That is totally one of the "best EVAR" implentations. Boy, I hate to post 'me too', but what the hell. I was just explaining Hunt the Wumpus to my wife the other night.:-D
"Once you learn that 'legal' and 'illegal' aren't necessarily synonymous with 'right' and 'wrong,' well, it's all downhill from there."
I completely agree. That's why I'm saying it's ludicrous for all the asshats to jump out of the woodwork saying "Omg, how could a parent say they didn't know what their kids were doing!!" Well frankly, it's pretty easy for kids to do stuff their parents don't know about. You were all kids, you know this to be true. Parents do their best to teach kids right and wrong and to give them that moral compass, but in the end (and in this case) it's just not enough because that moral compass isn't sufficiently complex to cover (among others) copyright.
Either children must be forced (possibly to their detriment) to memorize the U.S. Code (because it's not just whether it's wrong in their own or their parents' eyes); or they must be present with their parents or some other liable party at all times.
Everyone who wants to 'blame the mom', I hope you see just how infeasible the solutions are, and in that light, temper your criticism.
That's what preview is for, huh?! Attn: Slashdot, it's 2k5, how about editing posts as long as there aren't yet replies?! ---
All you have to do is tell your kids "don't break the law." It's just so easy isn't it? (You guys all have kids, right?) Well it would be easy, if the U.S.C. wasn't so huge; and we didn't need law degrees to understand it and all its implications.
Here's an idea - a new book called U.S.C. 2005, For Kids!, or maybe a weekly cartoon show would be better. Anyway, then parents might have a chance when it isn't merely enough to to know right from wrong. The test isn't "son, did you know this was right or wrong" it's the U.S.C.
When I was or was not phreaking as a 'kid' I had a pretty good sense that it was or could have been wrong (essentially fraud, trespass). However, earlier than that, when I was playing games (or drawing pictures with Doodle or Print Shop) on the C-64 I didn't think/know it was breaking the law to (hypothetically) copy games/softwares at the CUG. Even though copying was rampant back in those 'hobbiest' days, it didn't make it any more legal. What's the statute of limitations on this kind of stuff? (That would be covered in my book/cartoon! How long you have to keep it secret!)
What I'm saying is -- I don't think I could rely on a 6- to 11-year-old's sense of copyright infringement even if they have a sufficiently developed sense of 'right and wrong'. (It might be obvious not to hit Suzie, but it might be harder to tell about making a certain noise before dialing a phone number or duplicating a certain disk.)
Hmm, this is probably why the *AA's are trying so hard to indoctrinate -- er, educate -- children in their schools.
All you have to do is tell your kids "don't break the law." It's just so easy isn't it? (You guys all have kids, right?) Well it would be easy, if the U.S.C. wasn't so huge; and we didn't need law degrees to understand it and all its implications.
Here's an idea - a new book called U.S.C. 2005, For Kids!, or maybe a weekly cartoon show would be better. Anyway, then parents might have a chance when it isn't merely enough to to know right from wrong. The test isn't "son, did you know this was right or wrong" it's the U.S.C.
When I was or was not phreaking as a 'kid' I had a pretty good sense that it was or could have been wrong (essentially fraud, trespass). However, earlier than that, when I was playing games (or drawing pictures with Doodle or Print Shop) on the C-64 I didn't think/know it was breaking the law to (hypothetically) copy games/softwares at the CUG. Even though copying was rampant back in those 'hobbiest' days, it didn't make it any more legal. What's the statute of limitations on this kind of stuff? (That would be covered in my book/cartoon! How long you have to keep it secret!)
What I'm saying is -- I don't think I could rely on a 6- to 11-year-old's sense of copyright infringement even if they have a sufficiently developed sense of 'right and wrong'. (It might be obvious not to hit Suzie, but it might be harder to tell about making a certain noise before dialing a phone number or duplicating a certain disk.)
Hmm, this is probably why the *AA's are trying so hard to indoctrinate -- er, educate -- children in their schools.
"So, exactly how is human intellect not a result of evolution?"
Yeah. I didn't say it wasn't.:-D
Further: "And do you really think a hundred years or so of "societal support structures" is going to have a lasting effect on the gene pool?"
Yes, I do. Because when I said that, I wasn't referring to just "a hundred years". Our societal support structures evolved from the social groups of lower primates. The necessity to keep track of the large amount of social-group interactions (social accounting) is a likely reason our brains are just so big. Additionally, our sense of aesthetics in pair-bonding is ALSO evolved over much larger periods of time. I'm saying that these more cerebral selectors are much bigger factors to today's Man compared to how healthy our babies are, how healthy our peers are, how fast we can run, how long we can go without food, how long our individual immune systems can fight off death, etc.
Finally, regarding our abilities to stave of death: I think 2 billion or so humans living past 60 years is pretty good evidence to the contrary considering we used to mature by 11 and die by 30. But again, I'm looking beyond "a hundred years or so".
I just wanted to go on to say that when I say "fitness" I meant it more in the spirit of prey and predator. In a more general sense, sure, fitness really describes any criteria that increases viable procreation (e.g., H. Sapiens superior ability to not die in child birth compared to Erectus and friends: wider hips, etc.). I'm just saying the 'selecters' of modern humans are much different from our ancestors' (now it's eachother, hardly other species or environment).
Anyway, I agree that's its myopic to say that our social structures over the last ten- or even one- thousand years haven't affected our evolution. Sure that's a blink of an eye on our way to frightning sci-fi visions of H. Sapiens as giant-brained, limb-regenerating, immortal super-beings; but it's evolution none-the-less.
I'm now off to retort to the parent of your comment... Cheers.
(Full disclosure, I'm not really that educated in all this. My wife has an anthro degree, I don't.)
I also can attest to the quality of the 3D effect. I've watched the available 3D Imax movies they have at the Kennedy Space center. I've been startled by "debris" flying from the screen at my face.
I'm saying the sensation is real enough to make you flinch.
Remember, evolution doesn't necessarily favor the fittest. It favors the most readily reproducible.
Well yes and no. In humans this is pretty true, because we don't have any man-eating predators. If we often had to run for our lives, hide for our lives, hear for our prey, and survive pathogens long enough to reproduce then we too would still have 'fittest' pressures. Fortunately, our 'superior' intellect has saved us from evolution. Now we can select based merely on aesthetics since medicine (and our societal support structure) assures most babies will survive to produce children of their own no matter what.
Oh, you said "necessarily". Never mind:-) maybe we're just agreeing. Well in that case my only nitpick is this, maybe the statement should read "It also favors the most readily reproducible."
We wouldn't all be saying dupe if the title wasn't:
Creative MP3 Players Ship With Virus Zonk in Slashdot
The last one was titled:
Creative Zens Ship with Worms ScuttleMonkey in Slashdot
Now, what would maybe make this not a dupe, or would irritate me less, is if the new title was "Creative Announces Recall for Infected Players" (including text like "Tuesday we reported that Creative sucked, but today...". At that point it would seem like this is a followup and not just another indication that the editors don't even read their own site.
I think the fact is you have just made a compelling argument to travel for business with two laptops. If you are using raid ONLY for redundancy, then you have to ask, what about the screen, battery, motherboard, and umpteen other components that could fail -- and stop all work -- while traveling.
I think a better solution -- although more expensive, surely -- would be to stow an extra laptop in your baggage, configured similarly/ identically. Store your unique data on both the internal drive and a removable drive (usb flash, cdrw). Then, without the loss of battery life (and thus portability) you've saved yourself from all manner of fatal failures. Since you are on the company's dime, why not spring for another $2000 for a spare laptop. If the drive goes bad in one (or the battery, display, keyboard, etc), chuck it in the overhead, pull out the other, and resume work with a fresh charge.
Now you don't have to worry about finding any repair shops, you just have to find the nearest fed-ex. You ship your failed system to your IT people, they send it (or a replacement) back, and now you're prepared for the trip home with the same level of redundancy.
Here's two failover scenarios:
1. One laptop with two hardrives, raid: 2 hours of battery. But atleast harddrive failure won't interrupt the 2 hours you've got.
2. Two laptops with one harddrive each: 4 x 2 hours of battery. Any single failure will leave you with at least 4 hours of work.
In the best case of a drive failure near the end of battery life, you will "enjoy" nearly 8 hours of work compared to at most 2-3 hours (for the huge laptop with two harddrives).
To me, raid in a laptop seems like a waste. Single drive failure is such a small factor compared to set of productivity threats faced by a laptop (in the server room there's about zero chance of droppage, theft, spillage, battery failure, forgotten AC cords, closing the display with a pen on the keyboard, among others). I think you'd be better off with two inexpensive laptops (e.g., two stock iBooks = $2000) than one 'big' laptop with a single redundant drive. Leave raid for scenarios where it's really beneficial, 4 drives or more, striping+mirroring, n-1 crc recovery, etc.
Finally, using raid JUST for redundancy and not for recovery/integrity (like in our pretend laptop, 2-disk raid-1) is retarded; I mean where's the high-availabilty in a laptop without hot-plug?! All that wasted overhead for what? I guess it's only a matter of time for laptops to have at least 3 harddrives, at which point other [useful] raid levels [3 and 5] finally open up.
Anyway, I've rambled long enough. Cheers. (Pardon any typos)
This is America. If you can convince others to stop having children of their own free will then more power to ya. If you try to get legislation passed forcing others to conform to your views of what the 'right' population of America should be, I'll be one of the members of the lynch mob who hangs you from the nearest flagpole.
Your answer to the relatively mild suggestion of a lawful tax disincentive to birthrate is met with public assasination and mutilation. Talk about forcing others to conform to your views.
Also, while I suspect the concensus is genuine in this case, the ways (eg, counting research papers that espouse a particular view) I've seen it measured have been suspect. Namely, one is looking at public statements. The problem is that public statements often don't reflect private beliefs especially since what you say in a research article can effect your career for the rest of your life. An anonymous poll seems a more effective way to determine the true beliefs of a population of scientists.
Well get to work! Science will probably publish it, so it's definitely worth the effort.
Anyhow. We both agree: What to do about global warming -- if anything -- is up for debate, and I know of no "consensus" on that subject. Again, to give this dead horse one last blow, global warming is measurable fact; Science is not divided about this, and saying so harms the necessary debate.
(tangent: physics isn't really up for politcs, even though it's a theory of gravitation, there's a very real chance that when I 'drop' something it will go down -- our language is even biased to this fact. This is the same for the "green-house effect". We have a good enough handle on the physics involved that we can say with certainty how much heat isn't radiated as certain concentrations of gas increases. So, physics tells us that increase the concentrations of "green-house gases" increases the tempurature of the global: Global warming. Combine trapped/unradiated heat with increased solar activity and god knows what else and there's just no denying it. Now, where do all the 'new' green-house gasses come from? ('new' because they were trapped away at some point, carbon is mostly conserved.) We can measure that too.) There is even "consensus" that there are anthropogenic factors (for the accelerating release of these gasses). What to do, nobody knows. Because again, we may have already crossed the line and aren't smart enough to know it yet.
I imagine that when you take your poll, anyone with a degree in physics, and many other scientists with a strong physics background (at least thermodynamics) would not deny the process.
No need to apologise... it's really just the lameness of the Slashdot code; not correctly/logically nesting high-rated replies-to-replies is confusing/broken. That's all I'm saying.:)
The way moderation suppresses stupid comments and then shows higher rated replies to stupid comments as replies to higher rated parents or grandparents is lame, and causes posts like yours above.
Now your indignation will be moderated up for really addressing nothing and basically agreeing with the person you are slamming that NDAs are different from licenses and copyrights (and their infringement or contributory infringement).
I've had a five button Kensington optical mouse for a while, and I've always been able to use it for exactly the things Apple describes the extra buttons on their new mouse is for (like expose and dashbaord). No special drivers or anything (n-button mice have been supported forever in OS X).
Oh! You mean the economists and political organs are divided (and thus the populations they control and the lobbies that fund them). Well sure, that's obvious. I guess the headache comes from people who say "global warming isn't happening" because it is; or that "credible scientists are still arguing about it" which they aren't. Credible scientists (published in peer-reviewed journals, without blatant conflicts of interest, whose results are verifiable and repeatable) have reached a "consensus" (the meaning of which we've discussed).
I thought when you said "Well, sorry, but science is divided on the issue" (emphasis added) you meant the scientists whose life work was to study this phenomena. Sorry. I guess my point stands from my last post above... Be precise in your language and we wouldn't have these misunderstandings.
Anyway, I agree that there is debate about what to do when, how and if. It's not gloom and doom to say we may already be fucked so it's not worth it in the short term to do anything; If you are going to crash into the wall regardless, why apply the breaks?
::Are climate scientists environmentalists? And ignoring that fallacy, if they [all] were, how would climate scientists "benefit greatly from a hamstringing of U.S. economic power through environmental regulation"?
:My take is that's who's issuing these global reports of gloom and doom.
How would the scientists, or anyone, "benefit greatly from a hamstringing of U.S. economic power through environmental regulation"?
With the exception of some extra coastal areas during a brief period of north Atlantic warming, the majority of Greenland has been anything but green. Most consider the name as a bit of artistic license by a murderous exile. Is that ad hominem, I don't know; but if someone lead their whole life in the frozen north and then found a patch of mossy, rocky earth with minor permafrost and a couple months with vegetation he might consider that 'green' -- green like Siberia is green, green like any tundra is green. Florida is hardly any more floral than the rest of the unspoiled tropical wilderness was 1000 years ago... but we're stuck with that name too. I'm saying the names people give their homes/discoveries are hardly unbiased scientific data.
Let's not forget that both sides have a lot at stake. The environmentalists' existence is based on the premise that modern man is destroying his environment, and that the world needs to be restructured in a way that empowers the environmentalists.
Are climate scientists environmentalists? And ignoring that fallacy, if they [all] were, how would climate scientists "benefit greatly from a hamstringing of U.S. economic power through environmental regulation"?
From where I'm sitting it looks like less taxes/profits would lead to less grants, which would lead to less science, which would lead to less jobs for scientists, which would lead them to... homelessness (or at best the knowledge-jobs that haven't been off-shored)?
Take off the tinfoil hat. There isn't a vast New Greenpeace Order secretly trying to destroy your way of life by faking ice cores, historic atmospheric measurements and the physics of planetary heat radiation.
This time when you read Mann et al or the IPCC report (knowing it has the weight of "consensus" and knowing what "consensus" means in this setting) it might have more of an effect on you. Maybe you won't be swayed by the 'balanced' reporting you see in the future. Maybe you'll see the riff on Goofus & Gallant in the humorous context for which it was intended (maybe you didn't know this was a riff; never read Highlights when you were little?). The public opinion on climate change has been bought and sold by lobbyists (that's the joke, Gallant isn't a scientist, he's a lobbyist); I see no problem poking fun at this. It's not about 'religion' or 'zealotry' it's about satire.
Anyway, sorry you had to take some guff from the haters.
Divided like 50-50, 60-40, 70-30, 80-20, 90-10, or 99-1?
What's funny here is that other scientists have researched the "consensus" of climate scientists. Either read their analysis or do your own and then get back once you've learned the answer. Then compare your new understanding to your use of the word divided and tell me how it compares to the splits above. You might learn that "A majority of climate scientists argue that global-warming has significant anthropogenic factors".
Semantics is important in this case because one could fairly say that "humanity is still divided on whether the Earth is flat." It is of course intellectually dishonest to frame the debate in such a way.
In summation, use precise language. Otherwise your statement is meaningless and adds nothing. But then again, saying "a minority of climate scientists discount human carbon forcing" (i.e., using a meaningful qualifier) undermines your agenda.
Slashdot Mirror
If you like classic 2D scrolling platformer shmups there is Alien Hominid. Now available for the big three consoles after beginning as a Flash game.
d &btnG=Google+Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=alien+homini
And here's an url, for the kids.
http://www.videogamehouse.net/huntwumpus.html
You forgot
:-D
Hunt the Wumpus for the TI-99/4A
That is totally one of the "best EVAR" implentations. Boy, I hate to post 'me too', but what the hell. I was just explaining Hunt the Wumpus to my wife the other night.
Time traveling space Nazis?
Rick Berman? Is that you?
"Once you learn that 'legal' and 'illegal' aren't necessarily synonymous with 'right' and 'wrong,' well, it's all downhill from there."
I completely agree. That's why I'm saying it's ludicrous for all the asshats to jump out of the woodwork saying "Omg, how could a parent say they didn't know what their kids were doing!!" Well frankly, it's pretty easy for kids to do stuff their parents don't know about. You were all kids, you know this to be true. Parents do their best to teach kids right and wrong and to give them that moral compass, but in the end (and in this case) it's just not enough because that moral compass isn't sufficiently complex to cover (among others) copyright.
Either children must be forced (possibly to their detriment) to memorize the U.S. Code (because it's not just whether it's wrong in their own or their parents' eyes); or they must be present with their parents or some other liable party at all times.
Everyone who wants to 'blame the mom', I hope you see just how infeasible the solutions are, and in that light, temper your criticism.
Sorry to rant.
That's what preview is for, huh?! Attn: Slashdot, it's 2k5, how about editing posts as long as there aren't yet replies?!
---
All you have to do is tell your kids "don't break the law." It's just so easy isn't it? (You guys all have kids, right?) Well it would be easy, if the U.S.C. wasn't so huge; and we didn't need law degrees to understand it and all its implications.
Here's an idea - a new book called U.S.C. 2005, For Kids!, or maybe a weekly cartoon show would be better. Anyway, then parents might have a chance when it isn't merely enough to to know right from wrong. The test isn't "son, did you know this was right or wrong" it's the U.S.C.
When I was or was not phreaking as a 'kid' I had a pretty good sense that it was or could have been wrong (essentially fraud, trespass). However, earlier than that, when I was playing games (or drawing pictures with Doodle or Print Shop) on the C-64 I didn't think/know it was breaking the law to (hypothetically) copy games/softwares at the CUG. Even though copying was rampant back in those 'hobbiest' days, it didn't make it any more legal. What's the statute of limitations on this kind of stuff? (That would be covered in my book/cartoon! How long you have to keep it secret!)
What I'm saying is -- I don't think I could rely on a 6- to 11-year-old's sense of copyright infringement even if they have a sufficiently developed sense of 'right and wrong'. (It might be obvious not to hit Suzie, but it might be harder to tell about making a certain noise before dialing a phone number or duplicating a certain disk.)
Hmm, this is probably why the *AA's are trying so hard to indoctrinate -- er, educate -- children in their schools.
(to parent and siblings)
All you have to do is tell your kids "don't break the law." It's just so easy isn't it? (You guys all have kids, right?) Well it would be easy, if the U.S.C. wasn't so huge; and we didn't need law degrees to understand it and all its implications.
Here's an idea - a new book called U.S.C. 2005, For Kids!, or maybe a weekly cartoon show would be better. Anyway, then parents might have a chance when it isn't merely enough to to know right from wrong. The test isn't "son, did you know this was right or wrong" it's the U.S.C.
When I was or was not phreaking as a 'kid' I had a pretty good sense that it was or could have been wrong (essentially fraud, trespass). However, earlier than that, when I was playing games (or drawing pictures with Doodle or Print Shop) on the C-64 I didn't think/know it was breaking the law to (hypothetically) copy games/softwares at the CUG. Even though copying was rampant back in those 'hobbiest' days, it didn't make it any more legal. What's the statute of limitations on this kind of stuff? (That would be covered in my book/cartoon! How long you have to keep it secret!)
What I'm saying is -- I don't think I could rely on a 6- to 11-year-old's sense of copyright infringement even if they have a sufficiently developed sense of 'right and wrong'. (It might be obvious not to hit Suzie, but it might be harder to tell about making a certain noise before dialing a phone number or duplicating a certain disk.)
Hmm, this is probably why the *AA's are trying so hard to indoctrinate -- er, educate -- children in their schools.
"So, exactly how is human intellect not a result of evolution?"
:-D
4 59401 a reply I've made down thread.
Yeah. I didn't say it wasn't.
Further:
"And do you really think a hundred years or so of "societal support structures" is going to have a lasting effect on the gene pool?"
Yes, I do. Because when I said that, I wasn't referring to just "a hundred years". Our societal support structures evolved from the social groups of lower primates. The necessity to keep track of the large amount of social-group interactions (social accounting) is a likely reason our brains are just so big. Additionally, our sense of aesthetics in pair-bonding is ALSO evolved over much larger periods of time. I'm saying that these more cerebral selectors are much bigger factors to today's Man compared to how healthy our babies are, how healthy our peers are, how fast we can run, how long we can go without food, how long our individual immune systems can fight off death, etc.
Finally, regarding our abilities to stave of death: I think 2 billion or so humans living past 60 years is pretty good evidence to the contrary considering we used to mature by 11 and die by 30. But again, I'm looking beyond "a hundred years or so".
Possibly relevant: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=160745&cid=13
(I'm the GP, and I agree with you.)
I just wanted to go on to say that when I say "fitness" I meant it more in the spirit of prey and predator. In a more general sense, sure, fitness really describes any criteria that increases viable procreation (e.g., H. Sapiens superior ability to not die in child birth compared to Erectus and friends: wider hips, etc.). I'm just saying the 'selecters' of modern humans are much different from our ancestors' (now it's eachother, hardly other species or environment).
Anyway, I agree that's its myopic to say that our social structures over the last ten- or even one- thousand years haven't affected our evolution. Sure that's a blink of an eye on our way to frightning sci-fi visions of H. Sapiens as giant-brained, limb-regenerating, immortal super-beings; but it's evolution none-the-less.
I'm now off to retort to the parent of your comment... Cheers.
(Full disclosure, I'm not really that educated in all this. My wife has an anthro degree, I don't.)
I also can attest to the quality of the 3D effect. I've watched the available 3D Imax movies they have at the Kennedy Space center. I've been startled by "debris" flying from the screen at my face.
I'm saying the sensation is real enough to make you flinch.
Remember, evolution doesn't necessarily favor the fittest. It favors the most readily reproducible.
:-) maybe we're just agreeing. Well in that case my only nitpick is this, maybe the statement should read "It also favors the most readily reproducible."
Well yes and no. In humans this is pretty true, because we don't have any man-eating predators. If we often had to run for our lives, hide for our lives, hear for our prey, and survive pathogens long enough to reproduce then we too would still have 'fittest' pressures. Fortunately, our 'superior' intellect has saved us from evolution. Now we can select based merely on aesthetics since medicine (and our societal support structure) assures most babies will survive to produce children of their own no matter what.
Oh, you said "necessarily". Never mind
Cheers.
We wouldn't all be saying dupe if the title wasn't:
...". At that point it would seem like this is a followup and not just another indication that the editors don't even read their own site.
Creative MP3 Players Ship With Virus
Zonk in Slashdot
The last one was titled:
Creative Zens Ship with Worms
ScuttleMonkey in Slashdot
Now, what would maybe make this not a dupe, or would irritate me less, is if the new title was "Creative Announces Recall for Infected Players" (including text like "Tuesday we reported that Creative sucked, but today
I think the fact is you have just made a compelling argument to travel for business with two laptops. If you are using raid ONLY for redundancy, then you have to ask, what about the screen, battery, motherboard, and umpteen other components that could fail -- and stop all work -- while traveling.
I think a better solution -- although more expensive, surely -- would be to stow an extra laptop in your baggage, configured similarly/ identically. Store your unique data on both the internal drive and a removable drive (usb flash, cdrw). Then, without the loss of battery life (and thus portability) you've saved yourself from all manner of fatal failures. Since you are on the company's dime, why not spring for another $2000 for a spare laptop. If the drive goes bad in one (or the battery, display, keyboard, etc), chuck it in the overhead, pull out the other, and resume work with a fresh charge.
Now you don't have to worry about finding any repair shops, you just have to find the nearest fed-ex. You ship your failed system to your IT people, they send it (or a replacement) back, and now you're prepared for the trip home with the same level of redundancy.
Here's two failover scenarios:
1. One laptop with two hardrives, raid: 2 hours of battery. But atleast harddrive failure won't interrupt the 2 hours you've got.
2. Two laptops with one harddrive each: 4 x 2 hours of battery. Any single failure will leave you with at least 4 hours of work.
In the best case of a drive failure near the end of battery life, you will "enjoy" nearly 8 hours of work compared to at most 2-3 hours (for the huge laptop with two harddrives).
To me, raid in a laptop seems like a waste. Single drive failure is such a small factor compared to set of productivity threats faced by a laptop (in the server room there's about zero chance of droppage, theft, spillage, battery failure, forgotten AC cords, closing the display with a pen on the keyboard, among others). I think you'd be better off with two inexpensive laptops (e.g., two stock iBooks = $2000) than one 'big' laptop with a single redundant drive. Leave raid for scenarios where it's really beneficial, 4 drives or more, striping+mirroring, n-1 crc recovery, etc.
Finally, using raid JUST for redundancy and not for recovery/integrity (like in our pretend laptop, 2-disk raid-1) is retarded; I mean where's the high-availabilty in a laptop without hot-plug?! All that wasted overhead for what? I guess it's only a matter of time for laptops to have at least 3 harddrives, at which point other [useful] raid levels [3 and 5] finally open up.
Anyway, I've rambled long enough. Cheers. (Pardon any typos)
What's funny here:
This is America. If you can convince others to stop having children of their own free will then more power to ya. If you try to get legislation passed forcing others to conform to your views of what the 'right' population of America should be, I'll be one of the members of the lynch mob who hangs you from the nearest flagpole.
Your answer to the relatively mild suggestion of a lawful tax disincentive to birthrate is met with public assasination and mutilation. Talk about forcing others to conform to your views.
Enjoy the irony.
Also, while I suspect the concensus is genuine in this case, the ways (eg, counting research papers that espouse a particular view) I've seen it measured have been suspect. Namely, one is looking at public statements. The problem is that public statements often don't reflect private beliefs especially since what you say in a research article can effect your career for the rest of your life. An anonymous poll seems a more effective way to determine the true beliefs of a population of scientists.
Well get to work! Science will probably publish it, so it's definitely worth the effort.
Anyhow. We both agree: What to do about global warming -- if anything -- is up for debate, and I know of no "consensus" on that subject. Again, to give this dead horse one last blow, global warming is measurable fact; Science is not divided about this, and saying so harms the necessary debate.
(tangent: physics isn't really up for politcs, even though it's a theory of gravitation, there's a very real chance that when I 'drop' something it will go down -- our language is even biased to this fact. This is the same for the "green-house effect". We have a good enough handle on the physics involved that we can say with certainty how much heat isn't radiated as certain concentrations of gas increases. So, physics tells us that increase the concentrations of "green-house gases" increases the tempurature of the global: Global warming. Combine trapped/unradiated heat with increased solar activity and god knows what else and there's just no denying it. Now, where do all the 'new' green-house gasses come from? ('new' because they were trapped away at some point, carbon is mostly conserved.) We can measure that too.) There is even "consensus" that there are anthropogenic factors (for the accelerating release of these gasses). What to do, nobody knows. Because again, we may have already crossed the line and aren't smart enough to know it yet.
I imagine that when you take your poll, anyone with a degree in physics, and many other scientists with a strong physics background (at least thermodynamics) would not deny the process.
Well, I'm done for now. Pardon any typos. Cheers.
No need to apologise ... it's really just the lameness of the Slashdot code; not correctly/logically nesting high-rated replies-to-replies is confusing/broken. That's all I'm saying. :)
He wasn't replying to you.
c id=13343852
:-)
He was replying to this: http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=159326&
The way moderation suppresses stupid comments and then shows higher rated replies to stupid comments as replies to higher rated parents or grandparents is lame, and causes posts like yours above.
Now your indignation will be moderated up for really addressing nothing and basically agreeing with the person you are slamming that NDAs are different from licenses and copyrights (and their infringement or contributory infringement).
Cheers!
Aw hell -- right after I submitted this I noticed the side buttons don't work independently. Ass. It is only 4. Damn you Apple!
If you count the clickable trackball it has five.
:)
http://www.apple.com/mightymouse/specs.html
Not trying to be a pedant or anything
I've had a five button Kensington optical mouse for a while, and I've always been able to use it for exactly the things Apple describes the extra buttons on their new mouse is for (like expose and dashbaord). No special drivers or anything (n-button mice have been supported forever in OS X).
Oh! You mean the economists and political organs are divided (and thus the populations they control and the lobbies that fund them). Well sure, that's obvious. I guess the headache comes from people who say "global warming isn't happening" because it is; or that "credible scientists are still arguing about it" which they aren't. Credible scientists (published in peer-reviewed journals, without blatant conflicts of interest, whose results are verifiable and repeatable) have reached a "consensus" (the meaning of which we've discussed).
I thought when you said "Well, sorry, but science is divided on the issue" (emphasis added) you meant the scientists whose life work was to study this phenomena. Sorry. I guess my point stands from my last post above... Be precise in your language and we wouldn't have these misunderstandings.
Anyway, I agree that there is debate about what to do when, how and if. It's not gloom and doom to say we may already be fucked so it's not worth it in the short term to do anything; If you are going to crash into the wall regardless, why apply the breaks?
::Are climate scientists environmentalists? And ignoring that fallacy, if they [all] were, how would climate scientists "benefit greatly from a hamstringing of U.S. economic power through environmental regulation"?
:My take is that's who's issuing these global reports of gloom and doom.
How would the scientists, or anyone, "benefit greatly from a hamstringing of U.S. economic power through environmental regulation"?
There is a reason why Greenland is called "Green"land. Because it used to be, well, green.
r eenland/history.htm# Norse_settlement
Are you kidding?
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/destinations/europe/g
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland
With the exception of some extra coastal areas during a brief period of north Atlantic warming, the majority of Greenland has been anything but green. Most consider the name as a bit of artistic license by a murderous exile. Is that ad hominem, I don't know; but if someone lead their whole life in the frozen north and then found a patch of mossy, rocky earth with minor permafrost and a couple months with vegetation he might consider that 'green' -- green like Siberia is green, green like any tundra is green. Florida is hardly any more floral than the rest of the unspoiled tropical wilderness was 1000 years ago... but we're stuck with that name too. I'm saying the names people give their homes/discoveries are hardly unbiased scientific data.
Let's not forget that both sides have a lot at stake. The environmentalists' existence is based on the premise that modern man is destroying his environment, and that the world needs to be restructured in a way that empowers the environmentalists.
... homelessness (or at best the knowledge-jobs that haven't been off-shored)?
:-)
Are climate scientists environmentalists? And ignoring that fallacy, if they [all] were, how would climate scientists "benefit greatly from a hamstringing of U.S. economic power through environmental regulation"?
From where I'm sitting it looks like less taxes/profits would lead to less grants, which would lead to less science, which would lead to less jobs for scientists, which would lead them to
Take off the tinfoil hat. There isn't a vast New Greenpeace Order secretly trying to destroy your way of life by faking ice cores, historic atmospheric measurements and the physics of planetary heat radiation.
Sorry for the bit snark.
How about this article in Science about what "the consensus" means:
/ 5702/1686?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT= &author1=oreskes&searchid=1103210845409_5389&store d_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=12/31 /2004
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/306
This time when you read Mann et al or the IPCC report (knowing it has the weight of "consensus" and knowing what "consensus" means in this setting) it might have more of an effect on you. Maybe you won't be swayed by the 'balanced' reporting you see in the future. Maybe you'll see the riff on Goofus & Gallant in the humorous context for which it was intended (maybe you didn't know this was a riff; never read Highlights when you were little?). The public opinion on climate change has been bought and sold by lobbyists (that's the joke, Gallant isn't a scientist, he's a lobbyist); I see no problem poking fun at this. It's not about 'religion' or 'zealotry' it's about satire.
Anyway, sorry you had to take some guff from the haters.
Hey, in what sense did ou mean divided?
/ 5702/1686?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT= &author1=oreskes&searchid=1103210845409_5389&store d_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=12/31 /2004
Divided like 50-50, 60-40, 70-30, 80-20, 90-10, or 99-1?
What's funny here is that other scientists have researched the "consensus" of climate scientists. Either read their analysis or do your own and then get back once you've learned the answer. Then compare your new understanding to your use of the word divided and tell me how it compares to the splits above. You might learn that "A majority of climate scientists argue that global-warming has significant anthropogenic factors".
Semantics is important in this case because one could fairly say that "humanity is still divided on whether the Earth is flat." It is of course intellectually dishonest to frame the debate in such a way.
In summation, use precise language. Otherwise your statement is meaningless and adds nothing. But then again, saying "a minority of climate scientists discount human carbon forcing" (i.e., using a meaningful qualifier) undermines your agenda.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/306
If you have a valid critique of this majority, feel free to submit it to Science, you might get published!