No, of course they're not mutually exclusive. Development in lowlands and swamps makes the effects of flooding more severe, and global warming makes flooding more frequent.
It's worth pointing out (again) that no single flooding event can be in itself attributed to global warming. Warming may make such events somewhat more frequent, but flooding events happen with or without global warming.
I am amazed at the number of layoffs in the tech industry these days, yet we continue to dump money into these code camp programs, and other STEM initiatives of dubious value. Here we have 14,000 tech workers who probably could be retrained to work with software,
According to the article: "The heavy cuts... stem from Cisco’s transition from its hardware roots into a software-centric organization. "They need different skill sets for the software-defined future than they used to have".
So, presumably, the software people are not the ones being laid off.
who probably could be retrained to work with software,
Why spend money, and time, to train office and hardware people to become beginner-level software workers when that isn't what they are interested in, instead of simply hiring software people who actually are good at code, write code, and are looking for jobs?
Oddly, I was rather meh about Hillary, but all the attacks on her tend to make me start to like her.
Whenever I look into the attacks, they either turn out to either have no real substance, or else be on some subject I really don't care about. They keep saying there's a smoking gun, but all I ever see is smoke. But the attacks seem to be mostly "let's make a lot of smoke, so that people will think, 'where there's smoke there's fire'."
About the worst people really say is "well, she does all the same things all successful politicians do!"
So, I'd say in this case, social media is changing my mind, although in the opposite direction perhaps from the one intended.
(Similar things are partly true of Trump: half of the stuff people accuse him of is out of context or stuff he didn't really said at all. But there's the other half, which is stuff he really did say or do.)
By the way, is it getting any more obvious to anyone that Trump is a Hillary plant?
He seems to act just exactly like what he seems to be: like a reality-television performer who has learned that the more outrageously he talks, the more viewers are attracted to the show.
Every day he's shooting his mouth off with some preposterous remark,
Which gives him more press coverage, which is what he wants.
Science 101 should have taught you that with any chaotic system, it is not possible to make predictions about the future state of said system.
That is a misunderstanding of deterministic chaos based on oversimplified popular science.
Some things can be predicted in a deterministic system, some cannot. But, in general, you very often predict the average properties of the system, even if you cannot predict the exact path through the phase space. In a chaotically dripping faucet, you can predict the average number of gallons per hour, even if you cannot predict the exact pattern of the drops. In a weather system, you can predict that July in Bismarck North Dakota will be warmer than January, even though you can't predict whether July 12 2019 will be rainy or dry. In a climate system, you can predict that radiative input equals radiative output, even if you cannot predict the exact temperature in Bismarck on July 12.
Chaos is well defined. It does not mean "anything at all can happen."
That's what happens when a descriptive term is redefined to mean it's opposite.
First, all words change their meanings over time. "Human", for example, is from a root word meaning "dirt". "Black" is from the same root as "blank" as well as "blanc," which means "white".
Second: "it's" means "it is." Pronouns don't take a posessive apostrophe. You write "his", not "hi's", "hers", not "her's", and "its", not "it's."
Liberal once meant 'in favor of liberty'.
Stating that "liberal" is the opposite of "liberty" is an opinion, not particularly a fact. Liberalism is in favor of liberties for all people, not just upper-class white males. It's just that white males don't happen to think that being subjected to death threats when you post opinions on the internet is a limit on somebody's liberties.
if government agencies can get around laws restricting them from spying on you without consequence then what makes you think the average person can rely on easily available encryption to protect them?
Getting around math is not like getting around a law. That's the short answer to that point.
Unless people are mathematicians themselves, they are unable to personally verify the effectiveness of an encryption algorithm. When you use an encryption algorithm, you have to trust it works without a secret decryption algorithm.
According to the US government money is speech. So unlimited free speech makes it legal to pay someone to kill someone else.
Sorry, non-sequitur. Paying somebody to commit a crime is still a crime. Nothing has changed that.
And, although nobody seems to care about details, the Supreme Court decision in the "Citizens United" case at no point stated "money is speech." That's a popular simplification that is, in fact, a glib overgeneralization. A good summary of what the decision actually concluded is here: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rp...
You forgot the stories about computer life in the 70's-80's. That's a guaranteed track to +5, as almost everyone on Slashdot is a curmudgeon over 50.
Yeah, back in the '80s, when we didn't even have the internet, just usenet and dial-up BBs and BITnet, we had flame wars that would singe your eyeballs. Moderation? Ha!
(In fact, we actually invented moderation because the flames got so bad on usenet. But the web, when it came, had to re-learn all those lessons again.)
Sanders absolutely had a chance, if you look at the turnout among his supporters.
That's right: if you only look at his supporters, you could convince yourself he had a chance.
He didn't: not at the beginning, not at the middle, not at the end, not at all. He never had the polling, he never had the demographics, he never had the organization. If you looked at the actual numbers, he needed miracles to win, and while he did better than predicted... not enough better than predicted to actually win.
But when you narrow your view and look only at the enthusiasm of his supporters and ignore everyting else (and his supporters looked only at his supporters and ignored everything else)- yep, he gave that illusion.
He was built up by the media, because the media likes a horserace, and wanted opposition to Hillary. He never had a chance in the first place, but the media touted all of his wins--even though he never won enough to make him competitive-- and downplayed all of his losses, even though he was losing the delegates he needed to win.
Were you watching the same media I was? They had basically called the country for Clinton before Super Tuesday, showing how she had so many superdelegates in her pocket that Sanders couldn't feasibly win.
The news I saw pretended that Sanders had a chance. Although, in fact, Sanders couldn't feasibly win.
And no, you're wrong about the left bias.
Since I didn't claim the media had a left bias, I'm not sure what you're talking about. What I said was
"It's not that the media is left wing, or right wing: they want controversy, they want a story."
Every single study I've seen that has analyzed the American media as a whole has found that there's a right-wing bias, on average.
I'd be interested in a link to those studies you refer to. You must read a lot of left biased studies. The most thorough report I've seen, linguistic analysis of bias in newspapers, came to the interesting conclusion that newspapers, as a whole, showed a political bias that was identical to the bias of the market they served. Newspapers in right-leaning locations were right-leaning; newspapers in left-leaning locations were left-leaning.
Sanders wasn't frozen out due to some misguided left wing ideology. Not in the slightest. He was frozen out due to right wing stances on the economy and social services that tried to brand him as unelectable and unrealistic.
Sorry, but Sanders wasn't 'frozen out' of the media at all, not in the slightest. He was built up by the media, because the media likes a horserace, and wanted opposition to Hillary. He never had a chance in the first place, but the media touted all of his wins--even though he never won enough to make him competitive-- and downplayed all of his losses, even though he was losing the delegates he needed to win.
It's not that the media is left wing, or right wing: they want controversy, they want a story. "Frontrunner wins again" doesn't cut it, "plucky underdog challenges frontrunner"-- yes.
Have you even looked at those emails? I wasted a few hours looking for good stuff and all I found was a snotty attitude toward Sanders.
Wait, somebody actually read the e-mails? Everybody else I know is just parroting conclusions some website fed them.
(I have to say, I didn't read the whole stack, but the ones I saw didn't seem to be anything other than a couple of people venting opinions in private that would be politically incorrect in public.)
The word "ties to" means precisely nothing. Your post has no actual content other than ranting. Your link to bloomberg seems to be criticizing a program for poor people to get cell phones.
Conspiracy or not, I take the whole "the Russian's did it" with a grain of salt. I would love to know how they determine who was responsible, since I am pretty sure that any state sponsored group would be able to hide their origin.
Russia has a ton of seriously black-hat hackers, so it's not hard to believe the hackers were Russian.
since I am pretty sure that any state sponsored group would be able to hide their origin.
Unlike "Mission Impossible," in the real world nobody is perfect, not even Russians. Everybody tends to leave bits and pieces of evidence behind. But:
whether they were Russian government, or just freelancers, remains to be seen.
That's true for in-person voting at the polling place, but all the states allow absentee ballots, which are sent in by mail. Absentee ballots are not protected by the safeguards you mention. In most states, you don't need a reason to vote by mail; in many states (including mine), people are actually encouraged to vote by mail. But voting by mail has no safeguards to protect anonymity.
As always, security and convenience are a trade-off. My personal preference would be to slide that trade-off toward security, even if it makes voting slightly less convenient. I'd like to see absentee ballots allowed only for voters with a valid reason that they cannot vote in person. There have been some companies that, in the past, have demanded "vote the way we select or you will be fired." Secret ballots are secret for a good reason. But I do understand the argument for convenience.
Overall, I'm more worried by the prospect of wholesale election fraud-- altering vote counts-- and less by the prospect of one-by-one vote buying.
This has been the case with me all my life. Voting days are ALWAYS weekdays and held during WORKING hours....
Where I live polls open at 6:30 a.m. and close at 7:30 p.m.. If your working hours are longer than that, I hope you're raking in a lot of overtime.
(In fact, my employer has a policy of allowing one hour of paid, excused leave for voting... but only if your scheduled work hours mean you can't vote without taking time off. Since almost nobody ever gets mandatory overtime (employer couldn't afford that), nobody ever qualifies for the "excused leave." Nice gimmick: they get to claim they're doing their patriotic duty by giving people time off to vote, but it costs nothing because they don't actually give anybody time off. Still, I like the idea.)
Slashdot Mirror
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/by%20(all)%20rights
It's worth pointing out (again) that no single flooding event can be in itself attributed to global warming. Warming may make such events somewhat more frequent, but flooding events happen with or without global warming.
I am amazed at the number of layoffs in the tech industry these days, yet we continue to dump money into these code camp programs, and other STEM initiatives of dubious value. Here we have 14,000 tech workers who probably could be retrained to work with software,
According to the article: "The heavy cuts... stem from Cisco’s transition from its hardware roots into a software-centric organization. "They need different skill sets for the software-defined future than they used to have". So, presumably, the software people are not the ones being laid off.
who probably could be retrained to work with software,
Why spend money, and time, to train office and hardware people to become beginner-level software workers when that isn't what they are interested in, instead of simply hiring software people who actually are good at code, write code, and are looking for jobs?
Whenever I look into the attacks, they either turn out to either have no real substance, or else be on some subject I really don't care about. They keep saying there's a smoking gun, but all I ever see is smoke. But the attacks seem to be mostly "let's make a lot of smoke, so that people will think, 'where there's smoke there's fire'."
About the worst people really say is "well, she does all the same things all successful politicians do!"
So, I'd say in this case, social media is changing my mind, although in the opposite direction perhaps from the one intended.
(Similar things are partly true of Trump: half of the stuff people accuse him of is out of context or stuff he didn't really said at all. But there's the other half, which is stuff he really did say or do.)
By the way, is it getting any more obvious to anyone that Trump is a Hillary plant?
He seems to act just exactly like what he seems to be: like a reality-television performer who has learned that the more outrageously he talks, the more viewers are attracted to the show.
Every day he's shooting his mouth off with some preposterous remark,
Which gives him more press coverage, which is what he wants.
Science 101 should have taught you that with any chaotic system, it is not possible to make predictions about the future state of said system.
That is a misunderstanding of deterministic chaos based on oversimplified popular science.
Some things can be predicted in a deterministic system, some cannot. But, in general, you very often predict the average properties of the system, even if you cannot predict the exact path through the phase space. In a chaotically dripping faucet, you can predict the average number of gallons per hour, even if you cannot predict the exact pattern of the drops. In a weather system, you can predict that July in Bismarck North Dakota will be warmer than January, even though you can't predict whether July 12 2019 will be rainy or dry. In a climate system, you can predict that radiative input equals radiative output, even if you cannot predict the exact temperature in Bismarck on July 12.
Chaos is well defined. It does not mean "anything at all can happen."
G-whiz.
That's what happens when a descriptive term is redefined to mean it's opposite.
First, all words change their meanings over time. "Human", for example, is from a root word meaning "dirt". "Black" is from the same root as "blank" as well as "blanc," which means "white".
Second: "it's" means "it is." Pronouns don't take a posessive apostrophe. You write "his", not "hi's", "hers", not "her's", and "its", not "it's."
Liberal once meant 'in favor of liberty'.
Stating that "liberal" is the opposite of "liberty" is an opinion, not particularly a fact. Liberalism is in favor of liberties for all people, not just upper-class white males. It's just that white males don't happen to think that being subjected to death threats when you post opinions on the internet is a limit on somebody's liberties.
Since it's impossible to tell pretended cluelessness from real cluelessness on /., it's often hard to tell.
if government agencies can get around laws restricting them from spying on you without consequence then what makes you think the average person can rely on easily available encryption to protect them?
Getting around math is not like getting around a law. That's the short answer to that point.
Unless people are mathematicians themselves, they are unable to personally verify the effectiveness of an encryption algorithm. When you use an encryption algorithm, you have to trust it works without a secret decryption algorithm.
So: what you just said is that you used the legal system as a way to suppress free speech because you didn't like what they said.
According to the US government money is speech. So unlimited free speech makes it legal to pay someone to kill someone else.
Sorry, non-sequitur. Paying somebody to commit a crime is still a crime. Nothing has changed that.
And, although nobody seems to care about details, the Supreme Court decision in the "Citizens United" case at no point stated "money is speech." That's a popular simplification that is, in fact, a glib overgeneralization. A good summary of what the decision actually concluded is here: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rp...
Anti-gov? Everyone on here are liberals.
I find the strongest political thread here is the libertarians. Or possibly just the loudest.
Liberalism takes a lot of abuse here on /.
You forgot the stories about computer life in the 70's-80's. That's a guaranteed track to +5, as almost everyone on Slashdot is a curmudgeon over 50.
Yeah, back in the '80s, when we didn't even have the internet, just usenet and dial-up BBs and BITnet, we had flame wars that would singe your eyeballs. Moderation? Ha!
(In fact, we actually invented moderation because the flames got so bad on usenet. But the web, when it came, had to re-learn all those lessons again.)
Yep the only times I get negative karma are when people don't realize I'm joking. Maybe I'm not being funny enough :|
That's correct: you're not funny enough.
Sanders absolutely had a chance, if you look at the turnout among his supporters.
That's right: if you only look at his supporters, you could convince yourself he had a chance.
He didn't: not at the beginning, not at the middle, not at the end, not at all. He never had the polling, he never had the demographics, he never had the organization. If you looked at the actual numbers, he needed miracles to win, and while he did better than predicted... not enough better than predicted to actually win.
But when you narrow your view and look only at the enthusiasm of his supporters and ignore everyting else (and his supporters looked only at his supporters and ignored everything else)- yep, he gave that illusion.
Were you watching the same media I was? They had basically called the country for Clinton before Super Tuesday, showing how she had so many superdelegates in her pocket that Sanders couldn't feasibly win.
The news I saw pretended that Sanders had a chance. Although, in fact, Sanders couldn't feasibly win.
And no, you're wrong about the left bias.
Since I didn't claim the media had a left bias, I'm not sure what you're talking about. What I said was
"It's not that the media is left wing, or right wing: they want controversy, they want a story."
Every single study I've seen that has analyzed the American media as a whole has found that there's a right-wing bias, on average.
I'd be interested in a link to those studies you refer to. You must read a lot of left biased studies. The most thorough report I've seen, linguistic analysis of bias in newspapers, came to the interesting conclusion that newspapers, as a whole, showed a political bias that was identical to the bias of the market they served. Newspapers in right-leaning locations were right-leaning; newspapers in left-leaning locations were left-leaning.
Which turns out to not be not very surprising.
Sanders wasn't frozen out due to some misguided left wing ideology. Not in the slightest. He was frozen out due to right wing stances on the economy and social services that tried to brand him as unelectable and unrealistic.
Sorry, but Sanders wasn't 'frozen out' of the media at all, not in the slightest. He was built up by the media, because the media likes a horserace, and wanted opposition to Hillary. He never had a chance in the first place, but the media touted all of his wins--even though he never won enough to make him competitive-- and downplayed all of his losses, even though he was losing the delegates he needed to win.
It's not that the media is left wing, or right wing: they want controversy, they want a story. "Frontrunner wins again" doesn't cut it, "plucky underdog challenges frontrunner"-- yes.
Have you even looked at those emails? I wasted a few hours looking for good stuff and all I found was a snotty attitude toward Sanders.
Wait, somebody actually read the e-mails? Everybody else I know is just parroting conclusions some website fed them.
(I have to say, I didn't read the whole stack, but the ones I saw didn't seem to be anything other than a couple of people venting opinions in private that would be politically incorrect in public.)
Also, please learn to use italics correctly
Conspiracy or not, I take the whole "the Russian's did it" with a grain of salt. I would love to know how they determine who was responsible, since I am pretty sure that any state sponsored group would be able to hide their origin.
Russia has a ton of seriously black-hat hackers, so it's not hard to believe the hackers were Russian.
Here's the original story from Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/en...
which discusses this interview with "Guccifer2.0": http://motherboard.vice.com/re...
And, for reference, here's the slashdot story: https://it.slashdot.org/story/...
since I am pretty sure that any state sponsored group would be able to hide their origin.
Unlike "Mission Impossible," in the real world nobody is perfect, not even Russians. Everybody tends to leave bits and pieces of evidence behind. But: whether they were Russian government, or just freelancers, remains to be seen.
That's true for in-person voting at the polling place, but all the states allow absentee ballots, which are sent in by mail. Absentee ballots are not protected by the safeguards you mention. In most states, you don't need a reason to vote by mail; in many states (including mine), people are actually encouraged to vote by mail. But voting by mail has no safeguards to protect anonymity.
As always, security and convenience are a trade-off. My personal preference would be to slide that trade-off toward security, even if it makes voting slightly less convenient. I'd like to see absentee ballots allowed only for voters with a valid reason that they cannot vote in person. There have been some companies that, in the past, have demanded "vote the way we select or you will be fired." Secret ballots are secret for a good reason. But I do understand the argument for convenience.
Overall, I'm more worried by the prospect of wholesale election fraud-- altering vote counts-- and less by the prospect of one-by-one vote buying.
Security is not the current political attack point. Instead, it is voter disqualification
Voter disqualification may be the current attack point, but it's not a good idea to open up new attack points.
This has been the case with me all my life. Voting days are ALWAYS weekdays and held during WORKING hours....
Where I live polls open at 6:30 a.m. and close at 7:30 p.m.. If your working hours are longer than that, I hope you're raking in a lot of overtime.
(In fact, my employer has a policy of allowing one hour of paid, excused leave for voting... but only if your scheduled work hours mean you can't vote without taking time off. Since almost nobody ever gets mandatory overtime (employer couldn't afford that), nobody ever qualifies for the "excused leave." Nice gimmick: they get to claim they're doing their patriotic duty by giving people time off to vote, but it costs nothing because they don't actually give anybody time off. Still, I like the idea.)
Nobody thinks about the kids, do they? No. they just want to slam the parents into the jail cells. Nice. Real nice.
So, that answers the question: you actually were serious.
What you just said is that we shouldn't put criminals in jail because they might have children.
OK. Having children ought to be a get-out-of-jail-free card. Got it.
Yeah, and then what happens to their kids? Are YOU going to take care of them? didn't think so. Great plan.
Wow. I honestly can't tell if this is intended to be irony or serious.