Remember Men, it's o.k. if any part of your body gets represented as just a meaningless object used by the opposite sex in graphic novels, movies, or live performances. However, if you so much as look at a woman the wrong way, it's mysogynistic objectification. Except (of course there's always arbitrary exceptions) if it's her wedding day, which is when she is almost completely self-objectified and loves every minute of it.
Because both sides keep re-electing the same d&mn representatives to Congress?
If you want the TSA to go away, it's time to stop being afraid to vote for an unknown 3rd party or party-less candidate instead of an entrenched Republicrat/Democan incumbent.
Ask yourself a simple question before you vote, do you really think that an uneducated, toothless wife-beater-wearing hick from Virginia will do worse for our country in Congress than people who have worked their for 20 years and base every decision on trying to keep their job next cycle? My answer is always "no" to that question, and I live in California.
Political office was never intended to be a career. It was supposed to be more like the jury system.
I haven't seen Obama or any of his administration comment on one of them. From the beginning they seemed to just be punting on most issues outside of health care. There was a huge swell of signers for the anti PIPA/SOPA petition, it easily hit the required number to get a response from Obama, but their reply was effectively a total dismissal of the issue.
Pure politics, the Democrats are just as afraid as the Republicans of standing up for a true human rights issue when they fear their big money supporters might be upset. Make no mistake, internet freedom is a human rights issue.
The way I see it, you've got only a couple of choices:
1) Someone completely unfamiliar with the directory structure at UEA just happened to find a zip file with the correct contents.
Or
2) Someone gained remote access to their entire message database, downloaded the entire thing without being noticed and created the zip file themselves from scratch. If that's the case, why so few e-mails?
Despite not being able to prosecute any offenders, the police have confirmed that the data breach 'was the result of a sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack on the CRU's data files
Really? So some highly motivated skeptic managed to find a zip file on an illegally accessed remote server, took the time to recognize the contents as being what he/she needed, and further immediately publish the most damning of the contents? They did all this without being noticed? This conclusion and the timeline of how information was revealed suggests there's literally someone out there who is not only capable of such a job (likely wouldn't have been trivial to accomplish), but intimately familiar with Jones', Mann's, Wahls, McIntyre's and other's correspondence and motivations, and clearly paid to spend the time doing this. It suggests some "vast conspiracy" which doesn't very well jive with occams razor.
The likely situation is it was an inside job. Someone who knows Phil Jones knew he was refusing properly formatted FOIA requests, and likely had motivation to out the correspondence and data/algorithms inside an already created ZIP file that Phil made in case he was forced to respond to the FOIA request.
^^^ Did you write that only 3 posts ago? If so, back up your claim with evidence and withdraw the troll label you just casually threw out to try to make yourself feel better about your flimsy argument.
If you didn't write that, please read what's in the form before submitting in the future, and keep your pleasure dolls off the keyboard when discussing serious topics, k thx.
There's no way on earth you can possibly prove that statement. It's completely vacuous on it's face and history is not on your side w.r.t. it being true.
The change from Global Warming to Climate Change was driven by a conservative denialist US thinktank. The facts are not changing.
^^ That, however, is pure deception. The branding change was chosen by those doing the selling because what was being sold was no longer so "simple" as temperature increase. It suddenly included anything that the earth threw at us that was bad. Furthermore, the major selling point for the past 6 years at least was that we are now in the warmest period in earths history for the past 1000 years. This was stated so many articles, journals, scientists, UN-bandit-organizations in so many venues that it is literally beyond count. Now this article essentially directly contradicts that thought, and you say the facts aren't changing?
If a model doesn't predict a force that clearly exists, it needs more than refinement. I'm not a big believer in dark matter or dark energy, but I can't disagree with what telescopes tell us. Telescopes tell us that the universe expansion is accelerating. They also tell us that galaxies have far far less visible mass than can explain their structure. I challenge you to find anything in the standard model that explains these things. The standard model is accurate for what it explains, but it clearly cannot explain everything. Since it cannot explain everything, it is as doomed as Newtons laws were when Einstein came up with relativity + photoelectric effect.
Well, there's these mountains only to the north that get Snow each winter. The tallest of them topping out at 3300 meters or so. They're about 20km away from Downtown Los Angeles, but easily viewable from anywhere on a clear day.
Also, Los Angeles skyscrapers are a tiny island surrounded by an ocean of single family homes. They don't tower over the city, the city expanse dwarfs the skyscrapers.
There are quite a few hills interspersed in the municipalities, but the rich people have generally claimed them as places for mansions overlooking the city lights.
Not necessarily fall as in need revision, but we know this already. The basic matter/force particles have been known for a while, except Gravity. We couldn't find any particle that linked us to mass, the search for the Higgs was just that, a search for an explanation for mass.
However, we know just based on observing the heavens (where all science truly begins), that it doesn't end at gravity. There are clearly forces out there that we didn't predict with our current models, namely dark matter/dark energy. It is currently theorized that dark matter is a manifestation (of fields/particles) that we currently do not have in the "Standard" model. The Standard model was doomed as soon as we discovered that galaxies are accelerating away from each other.
I live in Los Angeles, all you need to do is find a hill. There's so much civil-disobedience around here w.r.t. lighting off rockets/mortars on the 4th that I'm suspecting most law enforcement is starting to just give up trying to cite people.
Then again, it's the US. Finely crafted pyro shows? Who gives a damn - people just want to see big loud booms and call it a night. (And yes, they do make mortars whose sole purpose is to just make big loud booms...).
Yes, well, in large metropolitan areas, 90% of the people watching your fireworks can't hear the music. So all that choreography is about as valuable to the viewers as the signature on a famous painting. However, 2-3 blocks away on a hill, I can hear your loud booms, and I'm hoping to.
...for fireworks to be like that, just constant rockets and explosions non-stop for 10-20 minutes. Why do fireworks shows limit their bursts to a Grand Finale?
Put me in charge of destroying money like this, and I'll create a number of bursts that keep you watching for the entire show, leading up to a ridiculous ending worthy of shore shelling from the Iowa.
US: I think you should share the rare earths, China. Is that so hard?
China: Well, no.
China:...and yes. Now it comes to it, I don't feel like parting with it. It's mine, I found it. It came to me!
US: There's no need to get angry.
China: Well, if I'm angry, it's your fault.
China:...it's mine... my own... my precious...
US: Precious? It's been called that before, but not by you.
China: Oh, what business is it of yours what I do with my own things?
US: I think you've played god with the international economy quite long enough.
China: You want it for yourself!
US: China! Do not take me for some conjuror of cheap tricks! I am not trying to rob you. I'm trying to help you.
As for electronics used in space, the chips and whatnot are of course manufactured, but they are all entirely space qualified rad-hardened designs. Boards, software, etc and all the "system level" stuff (which trust me is like 90% of the work) is all entirely custom one-of-a-kind design.
Believe it or not, that ^^ is not entirely true. I know this from firsthand experience. Yes generally they throw mil-spec'd parts, and most of them are of pristine quality and appropriately spec'd for space. However, their screening processes are generally not great such that electronics suppliers (honestly or dishonestly) manage to sneak in (in some cases) completely unqualified parts, or parts for which there may not be any space-qual specification for. The short answer is, the contractors generally intend on putting only the best, and they will only ever tell you that they use the highest quality screened parts, but lots of things slip by the nets and make it into space that you probably have in your average cell phone. Fortunately these are not always showstoppers, and in many cases the error gets found before launch such that the vehicle users can mitigate any damage.
When I look at a trip to Mars, however, I would venture the guess that you could do it cheaply. Not for $6 billion obviously, but it shouldn't cost $600 billion either. I would venture a guess that it could be done for $30 billion, perhaps only enough for one trip.
Clearly you are correct when you discuss the ripple-down effect of requirements changes on any program. However, again, if they're smart they'll realize this and just drop the "slightly bigger" idea for something more cost effective. I have faith that private industry will learn quickly to avoid the re-design debacle you're so nicely describing that government programs suffer from heavily. The question is whether we can keep the private ventures alive long enough to manage it.
I would think specifically on their number of space vehicles designed they're making a large mistake. If they pared that down to a single launch vehicle and a single type of interplanetary trip vehicle, I'd say they could do something with $6 billion. They likely would not get more than a single launch, but it would be something.
Also, yes, COTS electronics doesn't work for space, at least not something that is going to last 30 years with no one around to maintain it. It might work for something that's only supposed to last 2-3 years and have people around that might fix/bypass fault elements. I don't know of much else in spacecraft that is generally COTS other than electronics. Isn't basically everything else custom in spacecraft? Certainly the structures are custom, the engines aren't always custom, but when they're not they generally come from established designs. Help me out here on what else on a spacecraft might be off the shelf.
Uh, did you just suggest that a politicians response to assassination would be to nuke a town in his own country? What is this, the 1970s? Governments have much cleaner things to use against troublesome populations in this modern age, like identity theft and eminent domain.
Slashdot Mirror
except when taxes come due, then I feel a lot of cold water on my plans.
Ya, I fail. I was going to use a 3 for a K and failed to re-read :( Your joke was better.
B16D1CK5 ??
Somehow I think not.
Remember Men, it's o.k. if any part of your body gets represented as just a meaningless object used by the opposite sex in graphic novels, movies, or live performances. However, if you so much as look at a woman the wrong way, it's mysogynistic objectification. Except (of course there's always arbitrary exceptions) if it's her wedding day, which is when she is almost completely self-objectified and loves every minute of it.
I actually doubt the validity of those polls, and I think you should consider the source of mainstream media to be completely tainted at this point.
Because both sides keep re-electing the same d&mn representatives to Congress?
If you want the TSA to go away, it's time to stop being afraid to vote for an unknown 3rd party or party-less candidate instead of an entrenched Republicrat/Democan incumbent.
Ask yourself a simple question before you vote, do you really think that an uneducated, toothless wife-beater-wearing hick from Virginia will do worse for our country in Congress than people who have worked their for 20 years and base every decision on trying to keep their job next cycle? My answer is always "no" to that question, and I live in California.
Political office was never intended to be a career. It was supposed to be more like the jury system.
Well then their training should include some motion in the ocean.
I haven't seen Obama or any of his administration comment on one of them. From the beginning they seemed to just be punting on most issues outside of health care. There was a huge swell of signers for the anti PIPA/SOPA petition, it easily hit the required number to get a response from Obama, but their reply was effectively a total dismissal of the issue.
Pure politics, the Democrats are just as afraid as the Republicans of standing up for a true human rights issue when they fear their big money supporters might be upset. Make no mistake, internet freedom is a human rights issue.
The way I see it, you've got only a couple of choices:
1) Someone completely unfamiliar with the directory structure at UEA just happened to find a zip file with the correct contents.
Or
2) Someone gained remote access to their entire message database, downloaded the entire thing without being noticed and created the zip file themselves from scratch. If that's the case, why so few e-mails?
UN-likely
Really? So some highly motivated skeptic managed to find a zip file on an illegally accessed remote server, took the time to recognize the contents as being what he/she needed, and further immediately publish the most damning of the contents? They did all this without being noticed? This conclusion and the timeline of how information was revealed suggests there's literally someone out there who is not only capable of such a job (likely wouldn't have been trivial to accomplish), but intimately familiar with Jones', Mann's, Wahls, McIntyre's and other's correspondence and motivations, and clearly paid to spend the time doing this. It suggests some "vast conspiracy" which doesn't very well jive with occams razor.
The likely situation is it was an inside job. Someone who knows Phil Jones knew he was refusing properly formatted FOIA requests, and likely had motivation to out the correspondence and data/algorithms inside an already created ZIP file that Phil made in case he was forced to respond to the FOIA request.
^^^ Did you write that only 3 posts ago? If so, back up your claim with evidence and withdraw the troll label you just casually threw out to try to make yourself feel better about your flimsy argument.
If you didn't write that, please read what's in the form before submitting in the future, and keep your pleasure dolls off the keyboard when discussing serious topics, k thx.
Actually it is if you're going to make that claim. You made the claim, you back it up or withdraw the claim.
There's no way on earth you can possibly prove that statement. It's completely vacuous on it's face and history is not on your side w.r.t. it being true.
^^ That, however, is pure deception. The branding change was chosen by those doing the selling because what was being sold was no longer so "simple" as temperature increase. It suddenly included anything that the earth threw at us that was bad. Furthermore, the major selling point for the past 6 years at least was that we are now in the warmest period in earths history for the past 1000 years. This was stated so many articles, journals, scientists, UN-bandit-organizations in so many venues that it is literally beyond count. Now this article essentially directly contradicts that thought, and you say the facts aren't changing?
Right.
If a model doesn't predict a force that clearly exists, it needs more than refinement. I'm not a big believer in dark matter or dark energy, but I can't disagree with what telescopes tell us. Telescopes tell us that the universe expansion is accelerating. They also tell us that galaxies have far far less visible mass than can explain their structure. I challenge you to find anything in the standard model that explains these things. The standard model is accurate for what it explains , but it clearly cannot explain everything. Since it cannot explain everything, it is as doomed as Newtons laws were when Einstein came up with relativity + photoelectric effect.
Well, there's these mountains only to the north that get Snow each winter. The tallest of them topping out at 3300 meters or so. They're about 20km away from Downtown Los Angeles, but easily viewable from anywhere on a clear day.
Also, Los Angeles skyscrapers are a tiny island surrounded by an ocean of single family homes. They don't tower over the city, the city expanse dwarfs the skyscrapers.
There are quite a few hills interspersed in the municipalities, but the rich people have generally claimed them as places for mansions overlooking the city lights.
Not necessarily fall as in need revision, but we know this already. The basic matter/force particles have been known for a while, except Gravity. We couldn't find any particle that linked us to mass, the search for the Higgs was just that, a search for an explanation for mass.
However, we know just based on observing the heavens (where all science truly begins), that it doesn't end at gravity . There are clearly forces out there that we didn't predict with our current models, namely dark matter/dark energy. It is currently theorized that dark matter is a manifestation (of fields/particles) that we currently do not have in the "Standard" model. The Standard model was doomed as soon as we discovered that galaxies are accelerating away from each other.
If they did this in LA, they would run out of Radio Stations
I live in Los Angeles, all you need to do is find a hill. There's so much civil-disobedience around here w.r.t. lighting off rockets/mortars on the 4th that I'm suspecting most law enforcement is starting to just give up trying to cite people.
Yes, well, in large metropolitan areas, 90% of the people watching your fireworks can't hear the music. So all that choreography is about as valuable to the viewers as the signature on a famous painting. However, 2-3 blocks away on a hill, I can hear your loud booms, and I'm hoping to.
...for fireworks to be like that, just constant rockets and explosions non-stop for 10-20 minutes. Why do fireworks shows limit their bursts to a Grand Finale?
Put me in charge of destroying money like this, and I'll create a number of bursts that keep you watching for the entire show, leading up to a ridiculous ending worthy of shore shelling from the Iowa.
US: I think you should share the rare earths, China. Is that so hard? ...and yes. Now it comes to it, I don't feel like parting with it. It's mine, I found it. It came to me! ...it's mine... my own... my precious...
China: Well, no.
China:
US: There's no need to get angry.
China: Well, if I'm angry, it's your fault.
China:
US: Precious? It's been called that before, but not by you.
China: Oh, what business is it of yours what I do with my own things?
US: I think you've played god with the international economy quite long enough.
China: You want it for yourself!
US: China! Do not take me for some conjuror of cheap tricks! I am not trying to rob you. I'm trying to help you.
This was discovered because the directors mentioned it in the commentary?
my mind is boggling somewhat at the silliness of mentioning this AT ALL.
Believe it or not, that ^^ is not entirely true. I know this from firsthand experience. Yes generally they throw mil-spec'd parts, and most of them are of pristine quality and appropriately spec'd for space. However, their screening processes are generally not great such that electronics suppliers (honestly or dishonestly) manage to sneak in (in some cases) completely unqualified parts, or parts for which there may not be any space-qual specification for. The short answer is, the contractors generally intend on putting only the best, and they will only ever tell you that they use the highest quality screened parts, but lots of things slip by the nets and make it into space that you probably have in your average cell phone. Fortunately these are not always showstoppers, and in many cases the error gets found before launch such that the vehicle users can mitigate any damage.
When I look at a trip to Mars, however, I would venture the guess that you could do it cheaply. Not for $6 billion obviously, but it shouldn't cost $600 billion either. I would venture a guess that it could be done for $30 billion, perhaps only enough for one trip.
Clearly you are correct when you discuss the ripple-down effect of requirements changes on any program. However, again, if they're smart they'll realize this and just drop the "slightly bigger" idea for something more cost effective. I have faith that private industry will learn quickly to avoid the re-design debacle you're so nicely describing that government programs suffer from heavily. The question is whether we can keep the private ventures alive long enough to manage it.
I would think specifically on their number of space vehicles designed they're making a large mistake. If they pared that down to a single launch vehicle and a single type of interplanetary trip vehicle, I'd say they could do something with $6 billion. They likely would not get more than a single launch, but it would be something.
Also, yes, COTS electronics doesn't work for space, at least not something that is going to last 30 years with no one around to maintain it. It might work for something that's only supposed to last 2-3 years and have people around that might fix/bypass fault elements. I don't know of much else in spacecraft that is generally COTS other than electronics. Isn't basically everything else custom in spacecraft? Certainly the structures are custom, the engines aren't always custom, but when they're not they generally come from established designs. Help me out here on what else on a spacecraft might be off the shelf.
Uh, did you just suggest that a politicians response to assassination would be to nuke a town in his own country? What is this, the 1970s? Governments have much cleaner things to use against troublesome populations in this modern age, like identity theft and eminent domain.
It's not a lie if they don't read the legislation in the first place. Incompetence is the simpler explanation.