Doubtless it is possible but you really need to hammer the network to do that. What is more they're ignoring that the N standard doesn't use 2.4 ghz.
Been there done that, chumps.
I manage a few wifi networks that routinely have a couple hundred people on them immediately next to other networks that have a couple hundred people on them next to other networks that have a couple hundred people on them... all right fucking next to each other. The only way these networks could be more on top of each other is if all the users spooned on each other.
There aren't any issues with it. What I find fucks with wifi is big thick walls. Shocking I know... Oh and microwaves. Guy goes into the rec room to heat up a burrito or something and anyone using the 2.4 ghz networks starts to have issues. I put up amusing signs informing people of the issue.
Regardless... most new machines are N compatible so... why not use that? I use it because I can. I don't really need the speed difference since the only thing I'd do over wifi would be to browse the internet.
It makes no sense on the PC in any case because the primary point of preordering is to make sure you get a copy on launch. Well, if you're doing a digitial download then you're going to get a copy regardless which is how most PC games work at this point anyway.
Now for little companies that don't have publishing contracts? Pre-orders are fine. I pre order games from those guys all the time and have so far not been burned once. I know people get burned but I've been lucky.
I've pre-ordered everything from inexile for example. I preordered planetary annihilation. I've preordered star citizen. i pre order tell tale games that seem interesting.
That's fine. But some batman game being developed by a big publisher? Why would I preorder? exclusive content? Pfft.
Its owned almost entirely by a parent company out of the Hague. The headquarters of the US branch is in the US and the company is traded separately on the stock exchange but... it is not a "us oil company" anymore than Nintendo or Sony are US companies even though they have operations in the US. Or Apple is Chinese for that matter even though they have operations in china.
nah... just a a very philosophical and worldly cat.
I've read most of the famious philosophies from pole to pole and studied most of the world religions that ever were.
And like traveling, the more you go abroad in your thinking, the more you appreciate where you come from. I am a western literal thinker. I respect logic and rationality. And the more you're exposed to the hoodoo, mysticism, and double talk of the world... the more centered you become the imperatives of reason. You also get a lot better at spotting the various confidence men and sophists in our society. You see that we have our own witch doctors. Our own people walking around with painted feathers shaking animal bones at people to curse them.
Its all the same.
You don't create the society you want by imposing a system you find immoral on the notion that at some point in the future you'll remove that system everyone will live happly ever after. It doesn't work that way.
If you dominate people by doing a lot of unsavory crap then your system will be dependent on that sort of thing going forward. it will be a default fall back of the system. And that means the ACTUAL morality of the system will be those fall backs because they'll be the REAL support of the system.
So in the context of this gender and race stuff, by focusing on gender and race and treating the races differently... you create a society where race is important and the races are treated differently. There's no way out of it if you do that. The only way to come to some sort of happy place where we all treat each other as equals and don't judge each other based on race... is to stop judging each other based on race.
People that can't do that can't help but create a racist and sexist society. Their beliefs require it.
We used to have incinerators in the US and contrary to what many people think it is entirely environmentally friendly to burn garbage. They still do it in europe.
The basic idea is to not just burn it but burn it at such a high temperature that there are no toxic fumes, no bad smells, and the solid waste is ash.
Many things can also be burned for a net energy gain. Which means you can generate POWER from garbage. The ash that is left over can be landfilled much more efficiently. And with proper sorting, you don't even need to send it to the land fill. It can used in compost on crops.
If I incinerate plastic at 3000 ~ 5000F degrees then the ash that comes off that is going to be non-toxic and inert.
The Germans have been trying to sell these furnances to the US for years to solve our land fill problem. And it never goes anywhere because the US environmental lobby is composed of fucktards that don't understand that burning garbage isn't bad for the environment. Putting it in a landfill isn't any better. You just can't harness the power very easily. Those methane taps we put on landfills are inefficient. Burn the garbage on reception and you've taken all the energy out of it one day one.
Here some fucktard is going to get upset that I called him a fucktard. You're only upset because you've been lied to your whole life. If more people were honest like me, you'd have long ago accepted your fucktarded status. The solution to burn the garbage.
The bits of the garbage that don't burn... the metals... we can recycle that to some extent. But plastics and paper? Not really.
Recycled plastic and paper are generally not economical.
First, the quality of a recycled paper or plastic product is lower unless you put the recycled plastic/paper through additional refining processes that ultimately cost more than the savings of using recycled material.
Second, producing plastic or paper from source is actually not that expensive in the first place.
To those worried about running out of finite resources... let me make this clear.
1. The oil we use for plastic is a byproduct of producing the fuel. We have to use it to make plastics otherwise we have no other use for it. We "can" crack that byproduct to produce more fuel but it really isn't worth it. It makes more sense to convert that sludge into plastic.
2. Our paper comes from tree FARMS. Those trees and the paper produced from them is as renewable as wheat or rice or potatoes... or fucking broccoli. We're not running out. Ever.
Now metals... steel... copper... aluminum... etc. Recycle that.
Glass? ehmmm.... generally just put it in the land fill. Its just melted sand in the first place. It isn't like we're running low on sand. Crush the glass and bury it. Its non-toxic and inert.
The means are the ends. If you want people to not take gender seriously and just treat each other as equals then you need to not take gender seriously and treat each other as equals.
If you take gender seriously and treat the genders unequally then you'll create a system were people take gender really seriously and treat the genders differently.
Be the change by being the end. By matching your means to your end, you create your goal.
The current idea is increasing gender tensions and racial tensions. IT is not creating equality because it is trying to create racial and sexual quotas.
You're not going to get an equal society by creating quotas or pseudo quotas.
As I said, the money comes from OEM licenses and corporate buyers. The market for consumer single license OS purchases is tiny. And that is what the pirates undermine. A market that actually never really made MS much money in the first place.
If the pirate buys a new computer, they're probably going to get an OEM license of MS Windows installed on it from the OEM. Cha Ching. MS makes money there.
And if a big corporate buyer buys a site license... Cha Ching...
And what encourages the OEM and the corporate buyer to buy windows? High use rate of that OS in the general population. So giving it away to pirates that are generally not going to buy your shit anyway. I mean, who doesn't know that they'll just pirate the OS anyway? Giving it away means those corporate buyers and OEMs will keep buying licenses. Which is where MS has always made their real money.
Fighting pirates is dumb. They're not real customers. They won't buy your product. If you hammer them too hard they'll just move to linux or something... and that's objectively worse for MS then just giving them a free copy. It costs MS nothing and helps maintain their market share.
On drake's equation, that was merely its first application.
In practice, it exactly as I said:
From wikipedia: R = p * ne * l *i * c * L
And that's the first version. The final version of drake's equation included about 21 variables nearly all of which were estimated.
R* = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
p = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
l = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point
i = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations)
c = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space[8]
I've seen that equation used in a lot of junk science.
It works like this:
Variable you're trying to find a value for = Variable you know * Variable you think you can estimate * Another variable you think you can estimate * Wild ass guess * Wild ass guess * specific variable taken from one location and extrapolated to everywhere * wild ass guess
That's generally how it works. And that's drake's equation applied to whatever specious bit of activist bullshit that's in vogue today.
As to studies that reference Drake's equation, of course they're not going to cite it. What they'll do is USE IT but not cite it.
That is they'll do the equation of V = A * B * C * D * E * F * G
where in about 80 percent of variables are just guesses. And then call V derived by our algorithm. Which... as it often turns out... is bullshit.
As to the acre figure, I know at least two studies. One of them was pushed by the WWF and was cited by the UN and the EPA. Was it peer reviewed? I don't know... but it was the basis of law. And it did use very tiny sample sizes of about an acre. And before you get upset with me for not citing a peer reviewed something... the Red List isn't peer reviewed either and that's the basis of the cited study that this topic is talking about. The evidence IS the Red List.
They'd also do stuff like... trout might disappear from a river. They'd call that trout "extinct"... they'd say its the such and such river trout. For example if it is the Red River... they'll say the "red river trout are extinct"... well, no... trout are no longer in the red river but the species itself is not extinct. Now genetically that trout is identical to a lot of other trout in the area where there are still lots of fish. It just disappeared from THAT river. But because the trout in that river were deemed a unique species even though they can produce live young with other trout and those trout are fertile... I don't quite see how they're a different species. And note further, that if a species leave a given area it can usually be reintroduced or it will reintroduce itself unless the habitate was destroyed. So lets say there was a drought and the river dried out entirely. Okay... no fish in that river... cus the water is gone. Then a couple years later the water comes back... and so long as that river is connected to a body of water with that species of trout, the river will be repopulated naturally. You can speed that up if you like by reseeding the river.
Being unable to breed with another population generally is considered where you draw the species line. That means not just producing infertile young like mules but being able to produce fertile offspring... like dogs. A big 200 pound dog can breed with a little 5 pound dog. Different breeds... same species.
A lot of the species on those lists are not actually different species. They're
They don't have to use local data to use drakes equation. What they have to do is estimate and base estimations on estimations on estimations.
That's what drake's equation is. The local EXAMPLE was just an EXAMPLE.
Now the CURRENT research you're using for this blog post is based on the Red List. That's its evidence. And already dealt with that. It's been cited repeatedly for activism.
So did you want to cite something that you feel fits your criteria? Because i'm not going to... you've given yourself enough wiggle room that I could cite anything and you'd just say that even though it was peer reviewed and even though it was cited by international organizations and the media... that it isn't reputable. You can say that about anything.
So you've basically fucked yourself in the ass with a pineapple by asking for too much. Because you tacked on too many qualifications... I get to ask YOU to cite something. I can't read your mind. I don't know what you consider reputable.
So your move. And keep in mind that when cited Drake's equation, that was just an example, kay? Thanks.
You have to take their reports with a grain of salt. And basing an entire report on their red list is not a good source. Who is going to dig through that pile to find every species that shouldn't be there?
Your criticize me but you probably didn't even know what Drake's equation was before I cited it.
Its based on the IUCN Red List. A source that is frequently cited for not disclosing data, methodology, or simply making things up.
I'm sure lots of things are going extinct... again, there's a lot of habitate destruction. However, the means by which this is determined are often fallacious. And as I pointed out as well, even if we are in an extinction event, we're the biggest thing to hit this planet since the Cambrian explosion. So... why would you expect anything else?
An extinction event doesn't mean all life is dying out. Just means that life that can't adapt is dying out. And most of the life being cited are sub breeds of otherwise successful species.
If I have four birds that all had a common ancestor a million years ago... and three of those four birds dies but one of them does really well... that's just evolution.
Don't be hysterical or I will fucking slap you until you have calmed down. Calm down.
Now that you're calm... what solutions would you propose?.. besides give you huge sums of money and power. Because if that's what we're doing then allow me to submit my request for whores and cocaine. So many of these things are just transparent power grabs that do little more than baffle peasants that can't connect the dots. I've no patience for this bullshit unless it is reasonable and scientific.
There are many reasons but I think the best one is that there is a brain drain.
Why set up in Europe that doesn't have good laws and tax breaks for start ups anyway... when you can just move to the US and be surrounded by the best and the brightest from the whole world?
Its worse than the europeans realize because we've pretty much filled SV to capacity and now we're seeding Seattle with more of it and Austin, Dallas, a little in Los Angeles, and even something in Boston.
The US draws them in like a loadstone. The Euros are going to have to offer very attractive subsidies to keep those people in Europe. Think of the sort of pull Europe would have to have to start pulling American tech startups to Europe. That is how hard the US is pulling... If the Euros haven't noticed this then they're not paying attention. The US wants ALL your bright minds. All of them.
Not all of them... but a lot of them... and the overall synthesis of them tends to work that way.
It works something like this usually "lets study how many species have gone extinct in this acre of land". And that acre could be a place that someone build a parking lot. The acre in question is often cherry picked to give apocalyptic results. And a big thing you have to pay attention to in these studies is that "extinct" doesn't mean the species is gone from wherever in the world... just "that spot" A deer could wander into the box... be counted at time X... then wander out at X+1... and boom... deer are extinct... in the box.
Then what they do is through Drakes equation they estimate how many species are in the acre that they don't even know exist. And then they estimate how many of those have gone extinct using the number of known species that went extinct in that box... remember the deer.
Then again using Drake's equation they extrapolate this sample... of one acre... to estimate the extinction rate of the entire planet.
If you ask the people making these claims to cite species that are actually gone EVERYWHERE... and only to cite species that are known... the numbers fall radically because most of the extinctions are theoretical.
The next problem is that it is really hard to estimate historic extinction rates. You're doing it from what... Fossils? not all species are captured in fossils. And you can't compared what would show up in the modern fossil record with the past fossil record until the modern fossil record has been created first. So... maybe in 10,000 years... you might be able to compare current extinction rates with past extinction rates. That is unless you have a way of figuring out past extinction rates without looking at the fossil record.
Are extinctions higher today then in the recent past? Probably. Humans are taking too much habitat away from animals for that to not be the case. However, lets not be hyperbolic about it. I can't take people seriously if they're going to start exaggerating everything transparently for political reasons. The environmental movement did itself great injury when it put politics above all else.
I am very sympathetic to the environmental cause. But only the rational elements of it. The instant they start trying to treat me like one of their brainwashed zombie cultists... They eat a double barreled boomstick of reason.
I am all for saving animals. Show me which animals are endangered and I'll do what is possible to save them.
All of this said, keep in mind that human beings are the biggest thing to happen to this world since the Cambrian explosion. So a higher rate of extinction is to be expected and is not inherently bad.
The first means of evolution was random mutation. The second means of evolution was sexual selection.
That was it... until humans.
Now we have a third means of evolution - Intelligent Design... aka genetic engineering.
And whatever you might feel about that... life couldn't do that before we came along. That's new.
We are the third stage of evolution on this world. A little chaos as we get our feet planted is normal.
so you're saying that I get angry at you because I'm afraid of myself?
As to my pride... its well earned... and really, I do admit fault freely if you actually find it. I do make errors bingo... you're just not clever enough to find them.
... so we start with some baseless insults...... then a definition of something related to the insult...... then an accusation of ad hominem from someone that doesn't know what ad hominem means......Then you accuse me of sockpuppet down voting you? I've never done that. I don't have any sock puppets...... then a weird religious conclusion focusing on humility.
Hmmmmm...
Okay, so first you can show some evidence for me being a moron. If you aren't a moron yourself then you shouldn't have any trouble with that.
Next you can tell me in your own words what ad hominem means and then show an example of me doing it with a quote. If you're not a moron this should be easy. The definition should be something you could pull out of memory and the examples shouldn't be hard to find if it is something you think I do a lot.
As to the sock puppet thing... Apparently you got downvoted by someone and got butt hurt about that. It wasn't me. Cross my heart. I don't get mod points anymore. I don't know why.
As to the whole god and humility thing... which god? Everyone worships something. I do as well. And I am quite faithful to what I hold holy. If you're making the case for why your god is better than my god... that's a tired argument and I'm not interested in it.
bingo... why would I lie about it? If I were really angry why wouldn't I just own it? Why would being angry be an admission of weakness on my part?
Think it through. See, anger is shameful for two reasons. First because it shows a lack of personal control. Second because it means you scared me. And scaring someone is an admission of vulnerability and weakness.
Thus anger is shameful.
Your argument here is that you think I'm afraid of you? Bingo... no one is afraid of you.
As to it being up for debate that the US was more benevolent... not by any objective measure.
Set hard standards that can be quantified and you'll find the difference is quite stark.
We have no colonial india. we have no colonial egypt. we don't even control the panama canal.
Stop and think. Would the British have given up something like the Panama Canal during their Empire?
Of course not. The US did. We gave it up on the understanding that if it is held hostage or misused in any way we might come back. But so long as they don't do that... we take no part.:)
No comparison. Look at the world and notice that there are no US colonies... anywhere.
We do have military bases But they're military bases. People typically don't live there with the intention of having a family and living on the military base forever. They live there for some years and then they come back to the US.
We have no Australia. There is no US version of Pakistan under the British empire. The British did nation building by replacing the local government with a british governor.
The US doesn't do that. We didn't even do it in Iraq. We found this hapless fellow that apparently was the best we could do and put him in charge. We gave him giant stacks of cash and weapons. We helped them draft a constitution and explained to them how republics work. We hoped they'd build something respectable. Sadly the idiots looted the money, sold the weapons, and all the soldiers deserted.
What are you going to do.
We tried. Those idiots apparently deserved the old Empire. It didn't respect the locals to know how to run anything and apparently that lack of trust was well placed.
As to our handling of Iraq, the problem with all this is what we're asked to do two mutually exclusive things. We're supposed to win and we're supposed to be politically correct. We've been having trouble with the PC police because we know what we have to do but we also know that doing it creates "bad optics" in the west and at home. So we have to do everything as much as possible while satisfying BOTH agendas. Its not easy.
The British Empire never had to deal with a 24 hour news cycle, teenagers calling your campaign genocide from their parent's basement, and assorted indignities from the morons on social media.
WE have to deal with that. Lets not pretend the playing field is equal here. Can you imagine the old British empire having to explain to their own people for every little ugly thing that ever happened in any corner of the empire AS IT HAPPENED. There's no point.
So we have special circumstances to contend with that the British never had to struggle with.
As to this notion that we're stupid... A lot of this stems from a forest from the trees mixed with quite a lot of 20 20 hindsight.
First, you have to appreciate that we're not focused on one area. Everything is linked.
The issue with Iraq was the possibility of the nuke. And the possibility of the nuke was the possibility of a nuke in Iran. And the nuke in Iran means the entire middle east goes nuclear. And that creates a game theory paradox for general strategic policy which would force the US to retreat from his position as global policeman. This would cause a collapse in international law since who would enforce it. And a collapse in the global trade lanes because who is going to keep them open.
That whole statement likely sounded completely bizarre to you. If so, I'll explain it in detail because this lies at the bottom of most of the confusing things you see the US do. Most people outside of the US don't get this. But US strategic policy for decades has been rooted in the imperative to prevent the US from getting annihilated in a nuclear engagement.
THAT is our policy. Everything we do is derived from that.
Take the current US undermining of Syria. Why are we doing that? Because it gets us closer to Iran and it will make it easier for us to seal them up tight if they get a bomb. We want to have a
Why would my server be connecting that way to anything? And you say "read"... but where are you sending it and how? The fire wall won't let you send it anywhere else.
No adhoc file transfer is standard in high security environments.
Otherwise you get someone that says "I'm mad so I'm going to send organization files to location X".
You know those wikileaks cable leaks? They were leaked by a fellow that went to an isolated room with a rewritable CD. They let him bring the rewritable CD into the room because they thought it could only be music. He then proceeded to put the disc into one of these secure systems and copy the data off of the secure system onto the rewritable disc. he'd then put the disc back into his music player and walk out the front door. Did you notice the total lack of email inside that room?
And that was still shitty security. Why did the computers have cd burners in them? Why could the user access the file system when clearly he was just going to use some internal database? A cheap ass kiosk system would have stopped that guy.
As to switches and hubs... I'm saying workstations can't talk to each other. So worms etc can only go between the servers and the workstations. Not workstation to workstation. For a given workstation to infect another machine it would first have to infect a server. Which isn't going to happen.
As to log data, why would I store that on the workstations? That's silly. Log information if piped to a specific sever that rules a lot of scripts to flag patterns or suspicious behavior.
I'm still not seeing how you ran your malicious code though. Your example is an attachment in an email. So we're talking about a file. How are you executing it? None of the scripting programs are arbitarily executable by the user and most of them are simply disabled entirely.
So there is this attachment... what type of file would it be? exes won't run... script files won't run... Suppose you're thinking about a script embedded in a pdf or something?
In any case, I don't permit email attachments in that way. They go through a different process. They are subjected to a virus scan at that point... yes... vulnerable to zero days. But all the programs that allow embedded scripts all have limited permissions themselves.
Your buckshot yankee example was another case of bad thumb drive policy. In a high security environment, why would you be able to stick a thumb drive into anything short of a server or a machine specifically for that purpose and physically under observation? We're talking about defense secrets in this case. You don't let any jack ass download whatever on to a thumb drive and then walk off. Or insert a thumb drive into the system from god knows where.
The NSA for example don't allow you to bring any such thing into their high security rooms. You can't bring your phone, a thumb drive... nada.
As to your mystical notion that its possible because you believe that. I'd like to hear how they could do it? Because your buckshot yankee example wasn't very good. They got a thumb drive into an area where apparently people could plug thumb drives in. Same thing the Iranians fell for. You can't use thumb drives in my network. The drivers are tweaked.:)
USB is wonderful for consumers but is a fucking nightmare for security because it is so adaptable. You can do anything through USB. I'd much prefer the old PS/2 and parallel ports. But getting hardware for them is too painful.
Slashdot Mirror
Doubtless it is possible but you really need to hammer the network to do that. What is more they're ignoring that the N standard doesn't use 2.4 ghz.
Been there done that, chumps.
I manage a few wifi networks that routinely have a couple hundred people on them immediately next to other networks that have a couple hundred people on them next to other networks that have a couple hundred people on them... all right fucking next to each other. The only way these networks could be more on top of each other is if all the users spooned on each other.
There aren't any issues with it. What I find fucks with wifi is big thick walls. Shocking I know... Oh and microwaves. Guy goes into the rec room to heat up a burrito or something and anyone using the 2.4 ghz networks starts to have issues. I put up amusing signs informing people of the issue.
Regardless... most new machines are N compatible so... why not use that? I use it because I can. I don't really need the speed difference since the only thing I'd do over wifi would be to browse the internet.
It makes no sense on the PC in any case because the primary point of preordering is to make sure you get a copy on launch. Well, if you're doing a digitial download then you're going to get a copy regardless which is how most PC games work at this point anyway.
Now for little companies that don't have publishing contracts? Pre-orders are fine. I pre order games from those guys all the time and have so far not been burned once. I know people get burned but I've been lucky.
I've pre-ordered everything from inexile for example. I preordered planetary annihilation. I've preordered star citizen. i pre order tell tale games that seem interesting.
That's fine. But some batman game being developed by a big publisher? Why would I preorder? exclusive content? Pfft.
... you mean "Royal Dutch Shell"?
Its owned almost entirely by a parent company out of the Hague. The headquarters of the US branch is in the US and the company is traded separately on the stock exchange but... it is not a "us oil company" anymore than Nintendo or Sony are US companies even though they have operations in the US. Or Apple is Chinese for that matter even though they have operations in china.
Its a dutch oil company.
nah... just a a very philosophical and worldly cat.
I've read most of the famious philosophies from pole to pole and studied most of the world religions that ever were.
And like traveling, the more you go abroad in your thinking, the more you appreciate where you come from. I am a western literal thinker. I respect logic and rationality. And the more you're exposed to the hoodoo, mysticism, and double talk of the world... the more centered you become the imperatives of reason. You also get a lot better at spotting the various confidence men and sophists in our society. You see that we have our own witch doctors. Our own people walking around with painted feathers shaking animal bones at people to curse them.
Its all the same.
You don't create the society you want by imposing a system you find immoral on the notion that at some point in the future you'll remove that system everyone will live happly ever after. It doesn't work that way.
If you dominate people by doing a lot of unsavory crap then your system will be dependent on that sort of thing going forward. it will be a default fall back of the system. And that means the ACTUAL morality of the system will be those fall backs because they'll be the REAL support of the system.
So in the context of this gender and race stuff, by focusing on gender and race and treating the races differently... you create a society where race is important and the races are treated differently. There's no way out of it if you do that. The only way to come to some sort of happy place where we all treat each other as equals and don't judge each other based on race... is to stop judging each other based on race.
People that can't do that can't help but create a racist and sexist society. Their beliefs require it.
Sure we can. You know that scab you're not picking? Explain that.
We used to have incinerators in the US and contrary to what many people think it is entirely environmentally friendly to burn garbage. They still do it in europe.
The basic idea is to not just burn it but burn it at such a high temperature that there are no toxic fumes, no bad smells, and the solid waste is ash.
Many things can also be burned for a net energy gain. Which means you can generate POWER from garbage. The ash that is left over can be landfilled much more efficiently. And with proper sorting, you don't even need to send it to the land fill. It can used in compost on crops.
If I incinerate plastic at 3000 ~ 5000F degrees then the ash that comes off that is going to be non-toxic and inert.
The Germans have been trying to sell these furnances to the US for years to solve our land fill problem. And it never goes anywhere because the US environmental lobby is composed of fucktards that don't understand that burning garbage isn't bad for the environment. Putting it in a landfill isn't any better. You just can't harness the power very easily. Those methane taps we put on landfills are inefficient. Burn the garbage on reception and you've taken all the energy out of it one day one.
Here some fucktard is going to get upset that I called him a fucktard. You're only upset because you've been lied to your whole life. If more people were honest like me, you'd have long ago accepted your fucktarded status. The solution to burn the garbage.
The bits of the garbage that don't burn... the metals... we can recycle that to some extent. But plastics and paper? Not really.
Recycled plastic and paper are generally not economical.
First, the quality of a recycled paper or plastic product is lower unless you put the recycled plastic/paper through additional refining processes that ultimately cost more than the savings of using recycled material.
Second, producing plastic or paper from source is actually not that expensive in the first place.
To those worried about running out of finite resources... let me make this clear.
1. The oil we use for plastic is a byproduct of producing the fuel. We have to use it to make plastics otherwise we have no other use for it. We "can" crack that byproduct to produce more fuel but it really isn't worth it. It makes more sense to convert that sludge into plastic.
2. Our paper comes from tree FARMS. Those trees and the paper produced from them is as renewable as wheat or rice or potatoes... or fucking broccoli. We're not running out. Ever.
Now metals... steel... copper... aluminum... etc. Recycle that.
Glass? ehmmm.... generally just put it in the land fill. Its just melted sand in the first place. It isn't like we're running low on sand. Crush the glass and bury it. Its non-toxic and inert.
... reinforces gender sterotypes.
The means are the ends. If you want people to not take gender seriously and just treat each other as equals then you need to not take gender seriously and treat each other as equals.
If you take gender seriously and treat the genders unequally then you'll create a system were people take gender really seriously and treat the genders differently.
Be the change by being the end. By matching your means to your end, you create your goal.
The current idea is increasing gender tensions and racial tensions. IT is not creating equality because it is trying to create racial and sexual quotas.
You're not going to get an equal society by creating quotas or pseudo quotas.
Its more clever than that.
As I said, the money comes from OEM licenses and corporate buyers. The market for consumer single license OS purchases is tiny. And that is what the pirates undermine. A market that actually never really made MS much money in the first place.
If the pirate buys a new computer, they're probably going to get an OEM license of MS Windows installed on it from the OEM. Cha Ching. MS makes money there.
And if a big corporate buyer buys a site license... Cha Ching...
And what encourages the OEM and the corporate buyer to buy windows? High use rate of that OS in the general population. So giving it away to pirates that are generally not going to buy your shit anyway. I mean, who doesn't know that they'll just pirate the OS anyway? Giving it away means those corporate buyers and OEMs will keep buying licenses. Which is where MS has always made their real money.
Fighting pirates is dumb. They're not real customers. They won't buy your product. If you hammer them too hard they'll just move to linux or something... and that's objectively worse for MS then just giving them a free copy. It costs MS nothing and helps maintain their market share.
On drake's equation, that was merely its first application.
In practice, it exactly as I said:
From wikipedia:
R = p * ne * l *i * c * L
And that's the first version. The final version of drake's equation included about 21 variables nearly all of which were estimated.
R* = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
p = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
l = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point
i = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations)
c = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space[8]
I've seen that equation used in a lot of junk science.
It works like this:
Variable you're trying to find a value for =
Variable you know
*
Variable you think you can estimate
*
Another variable you think you can estimate
*
Wild ass guess
*
Wild ass guess
*
specific variable taken from one location and extrapolated to everywhere
*
wild ass guess
That's generally how it works. And that's drake's equation applied to whatever specious bit of activist bullshit that's in vogue today.
As to studies that reference Drake's equation, of course they're not going to cite it. What they'll do is USE IT but not cite it.
That is they'll do the equation of V = A * B * C * D * E * F * G
where in about 80 percent of variables are just guesses. And then call V derived by our algorithm. Which... as it often turns out... is bullshit.
As to the acre figure, I know at least two studies. One of them was pushed by the WWF and was cited by the UN and the EPA. Was it peer reviewed? I don't know... but it was the basis of law. And it did use very tiny sample sizes of about an acre. And before you get upset with me for not citing a peer reviewed something... the Red List isn't peer reviewed either and that's the basis of the cited study that this topic is talking about. The evidence IS the Red List.
They'd also do stuff like... trout might disappear from a river. They'd call that trout "extinct"... they'd say its the such and such river trout. For example if it is the Red River... they'll say the "red river trout are extinct"... well, no... trout are no longer in the red river but the species itself is not extinct. Now genetically that trout is identical to a lot of other trout in the area where there are still lots of fish. It just disappeared from THAT river. But because the trout in that river were deemed a unique species even though they can produce live young with other trout and those trout are fertile... I don't quite see how they're a different species. And note further, that if a species leave a given area it can usually be reintroduced or it will reintroduce itself unless the habitate was destroyed. So lets say there was a drought and the river dried out entirely. Okay... no fish in that river... cus the water is gone. Then a couple years later the water comes back... and so long as that river is connected to a body of water with that species of trout, the river will be repopulated naturally. You can speed that up if you like by reseeding the river.
Being unable to breed with another population generally is considered where you draw the species line. That means not just producing infertile young like mules but being able to produce fertile offspring... like dogs. A big 200 pound dog can breed with a little 5 pound dog. Different breeds... same species.
A lot of the species on those lists are not actually different species. They're
Australia has been ban happy with games for years.
They must maintain an impression and ideally a fact of being the default OS.
The money they make charging people for the OS is nothing compared to what they make from OEMs or corporations. MS doesn't really care.
empirically ineffective.
Jesus christ.
They don't have to use local data to use drakes equation. What they have to do is estimate and base estimations on estimations on estimations.
That's what drake's equation is. The local EXAMPLE was just an EXAMPLE.
Now the CURRENT research you're using for this blog post is based on the Red List. That's its evidence. And already dealt with that. It's been cited repeatedly for activism.
So did you want to cite something that you feel fits your criteria? Because i'm not going to... you've given yourself enough wiggle room that I could cite anything and you'd just say that even though it was peer reviewed and even though it was cited by international organizations and the media... that it isn't reputable. You can say that about anything.
So you've basically fucked yourself in the ass with a pineapple by asking for too much. Because you tacked on too many qualifications... I get to ask YOU to cite something. I can't read your mind. I don't know what you consider reputable.
So your move. And keep in mind that when cited Drake's equation, that was just an example, kay? Thanks.
http://www.geneticliteracyproj...
There are lots of links.
You have to take their reports with a grain of salt. And basing an entire report on their red list is not a good source. Who is going to dig through that pile to find every species that shouldn't be there?
Your criticize me but you probably didn't even know what Drake's equation was before I cited it.
How about the very study in question?
Its based on the IUCN Red List. A source that is frequently cited for not disclosing data, methodology, or simply making things up.
I'm sure lots of things are going extinct... again, there's a lot of habitate destruction. However, the means by which this is determined are often fallacious. And as I pointed out as well, even if we are in an extinction event, we're the biggest thing to hit this planet since the Cambrian explosion. So... why would you expect anything else?
An extinction event doesn't mean all life is dying out. Just means that life that can't adapt is dying out. And most of the life being cited are sub breeds of otherwise successful species.
If I have four birds that all had a common ancestor a million years ago... and three of those four birds dies but one of them does really well... that's just evolution.
Don't be hysterical or I will fucking slap you until you have calmed down. Calm down.
Now that you're calm... what solutions would you propose?.. besides give you huge sums of money and power. Because if that's what we're doing then allow me to submit my request for whores and cocaine. So many of these things are just transparent power grabs that do little more than baffle peasants that can't connect the dots. I've no patience for this bullshit unless it is reasonable and scientific.
Another reason to not be in Amazon's prime books service.
There are many reasons but I think the best one is that there is a brain drain.
Why set up in Europe that doesn't have good laws and tax breaks for start ups anyway... when you can just move to the US and be surrounded by the best and the brightest from the whole world?
Its worse than the europeans realize because we've pretty much filled SV to capacity and now we're seeding Seattle with more of it and Austin, Dallas, a little in Los Angeles, and even something in Boston.
The US draws them in like a loadstone. The Euros are going to have to offer very attractive subsidies to keep those people in Europe. Think of the sort of pull Europe would have to have to start pulling American tech startups to Europe. That is how hard the US is pulling... If the Euros haven't noticed this then they're not paying attention. The US wants ALL your bright minds. All of them.
America is drinking your mental milkshake. *sluuuuuuuurp*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Not all of them... but a lot of them... and the overall synthesis of them tends to work that way.
It works something like this usually "lets study how many species have gone extinct in this acre of land". And that acre could be a place that someone build a parking lot. The acre in question is often cherry picked to give apocalyptic results. And a big thing you have to pay attention to in these studies is that "extinct" doesn't mean the species is gone from wherever in the world... just "that spot" A deer could wander into the box... be counted at time X... then wander out at X+1... and boom... deer are extinct... in the box.
Then what they do is through Drakes equation they estimate how many species are in the acre that they don't even know exist. And then they estimate how many of those have gone extinct using the number of known species that went extinct in that box... remember the deer.
Then again using Drake's equation they extrapolate this sample... of one acre... to estimate the extinction rate of the entire planet.
If you ask the people making these claims to cite species that are actually gone EVERYWHERE... and only to cite species that are known... the numbers fall radically because most of the extinctions are theoretical.
The next problem is that it is really hard to estimate historic extinction rates. You're doing it from what... Fossils? not all species are captured in fossils. And you can't compared what would show up in the modern fossil record with the past fossil record until the modern fossil record has been created first. So... maybe in 10,000 years... you might be able to compare current extinction rates with past extinction rates. That is unless you have a way of figuring out past extinction rates without looking at the fossil record.
Are extinctions higher today then in the recent past? Probably. Humans are taking too much habitat away from animals for that to not be the case. However, lets not be hyperbolic about it. I can't take people seriously if they're going to start exaggerating everything transparently for political reasons. The environmental movement did itself great injury when it put politics above all else.
I am very sympathetic to the environmental cause. But only the rational elements of it. The instant they start trying to treat me like one of their brainwashed zombie cultists... They eat a double barreled boomstick of reason.
I am all for saving animals. Show me which animals are endangered and I'll do what is possible to save them.
All of this said, keep in mind that human beings are the biggest thing to happen to this world since the Cambrian explosion. So a higher rate of extinction is to be expected and is not inherently bad.
The first means of evolution was random mutation.
The second means of evolution was sexual selection.
That was it... until humans.
Now we have a third means of evolution - Intelligent Design... aka genetic engineering.
And whatever you might feel about that... life couldn't do that before we came along. That's new.
We are the third stage of evolution on this world. A little chaos as we get our feet planted is normal.
so you're saying that I get angry at you because I'm afraid of myself?
As to my pride... its well earned... and really, I do admit fault freely if you actually find it. I do make errors bingo... you're just not clever enough to find them.
... so we start with some baseless insults... ... then a definition of something related to the insult... ... then an accusation of ad hominem from someone that doesn't know what ad hominem means... ...Then you accuse me of sockpuppet down voting you? I've never done that. I don't have any sock puppets... ... then a weird religious conclusion focusing on humility.
Hmmmmm...
Okay, so first you can show some evidence for me being a moron. If you aren't a moron yourself then you shouldn't have any trouble with that.
Next you can tell me in your own words what ad hominem means and then show an example of me doing it with a quote. If you're not a moron this should be easy. The definition should be something you could pull out of memory and the examples shouldn't be hard to find if it is something you think I do a lot.
As to the sock puppet thing... Apparently you got downvoted by someone and got butt hurt about that. It wasn't me. Cross my heart. I don't get mod points anymore. I don't know why.
As to the whole god and humility thing... which god? Everyone worships something. I do as well. And I am quite faithful to what I hold holy. If you're making the case for why your god is better than my god... that's a tired argument and I'm not interested in it.
bingo... why would I lie about it? If I were really angry why wouldn't I just own it? Why would being angry be an admission of weakness on my part?
Think it through. See, anger is shameful for two reasons. First because it shows a lack of personal control. Second because it means you scared me. And scaring someone is an admission of vulnerability and weakness.
Thus anger is shameful.
Your argument here is that you think I'm afraid of you? Bingo... no one is afraid of you.
Twit.
As to it being up for debate that the US was more benevolent... not by any objective measure.
Set hard standards that can be quantified and you'll find the difference is quite stark.
We have no colonial india. we have no colonial egypt. we don't even control the panama canal.
Stop and think. Would the British have given up something like the Panama Canal during their Empire?
Of course not. The US did. We gave it up on the understanding that if it is held hostage or misused in any way we might come back. But so long as they don't do that... we take no part. :)
No comparison. Look at the world and notice that there are no US colonies... anywhere.
We do have military bases But they're military bases. People typically don't live there with the intention of having a family and living on the military base forever. They live there for some years and then they come back to the US.
We have no Australia. There is no US version of Pakistan under the British empire. The British did nation building by replacing the local government with a british governor.
The US doesn't do that. We didn't even do it in Iraq. We found this hapless fellow that apparently was the best we could do and put him in charge. We gave him giant stacks of cash and weapons. We helped them draft a constitution and explained to them how republics work. We hoped they'd build something respectable. Sadly the idiots looted the money, sold the weapons, and all the soldiers deserted.
What are you going to do.
We tried. Those idiots apparently deserved the old Empire. It didn't respect the locals to know how to run anything and apparently that lack of trust was well placed.
As to our handling of Iraq, the problem with all this is what we're asked to do two mutually exclusive things. We're supposed to win and we're supposed to be politically correct. We've been having trouble with the PC police because we know what we have to do but we also know that doing it creates "bad optics" in the west and at home. So we have to do everything as much as possible while satisfying BOTH agendas. Its not easy.
The British Empire never had to deal with a 24 hour news cycle, teenagers calling your campaign genocide from their parent's basement, and assorted indignities from the morons on social media.
WE have to deal with that. Lets not pretend the playing field is equal here. Can you imagine the old British empire having to explain to their own people for every little ugly thing that ever happened in any corner of the empire AS IT HAPPENED. There's no point.
So we have special circumstances to contend with that the British never had to struggle with.
As to this notion that we're stupid... A lot of this stems from a forest from the trees mixed with quite a lot of 20 20 hindsight.
First, you have to appreciate that we're not focused on one area. Everything is linked.
The issue with Iraq was the possibility of the nuke. And the possibility of the nuke was the possibility of a nuke in Iran. And the nuke in Iran means the entire middle east goes nuclear. And that creates a game theory paradox for general strategic policy which would force the US to retreat from his position as global policeman. This would cause a collapse in international law since who would enforce it. And a collapse in the global trade lanes because who is going to keep them open.
That whole statement likely sounded completely bizarre to you. If so, I'll explain it in detail because this lies at the bottom of most of the confusing things you see the US do. Most people outside of the US don't get this. But US strategic policy for decades has been rooted in the imperative to prevent the US from getting annihilated in a nuclear engagement.
THAT is our policy. Everything we do is derived from that.
Take the current US undermining of Syria. Why are we doing that? Because it gets us closer to Iran and it will make it easier for us to seal them up tight if they get a bomb. We want to have a
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Why would my server be connecting that way to anything? And you say "read"... but where are you sending it and how? The fire wall won't let you send it anywhere else.
No adhoc file transfer is standard in high security environments.
Otherwise you get someone that says "I'm mad so I'm going to send organization files to location X".
You know those wikileaks cable leaks? They were leaked by a fellow that went to an isolated room with a rewritable CD. They let him bring the rewritable CD into the room because they thought it could only be music. He then proceeded to put the disc into one of these secure systems and copy the data off of the secure system onto the rewritable disc. he'd then put the disc back into his music player and walk out the front door. Did you notice the total lack of email inside that room?
And that was still shitty security. Why did the computers have cd burners in them? Why could the user access the file system when clearly he was just going to use some internal database? A cheap ass kiosk system would have stopped that guy.
As to switches and hubs... I'm saying workstations can't talk to each other. So worms etc can only go between the servers and the workstations. Not workstation to workstation. For a given workstation to infect another machine it would first have to infect a server. Which isn't going to happen.
As to log data, why would I store that on the workstations? That's silly. Log information if piped to a specific sever that rules a lot of scripts to flag patterns or suspicious behavior.
I'm still not seeing how you ran your malicious code though. Your example is an attachment in an email. So we're talking about a file. How are you executing it? None of the scripting programs are arbitarily executable by the user and most of them are simply disabled entirely.
So there is this attachment... what type of file would it be? exes won't run... script files won't run... Suppose you're thinking about a script embedded in a pdf or something?
In any case, I don't permit email attachments in that way. They go through a different process. They are subjected to a virus scan at that point... yes... vulnerable to zero days. But all the programs that allow embedded scripts all have limited permissions themselves.
Your buckshot yankee example was another case of bad thumb drive policy. In a high security environment, why would you be able to stick a thumb drive into anything short of a server or a machine specifically for that purpose and physically under observation? We're talking about defense secrets in this case. You don't let any jack ass download whatever on to a thumb drive and then walk off. Or insert a thumb drive into the system from god knows where.
The NSA for example don't allow you to bring any such thing into their high security rooms. You can't bring your phone, a thumb drive... nada.
As to your mystical notion that its possible because you believe that. I'd like to hear how they could do it? Because your buckshot yankee example wasn't very good. They got a thumb drive into an area where apparently people could plug thumb drives in. Same thing the Iranians fell for. You can't use thumb drives in my network. The drivers are tweaked. :)
USB is wonderful for consumers but is a fucking nightmare for security because it is so adaptable. You can do anything through USB. I'd much prefer the old PS/2 and parallel ports. But getting hardware for them is too painful.