more convincing, but I'd recommend evidence instead.
I could say more, but I should return to the first explanation offered you, i.e. that the term better fits the data. This you have rejected as "unconvincing." Now I will grant that you never said, "I think that's unconvincing because [...]" You just stated what "seems" to you, i.e. that the scientist play games with the public out of their own self-interest (see quote two above, your words). Now, if you think I have gone too far in inferring assumptions from this you have my apologies. After all, I was left with a riddle. But I can give you every assurance that I answered the riddle only with what you provided me. So,
Me paenitet. Whatever that comment prompted you to imagine is likely far more interesting than the actual story.