Your behaviour is sadly typical of AGW proponents who fail to understand enough to have a decent discussion and whose subsequent over inflated claims bring doubt to everything however true it might really have been.
And the BBC repeat this behaviour.
If it is true and honest, then why do they act like it is untrue and dishonest?
It is the behind the scenes behaviour of proponents that give strength to the claim that it is a lie!
And then you answer dissent here by picking fault with capital letters and bold type; a confession that it is the only point you have left; and a type of the BBC argument which was: "stop the other side talking then at least without the contrast we will look true"
Thanks for the clarity. I agree with your point "It would be rather peculiar if such a behaviour were confined to Climate change alone"
The decision is worthy of scrutiny. The BBC certainly fear scrutiny on this decision and thus draw attention to it. What are they afraid of is what we ask ourselves and in the answer to that we will find something worth knowing.
Your satisfaction with the BBC is blinding you to the relevance of the story.
> Yes, it looks like they made a sensible, informed decision after this meeting, or perhaps before.
By "sensible" you mean that you think all right-minded people agree with it.
This is not the point. The point is that the decision was not transparent and that the BBC spent an awful lot of money to avoid transparency. That this is the fist time outside of war where the BBC have made a policy decision to abandon impartiality; and have done so in a blatant non-transparent way.
If the point is actually sensible and science based as they claim, and based on that meeting, how are were so few scientists present?
Their behaviour makes it look like they at least think the science is not settled and are trying to hush it up.
The point here is not whether or not deniers are shysters who should not have airtime, but whether or not this is an appropriate way to make policy and spend money.
Of course, you may feel free to argue a different point that you are more comfortable with, as in fact you are...
They were hardly journalistic sources, they were policy makers!
The case was not about whether the BBC has a right to protect it's journalistic sources (it is) but whether the right to protect those sources allows them to with-hold these names. Apparently it does but only if the BBC is considered as a private body despite it's public funding.
However, now the names are revealed the BBC has harder questions to answer as it can now hardly claim sound scientific reasons for abandoning impartiality, and this is what most people will now suspect the BBC was afraid of.
That the virtuous Apple only appears so when it can bend the law to cover itself.
And when it can't it appears as dirty as those it condemns.
Thus Apple's virtue is merely an accident of timing.
And in this case the clock starts ticking only when the judges are content. So draw it out, Apple, draw it out, and show the world the difference between Apple and Samsung.
Yes but the trouble is the authenticating agent can't know what the result is supposed to be or how it differs without having a "model" of the card from which to predict this.
So the technique is only useful to see if the same results are produced as last time... which is easy to fake
If the authenticating agent did have such a "model" then so could anyone else, and the model definition would be comparable to a key used to encrypt the input to make the output by means of the model emulation environment.
Keep track isn't hard. Telco's already have optimisation for tcp re-delivery from the mobile gateway so that the distant sender doesn't have to re-send the missing packet, the telco can do that.
This service improves tcp performance over a mobile network and is important for customer retention.
I think he means a non privileged user inserted some values via a prepared statement which became active web content (maybe unescaped javascript - but not unescaped sql !).
That content was then viewed by an admin on another machine at which point the java script executed and could submit web pages with actions with admin privileges.
Well said. Paying of the mortgage was my priority, and I now live mortgage free. That is a big pay rise in itself and a lot to not worry about ever again.
Slashdot Mirror
But does welcome mere acceptance and yaysaying
On the contrary, he makes perfect sense.
Your behaviour is sadly typical of AGW proponents who fail to understand enough to have a decent discussion and whose subsequent over inflated claims bring doubt to everything however true it might really have been.
And the BBC repeat this behaviour.
If it is true and honest, then why do they act like it is untrue and dishonest?
It is the behind the scenes behaviour of proponents that give strength to the claim that it is a lie!
And then you answer dissent here by picking fault with capital letters and bold type; a confession that it is the only point you have left; and a type of the BBC argument which was: "stop the other side talking then at least without the contrast we will look true"
Thanks for the clarity. I agree with your point "It would be rather peculiar if such a behaviour were confined to Climate change alone"
The decision is worthy of scrutiny. The BBC certainly fear scrutiny on this decision and thus draw attention to it. What are they afraid of is what we ask ourselves and in the answer to that we will find something worth knowing.
Your satisfaction with the BBC is blinding you to the relevance of the story.
> Yes, it looks like they made a sensible, informed decision after this meeting, or perhaps before.
By "sensible" you mean that you think all right-minded people agree with it.
This is not the point. The point is that the decision was not transparent and that the BBC spent an awful lot of money to avoid transparency.
That this is the fist time outside of war where the BBC have made a policy decision to abandon impartiality; and have done so in a blatant non-transparent way.
If the point is actually sensible and science based as they claim, and based on that meeting, how are were so few scientists present?
Their behaviour makes it look like they at least think the science is not settled and are trying to hush it up.
The point here is not whether or not deniers are shysters who should not have airtime, but whether or not this is an appropriate way to make policy and spend money.
Of course, you may feel free to argue a different point that you are more comfortable with, as in fact you are...
The BBC claims to have abandoned impartiality (the only time they have ever done so when not at war) on this topic as a consequence of that meeting.
Why? That is what we wish to know.
It does look like they had abandoned impartiality before that meeting and were just using it as an excuse.
They were hardly journalistic sources, they were policy makers!
The case was not about whether the BBC has a right to protect it's journalistic sources (it is) but whether the right to protect those sources allows them to with-hold these names. Apparently it does but only if the BBC is considered as a private body despite it's public funding.
However, now the names are revealed the BBC has harder questions to answer as it can now hardly claim sound scientific reasons for abandoning impartiality, and this is what most people will now suspect the BBC was afraid of.
quite so
precisely
That the virtuous Apple only appears so when it can bend the law to cover itself.
And when it can't it appears as dirty as those it condemns.
Thus Apple's virtue is merely an accident of timing.
And in this case the clock starts ticking only when the judges are content. So draw it out, Apple, draw it out, and show the world the difference between Apple and Samsung.
or: write "click" on his desktop
support: Now what does it say?
Guy: it says "click" but I smudged it a bit
This zapping people's data is getting to be habit forming for Amazon I think.
I guess we're just waiting to hear if it was a mistake or on purpose.
Indeed.
It's the same mind-set as the anti-chick-a-fil protestors http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-news-blog/2012/aug/03/chick-fil-a-kiss-in and the anti-google protestors http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/15/10000-muslim-protesters-demonstrate-at-google-uk-hq-over-youtube-film/
both designed to shut down expression of opposing views.
Only the anti-chick-a-fil protesters are out numbered by the anti-google protesters and a lot less violent.
Of course put up a sign saying: "Danger - no dumping - spikes in ground!"
Then they have themselves to blame when they get a flat tyre or four
Put lots of spikes in the ground that will keep them out (or in)
Yes but the trouble is the authenticating agent can't know what the result is supposed to be or how it differs without having a "model" of the card from which to predict this.
So the technique is only useful to see if the same results are produced as last time... which is easy to fake
If the authenticating agent did have such a "model" then so could anyone else, and the model definition would be comparable to a key used to encrypt the input to make the output by means of the model emulation environment.
Most concisely put
"Go West young man, let the evil go east" could be the new China motto
Keep track isn't hard. Telco's already have optimisation for tcp re-delivery from the mobile gateway so that the distant sender doesn't have to re-send the missing packet, the telco can do that.
This service improves tcp performance over a mobile network and is important for customer retention.
Maybe not all telco's do it but I doubt it.
http://www.iith.ac.in/~tbr/teaching/docs/transport_protocols.pdf
http://www.cs.sunysb.edu/~jgao/CSE370-spring06/lecture17.pdf
Yes, 48SX was the best, and 48GX is the best.
And yet, I sold my 48SX to buy some perfume for my girlfriend.
It paid off, she's my wife for the past nearly 20 years!
Don't install apps that require internet access or permission to make phone calls or send texts.
Sadly this user abuse by apps is a form of idiot tax on users who don't or won't understand how to manage their own safety.
And because you were testing a specific driver not an infinity of drivers.
Your driver did not get stuck in a loop where it might or might not terminate at any moment.
Of course it might.... if the hardware it talks to is faulty - but maybe you already tested for that?
I think he means a non privileged user inserted some values via a prepared statement which became active web content (maybe unescaped javascript - but not unescaped sql !).
That content was then viewed by an admin on another machine at which point the java script executed and could submit web pages with actions with admin privileges.
Well said. Paying of the mortgage was my priority, and I now live mortgage free. That is a big pay rise in itself and a lot to not worry about ever again.
They may need to boot the PC before flashing it; and possible accept a stinking EULA before they get the chance to flash it
This is why I laugh at small print which says "This DVD was sold subject to the condition that..." because it very well wasn't!