I'm the problem? Well I don't know I don't think I exhale that much CO2, I don't even own a car.:-)
The reason you are contributing to the problem is because you exagerate it out of proportion. Reasonable people read your rant and assume that there is nothing to global warming, just some nut cases. We need ratinal thought, and debate (to bring out more rational thought). We don't need people running around proclaiming the end of the human race.
Well I thought I was being rational, I just brought to the debate all the cards, from the "human race will be wiped out" nuts to the nothing will happen. All I was saying is that most of the scientists and now even some economists believe that if this goes on consequences will for the hole world will be bad, really bad. Now you come on with the argument "the Methane self-regulates it self then the CO2 must be self regulating also", I say yes this is a possibility, but as long as we can't see any evidence of such mechanism we should not act as if such mechanism do exist and more even if there is such a mechanism we can't be sure that it will not be overloaded by the huge amounts of CO2 that we produce.
Now you quote me selective, so I may look insane and nuts to you, but I can only assume that you are intentionally taking the reasonable part of my discourse to make me seem that way. Or maybe you simply have a preconception based on those few remarks, that were so much against your beliefs that you couldn't even read the rest of them, any way your tactic of attacking the message and not the message is common among people who are desperate to win a discussion without a clear reason or line of thought.
It may seem that 10C is nothing bad, but many species are sensitive to temperature changes
OK, but I do not perscribe to the belief that we must maintain the status quo. I believe change has more value than stasis. If the species are worthy of survival, they will move to where they can survive. We are not the worst thing to happen to everyone on the planet, and preserving specific types of bugs, or a special brand of polar bear is not high on my list of concerns.
this will trigger a crises in the world economy that will cost us, or our children much more then people is accumulating now
What you're not seeing is that if one species die it can take with it some others. If the environment changes lots of species will die, or move, but this is a bad thing for it will destabilize the hole ecosystem. But the worst, for us humans at least, is that this changes will affect crops and will bring down economies, and in our global interdependent economy, this will affect others economies including yours. Bad economies could trigger famine and wars. That is what the economic study made by England's government found out, and it is not a pretty picture.
OK - that is something we can have a ratinoal discussion about. How much will it cost us to do nothing for 100 years? In 100 years, everyone (including everyone in China) will have personal fusion reactors for power, so the problem goes away on it's own. So what are the (relatively) short term costs of doing only what we are doing now (pushing conservation as quickly as economically reasonable)? Vs what are the costs of trying to stop the CO2 increases? What are other alternatives, that we can more easily do?
That is what the UK government was studding, and it didn't liked the answer. The answer is to lower our emissions, make the oil more expensive so the research of better energy sources are cheaper, in perspective, and more attractive. This will be bad, probably, but it will not be as bad as the other option.
I believe that in the short term (100 years), we should continue to do what we are currently doing. We should get to the personal fusion reactor stage as quickly as possible. And, per
You can see how a shoe is made just by looking at it? Wow, incredible. How can you tell exact what kind of materials are used and what are the specifications on elasticity and hardness on those, just by looking. Design is more that how it looks, I would believe that, if someone has a skill in shoe making and he could study the shoe carefully, this person could make a shoe that looks like it, if he has a very good team of engineers they could even make one that would fool most people.
I don't think that the design of something is different from a recipe. The design is the way something looks along with what are the materials and how to bind them to make it into a final product in the same way that a recipe for beer states the ingredients and how to mix them.
People like you are the problem.
I'm the problem? Well I don't know I don't think I exhale that much CO2, I don't even own a car.:-) Why am I problem? Because I tend to believe what people who understand a certain field when they say that there is a big problem coming?
this particular field has made poor predictions, true, after all climate is a very chaotic
OK, so what does that have to do with missing the fact the atmospheric methane is self regulating? They said "methane will continue to go up unless we kill the cows!" and methane went down instead! The same could be true of CO2, we don't know!Exactly, we don't know. What does it mean? It means that yes it is possible that the level of CO2 will, in the future, drop, but it is also possible that there is no mechanism of self regulation on CO2. You see, you want to bet that there is such mechanism so we can go on living our lives putting out as much CO2 in the atmosphere as we can. But I think the odds are high and we shouldn't bet on this, unless we are certain that there is such mechanism and how much CO2 this process can revert before it becomes overloaded. CO2 levels have always tracked (lagged behind) temperature levels - so perhaps there is a self-regulating mechanism. I'm saying that the models are probably not valid, that's all.
Some say it could trigger a mass extinction that could wipe out even humans from the earth If read what I wrote, carefully you would see that this is the worst case scenario (or maybe the best-case for the rest of the living things on earth).
I see. So the maximum possible event - worst case warming by CO2 - of 10 degrees is going to kill us all. Do you realize that Arizona is 10 degees warmer than Chicago? And they farm there - did you know that? Global warming cannot end the human race. Worst case global warming will be totally ignored by 90% of the world's species.
Don't over-hype the issue. Global warming needs to be studied, but drastic measures should not be taken without a) making them feasible (China is not going to cut CO2 production - that must be dealt with), and b) knowing that we are doing more good than harm.Well when scientists say an increase of 10C, they are about global warming not local temperature. So if the temperature scale in a 10C it would mean that Arizona would be 10C hotter along with Chicago, Rio de Janeiro, Antarctica and all over. It may seem that 10C is nothing bad, but many species are sensitive to temperature changes, and those species would die out, and as there are species that die there would be some species that depend on those species that would either die or would start to kill other type of food, changing the hole equilibrium. In this particular scenario many species would die, and this would turn out to be a source of pressure in the human civilization.
In fact, stating that the human race would be wiped out from face of the earth is exaggerated, and I don't think that this would happen. But between those predictions and the "nothing bad will ever happen, because nature has self-regulating mechanism" there are some very bad previsions, and as I said many people are indeed worried that this will trigger a crises in the world economy that will cost us, or our children much more then people is accumulating now by polluting the earth. Well, it happen that the great Britain government believes that this is a real possibility, maybe they are the problem, it most certainly is not America, America is perfect and good for all.
Let me understand your point, you're telling that there could be a CO2 regulating mechanism that science has not yet detected or seen. Ok I can agree with that.
After you went on telling that this particular field has made poor predictions, true, after all climate is a very chaotic and known difficult to predict subject. But even so there were a few predictions, not as strong as "there will be larger hurricanes" but yet they started to happen, in fact several glaciers that were frozen for more time that man walked the earth are now melting, just google it "siberia melting" or "greenland melting" for a few sources.
So now sure we have some evidences that at least for now the globe is indeed warming, for now at least. What could happen if it go on like this is at large speculation but if it goes on almost everyone agrees that it will be bad. Some say it could trigger a mass extinction that could wipe out even humans from the earth, less alarmist people say that it could affect the global economy in very, very bad way as a report from the British government say. But there is the possibility that some kind of auto-regulation that no scientist know about will be triggered and nothing will happen after all.
So with all those cards in the table, you want us to bet that this auto-regulation that we don't know about will appear to save the day so we can go on in our business of polluting the world in a scale that has not precedent on the hole history of life on this planet? We'll be fine? That is your argument?
If it is, I must say I don't agree. If there is some point I misunderstood, please I would like to hear.
What I meant was that those same people that relied in flawed secret protocols to secure cell phones that ended up being easily cloned would be responsible to create those secure lines to banks. Many banks do send a confirmation via a simple SMS, being only a confirmation there is no problem since the idea is to make you call the bank if anything is wrong (this could become a phishing attack though), but I envision that a bank would send credentials via the same, unsafe, SMS system.
People chose the GPL because it would grant them some rights and believing it would protect them against, tivo subverted the license to things that the original developers didn't want them to do. This is the treason, it might be completely legal but it is unethical and a treason to the people who had putted their sweat into the kernel and did not wish for this to happen.
The problem is that language can have multiple interpretation, lawyers try to create a subset or a lingo that is more direct to the point but even so there will always some way to reinterpret something to do something the original writer didn't wish. This is clear a case, and in this case is not even a case of misunderstanding on the part of tivo, it is very clear that people wish to grant power to modify and run them when code is licensed with GPL, no one has any doubt in that (unless you're a tivo lawyer).
If tivo wants to be non-free then tivo should develop their system from the ground up. The use of the kernel and possibly other gpl software, I don't own or know tivos well, against the idea of the GPL, even if there is a loophole is a treason to the people who worked in those programs.
Neuros is doing the thing right, as far as I can see, it is launching an open-source toolkit and allowing people to hack their hardware to do what ever they want. They make money on the hardware, not bleed their customers every month with a service that would not be necessary at all if the hardware wasn't closed.
If you have a compromised computer it don't matter anyway, the trojan could simply wait for you to log in, using what ever side channels are available and then take over the connection and place whatever fraudulent transaction they want.
But basically you are correct, if the cell is encoding everything correctly the connection could be trusted, the only problem is that cell networks are known for hiding behind obscurity for security, witch is not very safe after all.
"Whats wrong with being a socalist? We have great healthcare, educaton and transportation system here and even gret unemployment benifits!"
Oh brother, are you serious?
What is wrong with socialism, is that it allows no respect for the individual. It assumes that we are all the same, that we can all function and achieve at the same rate, and in an effort to equalize the playing field, it is the achievers who suffer in favour of the under-achievers.
You think you have great healthcare? You must be daft. What you have is common availability of AVERAGE healthcare. The best healthcare in the world, like just about any other endeavour is right here in the United States of America. Why? Because self-interest is attached to our achievement. We don't work to glorify the state, we work to sustain and better ourselves. We have a stake in how good or bad our lives can be, so we take risks that socialist countries never imagine.
"What good is a phone call when you cannot call"(*)
Sure you have all the tech but most people is not able to access all of this health care. In fact if the for profit research teams were left alone we would have millions of dollars in research of cosmetic and the solution to erection problems while real diseases that kill lots and lots of people would have much less money invested. Oh wait...
You think your education is great? I couldn't tell that from your spelling, but whatever. Most nations strive to send their best and brightest to America for a college-level education. Where we DO have socialism (public schools, welfare) you also find our least productive people. The average American puts in more work hours per week than the workers of any other nation, and our poor people live better than 90% of people in other nations.
Strange, in Brazil we have the exact opposite happening. We have a lot of payed universities popping up that are in fact factories of diplomas, people come in and teachers are discouraged to give bat rates so people don't leave. The worst part is that the student feels like that the institution has an obligation to give him good grades, he's paying them for that after all.
The real good universities are the free, that are supported by tax money. The only problem is that short sight from the society in general is allowing that corrupt politicians trash those universities by drying up their funds. One of the best universities in Rio de Janeiro, UERJ the state (in opposition to federal) funded university, has the best design course in Rio and probably one of the best from the country. This university barely survived a dry out from a really bad governess that is allied with evangelical churches.
In Socialist nations, they tax success and achievement until many pick up and head for the closest tax shelter. (Ask Bono)
What is wrong with Socialism, is that it negates human individuality and talent, punishes achievement, subsidizes failure, accepts the average as "good enough" because it is available to all, crushes initiative and creativity, and prevents people from reaching beyond their imagination.
And what exactly makes the market ruled capitalist better in those aspects, sure you can believe that you can create and become rich. But the truth is that in a market and profit economy it takes money, and usually a lot of money, to be successful in almost everything. The problem is that, in every government and economy form there is always some distribution of power, in our west civilization money represents power. The more unequal this distribution, the worst people are.
I have a suggestion for you, go see a documentary about soviet animators called "magia russika". In this documentary we see one of the animators speaking about how much more freedom of creating he had during the communist regime that he has now. The problem is basic, he then could create almost everything he wanted as long as
All I know is that I want to buy a MP3 player and I will not get anywhere near an I-POD or a zune, in fact I'm not risking buying something from other somewhat larger competitors like creative labs or any other player that is know by their trademark, I will search for a cheap no-name "ching-ling" (how we call those Chinese knock offs). They will not have any DRM stuff, simply because they don't need to get in bed with Americans *iaa and they are more interested in sell to me the customer.
It is sad, because I got to a point that I do not trust "brand-names". Brand-names appeared to assure that something had a specific origin and quality, before them there was no way to know where the products came, but I don't know exactly when they started to be more important then the product it self, so now when you buy a shoe, a shirt or a apple or dell computer you get the same thing for a more expensive price.
Beer is a bad example. Brewing is a trade, and trademarks do not protect beer styles. It's a recipe. There are restrictions on what you can call your beer.
I'm confused, why a recipe of beer is different from a shoe design? The only difference I can see is that the recipe is noticeable by your taste/smell sense while the shoe design appeals to the touch and vision senses.
But the cell network is not trusted. Sure this would make you safe from an attacker from the other side of the planet, but it would still be a problem for someone from your neighborhood.
But that is the point - so many who label themselves as religious really aren't.And what exactly is "being religious"? By my definition is to believe, have faith in something that can't be proved, or without knowing your self the proof.
It is interesting to see that this definition would turn science into a religion to most people, but I do think that most people see science as a religion. Only a few people in the world has the curiosity to study and care about knowing exactly why those scientist think there is a big bang, and take the proper care to read and understand what "survival of the fittest" really mean. So it's no wonder that so many people get really mad about "this science trying to step on their religions' feet", because for them science fits the same spot in their heads.
The main problem is that many people overreact to mundane things and see sexual behavior where there is none.Why do you always have to bring the discussion to Michael Jackson?
Or how many people were shocked by the desperate attempt of getting some attention of a singer that flashed her naked breast in a national event in the US.There, now his sister!
ahhaha, I wish I could mod you...:-)
In my opinion the more you forbid, the more something is prohibitedSeriously, I have to disagree with you. Here in Quebec (French Canada) we have a law that forbids writing things in only one language if this language is another one than french. So, you have to put something in french, or it's illegal. BUT, there is a right that if you had something that was illegal before the law (say a restaurant title), you don't have to change it as long as there is no official complaints. Today we still have some restaurants and bars which still have non-french names or ensigns, and nobody cares really.
I know it's a different case, but I think the kind of behavior you're talking about is specific to United States. Europeans have seen breasts on ads since a long long time and nobody ever complained really. Kissing a guy on a cheek is not a problem there or even here. Asking "how are you" to a total stranger is a habit here, and most people will listen if he has something to say when asked. Different cultures...
This is more or less what I mean, if a culture does not forbid something very harshly this forbidden fruit is seen more naturally by the people from this culture. I live in Brazil, you must have already heard about how sexy our girls are and how everyone walks around naked or something like that. Most of those accounts are from people who came from countries that deal with sex and nudity in a more restricted way then we do. A conservative American, in his point of view we must be depraved, because we are more relaxed about this. I believe that this closed, and radical point of view tends to create much worse sex-crimes.
The examples you choose seem to confirm my theory, a more relaxed and centered prohibition is better then a notion wide paranoia.
I use readable captcha, the challenge to the spammer is not only "reading" the text but parsing it. I have a categorized database of words, each word belongs to one or more categories. The system makes a question what word in the list belongs, or not, to a certain category.
Just to make it harder I put it in an image, that has several rotated letters that have a sufficiently different color, this is only a stop gag because all of this can be filtered easily enough, but it can look like a usual captcha to a normal program that tries to solve.
Since it is a blog in Portuguese, this will filter people who don't speak it, but I guess those would not be interested in commenting about something that do not understand.:-)
I don't think atheism has nothing to do with depression or other negative personality traits. Sure I can see that it is possible that a depressive person who is vary pessimist might end up as a atheist, but this the other way pessimism might cause you to become atheist so that you state that "it is all useless" or "we are all going to turn into dust in the end, so who cares?".
I guess that this belief that being religious can make you happy and that lack of faith can be a problem. I am not a depressive person, and I am indeed a atheist and I do know that there are lots and lots of religious people who are depressive. Depression is an illness and it has nothing to do with personal beliefs.
plus "escape pods" where people can go be alone with their projectWe have escape pods too. They are called "toilets".What kind of shitty project are you working on?
Some people define sex with a child as sexual abuse, so for those people it already work as you said.
The main problem is that many people overreact to mundane things and see sexual behavior where there is none. this seem particularly true in very conservative communities, see for instance all the noise around a parents magazine that were doing a pro-breast-feeding campaign and putted a mother feeding her baby in the cover. Or how many people were shocked by the desperate attempt of getting some attention of a singer that flashed her naked breast in a national event in the US.
In my opinion the more you forbid, the more something is prohibited, more people will search those things and usually in a more deviant fashion. So, yes I believe that all this paranoia around pedophilia is creating a new kind of pedophiles that are dirtier and dangerous. But please don't read this as "green light" for child abuse or sex with children, I don't think it is right. But the over reaction in common situations can have a bad effect, there is somewhere in the line from "not allowing children to sit on Santa's lap in the mall" and "allowing child porn" where there is a good equilibrium.
The problem with the "expert mode" is in computers people always think they are "experts" or they think they would like more options. For gnome/KDE desktop I believe that those choices should be bundled together in a look and feel theme, real expert people could tailor their theme using old-style "edit the theme file" while the majority would choose from a few sane sets of options.
Humans have escaped the phenomenon of Natural Selection, for the most part.... Glasses, insulin and much of the modern medicine is a novelty that has only been available for more less a century. During the other hundred thousands years that humans were around they were being selected by diseases much like may of the other animals.
And the fact that we do have cure for several types of illness and diseases this does not mean that we are immune to natural selection. Natural selection does act, even if the subject is not killed. A person that get sterile for some reason is being selected negatively. A individual with less probability of leaving offspring is also selected.
The patent office, don't care because it don't have enough money to staff properly to check the thousands and thousands of applications. So they simply let obvious and overly broad patents, over and over. People say that those can be invalidated at a later time, but in fact you need much money to even attempt to invalidate a patent.
The big companies, don't care because they know that if they send the same broad and obvious patent over and over, paying for each time sure, it will eventually be accepted. With thousands of patents in their portfolio they can easily protect them selves against other big companies that threats them with patents by cross-licenses. RIM is an exception to this rule, because they don't have a product they cannot possibly infringe any patents.
Now the little guy, the open source developer that yell but the law say "xyz" is screwed. Why? In the state of affairs now, I believe that every single computer program more complex then a "helloworld.c" in existence today has broken at least a few US patents. This gives all the large companies a weapon to kill them because to enter into such a ring against a big corporation would cost hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. Even if the patent is indeed invalid, most little companies would out of business before the hole legal fanfare is over.
The only problem is that those discount airlines do "Germany-Brazil-Germany" but not "Brazil-Germany-Brazil", it is a known fact that the foreigners that come here pay much less for air tickets then we do. A round trip for Germany would cost us a total of US$1.203 or the equivalent of R$2 595.35, witch is cheaper then what I have payed when I traveled to Europe, so there is hope.:-)
149 is around R$412.00 witch in terms of movies tickets in the weekend (cost R$16.00) would account for 15 or 16 theater trips. This money would also buy you the hole collection of the hitchhikers guide to galaxy (5 books for R$79.60) 5 times. Not sure if this helps very much to get the grip of the buying power of 149 here. The price we would pay is correspondent to 162 movies or 32 Douglas Adams collections.
Some funny facts about Brazil air travel:
That usually is cheaper to go to Chile or Argentina then to go the northeast of the country.
When the USA started to demand for air travelers to get fingerprinted when entering the US, the Brazil started to fingerprint all the Americans that came here in retribution. At least two Americans got so pissed for this treatment, witch is equivalent to what they were doing, that they offended the customs officials, too bad that this is a crime here and they got into trouble.
During the same time, the Rio de Janeiros' governor putted some "mulatas(*)" to receive the Americans in the airport, to "kiss their asses"
(*) Mulatas is the Portuguese for a girl that is mixed from black and white, they have a very dark tan. But it also means a Mulata girl that dances the samba in several shows that appeal mainly for the foreigners or as we say "gringos".:-)
Security is never simple, The problem is that when you are securing a system you must secure the hole system against a planned attack. What this means? This means that is not only a choice of witch cryptographic algorithm you are going to use, this means that to create a secure system you must think about how keys are going to be created, how they are going to be exchanged, what side-channels might exists in the transaction and so on.
Just as an anecdote history, ssh was found to be leaking information about passwords, even if the attacker could not decrypt the data passing in the wire. The attacker would time the packets going out and in. If there were packets coming out the client side and none going in, this would mean that the data in this particular traffic was not being echoed and was probably a password. The timing between each packet leaving the client machine would show to the "bad guy" how "far" (in a sense) apart the consecutive keys were in the key board. With these timings he could plan his brute force attack, to try a much lower number of attempts.
The ssh hackers simply changed the software so it will transmit fake echo when you're in a no-echo situation, a simple fix. But this illustrate how something that most people would never think could turn into a bad problem. Secure systems must be very carefully planed and checked by third parties, the more the better. It aways easy to think about something that you would never break, that doesn't imply that it is secure.
I actually prefer to be able to travel, be it in a tin can, then to not travel at all. Here in Brazil the air tickets are simply too expensive relative to the salary people get. I don't mind being in an uncomfortable chair for 10 to 12 hours so I can see Europe.:-) I only wish I could do it more often, I only did it once.:-P
Slashdot Mirror
I'm the problem? Well I don't know I don't think I exhale that much CO2, I don't even own a car. :-)
The reason you are contributing to the problem is because you exagerate it out of proportion. Reasonable people read your rant and assume that there is nothing to global warming, just some nut cases. We need ratinal thought, and debate (to bring out more rational thought). We don't need people running around proclaiming the end of the human race.
Well I thought I was being rational, I just brought to the debate all the cards, from the "human race will be wiped out" nuts to the nothing will happen. All I was saying is that most of the scientists and now even some economists believe that if this goes on consequences will for the hole world will be bad, really bad. Now you come on with the argument "the Methane self-regulates it self then the CO2 must be self regulating also", I say yes this is a possibility, but as long as we can't see any evidence of such mechanism we should not act as if such mechanism do exist and more even if there is such a mechanism we can't be sure that it will not be overloaded by the huge amounts of CO2 that we produce.
Now you quote me selective, so I may look insane and nuts to you, but I can only assume that you are intentionally taking the reasonable part of my discourse to make me seem that way. Or maybe you simply have a preconception based on those few remarks, that were so much against your beliefs that you couldn't even read the rest of them, any way your tactic of attacking the message and not the message is common among people who are desperate to win a discussion without a clear reason or line of thought.
It may seem that 10C is nothing bad, but many species are sensitive to temperature changes
OK, but I do not perscribe to the belief that we must maintain the status quo. I believe change has more value than stasis. If the species are worthy of survival, they will move to where they can survive. We are not the worst thing to happen to everyone on the planet, and preserving specific types of bugs, or a special brand of polar bear is not high on my list of concerns.
this will trigger a crises in the world economy that will cost us, or our children much more then people is accumulating now
What you're not seeing is that if one species die it can take with it some others. If the environment changes lots of species will die, or move, but this is a bad thing for it will destabilize the hole ecosystem. But the worst, for us humans at least, is that this changes will affect crops and will bring down economies, and in our global interdependent economy, this will affect others economies including yours. Bad economies could trigger famine and wars. That is what the economic study made by England's government found out, and it is not a pretty picture.
OK - that is something we can have a ratinoal discussion about. How much will it cost us to do nothing for 100 years? In 100 years, everyone (including everyone in China) will have personal fusion reactors for power, so the problem goes away on it's own. So what are the (relatively) short term costs of doing only what we are doing now (pushing conservation as quickly as economically reasonable)? Vs what are the costs of trying to stop the CO2 increases? What are other alternatives, that we can more easily do?
That is what the UK government was studding, and it didn't liked the answer. The answer is to lower our emissions, make the oil more expensive so the research of better energy sources are cheaper, in perspective, and more attractive. This will be bad, probably, but it will not be as bad as the other option.
I believe that in the short term (100 years), we should continue to do what we are currently doing. We should get to the personal fusion reactor stage as quickly as possible. And, per
You can see how a shoe is made just by looking at it? Wow, incredible. How can you tell exact what kind of materials are used and what are the specifications on elasticity and hardness on those, just by looking. Design is more that how it looks, I would believe that, if someone has a skill in shoe making and he could study the shoe carefully, this person could make a shoe that looks like it, if he has a very good team of engineers they could even make one that would fool most people.
I don't think that the design of something is different from a recipe. The design is the way something looks along with what are the materials and how to bind them to make it into a final product in the same way that a recipe for beer states the ingredients and how to mix them.
People like you are the problem. :-) Why am I problem? Because I tend to believe what people who understand a certain field when they say that there is a big problem coming?
I'm the problem? Well I don't know I don't think I exhale that much CO2, I don't even own a car.
this particular field has made poor predictions, true, after all climate is a very chaotic
OK, so what does that have to do with missing the fact the atmospheric methane is self regulating? They said "methane will continue to go up unless we kill the cows!" and methane went down instead! The same could be true of CO2, we don't know!Exactly, we don't know. What does it mean? It means that yes it is possible that the level of CO2 will, in the future, drop, but it is also possible that there is no mechanism of self regulation on CO2. You see, you want to bet that there is such mechanism so we can go on living our lives putting out as much CO2 in the atmosphere as we can. But I think the odds are high and we shouldn't bet on this, unless we are certain that there is such mechanism and how much CO2 this process can revert before it becomes overloaded. CO2 levels have always tracked (lagged behind) temperature levels - so perhaps there is a self-regulating mechanism. I'm saying that the models are probably not valid, that's all.
Some say it could trigger a mass extinction that could wipe out even humans from the earth
If read what I wrote, carefully you would see that this is the worst case scenario (or maybe the best-case for the rest of the living things on earth).
I see. So the maximum possible event - worst case warming by CO2 - of 10 degrees is going to kill us all. Do you realize that Arizona is 10 degees warmer than Chicago? And they farm there - did you know that? Global warming cannot end the human race. Worst case global warming will be totally ignored by 90% of the world's species.
Don't over-hype the issue. Global warming needs to be studied, but drastic measures should not be taken without a) making them feasible (China is not going to cut CO2 production - that must be dealt with), and b) knowing that we are doing more good than harm.Well when scientists say an increase of 10C, they are about global warming not local temperature. So if the temperature scale in a 10C it would mean that Arizona would be 10C hotter along with Chicago, Rio de Janeiro, Antarctica and all over. It may seem that 10C is nothing bad, but many species are sensitive to temperature changes, and those species would die out, and as there are species that die there would be some species that depend on those species that would either die or would start to kill other type of food, changing the hole equilibrium. In this particular scenario many species would die, and this would turn out to be a source of pressure in the human civilization.
In fact, stating that the human race would be wiped out from face of the earth is exaggerated, and I don't think that this would happen. But between those predictions and the "nothing bad will ever happen, because nature has self-regulating mechanism" there are some very bad previsions, and as I said many people are indeed worried that this will trigger a crises in the world economy that will cost us, or our children much more then people is accumulating now by polluting the earth. Well, it happen that the great Britain government believes that this is a real possibility, maybe they are the problem, it most certainly is not America, America is perfect and good for all.
Let me understand your point, you're telling that there could be a CO2 regulating mechanism that science has not yet detected or seen. Ok I can agree with that.
After you went on telling that this particular field has made poor predictions, true, after all climate is a very chaotic and known difficult to predict subject. But even so there were a few predictions, not as strong as "there will be larger hurricanes" but yet they started to happen, in fact several glaciers that were frozen for more time that man walked the earth are now melting, just google it "siberia melting" or "greenland melting" for a few sources.
So now sure we have some evidences that at least for now the globe is indeed warming, for now at least. What could happen if it go on like this is at large speculation but if it goes on almost everyone agrees that it will be bad. Some say it could trigger a mass extinction that could wipe out even humans from the earth, less alarmist people say that it could affect the global economy in very, very bad way as a report from the British government say. But there is the possibility that some kind of auto-regulation that no scientist know about will be triggered and nothing will happen after all.
So with all those cards in the table, you want us to bet that this auto-regulation that we don't know about will appear to save the day so we can go on in our business of polluting the world in a scale that has not precedent on the hole history of life on this planet? We'll be fine? That is your argument?
If it is, I must say I don't agree. If there is some point I misunderstood, please I would like to hear.
What I meant was that those same people that relied in flawed secret protocols to secure cell phones that ended up being easily cloned would be responsible to create those secure lines to banks. Many banks do send a confirmation via a simple SMS, being only a confirmation there is no problem since the idea is to make you call the bank if anything is wrong (this could become a phishing attack though), but I envision that a bank would send credentials via the same, unsafe, SMS system.
People chose the GPL because it would grant them some rights and believing it would protect them against, tivo subverted the license to things that the original developers didn't want them to do. This is the treason, it might be completely legal but it is unethical and a treason to the people who had putted their sweat into the kernel and did not wish for this to happen.
The problem is that language can have multiple interpretation, lawyers try to create a subset or a lingo that is more direct to the point but even so there will always some way to reinterpret something to do something the original writer didn't wish. This is clear a case, and in this case is not even a case of misunderstanding on the part of tivo, it is very clear that people wish to grant power to modify and run them when code is licensed with GPL, no one has any doubt in that (unless you're a tivo lawyer).
If tivo wants to be non-free then tivo should develop their system from the ground up. The use of the kernel and possibly other gpl software, I don't own or know tivos well, against the idea of the GPL, even if there is a loophole is a treason to the people who worked in those programs.
Neuros is doing the thing right, as far as I can see, it is launching an open-source toolkit and allowing people to hack their hardware to do what ever they want. They make money on the hardware, not bleed their customers every month with a service that would not be necessary at all if the hardware wasn't closed.
If you have a compromised computer it don't matter anyway, the trojan could simply wait for you to log in, using what ever side channels are available and then take over the connection and place whatever fraudulent transaction they want.
But basically you are correct, if the cell is encoding everything correctly the connection could be trusted, the only problem is that cell networks are known for hiding behind obscurity for security, witch is not very safe after all.
"Whats wrong with being a socalist? We have great healthcare, educaton and transportation system here and even gret unemployment benifits!"
Oh brother, are you serious?
What is wrong with socialism, is that it allows no respect for the individual. It assumes that we are all the same, that we can all function and achieve at the same rate, and in an effort to equalize the playing field, it is the achievers who suffer in favour of the under-achievers.
You think you have great healthcare? You must be daft. What you have is common availability of AVERAGE healthcare. The best healthcare in the world, like just about any other endeavour is right here in the United States of America. Why? Because self-interest is attached to our achievement. We don't work to glorify the state, we work to sustain and better ourselves. We have a stake in how good or bad our lives can be, so we take risks that socialist countries never imagine.
"What good is a phone call when you cannot call"(*)
Sure you have all the tech but most people is not able to access all of this health care. In fact if the for profit research teams were left alone we would have millions of dollars in research of cosmetic and the solution to erection problems while real diseases that kill lots and lots of people would have much less money invested. Oh wait...
You think your education is great? I couldn't tell that from your spelling, but whatever. Most nations strive to send their best and brightest to America for a college-level education. Where we DO have socialism (public schools, welfare) you also find our least productive people. The average American puts in more work hours per week than the workers of any other nation, and our poor people live better than 90% of people in other nations.
Strange, in Brazil we have the exact opposite happening. We have a lot of payed universities popping up that are in fact factories of diplomas, people come in and teachers are discouraged to give bat rates so people don't leave. The worst part is that the student feels like that the institution has an obligation to give him good grades, he's paying them for that after all.
The real good universities are the free, that are supported by tax money. The only problem is that short sight from the society in general is allowing that corrupt politicians trash those universities by drying up their funds. One of the best universities in Rio de Janeiro, UERJ the state (in opposition to federal) funded university, has the best design course in Rio and probably one of the best from the country. This university barely survived a dry out from a really bad governess that is allied with evangelical churches.
In Socialist nations, they tax success and achievement until many pick up and head for the closest tax shelter. (Ask Bono)
What is wrong with Socialism, is that it negates human individuality and talent, punishes achievement, subsidizes failure, accepts the average as "good enough" because it is available to all, crushes initiative and creativity, and prevents people from reaching beyond their imagination.
And what exactly makes the market ruled capitalist better in those aspects, sure you can believe that you can create and become rich. But the truth is that in a market and profit economy it takes money, and usually a lot of money, to be successful in almost everything. The problem is that, in every government and economy form there is always some distribution of power, in our west civilization money represents power. The more unequal this distribution, the worst people are.
I have a suggestion for you, go see a documentary about soviet animators called "magia russika". In this documentary we see one of the animators speaking about how much more freedom of creating he had during the communist regime that he has now. The problem is basic, he then could create almost everything he wanted as long as
All I know is that I want to buy a MP3 player and I will not get anywhere near an I-POD or a zune, in fact I'm not risking buying something from other somewhat larger competitors like creative labs or any other player that is know by their trademark, I will search for a cheap no-name "ching-ling" (how we call those Chinese knock offs). They will not have any DRM stuff, simply because they don't need to get in bed with Americans *iaa and they are more interested in sell to me the customer.
It is sad, because I got to a point that I do not trust "brand-names". Brand-names appeared to assure that something had a specific origin and quality, before them there was no way to know where the products came, but I don't know exactly when they started to be more important then the product it self, so now when you buy a shoe, a shirt or a apple or dell computer you get the same thing for a more expensive price.
Beer is a bad example. Brewing is a trade, and trademarks do not protect beer styles. It's a recipe. There are restrictions on what you can call your beer.
I'm confused, why a recipe of beer is different from a shoe design? The only difference I can see is that the recipe is noticeable by your taste/smell sense while the shoe design appeals to the touch and vision senses.But the cell network is not trusted. Sure this would make you safe from an attacker from the other side of the planet, but it would still be a problem for someone from your neighborhood.
But that is the point - so many who label themselves as religious really aren't.And what exactly is "being religious"? By my definition is to believe, have faith in something that can't be proved, or without knowing your self the proof.
It is interesting to see that this definition would turn science into a religion to most people, but I do think that most people see science as a religion. Only a few people in the world has the curiosity to study and care about knowing exactly why those scientist think there is a big bang, and take the proper care to read and understand what "survival of the fittest" really mean. So it's no wonder that so many people get really mad about "this science trying to step on their religions' feet", because for them science fits the same spot in their heads.
ahhaha, I wish I could mod you...I know it's a different case, but I think the kind of behavior you're talking about is specific to United States. Europeans have seen breasts on ads since a long long time and nobody ever complained really. Kissing a guy on a cheek is not a problem there or even here. Asking "how are you" to a total stranger is a habit here, and most people will listen if he has something to say when asked. Different cultures...
This is more or less what I mean, if a culture does not forbid something very harshly this forbidden fruit is seen more naturally by the people from this culture. I live in Brazil, you must have already heard about how sexy our girls are and how everyone walks around naked or something like that. Most of those accounts are from people who came from countries that deal with sex and nudity in a more restricted way then we do. A conservative American, in his point of view we must be depraved, because we are more relaxed about this. I believe that this closed, and radical point of view tends to create much worse sex-crimes.The examples you choose seem to confirm my theory, a more relaxed and centered prohibition is better then a notion wide paranoia.
I use readable captcha, the challenge to the spammer is not only "reading" the text but parsing it. I have a categorized database of words, each word belongs to one or more categories. The system makes a question what word in the list belongs, or not, to a certain category.
:-)
Just to make it harder I put it in an image, that has several rotated letters that have a sufficiently different color, this is only a stop gag because all of this can be filtered easily enough, but it can look like a usual captcha to a normal program that tries to solve.
Since it is a blog in Portuguese, this will filter people who don't speak it, but I guess those would not be interested in commenting about something that do not understand.
I don't think atheism has nothing to do with depression or other negative personality traits. Sure I can see that it is possible that a depressive person who is vary pessimist might end up as a atheist, but this the other way pessimism might cause you to become atheist so that you state that "it is all useless" or "we are all going to turn into dust in the end, so who cares?".
I guess that this belief that being religious can make you happy and that lack of faith can be a problem. I am not a depressive person, and I am indeed a atheist and I do know that there are lots and lots of religious people who are depressive. Depression is an illness and it has nothing to do with personal beliefs.
plus "escape pods" where people can go be alone with their projectWe have escape pods too. They are called "toilets".What kind of shitty project are you working on?
Some people define sex with a child as sexual abuse, so for those people it already work as you said.
The main problem is that many people overreact to mundane things and see sexual behavior where there is none. this seem particularly true in very conservative communities, see for instance all the noise around a parents magazine that were doing a pro-breast-feeding campaign and putted a mother feeding her baby in the cover. Or how many people were shocked by the desperate attempt of getting some attention of a singer that flashed her naked breast in a national event in the US.
In my opinion the more you forbid, the more something is prohibited, more people will search those things and usually in a more deviant fashion. So, yes I believe that all this paranoia around pedophilia is creating a new kind of pedophiles that are dirtier and dangerous. But please don't read this as "green light" for child abuse or sex with children, I don't think it is right. But the over reaction in common situations can have a bad effect, there is somewhere in the line from "not allowing children to sit on Santa's lap in the mall" and "allowing child porn" where there is a good equilibrium.
The problem with the "expert mode" is in computers people always think they are "experts" or they think they would like more options. For gnome/KDE desktop I believe that those choices should be bundled together in a look and feel theme, real expert people could tailor their theme using old-style "edit the theme file" while the majority would choose from a few sane sets of options.
:-)
On the other hand I don't know a 401(k) is.
Humans have escaped the phenomenon of Natural Selection, for the most part. ... Glasses, insulin and much of the modern medicine is a novelty that has only been available for more less a century. During the other hundred thousands years that humans were around they were being selected by diseases much like may of the other animals.
And the fact that we do have cure for several types of illness and diseases this does not mean that we are immune to natural selection. Natural selection does act, even if the subject is not killed. A person that get sterile for some reason is being selected negatively. A individual with less probability of leaving offspring is also selected.
It depends on how tall you are... oh it wasn't that foot that you're talking about, sorry, nevermind
And who exactly mind about what the law says?
The patent office, don't care because it don't have enough money to staff properly to check the thousands and thousands of applications. So they simply let obvious and overly broad patents, over and over. People say that those can be invalidated at a later time, but in fact you need much money to even attempt to invalidate a patent.
The big companies, don't care because they know that if they send the same broad and obvious patent over and over, paying for each time sure, it will eventually be accepted. With thousands of patents in their portfolio they can easily protect them selves against other big companies that threats them with patents by cross-licenses. RIM is an exception to this rule, because they don't have a product they cannot possibly infringe any patents.
Now the little guy, the open source developer that yell but the law say "xyz" is screwed. Why? In the state of affairs now, I believe that every single computer program more complex then a "helloworld.c" in existence today has broken at least a few US patents. This gives all the large companies a weapon to kill them because to enter into such a ring against a big corporation would cost hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. Even if the patent is indeed invalid, most little companies would out of business before the hole legal fanfare is over.
149 is around R$412.00 witch in terms of movies tickets in the weekend (cost R$16.00) would account for 15 or 16 theater trips. This money would also buy you the hole collection of the hitchhikers guide to galaxy (5 books for R$79.60) 5 times. Not sure if this helps very much to get the grip of the buying power of 149 here. The price we would pay is correspondent to 162 movies or 32 Douglas Adams collections.
Some funny facts about Brazil air travel:
(*) Mulatas is the Portuguese for a girl that is mixed from black and white, they have a very dark tan. But it also means a Mulata girl that dances the samba in several shows that appeal mainly for the foreigners or as we say "gringos".
Security is never simple, The problem is that when you are securing a system you must secure the hole system against a planned attack. What this means? This means that is not only a choice of witch cryptographic algorithm you are going to use, this means that to create a secure system you must think about how keys are going to be created, how they are going to be exchanged, what side-channels might exists in the transaction and so on.
p df
Just as an anecdote history, ssh was found to be leaking information about passwords, even if the attacker could not decrypt the data passing in the wire. The attacker would time the packets going out and in. If there were packets coming out the client side and none going in, this would mean that the data in this particular traffic was not being echoed and was probably a password. The timing between each packet leaving the client machine would show to the "bad guy" how "far" (in a sense) apart the consecutive keys were in the key board. With these timings he could plan his brute force attack, to try a much lower number of attempts.
The ssh hackers simply changed the software so it will transmit fake echo when you're in a no-echo situation, a simple fix. But this illustrate how something that most people would never think could turn into a bad problem. Secure systems must be very carefully planed and checked by third parties, the more the better. It aways easy to think about something that you would never break, that doesn't imply that it is secure.
sources:
http://www.crypto.com/papers/jbug-Usenix06-final.
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/375/2 (see the question "Did you develop any measure to fight timing based attacks?")
I actually prefer to be able to travel, be it in a tin can, then to not travel at all. Here in Brazil the air tickets are simply too expensive relative to the salary people get. I don't mind being in an uncomfortable chair for 10 to 12 hours so I can see Europe. :-) I only wish I could do it more often, I only did it once. :-P