Are they doing everything? Probably. Were effective safeguards in place?
Were best practiced followed? Sure doesn't look like it. They continued drilling after the gasket came up in pieces. They just didn't want to stop. Also, they didn't have "a remote-control shutoff switch that two other major oil producers, Norway and Brazil, require.” Was this an unforeseen event? No. It was known to be a possibility. It was known to be a rather large possibility. Yet they didn't prepare for it.
You bring up car accidents. We don't shrug them off. You're liable for them. That's why you have insurance. In fact, sometimes, you're even held criminally liable.
You're arguing that it's okay for someone to completely externalize their risks. When you through your own negligence destroy other people's livelihoods as seen by the impact on the shrimping and tourist industries, your liable for that. The whole idea that BP is such a small company that damages should be capped at $75 million, while simultaneously bringing in quarterly proffits of $10 BILLION is absurd. They owe for the clean up. They owe everyone impacted by their negligence lost wages. If that's $20 billion, so be it. They can certainly afford it, while still turning a profit.
But I'm sure we should let the free market handle this. After all,these gods among men, deserve the profits they make while simultaneously ruining the lives of their lessers.
The only way to sell it to the masses would be to promote it as the elimination of Income Taxes. Set a date (20 years?) by which point income taxes will be eliminated, and slowly ramp up the Carbon (GHG) tax while reducing income tax over the same period of time.
What? You're opposed to eliminating Income Tax?
While I agree that your plan would manufacture consent via the all too common excluded middle political argument, this is still a horrible idea. You're creating a regressive tax system since the poor and middle class and rural, since transportation already takes a large fraction of their income than the rich.
Yes, because not only do we want crush political speech we don't like, because we've been told we shouldn't like it, but we also want to make sure that the people that are best informed about the topics of the day aren't heard.
So what's your point? Oh! You're claiming equivalence of both sides! So the missiles both work and don't work? So we should both deploy and not deploy?
No one point out that the "successful" tests were rigged! (The interceptor knew where the target was being launched from, when it was being launched, and the target radioed it's location to the interceptor during flight. WTF?)
Why do you think the GOP is tearing itself apart? Free enterprise is an entirely different religion than Jesusitude. Seriously, read Ayn Rand.
Someone hasn't been paying attention. Have you not heard of Prosperity Theology? (aka God Wants You To Be Rich.) I know you've heard of its proponents, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, Joel Olsteen, and pretty much every televangelist out there. This is a group of people that believe that when God wants you to be rich while simultaneously saying "[I]t is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Now they say that "eye of a needle" wasn't actually referring to a needle's eye, but rather some gate, through which camels could pass relatively easily. Why? Jesus was a free market capitalistand anti-communist.
To paraphrase Matt Groening in a Life in Hell strip many years go: Jesus loved the poor so much, that he eliminated the free school lunch program. On the bright side, the poor kids can now lead a prayer in school for anything they want, EVEN FOOD.
What's not to get? If I don't want run my own node, so I get them to run it for me. If I want to run my own node, I can. The nodes talk to each other in a P2P fashion. In the degenerate case, all the nodes talk to each other on the same physical machine.
I didn't "quit"[*] because I was afraid my data was being leaked to my phone. I "quit" because it was being leaked across the whole goddamn Internet. This move is beyond worthless, and shows just how Zuck doesn't get it.
[*] No one really quits. They just "deactivate," while facebook keeps all your data. Remember when Facebook said that users owned their own data, yet never provided a way to completely delete it, nor export it? Talk is cheap. Platitudes even cheaper. Code is law.
doesn't this leave the United States with no means to get humans into orbit? For several years? How is this give the United States any kind of strategic advantage?
I think you're asking the wrong question. You should be asking, "Does having the means to place humans in give the US any strategic advantage?" The answer is, it doesn't. We have ICBMs. Why bother doing what we did 50 years ago? Been there. Done that. Got the moon rocks.
This isn't the first time that the US hasn't had an active manned space program. The last Skylab mission was in Feb 1974. The space photo op better known as Apollo-Soyuz was 1975. SIX YEARS passed until the shuttle launched. No one cared then. Why should we care now?
There's just no good reason to send people. Even you know that, or you wouldn't be making blatant appeals to emotion. What do we gain, by sending a person instead of a robot? Nothing. You claim tech spinoffs will grow the economy, but that's just not true. First, there has never been enough spin offs to grow the economy, even back in the 1960s. Today, with the emphasis on using off the shelf components, and doing these faster and cheaper, that means there's just less need for innovative science and engineering, which means less spin offs. As a space buff, you should have already known this.
Face it. The manned space is just your favorite pork project.
What does any of that crap have to do with what the President said?
I could say the same thing about your "Beer Summit" reference.
Everyone and his brother had an opinion about a man being arrested in his own home for what was nothing more than Contempt of Cop. I can only assume you brought that up because you're grasping for some sort of moral equivalence here. What? You couldn't find the video of Obama calling Kanye West a jackass? Or was it that the president expressed an opinion counter to your own, about an even both of you were equally (mis)informed about? I suspect it was that.
Are you saying that he's justified in shooting off his mouth and being paranoid?
Yes, because he's not paranoid.
We have the leadership of the Republican party openly engaging in bizarre conspiracy theories unseen since the days of John Birch Society and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It's absurd. It's something you'd expect to hear on the Alex Jones Show.
Between being self-professed "defenders of the constitution" while simultaneously arguing that the fourth through the ninth amendments can be flouted whenever a president of their political persuasion wants, and now actively promoting and theorizing unsupported and unbelievable conspiracies, the right wing has gone full-blown crazy.
There's no place in serious political discussion to promote this talk, and yet they do.
I'm not part of the team, but GPG is a public key encryption method. Part of the plan is that each person hosts their own data on their own "seed." (A wordpress.com like system will exist for people that don't want to host their own data.) From what I understand it works like this:
You encrypt your data with your private key. (Possibly multiple keys to allow multiple granularity of privacy.) Your seed stores other people's encrypted private data as well to ensure availability. When you accept a "friend" request, you transmit the public key directly to the other person's seed. (I assume over yet another encrypted link.) Your "friend" can then request your data from the DHT and then decrypt it.
I just don't understand why you think the replicated data needs to be encrypted yet again, let alone decrypted before being re-encrypted.
I fail to see how a centralized server keeps the data secure. It's just a single point of failure that endangers everyone's data.
A 1024 GPG key today is great and all but will it be 10 years from now?
Now that's a different problem. A problem that's intrinsic to every encryption algorithm.
I just looked over the kindle EULA and I don't see such a clause. However there is a clause that says:
Annotations, bookmarks, notes, highlights, or similar markings you make in your Device are backed up through the Service. Information we receive is subject to the Amazon.com Privacy Notice.
Well then I guess we have to go the Privacy notice then.
Information You Give Us: We receive and store any information you enter on our Web site or give us in any other way. [...] You can choose not to provide certain information, but then you might not be able to take advantage of many of our features. We use the information that you provide for such purposes as responding to your requests, customizing future shopping for you, improving our stores, and communicating with you.
So when you highlight something, it automatically gets "backed up" to Amazon's servers. Since you used the "highlight and 'back up'" feature (notice how there isn't a "highlight but don't ' back up' feature), you "voluntarily" provided Amazon with this information and therefore "authorized" them to "customizing future shopping for you, improving our stores, and communicating with you."
People who can't manage their facebook privacy settings are certainly not going to be able to manage profile replication and multiple privacy policies. Oh, but they can audit the source code:rolleyes:.
Oh please. The whole thing is encrypted with GPG. It doesn't matter who has the data, as long as they can't read it.
Isn't the user generated notes are written by the customers? The customers still owns the copyrights and they can and should all file DMCA take down notices.
Check the EULA. Dollars to donuts (I'll take the donuts), there's language in it to the effect of "by using this device, you give Amazon a royalty free, irrevokable, license to all notes, highlights, and other annotations made with this device.
To the reason for North Korea attacking the Deepwater Horizon, these reports say, was to present US President Obama with an “impossible dilemma” prior to the opening of the United Nations Review Conference of the Parties to the Treat on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) set to begin May 3rd in New York.
This “impossible dilemma” facing Obama is indeed real as the decision he is faced with is either to allow the continuation of this massive oil leak catastrophe to continue for months, or immediately stop it by the only known and proven means possible, the detonation of a thermonuclear device.
Russian Navy atomic experts in these reports state that should Obama choose the “nuclear option” the most viable weapon at his disposal is the United States B83 (Mk-83) strategic thermonuclear bomb having a variable yield (Low Kiloton Range to 1,200 Kilotons) which with its 12 foot length and 18 inch diameter, and weighing just over 2,400 pounds, is readily able to be deployed and detonated by a remote controlled mini-sub.
Should Obama choose the “nuclear option” it appears that he would be supported by the International Court of Justice who on July 8, 1996 issued an advisory opinion on the use of nuclear weapons stating that they could not conclude definitively on these weapons use in “extreme circumstances” or “self defense”.
On the other hand, if Obama chooses the “nuclear option” it would leave the UN’s nuclear conference in shambles with every Nation in the World having oil rigs off their coasts demanding an equal right to atomic weapons to protect their environment from catastrophes too, including Iran.
To whatever decision Obama makes it remains a fact that with each passing hour this environmental catastrophe grows worse. And even though Obama has ordered military SWAT teams to protect other oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico from any further attack, and further ordered that all drilling in the Gulf of Mexico be immediately stopped, this massive oil spill has already reached the shores of America and with high waves and more bad weather forecast the likelihood of it being stopped from destroying thousands of miles of US coastland and wildlife appears unstoppable.
The overwhelming majority of wars are not fought between strangers, but by those who know each other well.
Well given that most wars are fought between neighbors, that's nor surprising.
The reason that most democracies tend to stay out of wars is because the top ppl will be quickly booted out.
Is this even true? I can think of multiple wars where a democracy was not attacked, and yet fought a war. Your examples work well in this regard. I'd even add India and Pakistan's multiple wars to boot. How intertwined the belligerent countries economies is where I quibble with you. None of these examples were between primary, or even major trading partners.
And as to F-22, it will not be seeing action in any of these wars. It was not designed for these. These are designed to defend against China.
Try again. It was designed for a war against the Soviet Union, and the Su-27 in particular. We're talking about a plane, whose first flight was in 1990. Also, you're argument is doubly untenably weak since both the F-117 and the B-2 have been deployed against adversaries that lack radar. It's a weapon, that needs to be tested in actual combat conditions. Now is the best time to do that.
All of the studies show that our next major war will be China unless we stay far enough ahead of them that they will chose to not get into it.
Actually, while China is the most likely major state threat, an actual shooting war is just a remote, if not more remote than ever, given the close economic ties between the countries.
It's a lot easier to find waste in the military. The military knows where it is. The hard thing, is that you can't cut it. It's not because of the normal turf wars, it's because all too often you're legally forbidden to cut it. There are numerous weapon systems that the military doesn't want, yet, they have forced on them. Let me give an example I found last night. Since the late 80s the Air Force wanted to replace the A-10 close air support attack craft. Their first plan was to create a F-16 variant, the A-16. What happened? In 1990 Congress passed a law mandating that it maintain two wings of the A-10. Why? Well as Ike said, no one knows how to spread the pork around like the Military-Industrial Complex.
So what's going to replace the A-10 now? The F-35, the same plane that was supposed to be "cheap" (especialy compared to the F-22, which last I heard has not been deployed in combat) that's now experiencing huge cost overruns.
Well, the immigration law specifically PROHIBITS stopping anyone based on skin color.
Yes, and no one has ever been stopped for Driving While Black either.
In short, I think the President should have that knee-jerking problem looked at by a doctor-- I hear he has a great health plan.
Yeah, because it's not like any of these conspiracy theories are being touted by "mainstream" Republicans:
Obama was born in Kenya, and his mom for some reason isn't a citizen either, and his (s)election was planned 48 years ago. (Sen Inhofe R-OK, Rep Posey R-FL, Rep Bono-Mack R-CA, Rep Campbell R-CA, Rep Blackburn R-TN, Rep Culberson R-TX all sponsored birth certificate legislation)
Seriously. Why should anyone think of these people as legitimate? Furthermore, since these are leaders in party, why should the party be considered legitimate?
Slashdot Mirror
Are they doing everything? Probably. Were effective safeguards in place?
Were best practiced followed? Sure doesn't look like it. They continued drilling after the gasket came up in pieces. They just didn't want to stop. Also, they didn't have "a remote-control shutoff switch that two other major oil producers, Norway and Brazil, require.” Was this an unforeseen event? No. It was known to be a possibility. It was known to be a rather large possibility. Yet they didn't prepare for it.
You bring up car accidents. We don't shrug them off. You're liable for them. That's why you have insurance. In fact, sometimes, you're even held criminally liable.
You're arguing that it's okay for someone to completely externalize their risks. When you through your own negligence destroy other people's livelihoods as seen by the impact on the shrimping and tourist industries, your liable for that. The whole idea that BP is such a small company that damages should be capped at $75 million, while simultaneously bringing in quarterly proffits of $10 BILLION is absurd. They owe for the clean up. They owe everyone impacted by their negligence lost wages. If that's $20 billion, so be it. They can certainly afford it, while still turning a profit.
But I'm sure we should let the free market handle this. After all,these gods among men, deserve the profits they make while simultaneously ruining the lives of their lessers.
nice.
The only way to sell it to the masses would be to promote it as the elimination of Income Taxes. Set a date (20 years?) by which point income taxes will be eliminated, and slowly ramp up the Carbon (GHG) tax while reducing income tax over the same period of time.
What? You're opposed to eliminating Income Tax?
While I agree that your plan would manufacture consent via the all too common excluded middle political argument, this is still a horrible idea. You're creating a regressive tax system since the poor and middle class and rural, since transportation already takes a large fraction of their income than the rich.
Yes, because not only do we want crush political speech we don't like, because we've been told we shouldn't like it, but we also want to make sure that the people that are best informed about the topics of the day aren't heard.
Glenn Beck is that you?
So what's your point? Oh! You're claiming equivalence of both sides! So the missiles both work and don't work? So we should both deploy and not deploy?
No one point out that the "successful" tests were rigged! (The interceptor knew where the target was being launched from, when it was being launched, and the target radioed it's location to the interceptor during flight. WTF?)
Why do you think the GOP is tearing itself apart? Free enterprise is an entirely different religion than Jesusitude. Seriously, read Ayn Rand.
Someone hasn't been paying attention. Have you not heard of Prosperity Theology? (aka God Wants You To Be Rich.) I know you've heard of its proponents, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, Joel Olsteen, and pretty much every televangelist out there. This is a group of people that believe that when God wants you to be rich while simultaneously saying "[I]t is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Now they say that "eye of a needle" wasn't actually referring to a needle's eye, but rather some gate, through which camels could pass relatively easily. Why? Jesus was a free market capitalist and anti-communist.
To paraphrase Matt Groening in a Life in Hell strip many years go: Jesus loved the poor so much, that he eliminated the free school lunch program. On the bright side, the poor kids can now lead a prayer in school for anything they want, EVEN FOOD.
What's not to get? If I don't want run my own node, so I get them to run it for me. If I want to run my own node, I can. The nodes talk to each other in a P2P fashion. In the degenerate case, all the nodes talk to each other on the same physical machine.
No normal person wants to set up a node on his computer; and
Social networks need to have access to information even when your computer is off.
And that's exactly why they're creating a hosting service ala wordpress.com as well.
I didn't "quit"[*] because I was afraid my data was being leaked to my phone. I "quit" because it was being leaked across the whole goddamn Internet. This move is beyond worthless, and shows just how Zuck doesn't get it.
[*] No one really quits. They just "deactivate," while facebook keeps all your data. Remember when Facebook said that users owned their own data, yet never provided a way to completely delete it, nor export it? Talk is cheap. Platitudes even cheaper. Code is law.
doesn't this leave the United States with no means to get humans into orbit? For several years? How is this give the United States any kind of strategic advantage?
I think you're asking the wrong question. You should be asking, "Does having the means to place humans in give the US any strategic advantage?" The answer is, it doesn't. We have ICBMs. Why bother doing what we did 50 years ago? Been there. Done that. Got the moon rocks.
This isn't the first time that the US hasn't had an active manned space program. The last Skylab mission was in Feb 1974. The space photo op better known as Apollo-Soyuz was 1975. SIX YEARS passed until the shuttle launched. No one cared then. Why should we care now?
There's just no good reason to send people. Even you know that, or you wouldn't be making blatant appeals to emotion. What do we gain, by sending a person instead of a robot? Nothing. You claim tech spinoffs will grow the economy, but that's just not true. First, there has never been enough spin offs to grow the economy, even back in the 1960s. Today, with the emphasis on using off the shelf components, and doing these faster and cheaper, that means there's just less need for innovative science and engineering, which means less spin offs. As a space buff, you should have already known this.
Face it. The manned space is just your favorite pork project.
What does any of that crap have to do with what the President said?
I could say the same thing about your "Beer Summit" reference.
Everyone and his brother had an opinion about a man being arrested in his own home for what was nothing more than Contempt of Cop. I can only assume you brought that up because you're grasping for some sort of moral equivalence here. What? You couldn't find the video of Obama calling Kanye West a jackass? Or was it that the president expressed an opinion counter to your own, about an even both of you were equally (mis)informed about? I suspect it was that.
Are you saying that he's justified in shooting off his mouth and being paranoid?
Yes, because he's not paranoid.
We have the leadership of the Republican party openly engaging in bizarre conspiracy theories unseen since the days of John Birch Society and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It's absurd. It's something you'd expect to hear on the Alex Jones Show.
Between being self-professed "defenders of the constitution" while simultaneously arguing that the fourth through the ninth amendments can be flouted whenever a president of their political persuasion wants, and now actively promoting and theorizing unsupported and unbelievable conspiracies, the right wing has gone full-blown crazy.
There's no place in serious political discussion to promote this talk, and yet they do.
Congrats!
Thanks troll.
I'm not part of the team, but GPG is a public key encryption method. Part of the plan is that each person hosts their own data on their own "seed." (A wordpress.com like system will exist for people that don't want to host their own data.) From what I understand it works like this:
You encrypt your data with your private key. (Possibly multiple keys to allow multiple granularity of privacy.) Your seed stores other people's encrypted private data as well to ensure availability. When you accept a "friend" request, you transmit the public key directly to the other person's seed. (I assume over yet another encrypted link.) Your "friend" can then request your data from the DHT and then decrypt it.
I just don't understand why you think the replicated data needs to be encrypted yet again, let alone decrypted before being re-encrypted.
I fail to see how a centralized server keeps the data secure. It's just a single point of failure that endangers everyone's data.
A 1024 GPG key today is great and all but will it be 10 years from now?
Now that's a different problem. A problem that's intrinsic to every encryption algorithm.
I just looked over the kindle EULA and I don't see such a clause. However there is a clause that says:
Well then I guess we have to go the Privacy notice then.
So when you highlight something, it automatically gets "backed up" to Amazon's servers. Since you used the "highlight and 'back up'" feature (notice how there isn't a "highlight but don't ' back up' feature), you "voluntarily" provided Amazon with this information and therefore "authorized" them to "customizing future shopping for you, improving our stores, and communicating with you."
They way I understand it, when you "friend" someone, you're giving them a key to unlock a certain part of the profile.
Perhaps you're just confused by Facebook's "everyone sees everything" privacy model. ;)
People who can't manage their facebook privacy settings are certainly not going to be able to manage profile replication and multiple privacy policies. Oh, but they can audit the source code :rolleyes:.
Oh please. The whole thing is encrypted with GPG. It doesn't matter who has the data, as long as they can't read it.
Isn't the user generated notes are written by the customers? The customers still owns the copyrights and they can and should all file DMCA take down notices.
Check the EULA. Dollars to donuts (I'll take the donuts), there's language in it to the effect of "by using this device, you give Amazon a royalty free, irrevokable, license to all notes, highlights, and other annotations made with this device.
And if public money has gone to National Public Radio (a certain amount has and can be documented) where's my open mike?
Same place where you get your own nuclear bomb. (It's in the 2nd Amendment!)
I'm trying to figure out which part of this story is the scariest.
That obvious bullshit was posted both on slashdot and True Slant.
"US Orders Blackout Over North Korean Torpedoing Of Gulf Of Mexico Oil Rig" By Sorcha Faal
Someone should get her on Fox News with Michael Brown, Dana Perino, and Rush Limbaugh.
The overwhelming majority of wars are not fought between strangers, but by those who know each other well.
Well given that most wars are fought between neighbors, that's nor surprising.
The reason that most democracies tend to stay out of wars is because the top ppl will be quickly booted out.
Is this even true? I can think of multiple wars where a democracy was not attacked, and yet fought a war. Your examples work well in this regard. I'd even add India and Pakistan's multiple wars to boot. How intertwined the belligerent countries economies is where I quibble with you. None of these examples were between primary, or even major trading partners.
And as to F-22, it will not be seeing action in any of these wars. It was not designed for these. These are designed to defend against China.
Try again. It was designed for a war against the Soviet Union, and the Su-27 in particular. We're talking about a plane, whose first flight was in 1990. Also, you're argument is doubly untenably weak since both the F-117 and the B-2 have been deployed against adversaries that lack radar. It's a weapon, that needs to be tested in actual combat conditions. Now is the best time to do that.
All of the studies show that our next major war will be China unless we stay far enough ahead of them that they will chose to not get into it.
Actually, while China is the most likely major state threat, an actual shooting war is just a remote, if not more remote than ever, given the close economic ties between the countries.
It's a lot easier to find waste in the military. The military knows where it is. The hard thing, is that you can't cut it. It's not because of the normal turf wars, it's because all too often you're legally forbidden to cut it. There are numerous weapon systems that the military doesn't want, yet, they have forced on them. Let me give an example I found last night. Since the late 80s the Air Force wanted to replace the A-10 close air support attack craft. Their first plan was to create a F-16 variant, the A-16. What happened? In 1990 Congress passed a law mandating that it maintain two wings of the A-10. Why? Well as Ike said, no one knows how to spread the pork around like the Military-Industrial Complex.
So what's going to replace the A-10 now? The F-35, the same plane that was supposed to be "cheap" (especialy compared to the F-22, which last I heard has not been deployed in combat) that's now experiencing huge cost overruns.
* Fast action on Oil Spill
Oops! You let a real one slip through. I suggest you break out of your epistemic closure.
Well, the immigration law specifically PROHIBITS stopping anyone based on skin color.
Yes, and no one has ever been stopped for Driving While Black either.
In short, I think the President should have that knee-jerking problem looked at by a doctor-- I hear he has a great health plan.
Yeah, because it's not like any of these conspiracy theories are being touted by "mainstream" Republicans:
(Former FEMA Director Michael Brown, Former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, Rush Limbaugh (now he said "environmental wackos)
Seriously. Why should anyone think of these people as legitimate? Furthermore, since these are leaders in party, why should the party be considered legitimate?