How do you compare survival of the species (NASA) over increased survival of more people (NIH)? In my mind NASA funding is long term benefits while NIH is more about short term benefits. To put is simplistically, nothing the NIH is doing is going to save us from the inevitable death of this planet. But NASA research will. I'm digressing though. We can play a subjective cost/benefit comparison game all day. But that wasn't what I meant by ROI. I meant it in the strict economical sense. For every $1 of investment I get $X of profit. I'm essentially saying I feel like the advances found by NASA produce more economic growth and capital, and by extension more tax revenue for the government, than advances from the NIH does.
I fully recognize that this is a complex answer with varying perspectives. Which is why I qualified my statement as purely opinionated and even explicitly stated I may be wrong. And like others pointed out, I did not mean to say the NIH is useless or more specifically that it doesn't deserve funding. I was merely implying that NASA deserves more funding than the NIH.
The only con to that approach (and I'm by no means disagreeing with you), is that the manual shutter and microphone operation, increases the confidence of those that are not adept at opening their device and analyzing the innards. They have better trust that what the indicator says is true.
You're right, both cases can be subverted at a physical level. But at least with the former I'm not trusting the manufactorer or a person in the know that the device's light turns on when the microphone is on.
This is pretty much the reason I'd think about the Blackphone. Not to hide from the government(s), because that's an exercise in futility if we want to have connected technology. But because I'd rather make sure private entity A doesn't know what I do with private entity B without my consent; or at least minimize what they can know.
As for a honeypot... I think you may misunderstand what a honeypot is. A honeypot is a fake website, system, network, (insert entity); that seems appealing to a would be hacker or intruder, but in fact is a way for security to catch the intruder while also diverting their attention away from the real prize. To quote the opening line of the wikipedia entry, "in computer terminology, a honeypot is a trap set to detect, deflect, or, in some manner, counteract attempts at unauthorized use of information systems."
The Blackphone (and Tor) by definition would not be honeypots, as the users are not attempting to gain unauthorized access to them and they aren't being used as decoys to a real network.
According to Merriam-Webster: phenomena (n) - nonstandard see PHENOMENON phenomenon (n) - something (such as an interesting fact or event) that can be observed and studied and that typically is unusual or difficult to understand or explain fully. natural (adj) - usual or expected
I'm sorry I improperly guessed your usage. My assumption was based on previous experience where people have suggested that climate change is unusual. It wasn't helped by your improper use of the plural form of phenomenon. There's no need to get your briefs in a bunch. It's pretty clear there was a misunderstanding there and a simple, "I meant the definition meaning 'any observable occurrence,'" would have been sufficient.
You talk about probability, but if you looked at it from that perspective the probability at face value would seem low that humans are the cause. The top two producers of two common green house gases are not humans. For CO2 it's volcanoes and decaying plant matter (including forest fires). For methane it's wetlands and termites. Wetlands alone account for about 80% of methane production in the world. I think when you combine that what the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were over time the probability that humans are the cause or a primary cause seems low in probability.
You're right we shouldn't sit back and do nothing. But that's only because it's generally a good thing to try and be more environmentally friendly. It's another thing though to suggest we make changes that would have economic and in some cases sociological changes based on unclear and inconsistent evidence. A further rub is, just because an action is touted as environmentally friendly doesn't necessarily make it true and more broadly doesn't make it good. There have been instances of environmentally friendly practices actually harming the very things they meant to protect or save. And he effectiveness of some actions is certainly called into question if the results are not sufficiently understood.
We can save the bald eagles and ban DDT, but in the process we'll cause millions to die by malaria.
"Frankly the way we are behaving is somewhat like drinking a poison until it kills us before deciding whether or not it is toxic." Also this metaphor doesn't make sense. A poison is inherently toxic. The metaphor already assumes that the substance is toxic. In reality, you normally can't tell if a substance is a poison, ie toxic, until you've observed someone or something else consuming it.
"how should we behave if there is a reasonable chance that this phenomena is real?"
First, it's not phenomena, it's natural. Whether it's human driven or not, climate change is not phenomena. Second, how we should deal with it depends on whether you can prove that humans are the cause or not. If climate change is occurring because volcanoes are going off at increased rates and marshes are more active (top CO2 and methane producers respectively), then why should we do anything besides prepare ourselves to roll with the punches. We can't do a lick about volcanoes (and I'd be very hesitant to suggest we should if we could), and marshes are almost just as untouchable.
I don't care where you are on this debate, but the fact of the matter is, climate change has happened before and it will happen again. Life went on just fine in the past, I can't see much reason why it wouldn't in the future regarding this matter. The important question here seems to be, when will it happen or when will it hit a tipping point where it's no longer "life as we know it;" ignoring the incredible subjectivity of that qualification.
I find the CO2 argument is rendered moot by the fact that humans are by far not the biggest producers of CO2 and because the Earth's atmosphere is near all time lows of CO2.
No it doesn't remain. If all that's required is certification by an approved trainer/training class, then there's no stopping anyone from offering the course/certification for free.
Generally with government contracts the individual employee resumes are submitted to the government for final approval. If you're a sub to a prime then the prime also vets your resume (sometimes they interview you).
I never said it was, and you're now counter arguing for a point I did not make. You argued that if you're not able to pay for it you won't be able to exercise your 2nd Amendment right. I countered with the point that the government doesn't need to set prices for taking the course, they could accredit training course and those places could set their own prices (implying that they may charge little or nothing if it's their discretion). I then gave you two examples of training courses usually required by the government where prices can vary.
That and OnStar's ability to shut off your car remotely is why I'd never get a car with OnStar in it. Which is sad, because I think the Focus is a pretty good car these days.
For traffic trends and most of the purposes of GPS data, the long term data doesn't need to be identifiable. Storing identifiable information indefinitely is pointless unless you want to sell that data for targeted ads to the person or for government tracking/evidence.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That says nothing about rights and you left out that they're reserved also to the people. You might want to retake that class as well.
In 1876 the notion of incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the states was still being rationalized. The 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights into the States in it's Due Process clause.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
You are arguing an old, outdated, and rejected interpretation of the Constitution that holds far less validity due to the 14th Amendment.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
To put that in contemporary parlance: Because a standing army is a necessary to the security of a free nation, the right of the people to own weapons, shall not be infringed.
Prior to the early 20th century, the US relied heavily on state and private militias for defense and war time support. The Second Amendment is essentially saying, because a military is needed to protect the country, the citizens need the ability to protect themselves from the military.
There's not need for the government to set prices for the requisite training classes. They simply need to accredit the class as sufficient for their purposes. Similar to those defensive driving courses you sometimes get forced to take or the driver's training course some states require. The prices vary, some charge $75 others $80. Same deal here.
Depends on local laws. Some states prohibit guns from being loaded while driving. So mounted guns on a vehicle may cross that line (depends on what kind of mounted gun we're talking about). Other states prohibit guns that are readily accessible while driving.
I don't mean working as in sending data to us. I mean working as in, how are we shooting things into space in the hopes of creating ideal orbital paths when we apparently can't correctly calculate Earth's gravitational pull. You'd think someone would be wondering, "the orbital path for this satellite isn't matching up with our calculations... whoops we just ran into the ISS." (Slightly absurd example I know).
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like the aliens from Independence Day and Oblivion.
How do you compare survival of the species (NASA) over increased survival of more people (NIH)? In my mind NASA funding is long term benefits while NIH is more about short term benefits. To put is simplistically, nothing the NIH is doing is going to save us from the inevitable death of this planet. But NASA research will. I'm digressing though. We can play a subjective cost/benefit comparison game all day. But that wasn't what I meant by ROI. I meant it in the strict economical sense. For every $1 of investment I get $X of profit. I'm essentially saying I feel like the advances found by NASA produce more economic growth and capital, and by extension more tax revenue for the government, than advances from the NIH does.
I fully recognize that this is a complex answer with varying perspectives. Which is why I qualified my statement as purely opinionated and even explicitly stated I may be wrong. And like others pointed out, I did not mean to say the NIH is useless or more specifically that it doesn't deserve funding. I was merely implying that NASA deserves more funding than the NIH.
Animals introduced to new environments have been seen ingesting toxic plants.
That could just be because they didn't know the plant was toxic.
Maybe the same thing that makes lettuce unappealing to dogs as well?
Yeah, agree. I may be wrong, but I feel like NASA has a much better ROI than the NIH.
The only con to that approach (and I'm by no means disagreeing with you), is that the manual shutter and microphone operation, increases the confidence of those that are not adept at opening their device and analyzing the innards. They have better trust that what the indicator says is true.
You're right, both cases can be subverted at a physical level. But at least with the former I'm not trusting the manufactorer or a person in the know that the device's light turns on when the microphone is on.
This is pretty much the reason I'd think about the Blackphone. Not to hide from the government(s), because that's an exercise in futility if we want to have connected technology. But because I'd rather make sure private entity A doesn't know what I do with private entity B without my consent; or at least minimize what they can know.
As for a honeypot... I think you may misunderstand what a honeypot is. A honeypot is a fake website, system, network, (insert entity); that seems appealing to a would be hacker or intruder, but in fact is a way for security to catch the intruder while also diverting their attention away from the real prize. To quote the opening line of the wikipedia entry, "in computer terminology, a honeypot is a trap set to detect, deflect, or, in some manner, counteract attempts at unauthorized use of information systems."
The Blackphone (and Tor) by definition would not be honeypots, as the users are not attempting to gain unauthorized access to them and they aren't being used as decoys to a real network.
According to Merriam-Webster: phenomena (n) - nonstandard see PHENOMENON
phenomenon (n) - something (such as an interesting fact or event) that can be observed and studied and that typically is unusual or difficult to understand or explain fully.
natural (adj) - usual or expected
I'm sorry I improperly guessed your usage. My assumption was based on previous experience where people have suggested that climate change is unusual. It wasn't helped by your improper use of the plural form of phenomenon. There's no need to get your briefs in a bunch. It's pretty clear there was a misunderstanding there and a simple, "I meant the definition meaning 'any observable occurrence,'" would have been sufficient.
You talk about probability, but if you looked at it from that perspective the probability at face value would seem low that humans are the cause. The top two producers of two common green house gases are not humans. For CO2 it's volcanoes and decaying plant matter (including forest fires). For methane it's wetlands and termites. Wetlands alone account for about 80% of methane production in the world. I think when you combine that what the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were over time the probability that humans are the cause or a primary cause seems low in probability.
You're right we shouldn't sit back and do nothing. But that's only because it's generally a good thing to try and be more environmentally friendly. It's another thing though to suggest we make changes that would have economic and in some cases sociological changes based on unclear and inconsistent evidence. A further rub is, just because an action is touted as environmentally friendly doesn't necessarily make it true and more broadly doesn't make it good. There have been instances of environmentally friendly practices actually harming the very things they meant to protect or save. And he effectiveness of some actions is certainly called into question if the results are not sufficiently understood.
We can save the bald eagles and ban DDT, but in the process we'll cause millions to die by malaria.
"Frankly the way we are behaving is somewhat like drinking a poison until it kills us before deciding whether or not it is toxic." Also this metaphor doesn't make sense. A poison is inherently toxic. The metaphor already assumes that the substance is toxic. In reality, you normally can't tell if a substance is a poison, ie toxic, until you've observed someone or something else consuming it.
"how should we behave if there is a reasonable chance that this phenomena is real?" First, it's not phenomena, it's natural. Whether it's human driven or not, climate change is not phenomena. Second, how we should deal with it depends on whether you can prove that humans are the cause or not. If climate change is occurring because volcanoes are going off at increased rates and marshes are more active (top CO2 and methane producers respectively), then why should we do anything besides prepare ourselves to roll with the punches. We can't do a lick about volcanoes (and I'd be very hesitant to suggest we should if we could), and marshes are almost just as untouchable. I don't care where you are on this debate, but the fact of the matter is, climate change has happened before and it will happen again. Life went on just fine in the past, I can't see much reason why it wouldn't in the future regarding this matter. The important question here seems to be, when will it happen or when will it hit a tipping point where it's no longer "life as we know it;" ignoring the incredible subjectivity of that qualification.
I find the CO2 argument is rendered moot by the fact that humans are by far not the biggest producers of CO2 and because the Earth's atmosphere is near all time lows of CO2.
It all makes sense now! In the Last Unicorn the Red Bull drove all the unicorns into the sea!!
Do you have evidence to support your claim that the article in question is false?
Red herring.
No it doesn't remain. If all that's required is certification by an approved trainer/training class, then there's no stopping anyone from offering the course/certification for free.
Generally with government contracts the individual employee resumes are submitted to the government for final approval. If you're a sub to a prime then the prime also vets your resume (sometimes they interview you).
I never said it was, and you're now counter arguing for a point I did not make. You argued that if you're not able to pay for it you won't be able to exercise your 2nd Amendment right. I countered with the point that the government doesn't need to set prices for taking the course, they could accredit training course and those places could set their own prices (implying that they may charge little or nothing if it's their discretion). I then gave you two examples of training courses usually required by the government where prices can vary.
It's a security update, if you don't want to be hacked, it's generally good practice to update.
That and OnStar's ability to shut off your car remotely is why I'd never get a car with OnStar in it. Which is sad, because I think the Focus is a pretty good car these days.
For traffic trends and most of the purposes of GPS data, the long term data doesn't need to be identifiable. Storing identifiable information indefinitely is pointless unless you want to sell that data for targeted ads to the person or for government tracking/evidence.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That says nothing about rights and you left out that they're reserved also to the people. You might want to retake that class as well.
In 1876 the notion of incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the states was still being rationalized. The 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights into the States in it's Due Process clause. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" You are arguing an old, outdated, and rejected interpretation of the Constitution that holds far less validity due to the 14th Amendment.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." To put that in contemporary parlance: Because a standing army is a necessary to the security of a free nation, the right of the people to own weapons, shall not be infringed. Prior to the early 20th century, the US relied heavily on state and private militias for defense and war time support. The Second Amendment is essentially saying, because a military is needed to protect the country, the citizens need the ability to protect themselves from the military.
There's not need for the government to set prices for the requisite training classes. They simply need to accredit the class as sufficient for their purposes. Similar to those defensive driving courses you sometimes get forced to take or the driver's training course some states require. The prices vary, some charge $75 others $80. Same deal here.
Depends on local laws. Some states prohibit guns from being loaded while driving. So mounted guns on a vehicle may cross that line (depends on what kind of mounted gun we're talking about). Other states prohibit guns that are readily accessible while driving.
I don't mean working as in sending data to us. I mean working as in, how are we shooting things into space in the hopes of creating ideal orbital paths when we apparently can't correctly calculate Earth's gravitational pull. You'd think someone would be wondering, "the orbital path for this satellite isn't matching up with our calculations... whoops we just ran into the ISS." (Slightly absurd example I know).