In reality, the arguments actually are all valid on their face. Everything there is factual, except the laissez-faire attitude. The problem comes from the writer(s) choosing to strip the context of each point.
I'm literally going to read it now (I chose not to when it popped up on a science blog recently), just to see how quick it is to correct (being written after the fact, it was about an hour):
It starts with Ivar Giaever, who, despite expert work in Quantum Physics and a solid background on Biophysics and coming from the country bordering the one where the discovery of global warming happend...a century ago, has chosen to ignore recorded, glacial, oceanic and tree records to declare, not that global warming is fictional, but his distrust of anthropogenic climate, due to the apparent popularity among physical, atmospheric, oceanic and glacial climatological scientists. Skepticism based on popularity is not uncommon, and you could likely pull up a couple more nominated Nobel Prize winners. His attack on the APS seems to ignore the difference between theoretical physics and real world macroscale examination. I believe it was Planck who said, "Science advances one funeral at a time."
Then there's the COv2 is not a pollutant, even though, as a relative output outside of the natural chemistry of the Earth (the effect of living creatures and other processes) it does count as a deposit which changes the chemistry of the surrounding environment, ergo, pollution.
The now over-used 10 year decrease/steady state analysis ignores the natural wave of environmental change. If you look at the larger source, search for "Global Temperature Anomaly 1880-2010," you would find that there is always a downward period, but taking the total effect of cycles, it average has always increased. Claiming the effect is related to changes in evaporation truly ignores that heating that much ocean to increase the level of evaporation is and incredible amount of energy...we use steam power for electricity...imagine how much electricity it would take to move the increased precipitation as just water from one side of a continent to the other.
To hit on "ClimateGate" is quite humorous within itsown context. As those who know what the supposed terrifying things said were, it's great to poke fun at those attacking it. First, it's a group of people who were amazed that faulty meta-research was actually included in the IPCC assessment; then, the, "mathematical trick," that they used was not only a justifiable, "We know the energy is there since no satellites have shown it disappearing," logic, but that mathematical trick CAME FROM THE PERSON WHO SUBMITTED THE FAULTY META-RESEARCH. It's one of those moments that only look bad out of context, and that's how denialists want the public to see it.
The IPCC's own projections were, in part, based on the larger than average spike during the 80's, possibly assuming the aforementioned wave-effect might have become reduced. Calling the first set of projections embarrassing is, to say the least, childish, and suggesting it was alarmest ignores how frightening the 80's spike was then perceived. To dismiss extreme weather's effect as a mitigator ignores the point of the previous paragraph.
While I've already covered carbon dioxide as a definition of pollution, the unique mention of a benefit to plants have ignored recent studies that plant have been decreasing their stomataphors in count and opening period in areas of higher COv2 concentrations, thus indicating and upper-bound limit to COv2's usefulness to plants.
Next, skimming past the unidentified fields of study, unidentified quantity, unconfirmable scientists, we have Dr. de Freitas, who is another well recognised name to those aware of the field. He's had some interesting logic. One: Human beings didn't use significant amounts of fossil
A solar mass is over 300,000 Earths, and Polaris is atleast 7 solar masses, adjusting for the most conservative of all estimates. It's apparent magnitude is about 1.9, while the magnitude of drop off (nolonger visible to the human eye) is defined at 7 (with 6 being relatively hard except under good conditions).
Setting aside the nuclear chemistry that will occur in the meantime (which tends to increase brightness), that Polaris is, in fact, multiple stars and the overall reduction of radiative and mass pressure that will be reducing the production/consumption rate*, I would posit even losing half of its mass, it would likely still be visible in 2000 years, which means the Northern Star will have since switched to Gamma Cephei.
So, no big loss here. Personally, I, for one, welcome our new Alrainian OverStar.
**** *You know what, I'm actually going to do these in the coming weeks. This is sound like a fun problem, even though I do a lot more in theoretical particle physics than cosmology.
What the hell? How can that be overrated? I mean, this is offtopic and can be zero'd to death, but really? I made a functional analogy in a well thought out correction, and it's overrated at 1? ONE! How the F~3 does this happen? When did we get that class of moderation?
Was some moderator freezing in DC when scrolling slashdot and did the missed-the-point moderation-of-bias? How do you justify 1 as overrated? Was it the weed? Were you upset that Apple has more lobbying money than your stoned ass?
Meh, -1 offtopic. Still, the above post is just so unfairly underrated. There's a whiny, anoncow grammar-nazi a few posts down with a score of two, and that's offtopic by default! What the F~3?
Irregard is a state outside of consideration, -ing creates a verb transition to present perfect, and a lack of -less makes it non-self-contradictory. I could have used irrespective, but the term brain dumped at the second, "r," and I continued, regardless.
How you got a score of two for an offtopic comment, that's something we could be discussing, but I'm about to get 0, so, I couldn't really care. Karma to burn for trolls and 'tards.
HTTP's inception predates the scale at which the Internet is used today, and like IPv4, the failure to anticipate the shifts in use and data access within the Internet make it far less efficient than it could otherwise be. SPDY, along with many of the streaming protocols, identify more with the modern Internet practices than, "Get this page now," technique of HTTP.
I'm on the second tier of my ISP's access rate, and even though many pages should load in the theoretical second, they don't due to modern styling and plugin/include/addon calls. I honestly would have thought that what SPDY does would already have been more commonly implemented, and that data access in general would be moving to a peer/metapeer networking solution to save on demand of resources in general. Some of the assumptions of its design come out of the late-eighties and early-nineties anticipation of the large-first to small-second distribution common among universities, government installations and large commercial systems of the time, where maintaining a large lan with few nodes possessing Internet access in both directions.
HTTP1.1 is as not broken compared to HTTP2.0 as a protocol as XFree86 4.x isn't anymore broken than any of its successors (irregarding explicit bug fixes, as that's not applicable relative to a protocol...usually), but regardless of where you came down on the forks and licensing, you probably aren't running it on any *Nix under 5 years old.
We haven't done that yet? Wasn't that a late nineties thing? We're still on a 10 and 20 year old protocol!? Why isn't slashdot using html 1.1? Tables not good enough? As someone who still catches up on the IEEE from time to time, this is actually surprising. No wonder lynx hasn't needed much upgrading for connections beyond bug fixes.
That means all advantages have been the physical pathways (that includes wireless) and TCP! Wow! Based on the fact psychics made it to the front page of slashdot without James Randi popping up, I can only presume most of slashdot has no idea how bizarre that is.
That just shows everyone is vulnerable to the History Channel Deveneration Effect. I'm going to have to start getting my news from Kuro5hin, Humorix and 4Chan:PedoWatch.
All any of those programmes do is help the mind make physical what is already mental. There are lots of applications (think Fink) that can be put on an iPad and, by the very basis of GPL, protect the users right to distribution and ownership, providing they don't incorporate work protected under the type of scheme GPL uses. Yet, despite use Xorg on an iPad, the license still says that work is Apple's, despite the fact they don't own most of the processing hardware's IP.
See, neither analogy is correct. There's a reason Jobs didn't want to DRM the crap out of everything for distribution, but we have gone a long way since Apple tried to tempt the Open Source Movement with somewhat more liberal licensing to what it has become in the past four or five years.
Try it this way, every Nokia F4xxx camera gives Nokia a partial share of the copyright of any image created with it, regardless of post-production processes involved. Hardware Nokia doesn't own exclusively, software Nokia provides and a functioning platform not created by Nokia that could be ported to run on the camera. Would you think that it's fair that Nokia declare ownership of your work? If you put an image on your free blog from your camera while on your vacation, that blog company may receive a cease and desist order from Nokia because of the advertising which pays to keep it free in the first place can be counted as gross profits. Would they? Probably not, but it doesn't mean that, similar to the history of the RIAA and MPAA suing kids for millions of dollars, Nokia, or a group representing like minded interests, wouldn't start nailing out some test cases to guarantee their right to do so in the future.
I wouldn't buy such a camera with such a condition attached to it, but fans of that line probably wouldn't think twice about it. On the other hand, a following AnonCow may have pinpointed a far greater danger to Apple than displeasing some, MAYBE, 14% of fans: They officially have ownership to all illegal activities so involved. Of course, they can claim the activity is a breach of contract with the EULA, but if multiple breaches are caught, it may go in the direction of selling bongs as tobacco accessories: Enough incidence of its criminal use may result in singling it out legislatively. Of course, unlike stoners, Apple is part of a few lobbying firms who might get legislation written to protect it instead. Because money makes everything fair in a Democracy whose politicians are otherwise incorporated into the Free Market, regardless of being in a mixed economy since the first post-Articles presidential administration.
Anyone still Occupying shit out there? I dunno, it's not on the television anymore. It's probably not that important.
So, hmm, during that Sony business of dropping support for...oh, who can remember...I had said that Anonymous wouldn't be stupid enough to do something that would, by standing definition at the Department for Homeland Security, perform any action which would explicitly be deemed well within the scope of terrorism -- due in part to the fact that even the Mexican drug cartels are able to hunt down and attack its members.
I don't often say this (and there's a decade and one half on Slashdot to prove it), but...I...was...not as right as I felt I should have been. Wow. That taught me a lesson. Never under-estimate stupidity among highly active protestors. That hurt. I will remember this in the future.
We've had the technology for decades. Between regulations and supplementing light and heat, we may have hit a few problems. A tidal generator would be needed for most operations below 2m of water.
Just like the 60's! And the 80's! Finally, those underwater farms are finally here! So...what..another century from when we were supposed to have them the first time?
What? Don't you remember those early 90's Personal Black Hole scams? The convenience of not having to worry about wandering garbage scows and peeling labels off of recycling? All you have to do is throw your crap, including recyclables, non-recyclables, annoying relatives and pets, and even your crap, into this one convenient box, bag, jar, can or hookah, and you will never have to worry about disposal bills of any type ever again!
I got one from the back of a catalog that I was going to take to school as my science fair project, but it really was just some deletium that ran out after about 10 kg. It consumed the bottom of the container, so the last 2 kg was a hole in the school parking lot. My parents weren't charged for the fill in since they had to pay for treatment of the radiation burns.
To this day, I never order anything from UserFriendly.
Everyone else is fairly well aware of the scientific method and peer review.
However, we have known for a few years that the Earth's orbit has been rounding out, which is when it gets colder. This was among many points covered on slashdot along with solar output and geological methane release that demonstrated that the Earth's climatic shift has been primarily due to CO2 levels. If CO2 levels had not gone significantly beyond their 1700 levels, we would be experiencing the starting signs of cooling over the next 200 years.
Smaller entities often cannot afford significant liability coverage, but schools are very lawsuit aware. Lawsuits, when they happen, can be expensive to the loser, thus, having an insurance for them is EXTREMELY convenient, as, in all probability, an attempt, regardless of the legitimacy of a claim, will likely happen.
Extending liability for pursuit of stolen or damaged property is relatively common and affordable. Insurers would fit your latter model. Again, once any identification of liability due to a poorly implemented tech infrastructure, it would likely result in many other schools reviewing their own systems and policies.
Self-insuring has limitations and can be crippling under potentially damaging litigation. To insure a DUI'd driver to the commercial coverage range is very feasible; however, most companies that aren't assessed above $25million could find even settling a major law suit sufficiently damage to have lasting consequences on growth projections, asset recuperation and debt coverage.
As far a school districts go, they have liability coverage. It's a requirement in most states to possess some form commercial general liability insurance policies ("CGL Policies"); however, if that is all they chose to purchase, that falls under the risk assessment risk I mentioned earlier.
In the United States, gasoline sells for $3 to $4 per gallon. In other countries, it's 3-4x that. Some people might think it's because the United States is the third largest producer, creating about half of what it consumes. The reality, however, compares to other countries differently in two key aspects, resource policy and trade.
In other countries which export petroleum, there is a major return on export product back to the country; in the United States, the sites from which companies extract petroleum are leased on negotiated, low flat rates; so, very little of that potential income is already shut down.
The other half of the problem came with negotiations that began under the Carter Administration, but finalized under the Reagan Administration. The first half of which is an Oil Cap -- the amount of exports that are proportionally discounted to make up for the trade loss in the need to import a significant percentage of oil. This cap is maintained by manipulating production, primarily in agriculture, to support major policy and trade changes that result in subsidies or limitation on domestic marketing of such goods. The second half is using trade far more extensively by defining all types of trade as economic, implementing policies that require counties that allow, for example, education or work abroad, to invest in the United States by way of purchasing some quantity of Treasury bonds, usually negotiated, though quota openings are often done by a slow bidding process. (NB: This accounts for a good portion of the 25% of foreign owed debt, or about 3.5 trillion USD)
When politician push a gas-tax holiday, they often ignore that the United States has been on one since the 70's. The politician have chosen to ignore that the United States government has been aware of the need of significant infrastructural changes in order to adapt to the real cost of energy since the late 60's. The greatest threat to both the United States and the world is this failing to adapt to the long term energy needs of the country. If a major program took over the United States to end petroleum imports alone, it would save nearly half of one trillion dollars every year. If a major program took over the United States to end petroleum imports alone, I sense politicians, like claiming the budget repair of the 90's was surplus, would likely not end the Oil Cap as a practice, merely change its focus.
People use and adhere to such arguments on a regular basis. Most coverage of liability insurance will ask for a third party assessment of the IT infrastructure before they will cover it. Such an assessment should be performed, regardless of any type of faith that administration might have in IT personnel. If you need an expert at something new that you do not understand, you need a means of assessing their capability. Third party auditing companies fill this void for everything from finance to IT.
Schools will still fail. Most potential failures will catch on quickly to prevent a dangerous ripple effect, as those covering their liabilities, from insurers to taxpayers, will demand evidence that the worst case scenario isn't likely to hit them.
The administration decides the acceptable risk-strategy for a facility's liability insurance coverage. Usually when purchasing modern general-functionality class of device, such facilities use software and hardware relocation technology built into the device, making it dangerous for, "Some shady guys downtown," unless they have obtained the means of disrupting such technology. If such individuals manages a fairly significant share of such trade, then, like other black market activities, identification, arrest and confirmation will likely be on the way.
After prosecution, of ither your stoners or the shady guys, the offending party pays all such costs. If found innocent with questionable liability still lingering, civic prosecution often commences with the same end result. After that, only the liability insurance co-pay equivalent would be the remaining costs.
Optical and electric wiring, varying types of paper, presses and printers, desks, chairs, books, tiles, plants and even lockers have been stolen from schools with similar results. Again, what already exists can define what will like come next. There are few new significant risks from year to year and model to model. Your logic doesn't actually add to the conversation.
If the school's IT Manager can't practice isolation, resistance and resilience, that is not a fault of the overall concept. As Shotgun points out, any infrastructure not properly managed will eventually be costly, but loading an image takes very little time, and, once a network has been properly secured, it can be done in bulk. The procedure you describe would fail to be comparable simply by the difference in resource or rate of restoration, relative to data volume and locations.
If you're going on slashdot, you might want to be more considerate about assuming incompetent network management would be an acceptable argument to implementing almost any class of technology augmentation. IT in a school is banal compared to a robot doing your yearly physical; if you want to attack a risk, put freedom or lives (other than Eric Cartmen being thrown under a bus) on the line.
It remains more or less the same as with books, lab equipment and classroom resources. Why does everyone expect something new when there's no real management and processing difference in what type of resource has been compared.
Why are we linking to another site that links to the site of interest while adding nothing new? We could get all of this from the originating site; it's not like it would increase the number of people who RTFA.
That even though slashdot is the apotheosis of geek sitelization, that this one paragraph hasn't resulted in far dirtier comments about boys and girls enjoying a tactile experience. Is this place just chock full of Sheldon Coopers?
Side note: I don't care if you do or don't like the/any show/character/screen/entertainment media. I just don't care. Don't tell me; I don't care. I put this note in here knowing that some people will have an instant complaint -- guess what...don't care.
Slashdot Mirror
In reality, the arguments actually are all valid on their face. Everything there is factual, except the laissez-faire attitude. The problem comes from the writer(s) choosing to strip the context of each point.
I'm literally going to read it now (I chose not to when it popped up on a science blog recently), just to see how quick it is to correct (being written after the fact, it was about an hour):
It starts with Ivar Giaever, who, despite expert work in Quantum Physics and a solid background on Biophysics and coming from the country bordering the one where the discovery of global warming happend...a century ago, has chosen to ignore recorded, glacial, oceanic and tree records to declare, not that global warming is fictional, but his distrust of anthropogenic climate, due to the apparent popularity among physical, atmospheric, oceanic and glacial climatological scientists. Skepticism based on popularity is not uncommon, and you could likely pull up a couple more nominated Nobel Prize winners. His attack on the APS seems to ignore the difference between theoretical physics and real world macroscale examination. I believe it was Planck who said, "Science advances one funeral at a time."
Then there's the COv2 is not a pollutant, even though, as a relative output outside of the natural chemistry of the Earth (the effect of living creatures and other processes) it does count as a deposit which changes the chemistry of the surrounding environment, ergo, pollution.
The now over-used 10 year decrease/steady state analysis ignores the natural wave of environmental change. If you look at the larger source, search for "Global Temperature Anomaly 1880-2010," you would find that there is always a downward period, but taking the total effect of cycles, it average has always increased. Claiming the effect is related to changes in evaporation truly ignores that heating that much ocean to increase the level of evaporation is and incredible amount of energy...we use steam power for electricity...imagine how much electricity it would take to move the increased precipitation as just water from one side of a continent to the other.
To hit on "ClimateGate" is quite humorous within itsown context. As those who know what the supposed terrifying things said were, it's great to poke fun at those attacking it. First, it's a group of people who were amazed that faulty meta-research was actually included in the IPCC assessment; then, the, "mathematical trick," that they used was not only a justifiable, "We know the energy is there since no satellites have shown it disappearing," logic, but that mathematical trick CAME FROM THE PERSON WHO SUBMITTED THE FAULTY META-RESEARCH. It's one of those moments that only look bad out of context, and that's how denialists want the public to see it.
Also, recently explicitly justified: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2012-029
The IPCC's own projections were, in part, based on the larger than average spike during the 80's, possibly assuming the aforementioned wave-effect might have become reduced. Calling the first set of projections embarrassing is, to say the least, childish, and suggesting it was alarmest ignores how frightening the 80's spike was then perceived. To dismiss extreme weather's effect as a mitigator ignores the point of the previous paragraph.
While I've already covered carbon dioxide as a definition of pollution, the unique mention of a benefit to plants have ignored recent studies that plant have been decreasing their stomataphors in count and opening period in areas of higher COv2 concentrations, thus indicating and upper-bound limit to COv2's usefulness to plants.
Next, skimming past the unidentified fields of study, unidentified quantity, unconfirmable scientists, we have Dr. de Freitas, who is another well recognised name to those aware of the field. He's had some interesting logic. One: Human beings didn't use significant amounts of fossil
A solar mass is over 300,000 Earths, and Polaris is atleast 7 solar masses, adjusting for the most conservative of all estimates. It's apparent magnitude is about 1.9, while the magnitude of drop off (nolonger visible to the human eye) is defined at 7 (with 6 being relatively hard except under good conditions).
Setting aside the nuclear chemistry that will occur in the meantime (which tends to increase brightness), that Polaris is, in fact, multiple stars and the overall reduction of radiative and mass pressure that will be reducing the production/consumption rate*, I would posit even losing half of its mass, it would likely still be visible in 2000 years, which means the Northern Star will have since switched to Gamma Cephei.
So, no big loss here. Personally, I, for one, welcome our new Alrainian OverStar.
****
*You know what, I'm actually going to do these in the coming weeks. This is sound like a fun problem, even though I do a lot more in theoretical particle physics than cosmology.
What the hell? How can that be overrated? I mean, this is offtopic and can be zero'd to death, but really? I made a functional analogy in a well thought out correction, and it's overrated at 1? ONE! How the F~3 does this happen? When did we get that class of moderation?
Was some moderator freezing in DC when scrolling slashdot and did the missed-the-point moderation-of-bias? How do you justify 1 as overrated? Was it the weed? Were you upset that Apple has more lobbying money than your stoned ass?
Meh, -1 offtopic. Still, the above post is just so unfairly underrated. There's a whiny, anoncow grammar-nazi a few posts down with a score of two, and that's offtopic by default! What the F~3?
Irregard is a state outside of consideration, -ing creates a verb transition to present perfect, and a lack of -less makes it non-self-contradictory. I could have used irrespective, but the term brain dumped at the second, "r," and I continued, regardless.
How you got a score of two for an offtopic comment, that's something we could be discussing, but I'm about to get 0, so, I couldn't really care. Karma to burn for trolls and 'tards.
HTTP's inception predates the scale at which the Internet is used today, and like IPv4, the failure to anticipate the shifts in use and data access within the Internet make it far less efficient than it could otherwise be. SPDY, along with many of the streaming protocols, identify more with the modern Internet practices than, "Get this page now," technique of HTTP.
I'm on the second tier of my ISP's access rate, and even though many pages should load in the theoretical second, they don't due to modern styling and plugin/include/addon calls. I honestly would have thought that what SPDY does would already have been more commonly implemented, and that data access in general would be moving to a peer/metapeer networking solution to save on demand of resources in general. Some of the assumptions of its design come out of the late-eighties and early-nineties anticipation of the large-first to small-second distribution common among universities, government installations and large commercial systems of the time, where maintaining a large lan with few nodes possessing Internet access in both directions.
HTTP1.1 is as not broken compared to HTTP2.0 as a protocol as XFree86 4.x isn't anymore broken than any of its successors (irregarding explicit bug fixes, as that's not applicable relative to a protocol...usually), but regardless of where you came down on the forks and licensing, you probably aren't running it on any *Nix under 5 years old.
We haven't done that yet? Wasn't that a late nineties thing? We're still on a 10 and 20 year old protocol!? Why isn't slashdot using html 1.1? Tables not good enough? As someone who still catches up on the IEEE from time to time, this is actually surprising. No wonder lynx hasn't needed much upgrading for connections beyond bug fixes.
That means all advantages have been the physical pathways (that includes wireless) and TCP! Wow! Based on the fact psychics made it to the front page of slashdot without James Randi popping up, I can only presume most of slashdot has no idea how bizarre that is.
That just shows everyone is vulnerable to the History Channel Deveneration Effect. I'm going to have to start getting my news from Kuro5hin, Humorix and 4Chan:PedoWatch.
All any of those programmes do is help the mind make physical what is already mental. There are lots of applications (think Fink) that can be put on an iPad and, by the very basis of GPL, protect the users right to distribution and ownership, providing they don't incorporate work protected under the type of scheme GPL uses. Yet, despite use Xorg on an iPad, the license still says that work is Apple's, despite the fact they don't own most of the processing hardware's IP.
See, neither analogy is correct. There's a reason Jobs didn't want to DRM the crap out of everything for distribution, but we have gone a long way since Apple tried to tempt the Open Source Movement with somewhat more liberal licensing to what it has become in the past four or five years.
Try it this way, every Nokia F4xxx camera gives Nokia a partial share of the copyright of any image created with it, regardless of post-production processes involved. Hardware Nokia doesn't own exclusively, software Nokia provides and a functioning platform not created by Nokia that could be ported to run on the camera. Would you think that it's fair that Nokia declare ownership of your work? If you put an image on your free blog from your camera while on your vacation, that blog company may receive a cease and desist order from Nokia because of the advertising which pays to keep it free in the first place can be counted as gross profits. Would they? Probably not, but it doesn't mean that, similar to the history of the RIAA and MPAA suing kids for millions of dollars, Nokia, or a group representing like minded interests, wouldn't start nailing out some test cases to guarantee their right to do so in the future.
I wouldn't buy such a camera with such a condition attached to it, but fans of that line probably wouldn't think twice about it. On the other hand, a following AnonCow may have pinpointed a far greater danger to Apple than displeasing some, MAYBE, 14% of fans: They officially have ownership to all illegal activities so involved. Of course, they can claim the activity is a breach of contract with the EULA, but if multiple breaches are caught, it may go in the direction of selling bongs as tobacco accessories: Enough incidence of its criminal use may result in singling it out legislatively. Of course, unlike stoners, Apple is part of a few lobbying firms who might get legislation written to protect it instead. Because money makes everything fair in a Democracy whose politicians are otherwise incorporated into the Free Market, regardless of being in a mixed economy since the first post-Articles presidential administration.
Anyone still Occupying shit out there? I dunno, it's not on the television anymore. It's probably not that important.
So, hmm, during that Sony business of dropping support for...oh, who can remember...I had said that Anonymous wouldn't be stupid enough to do something that would, by standing definition at the Department for Homeland Security, perform any action which would explicitly be deemed well within the scope of terrorism -- due in part to the fact that even the Mexican drug cartels are able to hunt down and attack its members.
I don't often say this (and there's a decade and one half on Slashdot to prove it), but...I...was...not as right as I felt I should have been. Wow. That taught me a lesson. Never under-estimate stupidity among highly active protestors. That hurt. I will remember this in the future.
We've had the technology for decades. Between regulations and supplementing light and heat, we may have hit a few problems. A tidal generator would be needed for most operations below 2m of water.
Just like the 60's! And the 80's! Finally, those underwater farms are finally here! So...what..another century from when we were supposed to have them the first time?
A black hole exists in every known galaxy
Fortunately there weren't any scams 20 years ago.
What? Don't you remember those early 90's Personal Black Hole scams? The convenience of not having to worry about wandering garbage scows and peeling labels off of recycling? All you have to do is throw your crap, including recyclables, non-recyclables, annoying relatives and pets, and even your crap, into this one convenient box, bag, jar, can or hookah, and you will never have to worry about disposal bills of any type ever again!
I got one from the back of a catalog that I was going to take to school as my science fair project, but it really was just some deletium that ran out after about 10 kg. It consumed the bottom of the container, so the last 2 kg was a hole in the school parking lot. My parents weren't charged for the fill in since they had to pay for treatment of the radiation burns.
To this day, I never order anything from UserFriendly.
This country was founded by...NERDS!
Everyone else is fairly well aware of the scientific method and peer review.
However, we have known for a few years that the Earth's orbit has been rounding out, which is when it gets colder. This was among many points covered on slashdot along with solar output and geological methane release that demonstrated that the Earth's climatic shift has been primarily due to CO2 levels. If CO2 levels had not gone significantly beyond their 1700 levels, we would be experiencing the starting signs of cooling over the next 200 years.
Smaller entities often cannot afford significant liability coverage, but schools are very lawsuit aware. Lawsuits, when they happen, can be expensive to the loser, thus, having an insurance for them is EXTREMELY convenient, as, in all probability, an attempt, regardless of the legitimacy of a claim, will likely happen.
Extending liability for pursuit of stolen or damaged property is relatively common and affordable. Insurers would fit your latter model. Again, once any identification of liability due to a poorly implemented tech infrastructure, it would likely result in many other schools reviewing their own systems and policies.
Self-insuring has limitations and can be crippling under potentially damaging litigation. To insure a DUI'd driver to the commercial coverage range is very feasible; however, most companies that aren't assessed above $25million could find even settling a major law suit sufficiently damage to have lasting consequences on growth projections, asset recuperation and debt coverage.
As far a school districts go, they have liability coverage. It's a requirement in most states to possess some form commercial general liability insurance policies ("CGL Policies"); however, if that is all they chose to purchase, that falls under the risk assessment risk I mentioned earlier.
In the United States, gasoline sells for $3 to $4 per gallon. In other countries, it's 3-4x that. Some people might think it's because the United States is the third largest producer, creating about half of what it consumes. The reality, however, compares to other countries differently in two key aspects, resource policy and trade.
In other countries which export petroleum, there is a major return on export product back to the country; in the United States, the sites from which companies extract petroleum are leased on negotiated, low flat rates; so, very little of that potential income is already shut down.
The other half of the problem came with negotiations that began under the Carter Administration, but finalized under the Reagan Administration. The first half of which is an Oil Cap -- the amount of exports that are proportionally discounted to make up for the trade loss in the need to import a significant percentage of oil. This cap is maintained by manipulating production, primarily in agriculture, to support major policy and trade changes that result in subsidies or limitation on domestic marketing of such goods. The second half is using trade far more extensively by defining all types of trade as economic, implementing policies that require counties that allow, for example, education or work abroad, to invest in the United States by way of purchasing some quantity of Treasury bonds, usually negotiated, though quota openings are often done by a slow bidding process. (NB: This accounts for a good portion of the 25% of foreign owed debt, or about 3.5 trillion USD)
When politician push a gas-tax holiday, they often ignore that the United States has been on one since the 70's. The politician have chosen to ignore that the United States government has been aware of the need of significant infrastructural changes in order to adapt to the real cost of energy since the late 60's. The greatest threat to both the United States and the world is this failing to adapt to the long term energy needs of the country. If a major program took over the United States to end petroleum imports alone, it would save nearly half of one trillion dollars every year. If a major program took over the United States to end petroleum imports alone, I sense politicians, like claiming the budget repair of the 90's was surplus, would likely not end the Oil Cap as a practice, merely change its focus.
People use and adhere to such arguments on a regular basis. Most coverage of liability insurance will ask for a third party assessment of the IT infrastructure before they will cover it. Such an assessment should be performed, regardless of any type of faith that administration might have in IT personnel. If you need an expert at something new that you do not understand, you need a means of assessing their capability. Third party auditing companies fill this void for everything from finance to IT.
Schools will still fail. Most potential failures will catch on quickly to prevent a dangerous ripple effect, as those covering their liabilities, from insurers to taxpayers, will demand evidence that the worst case scenario isn't likely to hit them.
The administration decides the acceptable risk-strategy for a facility's liability insurance coverage. Usually when purchasing modern general-functionality class of device, such facilities use software and hardware relocation technology built into the device, making it dangerous for, "Some shady guys downtown," unless they have obtained the means of disrupting such technology. If such individuals manages a fairly significant share of such trade, then, like other black market activities, identification, arrest and confirmation will likely be on the way.
After prosecution, of ither your stoners or the shady guys, the offending party pays all such costs. If found innocent with questionable liability still lingering, civic prosecution often commences with the same end result. After that, only the liability insurance co-pay equivalent would be the remaining costs.
Optical and electric wiring, varying types of paper, presses and printers, desks, chairs, books, tiles, plants and even lockers have been stolen from schools with similar results. Again, what already exists can define what will like come next. There are few new significant risks from year to year and model to model. Your logic doesn't actually add to the conversation.
If the school's IT Manager can't practice isolation, resistance and resilience, that is not a fault of the overall concept. As Shotgun points out, any infrastructure not properly managed will eventually be costly, but loading an image takes very little time, and, once a network has been properly secured, it can be done in bulk. The procedure you describe would fail to be comparable simply by the difference in resource or rate of restoration, relative to data volume and locations.
If you're going on slashdot, you might want to be more considerate about assuming incompetent network management would be an acceptable argument to implementing almost any class of technology augmentation. IT in a school is banal compared to a robot doing your yearly physical; if you want to attack a risk, put freedom or lives (other than Eric Cartmen being thrown under a bus) on the line.
It remains more or less the same as with books, lab equipment and classroom resources. Why does everyone expect something new when there's no real management and processing difference in what type of resource has been compared.
Why are we linking to another site that links to the site of interest while adding nothing new? We could get all of this from the originating site; it's not like it would increase the number of people who RTFA.
A moment of person growth, live on Slashdot!
And Jason Foxx likes pears.
That even though slashdot is the apotheosis of geek sitelization, that this one paragraph hasn't resulted in far dirtier comments about boys and girls enjoying a tactile experience. Is this place just chock full of Sheldon Coopers?
Side note: I don't care if you do or don't like the/any show/character/screen/entertainment media. I just don't care. Don't tell me; I don't care. I put this note in here knowing that some people will have an instant complaint -- guess what...don't care.
I dislike GnomeShell.