Text messages are about 1.5 cents apiece to send and receive.
..and that's still a rip-off. Consider:
Basically, that means that so long as I use that same phone, I buy my pre-paid minutes at $0.047. If I browse the Web, it charges me for the time in minutes, instead of metering my bandwidth.
1 minute of voice with a data rate of ~4kbps is about 512 bytes. The largest text messages are about 1/2 of that with overhead. So, one minute equivalence of text messages, 120 messages, you pay $0.047 for voice, and $1.80 for text messages, around 4000% more.
That doesn't even touch on the fact that voice has a MUCH higher QoS requirement (at a premium for quality) than a text message.
Text messaging is nothing but a sacred cash cow for the telcos. I refuse to use it.
Lots of taxi companies use cameras in cabs, mainly for detecting driver errors, like not wearing seatbelts, or sudden stops or other "violent" movements. They are sometimes still cameras, but can also be video cameras, though they are usually off until something trips them.The driver can also trip them in emergency situations, like if he's being held up.
Adding them in an "always on" mode is kinda invasive, but as long as they are well-identified both inside and outside the cab, so you know beforehand what you're getting into when you get into the cab, I don't think it's a huge issue.
I always thought the "Ministry of Truth" had a nice uber-authoritarian ring to it.
Unfortunately, we don't use "Ministry" in our governmental body names, so it would have to be "Department of Truth" or maybe "Department of Truthiness".
Also could bookend the Department of Justice with the Department of the American Way.
We've had the same problem on a channel I frequent, and what we learned is that you have to file your counter-notice with the EXACT right person at YouTube, or it goes nowhere. According to the law, YouTube has to restore access to the video in 10 business days. Unfortunately, YouTube seems to have some weird interpretation of "business days", as they said it could take up to 18 calendar days to restore a video, technically putting them in violation of the law.
We're still waiting to see if they make good on their promise to restore it by the 28th, which will be 18 days since they acknowledge the counter-notification.
I am well aware of the paper publishing process. I make a living providing both corporate and government scientists with solutions to advance their research, and often get to see the results of their work that I was involved with published or put into use.
While it is true that not all experimental data is published with the paper, ANYone most certainly can contact the author(s) of said paper and request the data, or get pointed to the source. I've never heard a single one talk about the data being their "property" or that they don't want someone doing analytics on their data. The latter is quite absurd, since any review of their research often requires such. If the research is experiment-based, they may or may not provide it, depending on the nature of the experiment, but they do provide enough information that new experimental data can be obtained through repeating the experiment.
The real point here is that most of the data and code used in the majority of the core AGW/climate change papers IS available. See here for a huge list of data sources for many climate models and papers.
Well, I think he meant it from the sense of something obvious over geologic time.
Yes, there were events in the past which profoundly affected life on the planet, but it takes a lot of work to tease them out, as they are far from obvious to the casual observer.
Will there be any trace of us in a billion years? The planet will still be here, most likely, but the crust will have churned over almost all evidence of our presence. Creatures that attain enough intelligence/sentience to understand the concept might eventually dig up some fossil evidence of us or our creations, but it will likely be fairly difficult.
Again, it is about reciprocation. Which is the fundamental principle of society. If I have to give up something for others, it seems only fair that they give up something in return, right?
Not if the thing you're being asked to give up is causing damage in the first place. Again, if you insist on your "right" to punch people in the face, and demand that other people give up something else to "reciprocate" you giving up on that "right", then that is not true reciprocation.
What I am expecting is consistency. If it is every man for himself, then that's fine. If it is every man must look out for each other, then fine too. The problem arises when on the one hand, I am to look out for everyone when it doesn't benefit me, and on the other it is a free-for-all when it hurts me.
If you are expecting consistency, then you have to also practice it. Otherwise, you'll probably not find it.
I may be mistaken, but you are laboring under the misapprehension that this somehow started as a real-life flamefest about global warming. It didn't.
I said I didn't know, but that is generally how these things start. I severely doubt people simply walked up to you on the street and started antagonizing you about burning fossil fuels without you first bringing up the subject. If so, I apologize, as I have never experienced that.
I was not the bully. I did everything possible, within the limits of my skills, to gain social acceptance.
My antagonizing tone is not my general demenor. It is very much more a frustrated wtf. I make an incredibly conscious effort to be nice to others. I still have problems making friends.
It sounds like you are talking about different issues. Surely, your whole social life for the last 3 decades hasn't revolved solely around the topic of AGW.
Just to point out, I have never met you or discussed anything with you before; my first experience with you was a general antagonism towards everyone for something that appears to be well within your sphere of influence to control. Thus, I would say you might need to make a little bit more of a conscious effort than you displayed here. That's just my take on it, though.
It has nothing to do with being on the winning or losing side. It has to do with reciprocation.
I am curious though. What happened to me was wrong, it was well beyond any normal school bullshit. It is having an impact on me to this day, with severe bouts of depression and suicidal thoughts. Why do you defend what happened to me?
Well, I will say again, I don't know what you went through, just what you claim you went through. I didn't see anything which justifies this level and type of response, and I am not going to suggest you relate it here, to me or anyone else. If you truly feel you have been horribly abused by people, then perhaps you should seek out professional counseling (I am being serious here, not deprecating or dismissive) to see if there is something that they can help you with, as you're not going to get that kind of help in an anonymous public forum.
While that is true, it hardly qualifies as "hiding" them, since you can quite easily go to any depository library and obtain them, or pay for a subscription to the journals/sites and get them directly.
It is hardly false. The vast majority of the raw data used is most certainly available either up-front or upon request.
The few cases where it wasn't had nothing to do with the scientists refusing to provide it, but being contractually bound to not release it because it was a PAID product of numerous data-gathering organizations.
Oh, to be sure, there are a few, just as there are a few Republicans (John Huntsman, for one) who don't deny it.
The issue is not the tiny minority in each party, but the party line and platform. The Republican platform is one of denial. The Democrat platform is one of support.
Again, this has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with the fact that I resent being told I can't use fossil fuels in order to improve the quality of someone else's life, yet when all it would have taken was some teachers telling other kids 'be nice to johnny or we will punish you' there was no such desire to do that little thing to improve the quality of my life.
You resent being told that you should be doing the right thing when you claim it isn't the right thing? Better shutter yourself up in your basement, as that's kind of basic in social interactions. It is like saying "I resent being told I can't punch you in the face" while claiming that punching people in the face is no big deal.
Stop expecting other people to coddle you, and you'll go a lot farther in life.
so it is victim blaming then? Are poor people poor because of what they did?? do you even know what lengths i went through to try to help myself? Maybe I have problems, maybe I needed help, but there was no accomodation to be found.
Bottom line: everyone had the freedom to treat me like shit, I should have the freedom to burn fossil fuels.
No, it is bully-blaming and calling out "playing the victim card". Likely (I don't know, as I don't know anything about your situation, other than what you have related), you mistreated other people in your objections to what they were saying, and they responded in kind. That's the way it happens the vast majority of the time.
As for your bottom line, it doesn't make any sense. You accept that burning fossil fuels is bad, but because you were on the losing side of an argument over it, you're just going to keep on burning them to spite everyone. In what way is that even logical, let alone mature? How does that make any rational sense?
> Anyone who isn't an idiot knows that the earth's climate is ALWAYS changing (and always has been).
Of course it has always changed. The question is why?
In the past, it has been due to "natural" (read "non-man-caused") variations, because we weren't around to affect it. Now that we are here, the question is whether we're causing it. The answer, according to the vast amount of scientific research on the subject, is unequivocally "YES!".
The issue isn't that AGW is going to kill us all tomorrow, but it and its effects will most certainly harm/kill a great many of us in the next century or so.
Questioning the "accepted narrative" (whatever that is) is not a problem. Everyone should always question it. The problem is in not accepting well-grounded answers to said questioning when no better answers are available. That's the only thing that separates a true skeptic from a denier.
Slashdot Mirror
Text messages are about 1.5 cents apiece to send and receive.
..and that's still a rip-off. Consider:
Basically, that means that so long as I use that same phone, I buy my pre-paid minutes at $0.047. If I browse the Web, it charges me for the time in minutes, instead of metering my bandwidth.
1 minute of voice with a data rate of ~4kbps is about 512 bytes. The largest text messages are about 1/2 of that with overhead. So, one minute equivalence of text messages, 120 messages, you pay $0.047 for voice, and $1.80 for text messages, around 4000% more.
That doesn't even touch on the fact that voice has a MUCH higher QoS requirement (at a premium for quality) than a text message.
Text messaging is nothing but a sacred cash cow for the telcos. I refuse to use it.
No kidding.
My first thought when I RTFA was "no shit, sherlock".
What you said became pretty much my second thought. Heights of Hubris and Hypocrisy in one message, I think.
I think his rant was very rational. Sure, it's a rant, but it is based on rationality.
He stated his case and challenged the OP to make his.
Agreed.
The first time was a tempest in a teacup, and all it did was vindicate climate science.
This time around, it's just turning into slapstick comedy, watching all the epileptic trees shake and spin.
It shouldn't. It's not like they set the PNG format up to be extensible this way.
If it truly is a significant innovation, it should sail through the standards approval process as a recognized extension.
Yeah, I was thinking that it sounds like a good candidate for the long-awaited compression method 1. :P
Lots of taxi companies use cameras in cabs, mainly for detecting driver errors, like not wearing seatbelts, or sudden stops or other "violent" movements. They are sometimes still cameras, but can also be video cameras, though they are usually off until something trips them.The driver can also trip them in emergency situations, like if he's being held up.
Adding them in an "always on" mode is kinda invasive, but as long as they are well-identified both inside and outside the cab, so you know beforehand what you're getting into when you get into the cab, I don't think it's a huge issue.
That's both sad and hilarious at the same time.
Fodder for a Dilbert strip.
So I would never see/hear an alert anyway. Likely would hear about it on /. or elsewhere online after the fact.
I guess I should plan to get one of those weather-alert radios sometime just to make sure I am not completely out of the loop. :P
I always thought the "Ministry of Truth" had a nice uber-authoritarian ring to it.
Unfortunately, we don't use "Ministry" in our governmental body names, so it would have to be "Department of Truth" or maybe "Department of Truthiness".
Also could bookend the Department of Justice with the Department of the American Way.
We've had the same problem on a channel I frequent, and what we learned is that you have to file your counter-notice with the EXACT right person at YouTube, or it goes nowhere. According to the law, YouTube has to restore access to the video in 10 business days. Unfortunately, YouTube seems to have some weird interpretation of "business days", as they said it could take up to 18 calendar days to restore a video, technically putting them in violation of the law.
We're still waiting to see if they make good on their promise to restore it by the 28th, which will be 18 days since they acknowledge the counter-notification.
I am well aware of the paper publishing process. I make a living providing both corporate and government scientists with solutions to advance their research, and often get to see the results of their work that I was involved with published or put into use.
While it is true that not all experimental data is published with the paper, ANYone most certainly can contact the author(s) of said paper and request the data, or get pointed to the source. I've never heard a single one talk about the data being their "property" or that they don't want someone doing analytics on their data. The latter is quite absurd, since any review of their research often requires such. If the research is experiment-based, they may or may not provide it, depending on the nature of the experiment, but they do provide enough information that new experimental data can be obtained through repeating the experiment.
The real point here is that most of the data and code used in the majority of the core AGW/climate change papers IS available. See here for a huge list of data sources for many climate models and papers.
Well, I think he meant it from the sense of something obvious over geologic time.
Yes, there were events in the past which profoundly affected life on the planet, but it takes a lot of work to tease them out, as they are far from obvious to the casual observer.
Will there be any trace of us in a billion years? The planet will still be here, most likely, but the crust will have churned over almost all evidence of our presence. Creatures that attain enough intelligence/sentience to understand the concept might eventually dig up some fossil evidence of us or our creations, but it will likely be fairly difficult.
Oh, of course!
All those climate scientists missed the BLEEDING OBVIOUS that it is the SUN!
How could they have been so stupid?
Seriously, YES, they did most certainly account for variances in solar output.
Again, it is about reciprocation. Which is the fundamental principle of society. If I have to give up something for others, it seems only fair that they give up something in return, right?
Not if the thing you're being asked to give up is causing damage in the first place. Again, if you insist on your "right" to punch people in the face, and demand that other people give up something else to "reciprocate" you giving up on that "right", then that is not true reciprocation.
What I am expecting is consistency. If it is every man for himself, then that's fine. If it is every man must look out for each other, then fine too. The problem arises when on the one hand, I am to look out for everyone when it doesn't benefit me, and on the other it is a free-for-all when it hurts me.
If you are expecting consistency, then you have to also practice it. Otherwise, you'll probably not find it.
I may be mistaken, but you are laboring under the misapprehension that this somehow started as a real-life flamefest about global warming. It didn't.
I said I didn't know, but that is generally how these things start. I severely doubt people simply walked up to you on the street and started antagonizing you about burning fossil fuels without you first bringing up the subject. If so, I apologize, as I have never experienced that.
I was not the bully. I did everything possible, within the limits of my skills, to gain social acceptance.
My antagonizing tone is not my general demenor. It is very much more a frustrated wtf. I make an incredibly conscious effort to be nice to others. I still have problems making friends.
It sounds like you are talking about different issues. Surely, your whole social life for the last 3 decades hasn't revolved solely around the topic of AGW.
Just to point out, I have never met you or discussed anything with you before; my first experience with you was a general antagonism towards everyone for something that appears to be well within your sphere of influence to control. Thus, I would say you might need to make a little bit more of a conscious effort than you displayed here. That's just my take on it, though.
It has nothing to do with being on the winning or losing side. It has to do with reciprocation.
I am curious though. What happened to me was wrong, it was well beyond any normal school bullshit. It is having an impact on me to this day, with severe bouts of depression and suicidal thoughts. Why do you defend what happened to me?
Well, I will say again, I don't know what you went through, just what you claim you went through. I didn't see anything which justifies this level and type of response, and I am not going to suggest you relate it here, to me or anyone else. If you truly feel you have been horribly abused by people, then perhaps you should seek out professional counseling (I am being serious here, not deprecating or dismissive) to see if there is something that they can help you with, as you're not going to get that kind of help in an anonymous public forum.
While that is true, it hardly qualifies as "hiding" them, since you can quite easily go to any depository library and obtain them, or pay for a subscription to the journals/sites and get them directly.
The barrier is extremely low.
Posting a story about a news event doesn't deny the proper scientific procedure.
Complaining that posting said story about a news event somehow undermines the proper scientific procedure when, in fact, it doesn't smacks of bias.
Any more questions?
It is hardly false. The vast majority of the raw data used is most certainly available either up-front or upon request.
The few cases where it wasn't had nothing to do with the scientists refusing to provide it, but being contractually bound to not release it because it was a PAID product of numerous data-gathering organizations.
Oh, to be sure, there are a few, just as there are a few Republicans (John Huntsman, for one) who don't deny it.
The issue is not the tiny minority in each party, but the party line and platform. The Republican platform is one of denial. The Democrat platform is one of support.
Again, this has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with the fact that I resent being told I can't use fossil fuels in order to improve the quality of someone else's life, yet when all it would have taken was some teachers telling other kids 'be nice to johnny or we will punish you' there was no such desire to do that little thing to improve the quality of my life.
You resent being told that you should be doing the right thing when you claim it isn't the right thing? Better shutter yourself up in your basement, as that's kind of basic in social interactions. It is like saying "I resent being told I can't punch you in the face" while claiming that punching people in the face is no big deal.
Stop expecting other people to coddle you, and you'll go a lot farther in life.
so it is victim blaming then? Are poor people poor because of what they did?? do you even know what lengths i went through to try to help myself? Maybe I have problems, maybe I needed help, but there was no accomodation to be found.
Bottom line: everyone had the freedom to treat me like shit, I should have the freedom to burn fossil fuels.
No, it is bully-blaming and calling out "playing the victim card". Likely (I don't know, as I don't know anything about your situation, other than what you have related), you mistreated other people in your objections to what they were saying, and they responded in kind. That's the way it happens the vast majority of the time.
As for your bottom line, it doesn't make any sense. You accept that burning fossil fuels is bad, but because you were on the losing side of an argument over it, you're just going to keep on burning them to spite everyone. In what way is that even logical, let alone mature? How does that make any rational sense?
I love that man. *sigh*
> Anyone who isn't an idiot knows that the earth's climate is ALWAYS changing (and always has been).
Of course it has always changed. The question is why?
In the past, it has been due to "natural" (read "non-man-caused") variations, because we weren't around to affect it. Now that we are here, the question is whether we're causing it. The answer, according to the vast amount of scientific research on the subject, is unequivocally "YES!".
The issue isn't that AGW is going to kill us all tomorrow, but it and its effects will most certainly harm/kill a great many of us in the next century or so.
Questioning the "accepted narrative" (whatever that is) is not a problem. Everyone should always question it. The problem is in not accepting well-grounded answers to said questioning when no better answers are available. That's the only thing that separates a true skeptic from a denier.
Gotta love the knife-in-the-back lows that deniers are willing to go.
AGW = "Anthropogenic Global Warming"
Yes, it was a pre-emptive nod to the spelling nazis.
"sic" means "as written", not "this is spelled wrong".