Somebody firebombed a GOP office. Whether it was "Democrats" or not is as yet unknown. I would say it was almost certainly crazy people, which america (unfortunately) has plenty of, and who come (unfortunately) in all political persuasions.
Meh. Since the URL that this expanded to was "accounts-google.com", they were relying on people speed-reading the link to see the "google.com" at the end and think it was google.com.
URL shortening wasnt' the problem here; look-alike links was the problem.
Paranoia is a form of schizophrenia, a mental illness characterized by disconnect with reality.
One of the types of paranoid delusion is delusions of grandeur, including the belief that the paranoid is the object of all attention, central to a vast web of conspiracies. If you happened to have this paranoid delusion, you would probably be very careful guarding your work on the computer. But you would also be guarding against dangers that don't actually exist, believing that the CIA and the Illuminati are monitoring your thoughtwaves, that mosquitoes are injecting nanomachines into your blood to control your movements, and that devil-worshipping sorcerers are trying to collect samples of your bodily fluids in order to work black magic.
This is the type of arrogance that is going to destroy the world. What level of stupidity or insanity is required to say that remote areas of the earth, where people live,
In the particular places under discussion-- underneath the glacers-- nobody lives.
The first one, "admission" about the e-mail scandal, was exactly the opposite of what you said: it was an e-mail from Tanden saying that the attacks on Clinton weren't on the level. The second one is the Clinton campaign responding to a request for comments from the New York Times. Uh, if you are unaware that newspapers ask for comments from people they run stories about, you aren't aware of very much about journalism. The next two are simply the campaign staff discussing stories in the news.
Really: this is not news because it is boring and there is nothing there.
This is the scandal? The Clinton campaign staff discuss the day's news?
...the most damning part of this research was that it took place without Greenlands consent....
As the article points out, Greenland wasn't independent at the time; it was a possession of Denmark; and the bases were done with Denmark's knowledge and cooperation.
If you already hate Hillary: all that's there is "look! More emails proving that Hillary is exactly like what we've been saying she's exactly like for the last twenty years!
If you don't already hate Hillary, all that's there is "look! More emails that really don't say anything new."
Well, of course it probably was Russian hackers. Whether they were actually sponsored by the Russian government, or were freelance Russians who just used tools originally built by the Russian intelligence agency, is another question. The evidence is pretty good. They're not just hacking the DNC, by the way; they're aiming at anything to do with our election they can find.
But the question is: so? With respect to the leask, well, no matter who did them, the leaks are still the leaks.
Someone steals a few pages of Trump's tax return, and that's fine and newsworthy. Someone steals Hillary and Podesta's email and that's off-limits because it was a hack.
It's not news because it turns out there isn't anything interesting in it. No smoking gun. Nothing significant about anythjng, Basically, boring campaign strategy stuff.
These are the most disappointing Wikileaks ever.
You are either a lawyer or somebody who has never been involved in a lawsuit.
For the litigant, a lawsuit is a losing game. Period. You read stories in the news about people winning lawsuits against corporations, but you also read stories in the news about people winning a hundred million dollars by buying a one dollar lottery ticket. The lottery ticket is a better bet.
Most companies will fight just on general principles,
In business, everything is a risk decision.
Exactly. And the risk that some random individual will be able to summon enough resources to win a lawsuit against a phalanx of corporate lawyers who know all the tricks to delay, obfuscate, and harrass a litigant is very small.
While the risk that paying off the employee will encourage hundreds of others to do the same thing is high.
Betting "they will fold if you threaten a lawsuit" is a bet where your ante is high, and you can't count on winning on a bluff.
Are there THAT many people who's self image/worth is actually tied to their career????
Yes.
For most men, their career defines who they are. They say "I am a fireman", "I am a lawyer", "I am a businessman."
Not "I work as a fireman", "I work as a lawyer", "I work as a businessman."
(except, apparently, in Hollywood or the theatre district of Manhattan. There you get "I'm an actor/producer, but I'm waiting tables to pay the rent" "I'm a dancer/choreographer, but I'm working retail to pay the rent.")
.... If they illegally refuse to pay you what was agreed upon, go file a judgment against the company.
Having had several friends go through filing lawsuits for restitution against actions that were clearly, obviously, and evidently illegal... I'd say your advice is idiotic.
A friend of mine once explained how a lawsuit works. Your lawyer and the opposition lawyer have a stack of hundred-dollar bills in front of them, and each is given a lighter. They take turns flaring off the hundreds in front of the judge. The one whose pile runs out first looses.
Most companies won't try to fight you in court, they'll just pay you off to get rid of you.
Most companies will fight just on general principles, and because they figure you will fold, and in any case won't have the resources to take it all the way to trial. They have in-house lawyers who are being paid anyway.
Many companies had contract terms that were far better than this, but increasingly they are "revising" their terms down in line with legislation to give people the bare minimum. It's absolutely idiotic behaviour when repeated studies have shown that having happy, secure and motivated employees more than pays for itself in terms on increased productivity.
But severance pay isn't relevant to making employees happy, secure, and motivated. For the ones who are employed, it doesn't matter what the severance pay is. For the ones for whom it matters-- you're dumping them anyway, who cares if they're not happy, secure, and motivated?
Of course, a decent severance package might make a difference to whether they add time bombs to the source code before they go. But that's a different issue.
Nader pulled the Democrats to the left, and Buchanan pulled the Republicans to the right. In my opinion this was a bad thing, but that is not the point. Those voters were effective.
Maybe. Nader also pretty much discredited the Green Party in the United States as being primarily a spoiler party for the Republicans.
The voters were effective-- but their greatest effect was to marginalize their party.
Logically if this is a simmulation then one would guess that the players controlled by external overlords would be the most powerful sims. that is to say movie stars or Tech billionaires or Trump like dictators.
Close. The players would be the ones with lives filled with action. So, if your life consists of sitting in a basement unemployed and surfing the internet, you're probably a non-player character, but if you get shot at a lot, and shoot back, you may be a player. It's not fun to be shot at in real life... but in a game, it's the whole reason you're there.
My guess is that the game was called "World War!" and they probably just forgot to turn it off after finishing play.
(Of course, it depends on what the unknown players are playing. They may be playing ''Sim City: Planet Earth'', in which case politicians and engineers are major players.)
but can you honestly say that there are no unanswered questions for Trump? Seriously how biased can you be? I will give you a hint, it rhymes with "Axe Concerns".
Your argument consists of two parts:
(1) a statement that doctors misdiagnosed you, therefore experts are idiots. The previous poster has commented on this.
(2) a statement that many years ago the Institute of Forecasters criticized the global circulation models as not being verified as methods of forecasting.
Looking at what the Institute of Forecasters publishes articles about, it seem that they mostly have expertise at economic forecasts, with a few outliers such as forecasting television ratings and forecasting election results. The author of the most recent paper on climate prediction is a professor of "management science" and his postdoc, also in management science. I don't see much in the way of publications showing that they know anything about physics or about climate.
Their most recent publication (Robert Fildes and Nikolaos Kourentzes, "Validation and forecasting accuracy in models of climate change," pp 968-995, International Journal of Forecasting Volume 27, Issue 4, October–December 2011) doesn't seem to be as negative as you suggest, and the conclusions, described in the paper as "tentative and limited," are mostly that the predictions need to be analyzed and verified. Despite this being a not very controversial recommendation, it is debated by two follow-on commentary papers (by Patrick E. McSharry and Noel S. Keenlyside). It seems that the Institute of Forecasters argue about climate prediction but don't actually have a consensus opinion.
The way science is done-- as opposed to management-science "forecasting"-- is that you compare your hypothesis to the null hypothesis. In the case of climate science, the null hypothesis is strongly ruled out. If you want to disbelieve climate science, the correct way to do it is come up with an alternative hypothesis that fits the evidence and makes predictions. So far that alternative hypothesis has failed to materialize.
As does water vapor, which is why it's a greenhouse gas
Lots of water vapour in the air also tends to condense and form clouds, which are white and reflect energy away from the Earth. The greenhouse effect happens when shorter wavelengths (which can penetrate carbon dioxide) hits the ground and are re-radiated as infra red. The IR is then unable to radiate into space because of the greenhouse gasses. If you have a lot of white clouds in the air, then the energy is simply reflected. This causes cooling, which causes the air to be unable to gold as much water vapour, which causes rain, and the system largely balances with respect to water vapour.
Not quite so simple. Clouds also reflect thermal infrared, and so they have both warming and cooling effects. Whether the sum is warming or cooling depends, among other things, on the cloud altitude. The first-order effect is that clouds reduce the day/night temperature swings.
Last I heard the prevalent theory was that if you continue long enough down that road you get enough weather to flip you over into an ice age
That's one of the predictions.
A while back, there was a hypothesis that climate warming could affect thermohaline circulation, cutting off one of the mechanisms circulating heat northward from the equator, and hence triggering a northern-hemisphere glaciation ("ice age"). I don't think anybody was able to come up with a reasonable model showing this happening, though, so nobody credits that hypothesis right now. It was never a "prediction"; it was a hypothesis that never got well accepted (except by Hollwood, which will take any excuse to make a disaster movie.)
Hey I'm no scientist, but don't they say Venus' atmosphere has very high pressures and lacks water and Mars is 95% CO2 also? IOW, there's more to it.
Correct. What's your point here, exactly? Indeed, Venus had a very high greenhouse effect: due to the large amount of carbon dioxide, its atmosphere is pretty much opaque in the thermal infrared. Mars has a greenhouse effect as well, although not a large one, primarily because its atmosphere is so thin, and lacks appreciable water vapor.
The problem with the rest of your post is that from "don't trust the media and politicians because 'the truth is very hard to obtain'," you slide to "don't trust scientists either." The science of the greenhouse effect is not on "shaky foundations". You ask Too often we hear there's a consensus, yet what we should really be being told is "how do they know that?" Why all the emphasis on "consensus" and not on "how they know" ?... but you give no evidence that you have made any attempt whatsoever to learn "how they know that". Try, as a start, the IPCC report Climate Change: The Physical Science Basis. If you don't want to read that, there are textbooks on climate science.
Yes, you are right: it's hard. But too many people are arguing "Oh, those reports are too long to read; they're boring; I don't have time to learn the science" and then going from that to conclude "I don't understand it, so I will say it's on shaky foundations."
No, actually: it's not.
...So excuse my ranty tone but whether I'm right or not isn't the point...
A rant is excusable if you follow it up by showing some expertise in the subject you are talking about.
"The article points out that "Many patent cases are handled in the Texas court, which has a reputation for awarding favorable verdicts to plaintiffs alleging infringement.""
Yep. The plaintiffs shop for a favorable court, and they pick this one court in a small town in Texas.
Slashdot Mirror
Democrats fire-bombed a GOP office today.
Somebody firebombed a GOP office. Whether it was "Democrats" or not is as yet unknown. I would say it was almost certainly crazy people, which america (unfortunately) has plenty of, and who come (unfortunately) in all political persuasions.
At the moment, the Democrats are raising money to re-open the office. https://www.rawstory.com/2016/...
URL shortening wasnt' the problem here; look-alike links was the problem.
One of the types of paranoid delusion is delusions of grandeur, including the belief that the paranoid is the object of all attention, central to a vast web of conspiracies. If you happened to have this paranoid delusion, you would probably be very careful guarding your work on the computer. But you would also be guarding against dangers that don't actually exist, believing that the CIA and the Illuminati are monitoring your thoughtwaves, that mosquitoes are injecting nanomachines into your blood to control your movements, and that devil-worshipping sorcerers are trying to collect samples of your bodily fluids in order to work black magic.
(Where do you think the name 'Greenland' came from?)
I think it came from Eric the Red, who was doing a con job trying to convince people that the place was desirable.
In any case, the places Eric the Red started settlements in, that he called "Greenland", was not the ice sheets in the north, but the southern tip.
This is the type of arrogance that is going to destroy the world. What level of stupidity or insanity is required to say that remote areas of the earth, where people live,
In the particular places under discussion-- underneath the glacers-- nobody lives.
The first one, "admission" about the e-mail scandal, was exactly the opposite of what you said: it was an e-mail from Tanden saying that the attacks on Clinton weren't on the level. The second one is the Clinton campaign responding to a request for comments from the New York Times. Uh, if you are unaware that newspapers ask for comments from people they run stories about, you aren't aware of very much about journalism. The next two are simply the campaign staff discussing stories in the news.
Really: this is not news because it is boring and there is nothing there.
This is the scandal? The Clinton campaign staff discuss the day's news?
...the most damning part of this research was that it took place without Greenlands consent....
As the article points out, Greenland wasn't independent at the time; it was a possession of Denmark; and the bases were done with Denmark's knowledge and cooperation.
If you already hate Hillary: all that's there is "look! More emails proving that Hillary is exactly like what we've been saying she's exactly like for the last twenty years!
If you don't already hate Hillary, all that's there is "look! More emails that really don't say anything new."
Either way, it's just not news.
If you needed to find a spot where you don't care whether there is toxic waste.. that's it.
Well, of course it probably was Russian hackers. Whether they were actually sponsored by the Russian government, or were freelance Russians who just used tools originally built by the Russian intelligence agency, is another question. The evidence is pretty good. They're not just hacking the DNC, by the way; they're aiming at anything to do with our election they can find.
But the question is: so? With respect to the leask, well, no matter who did them, the leaks are still the leaks.
Wired: https://www.wired.com/2016/07/...
NBC: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us...
Someone steals a few pages of Trump's tax return, and that's fine and newsworthy. Someone steals Hillary and Podesta's email and that's off-limits because it was a hack.
It's not news because it turns out there isn't anything interesting in it. No smoking gun. Nothing significant about anythjng, Basically, boring campaign strategy stuff. These are the most disappointing Wikileaks ever.
For the litigant, a lawsuit is a losing game. Period. You read stories in the news about people winning lawsuits against corporations, but you also read stories in the news about people winning a hundred million dollars by buying a one dollar lottery ticket. The lottery ticket is a better bet.
For the lawyers it's lucrative.
Most companies will fight just on general principles,
In business, everything is a risk decision.
Exactly. And the risk that some random individual will be able to summon enough resources to win a lawsuit against a phalanx of corporate lawyers who know all the tricks to delay, obfuscate, and harrass a litigant is very small.
While the risk that paying off the employee will encourage hundreds of others to do the same thing is high.
Betting "they will fold if you threaten a lawsuit" is a bet where your ante is high, and you can't count on winning on a bluff.
Are there THAT many people who's self image/worth is actually tied to their career????
Yes.
For most men, their career defines who they are. They say "I am a fireman", "I am a lawyer", "I am a businessman." Not "I work as a fireman", "I work as a lawyer", "I work as a businessman."
(except, apparently, in Hollywood or the theatre district of Manhattan. There you get "I'm an actor/producer, but I'm waiting tables to pay the rent" "I'm a dancer/choreographer, but I'm working retail to pay the rent.")
.... If they illegally refuse to pay you what was agreed upon, go file a judgment against the company.
Having had several friends go through filing lawsuits for restitution against actions that were clearly, obviously, and evidently illegal... I'd say your advice is idiotic.
A friend of mine once explained how a lawsuit works. Your lawyer and the opposition lawyer have a stack of hundred-dollar bills in front of them, and each is given a lighter. They take turns flaring off the hundreds in front of the judge. The one whose pile runs out first looses.
Most companies won't try to fight you in court, they'll just pay you off to get rid of you.
Most companies will fight just on general principles, and because they figure you will fold, and in any case won't have the resources to take it all the way to trial. They have in-house lawyers who are being paid anyway.
Many companies had contract terms that were far better than this, but increasingly they are "revising" their terms down in line with legislation to give people the bare minimum. It's absolutely idiotic behaviour when repeated studies have shown that having happy, secure and motivated employees more than pays for itself in terms on increased productivity.
But severance pay isn't relevant to making employees happy, secure, and motivated. For the ones who are employed, it doesn't matter what the severance pay is. For the ones for whom it matters-- you're dumping them anyway, who cares if they're not happy, secure, and motivated?
Of course, a decent severance package might make a difference to whether they add time bombs to the source code before they go. But that's a different issue.
Nader pulled the Democrats to the left, and Buchanan pulled the Republicans to the right. In my opinion this was a bad thing, but that is not the point. Those voters were effective.
Maybe. Nader also pretty much discredited the Green Party in the United States as being primarily a spoiler party for the Republicans.
The voters were effective-- but their greatest effect was to marginalize their party.
Logically if this is a simmulation then one would guess that the players controlled by external overlords would be the most powerful sims. that is to say movie stars or Tech billionaires or Trump like dictators.
Close. The players would be the ones with lives filled with action. So, if your life consists of sitting in a basement unemployed and surfing the internet, you're probably a non-player character, but if you get shot at a lot, and shoot back, you may be a player. It's not fun to be shot at in real life... but in a game, it's the whole reason you're there.
My guess is that the game was called "World War!" and they probably just forgot to turn it off after finishing play.
(Of course, it depends on what the unknown players are playing. They may be playing ''Sim City: Planet Earth'', in which case politicians and engineers are major players.)
Maybe like, where does their money go to?
but can you honestly say that there are no unanswered questions for Trump? Seriously how biased can you be? I will give you a hint, it rhymes with "Axe Concerns".
"Mister Burns"?
I think it's a Simpsons reference.
Your argument consists of two parts:
(1) a statement that doctors misdiagnosed you, therefore experts are idiots. The previous poster has commented on this.
(2) a statement that many years ago the Institute of Forecasters criticized the global circulation models as not being verified as methods of forecasting.
Looking at what the Institute of Forecasters publishes articles about, it seem that they mostly have expertise at economic forecasts, with a few outliers such as forecasting television ratings and forecasting election results. The author of the most recent paper on climate prediction is a professor of "management science" and his postdoc, also in management science. I don't see much in the way of publications showing that they know anything about physics or about climate.
Their most recent publication (Robert Fildes and Nikolaos Kourentzes, "Validation and forecasting accuracy in models of climate change," pp 968-995, International Journal of Forecasting Volume 27, Issue 4, October–December 2011) doesn't seem to be as negative as you suggest, and the conclusions, described in the paper as "tentative and limited," are mostly that the predictions need to be analyzed and verified. Despite this being a not very controversial recommendation, it is debated by two follow-on commentary papers (by Patrick E. McSharry and Noel S. Keenlyside). It seems that the Institute of Forecasters argue about climate prediction but don't actually have a consensus opinion.
The way science is done-- as opposed to management-science "forecasting"-- is that you compare your hypothesis to the null hypothesis. In the case of climate science, the null hypothesis is strongly ruled out. If you want to disbelieve climate science, the correct way to do it is come up with an alternative hypothesis that fits the evidence and makes predictions. So far that alternative hypothesis has failed to materialize.
As does water vapor, which is why it's a greenhouse gas
Lots of water vapour in the air also tends to condense and form clouds, which are white and reflect energy away from the Earth. The greenhouse effect happens when shorter wavelengths (which can penetrate carbon dioxide) hits the ground and are re-radiated as infra red. The IR is then unable to radiate into space because of the greenhouse gasses. If you have a lot of white clouds in the air, then the energy is simply reflected. This causes cooling, which causes the air to be unable to gold as much water vapour, which causes rain, and the system largely balances with respect to water vapour.
Not quite so simple. Clouds also reflect thermal infrared, and so they have both warming and cooling effects. Whether the sum is warming or cooling depends, among other things, on the cloud altitude. The first-order effect is that clouds reduce the day/night temperature swings.
Last I heard the prevalent theory was that if you continue long enough down that road you get enough weather to flip you over into an ice age
That's one of the predictions.
A while back, there was a hypothesis that climate warming could affect thermohaline circulation, cutting off one of the mechanisms circulating heat northward from the equator, and hence triggering a northern-hemisphere glaciation ("ice age"). I don't think anybody was able to come up with a reasonable model showing this happening, though, so nobody credits that hypothesis right now. It was never a "prediction"; it was a hypothesis that never got well accepted (except by Hollwood, which will take any excuse to make a disaster movie.)
Hey I'm no scientist, but don't they say Venus' atmosphere has very high pressures and lacks water and Mars is 95% CO2 also? IOW, there's more to it.
Correct. What's your point here, exactly? Indeed, Venus had a very high greenhouse effect: due to the large amount of carbon dioxide, its atmosphere is pretty much opaque in the thermal infrared. Mars has a greenhouse effect as well, although not a large one, primarily because its atmosphere is so thin, and lacks appreciable water vapor.
The problem with the rest of your post is that from "don't trust the media and politicians because 'the truth is very hard to obtain'," you slide to "don't trust scientists either." The science of the greenhouse effect is not on "shaky foundations". You ask Too often we hear there's a consensus, yet what we should really be being told is "how do they know that?" Why all the emphasis on "consensus" and not on "how they know" ?... but you give no evidence that you have made any attempt whatsoever to learn "how they know that". Try, as a start, the IPCC report Climate Change: The Physical Science Basis . If you don't want to read that, there are textbooks on climate science.
Yes, you are right: it's hard. But too many people are arguing "Oh, those reports are too long to read; they're boring; I don't have time to learn the science" and then going from that to conclude "I don't understand it, so I will say it's on shaky foundations."
No, actually: it's not.
...So excuse my ranty tone but whether I'm right or not isn't the point...
A rant is excusable if you follow it up by showing some expertise in the subject you are talking about.
Yep. The plaintiffs shop for a favorable court, and they pick this one court in a small town in Texas.
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-small-town-judge-who-sees-a-quarter-of-the-nations-patent-cases
http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/patently-unfair/
"Avast Not Done With Deal-Making After AVG Buy, But No Rush "
Wait-- they were going to buy Rush?? Is Rush even still around?
Probably just as well not to buy them, unless they can get a deal with Kansas and maybe Bon Jovi or something.