Hotel owners have lost business because tourists are cancelling trips on the belief that the beach will be polluted regardless of its current state.
Fishermen don't just barge into waters fished by other fishermen. That does none of them any good, and depletes those zones, too.
The only thing making this less of a disaster than it could be is the hundreds of miles of boom that have been laid out since the disaster began. And that isn't cheap, so what we're doing is turning an environmental disaster into a financial one that can be bottled up and presented to the CFO at BP for reimbursement.
Its potential, which grows as a direct result of underestimating it, is to cause a catastrophe across the entire gulf coast. And it doesn't take a sudden release of the entire contents of the oil field for that to happen.
metamalamanteau - importune discussion of a combination of a malaprop and a portmanteau word
hypermalamanteau - the combination of a malaprop and a portmanteau word to describe the combination of a malaprop and a portmanteau word
dismalamanteau - ill-advised removal of the definition of a word that is the combination of a malaprop and a portmanteau word
antidismalamanteau - running counter to the ill-advised removal of the definition of a word that is the combination of a malaprop and a portmanteau word
antidismalamanteauzomgponies!!1! - running counter to the ill-advised removal of the definition of a word that is the combination of a malaprop and a portmanteau word and a text from a middle-aged smartass
"Last I checked"? You mean that slideshow you clicked-through to yesterday?
The alarmist bozos we need to be paying attention to here are the ones who said that this wouldn't happen and any attempt to regulate it was communist in nature. And the attention we need to be paying is in how long a rope to throw over how high of a tree limb for them to swing from.
Production and consumption are continuing to rise.
Based on current estimates of proved and predicted reserves, we have 30-50 years of oil left.
And when it ends, it won't be a slow degradation in the flow. it will be more like the straw gurgling in the bottom of your Coke. It was flowing happily at full speed and then suddenly there was nothing left to pump.
The alternative is, as individual superproducers hit their own local bottom-of-the-barrel situations, the remainder will react to the reduced competition by raising prices. But they will also raise production. The end-users may slow consumption or switch more of their consumption to more-efficient systems, but that will be a slowing of the growth, not a downturn.
if the imbalances in production take on certain configurations, you can expect it to invade geopolitical stability, as it always has. So in some cases the flow will be maintained by the spilling of blood and the destruction of cultures, as it always has.
So if you're one of the lucky ones it will be just like the gurgling of a straw, and not the burping of a machine gun.
You missed the point. Just because Congress and the President say that something promotes the general welfare doesn't make it so.
No, the Judiciary has to subsequently agree that it does when someone raises the issue to their level.
Guess what. They have, many times. We've got 200 years of case law to that effect. You don't get anywhere these days claiming the General Welfare or Common Defense clauses don't have meaning. You'd be better off trying to find a way to paint this law as being in direct contradiction of the welfare and security of the nation. That is remarkably effective, and is how certain elements are eroding our rights, in the manner of farcical irony lapped up by their sheeplike partisans.
And in case you didn't notice by observing those around you, comprehension and reason were not requirements for wearing a uniform. Took me all of two years to figure out that my mental abilities were being wasted in that environment, no matter how much fun the toys were. It's not lost on me that you confused fighting for the Constitution with understanding how it works.
It's impractical where distance is involved, but could eliminate man-in-the-middle attacks at very short distances, say within a single interface between two separately secured networks.
You'd have to have a chunk of neutronium to warp space enough to make that go out of skew on't treadle.
If you look at WWII and the Cold War, cryptography was tremendously important.
It was even more important in WWI. The Germans had submarine warfare, and there was no sonar, making subs pretty much invincible. Germany also had a strong surface fleet. They succeeded in driving the Allied fleet out of the North Sea. They could have owned the entire ocean, cut off all trade and resupply of the Allies, taken Europe and then Britain, and then by degrees the rest of the world.*
But the British had captured a German codebook and were using it to track subs and ships, made easier by the German practice of daily radio communications (admiralties being groups of control freaks with politically motivated bosses, they tended to be clingy that way.) They still considered the North Sea dangerous, but were able to maintain a blockade by patrolling the Channel and the North Atlantic.
* - It's likely they wouldn't have had to "take" the U.S.; we at the time were isolationist and neutral, and in fact had welcomed a German submarine as heroes when she ran under the British blockade to get supplies from us. They used their biggest sub and gutted it for the trip, but the effectiveness was minimal so they never tried it again. The point is, if the British hadn't had control of the ocean, the Germans could have been trading with the world's prime source of natural resources all along while they were knocking down one nation after another, and America would have fed Germany right up until the moment Germany turned on America. Instead, the Germans got desperate, started attacking civilian vessels, sunk the Lusitania, disgusted us all, and put America on the side of the Allies, though it would be some time before we did more than supply them.
Nobody's saying he can't. He just should thank all of us for funding the research that gives him a way to make a profitable business model out of an inherently unprofitable industry.
1. I'm betting we know about 5% of the realities of this case, so we have no clue as to the validity of the legal basis for the charge. Which is why I'm not discussing it in serious terms.
2. Prince isn't a technophobe. He's a piracy-phobe. Piracy isn't right just because you're a geek. And fighting piracy doesn't make you any less interested in the value of technology. It just makes you realistic about the criminal minds that are lurking deep in the vast, opaque sea of IP addresses.
NASA isn't doing "tourism", it's doing science. A big part of what it does is continuous improvement and modification of the mission capabilities of their systems. These guys won't be able to afford that. They'll have to do one or two rounds of refinement then lock it in place for several dozen "missions" in order to break even, because if they don't break even, they go bankrupt and stop flying. NASA breaks even by getting the science done, wowing the taxpayers, and getting approved for another year of funding.
BTW, NASA invented almost all of the stuff that these guys are now using, but these guys don't have to pay NASA a nickel in royalties. If they did, these tourist flights would be an order of magnitude costlier. NASA's successes paid for Carmack's profit projections.
If you have a Trader Joe's near you, give the Two-buck-Chuck Merlot a shot. It's surprising for $2 (in CA) or $3 (elsewhere). (Ignore the Cab or Shiraz; the Cab is about what I'd expect for $3 and the Shiraz is a waste of the money).
And everyone who took George W. Bush's $300 tax-cut bribes while his gang was setting up a $2 trillion money pump in Iraq and a $700 billion accounting-error generator on Wall Street.
I take it back. Congress wasn't allowed to ban the importation of slaves until 1808. So they'd have sat around for 7 years waiting to bang that gavel, if they chused to.
"It has clear limits to its power under the Constitution"
The limits that are clear prevent it from doing certain things, but developing software is not mentioned anywhere.
People who say that the Constitution says that the government doesn't have this or that power intrigue me. They seem to understand the concept of reading comprehension, while simultaneously exhibiting a total inabiltiy to execute it. There's a clause in the document that basically gives the government total power, right before the clauses making certain powers clear and restricting certain others.
Section 8 - Powers of Congress: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...
That "common Defence and general Welfare" thing is very, very broad. If it weren't, Congress would have been done passing all the laws it had the right to pass by about 1801.
It's pretty clear to me that the federal government has the right to pay people to develop software in the interest of general welfare and common defense, which seems to be the point of this article.
Structured software processes do not allow that to happen.
One engineer doesn't put code into the code base without several other engineers getting a look at the code and the testing, and other organizations doing further testing and inspection.
However, any piece of software brought in from the outside is an opaque collection of bugs and vulnerabilities, unless it comes in as source code to be vetted as though newly written.
BTW, Your boredom does not make your disdain for those pony-tails any less of a canard. The only security that has ever worked is isolation of the secured items from any sort of access except by trusted individuals.
No, the reason that this research is unworthy of funding is that the researchers are the sort who would turn it into a search for the causes of ball lightning, or think that we don't know what causes it yet.
Funding is supposed to go to people with competence to carry out science. These goobers failed.
Slashdot Mirror
Hotel owners have lost business because tourists are cancelling trips on the belief that the beach will be polluted regardless of its current state.
Fishermen don't just barge into waters fished by other fishermen. That does none of them any good, and depletes those zones, too.
The only thing making this less of a disaster than it could be is the hundreds of miles of boom that have been laid out since the disaster began. And that isn't cheap, so what we're doing is turning an environmental disaster into a financial one that can be bottled up and presented to the CFO at BP for reimbursement.
Its potential, which grows as a direct result of underestimating it, is to cause a catastrophe across the entire gulf coast. And it doesn't take a sudden release of the entire contents of the oil field for that to happen.
metamalamanteau - importune discussion of a combination of a malaprop and a portmanteau word
hypermalamanteau - the combination of a malaprop and a portmanteau word to describe the combination of a malaprop and a portmanteau word
dismalamanteau - ill-advised removal of the definition of a word that is the combination of a malaprop and a portmanteau word
antidismalamanteau - running counter to the ill-advised removal of the definition of a word that is the combination of a malaprop and a portmanteau word
antidismalamanteauzomgponies!!1! - running counter to the ill-advised removal of the definition of a word that is the combination of a malaprop and a portmanteau word and a text from a middle-aged smartass
Good point. Don't the moderators of this website do even the most basic fact checking any more?
Your reach far exceeds your grasp.
"Last I checked"? You mean that slideshow you clicked-through to yesterday?
The alarmist bozos we need to be paying attention to here are the ones who said that this wouldn't happen and any attempt to regulate it was communist in nature. And the attention we need to be paying is in how long a rope to throw over how high of a tree limb for them to swing from.
We won't tail off. We'll drop off a cliff.
Production and consumption are continuing to rise.
Based on current estimates of proved and predicted reserves, we have 30-50 years of oil left.
And when it ends, it won't be a slow degradation in the flow. it will be more like the straw gurgling in the bottom of your Coke. It was flowing happily at full speed and then suddenly there was nothing left to pump.
The alternative is, as individual superproducers hit their own local bottom-of-the-barrel situations, the remainder will react to the reduced competition by raising prices. But they will also raise production. The end-users may slow consumption or switch more of their consumption to more-efficient systems, but that will be a slowing of the growth, not a downturn.
if the imbalances in production take on certain configurations, you can expect it to invade geopolitical stability, as it always has. So in some cases the flow will be maintained by the spilling of blood and the destruction of cultures, as it always has.
So if you're one of the lucky ones it will be just like the gurgling of a straw, and not the burping of a machine gun.
You missed the point. Just because Congress and the President say that something promotes the general welfare doesn't make it so.
No, the Judiciary has to subsequently agree that it does when someone raises the issue to their level.
Guess what. They have, many times. We've got 200 years of case law to that effect. You don't get anywhere these days claiming the General Welfare or Common Defense clauses don't have meaning. You'd be better off trying to find a way to paint this law as being in direct contradiction of the welfare and security of the nation. That is remarkably effective, and is how certain elements are eroding our rights, in the manner of farcical irony lapped up by their sheeplike partisans.
And in case you didn't notice by observing those around you, comprehension and reason were not requirements for wearing a uniform. Took me all of two years to figure out that my mental abilities were being wasted in that environment, no matter how much fun the toys were. It's not lost on me that you confused fighting for the Constitution with understanding how it works.
It's impractical where distance is involved, but could eliminate man-in-the-middle attacks at very short distances, say within a single interface between two separately secured networks.
You'd have to have a chunk of neutronium to warp space enough to make that go out of skew on't treadle.
If you look at WWII and the Cold War, cryptography was tremendously important.
It was even more important in WWI. The Germans had submarine warfare, and there was no sonar, making subs pretty much invincible. Germany also had a strong surface fleet. They succeeded in driving the Allied fleet out of the North Sea. They could have owned the entire ocean, cut off all trade and resupply of the Allies, taken Europe and then Britain, and then by degrees the rest of the world.*
But the British had captured a German codebook and were using it to track subs and ships, made easier by the German practice of daily radio communications (admiralties being groups of control freaks with politically motivated bosses, they tended to be clingy that way.) They still considered the North Sea dangerous, but were able to maintain a blockade by patrolling the Channel and the North Atlantic.
* - It's likely they wouldn't have had to "take" the U.S.; we at the time were isolationist and neutral, and in fact had welcomed a German submarine as heroes when she ran under the British blockade to get supplies from us. They used their biggest sub and gutted it for the trip, but the effectiveness was minimal so they never tried it again. The point is, if the British hadn't had control of the ocean, the Germans could have been trading with the world's prime source of natural resources all along while they were knocking down one nation after another, and America would have fed Germany right up until the moment Germany turned on America. Instead, the Germans got desperate, started attacking civilian vessels, sunk the Lusitania, disgusted us all, and put America on the side of the Allies, though it would be some time before we did more than supply them.
Nobody's saying he can't. He just should thank all of us for funding the research that gives him a way to make a profitable business model out of an inherently unprofitable industry.
1. I'm betting we know about 5% of the realities of this case, so we have no clue as to the validity of the legal basis for the charge. Which is why I'm not discussing it in serious terms.
2. Prince isn't a technophobe. He's a piracy-phobe. Piracy isn't right just because you're a geek. And fighting piracy doesn't make you any less interested in the value of technology. It just makes you realistic about the criminal minds that are lurking deep in the vast, opaque sea of IP addresses.
I thought it was because of the parrots and saying "arr" all the time.
Whoa. I just sense-memoried pulling the trigger twice on a double-barrelled shotgun.
NASA isn't doing "tourism", it's doing science. A big part of what it does is continuous improvement and modification of the mission capabilities of their systems. These guys won't be able to afford that. They'll have to do one or two rounds of refinement then lock it in place for several dozen "missions" in order to break even, because if they don't break even, they go bankrupt and stop flying. NASA breaks even by getting the science done, wowing the taxpayers, and getting approved for another year of funding.
BTW, NASA invented almost all of the stuff that these guys are now using, but these guys don't have to pay NASA a nickel in royalties. If they did, these tourist flights would be an order of magnitude costlier. NASA's successes paid for Carmack's profit projections.
Is that with or without insurance?
Oh, but I'm also a wine snob.
If you have a Trader Joe's near you, give the Two-buck-Chuck Merlot a shot. It's surprising for $2 (in CA) or $3 (elsewhere). (Ignore the Cab or Shiraz; the Cab is about what I'd expect for $3 and the Shiraz is a waste of the money).
What they really want is to find the actual conspiracy theory, and stop it.
But there are too many, so it's ideal camouflage.
And everyone who took George W. Bush's $300 tax-cut bribes while his gang was setting up a $2 trillion money pump in Iraq and a $700 billion accounting-error generator on Wall Street.
I take it back. Congress wasn't allowed to ban the importation of slaves until 1808. So they'd have sat around for 7 years waiting to bang that gavel, if they chused to.
"It has clear limits to its power under the Constitution"
The limits that are clear prevent it from doing certain things, but developing software is not mentioned anywhere.
People who say that the Constitution says that the government doesn't have this or that power intrigue me. They seem to understand the concept of reading comprehension, while simultaneously exhibiting a total inabiltiy to execute it. There's a clause in the document that basically gives the government total power, right before the clauses making certain powers clear and restricting certain others.
Section 8 - Powers of Congress: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...
That "common Defence and general Welfare" thing is very, very broad. If it weren't, Congress would have been done passing all the laws it had the right to pass by about 1801.
It's pretty clear to me that the federal government has the right to pay people to develop software in the interest of general welfare and common defense, which seems to be the point of this article.
Structured software processes do not allow that to happen.
One engineer doesn't put code into the code base without several other engineers getting a look at the code and the testing, and other organizations doing further testing and inspection.
However, any piece of software brought in from the outside is an opaque collection of bugs and vulnerabilities, unless it comes in as source code to be vetted as though newly written.
BTW, Your boredom does not make your disdain for those pony-tails any less of a canard. The only security that has ever worked is isolation of the secured items from any sort of access except by trusted individuals.
"Our own software is probably a greater threat to us than anything other people can do to us.'"
No.
The greatest threat of all was that our own business leaders would decide to ship millions of engineering jobs to China and India.
Sure. Just look directly at the moon and you'll see it.
Upon consultation with actual Koreans, it turns out that the original press release said that North Korea had "nuked a Frusion".
The BBC apologizes for this error.
No, the reason that this research is unworthy of funding is that the researchers are the sort who would turn it into a search for the causes of ball lightning, or think that we don't know what causes it yet.
Funding is supposed to go to people with competence to carry out science. These goobers failed.
If the net is up, I'm cool with these things bashing into each other.