Submissions should preferably link to primary sources instead of sites that just repackage the story from the original, i.e. just link to Motherboard's article to begin with and give them the clicks instead of Engadget.
But when someone intercepted, recorded and released an embarrassing conversation made by Newt Gringrich in Gainesville, FL after this law was passed, no one was prosecuted.
The people who taped the conversation were, in fact, prosecuted, and pled guilty to illegal wiretapping.
see: http://www.nytimes.com/1997/04...
WASHINGTON, April 23— The Justice Department today filed charges against a Florida couple who said they had intercepted and recorded a conference call last December among Speaker Newt Gingrich and other Republican leaders.
The Federal authorities in Jacksonville, Fla., announced this afternoon that the couple, John and Alice Martin, had been charged with an infraction, violating the Communications Privacy Act by using a radio scanner to intercept the radio portion of the conversation. It is the mildest criminal charge the couple could face in the case and carries a maximum penalty of a $5,000 fine.
The Government said the Martins had agreed to plead guilty to the charges, and said the couple would cooperate with a continuing investigation into how a recording of the conversation wound up in the hands of a New York Times reporter.
I need the feature that I can use my smart phone to see where my car is...
...so I can find my car when I forget where I parked it!
(say, what would be even more handy would be if, instead of my phone telling me where my car is, my car would be able to tell me where I left my phone.)
I thought a "hacker" built stuff and a "cracker" broke stuff.
There has been an attempt to get that usage adopted, but it's failed.
Basically, the definition of "cracker" as "A poor and usually bigotted white person living in the south" is so well accepted in America that it hasn't been possible to graft a new definition on.
I'm not clear on this either. Why would someone want to build a large-area device, like a super-capacitor, on top of an IC? given that the cost per unit surface area of a modern IC is astronomical?
Because a supercapacitor is not defined by being a large area. A supercapacitor can be any area.
Its defining characteristic is a higher capacitance per unit area than conventional capacitors. So, a supercapacitor is actually smaller area than the same capacitance in a conventional cap.
The question is particularly complex, as we are talking about super-capacitors. Super-capacitors usually have terrible AC characteristics.
Some, but not all, applications of capacitors require good AC characteristics.
Okay, there was some uncertainty over the what phenomena could cause gravity waves, but that still creates mostly the same in issue on the generation side.
It pretty much took numerical simulations using supercomputers to be able to predict the gravitational wave signal from colliding black holes.
Up until these results, the search for gravitational waves was more like "well, gravitational waves theoretically could exist, we're not sure what would cause them or how strong they'd be, but let's look, and if we see any, then we'll know."
But, turns out, the earliest detectors were just way too insensitive to see these results.
It still follows basic thermodynamics once you break it down.
No, it does not.
Neither quantum mechanics nor the relativity theory have anything to do with thermo dynamics, basic or not.
Huh? No, you can derive thermodynamics from quantum mechanical ensembles. (ref)
(Doesn't have anything to do with vacuum energy, though. Thermodynamics really only deals with changes in energy. An energy level that is inherent in vacuum is just a constant that can just be subtracted out.)
The thing here is that to date Einstein has a perfect track record. Which is pretty remarkable.
To date, everything they've ever tested says that the theory of relativity, as far as we've been able to investigate, hasn't shown any cracks.
Well, except for the niggling one where it demands a completely different vacuum energy level than the similarly well-tested theories of Quantum Mechanics.
But all the parts predicted by Einstein that have been tested have checked out. Quantum field theories predict high (or even infinite) values for vacuum energy... but those values aren't testable.
Strangely, Einstein's theories has been proved right even when Einstein himself was wrong. His objection to modern quantum mechanics was, basically, if it were correct then these bizarre Einstein-Podalsky-Rosen ("EPR") effects would be real, and that was just too weird for him, it would be spukhafte Fernwirkung. Well, turns out he was wrong about it being wrong, but his calculation was right-- the EPR effects are real, exactly as he (along with Podalsky and Rosen) described. And they are foundational to quantum mechanics as we know it.
Nobody actually ever thought that gravity waves wouldn't exist-- it's pretty much impossible to come up with a version of gravity that doesn't include waves.
Thanks for actually quoting real data! Nice to see a discussion based on the actual science.
Go to IPCC 5th Assessment report, chapter 9, page 28, graph (a) Observed and CHIMP5 Simulated Global Mean Surface Air Temperature, you'll see that there is at least a.3C difference between the CHIMP5 model mean and HADCrut4 and GISTEMP. Most consider the period of 1951 to 1980 to be the global average temperature baseline which has a value of 14 degrees Celsius and 2015 has warmed a supposed 0.98C that gives 0.3/0.98*100= 30.6% error!
I have problems excepting a 30% errors as predictive value
Wow, first I have to say, your catachresis is absolutely brilliant. "I can't accept the error, because it would except the error."
The quoted error bars on the climate prediction are plus or minus 50 percent. So, you are just saying that the quoted error bars mimic the difference in models.
Yep. The graph you refer to compares the results of 40 cases from 23 different models. The overall trend is clear-- up-- but different models vary on how much.
When people agree with the science of global warming, that is not excepted: the error bars are part of the science.
Again:
1. you said the "garbage articles" passed along by people who "worry about climate change" could be debunked in "two minutes of thinking."
2. I posted a link to the source that people who pay attention to climate science most commonly reference: this one, http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/... 3. you did not debunk it. You didn't debunk any part of it. You didn't even try to debunk it.
4. Instead, you moved to an ad hominem argument. Nice try. I have, in fact, read it, but you can now change to a "yeah? prove it!" argument, which effectively changes the subject and nicely covers up the fact that you failed.
5. You said you could debunk it in "two minutes of thinking," but in fact, it has real facts, real data, and actual critical thinking. You can't debunk it-- not in "two minutes," not at all: you're afraid to even read it.
Sorry, but you are wrong. Here is the data from four groups on three different continents:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/resea...
temperatures have not been "remarkably steady for the past 19 years or so" - they have been rising.
Notice from your graph that temperatures are about the same as they were 19 years ago? That's what people call "the Pause".
what, in the graph I linked? That's very clearly a single high data point in 1998. Tell me true, do you really look at that graph and think it's not rising? Or are you just pretending to think that?
the Pause wasn't predicted by any of them (but it's within the error bars, just as it's within the error bars of the null hypothesis).
Huh? It's not even close to the error bars of the null hypothesis-- the null hypothesis would be that the temperature rise is a statistical fluke, and it will drop back down to the baseline. The error bars are 0.1C, and it needs to drop by 0.6C to make the null hypothesis plausible.
Data from before the models were created means nothing when it comes to verifying the models.
Data from before the models were created is unnecessary to comparing the model to the actual results.
Any politician that claims that the government needs to fund this and support that and ignores nuclear power is not serious about the problem. This tends to lead me to think that global warming is not the problem that they claim.
Barack Obama (October 2007, before becoming president): ”It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table.“
(2009, after becoming president): "We must harness the power of nuclear energy on behalf of our efforts to combat climate change.” (citation)
James Hansen (probably the most famous of the climate activists), 2013:
"We call on your organization to support the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as a practical means of addressing the climate change problem... in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power." (citation)
Slashdot Mirror
Aaron Schwarz begs to differ.
Aaron Schwarz would agree: he got a guarantee from the prosecutor that they were not going to drop charges, and they kept their promise and didn't.
(--uh, you do know that the guy was a major jerk, right? )
This has nothing to do with Tor and has everything to do with incompetent sysadmins.
And if the sysadmins of Tor nodes are incompetent, it has everything to do with Tor.
Submissions should preferably link to primary sources instead of sites that just repackage the story from the original, i.e. just link to Motherboard's article to begin with and give them the clicks instead of Engadget.
Which is to say, here: http://motherboard.vice.com/re...
But when someone intercepted, recorded and released an embarrassing conversation made by Newt Gringrich in Gainesville, FL after this law was passed, no one was prosecuted.
The people who taped the conversation were, in fact, prosecuted, and pled guilty to illegal wiretapping. see: http://www.nytimes.com/1997/04...
Or, for more details: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jba...
You thought Microsoft was evil? You thought Google was evil? Nope! Verizon wins going away.
You say that as if they were mutually exclusive...
...so I can find my car when I forget where I parked it!
(say, what would be even more handy would be if, instead of my phone telling me where my car is, my car would be able to tell me where I left my phone.)
I thought a "hacker" built stuff and a "cracker" broke stuff.
There has been an attempt to get that usage adopted, but it's failed.
Basically, the definition of "cracker" as "A poor and usually bigotted white person living in the south" is so well accepted in America that it hasn't been possible to graft a new definition on.
see: ubran dictionary or NPR
Will they use this standard for fighting piracy? 15,000 streams from a site = one $11.99 album sale lost?
I'm not clear on this either. Why would someone want to build a large-area device, like a super-capacitor, on top of an IC? given that the cost per unit surface area of a modern IC is astronomical?
Because a supercapacitor is not defined by being a large area. A supercapacitor can be any area.
Its defining characteristic is a higher capacitance per unit area than conventional capacitors. So, a supercapacitor is actually smaller area than the same capacitance in a conventional cap.
The question is particularly complex, as we are talking about super-capacitors. Super-capacitors usually have terrible AC characteristics.
Some, but not all, applications of capacitors require good AC characteristics.
Unofficial word is that they have several other detections that have yet to be announced.
Okay, there was some uncertainty over the what phenomena could cause gravity waves, but that still creates mostly the same in issue on the generation side.
It pretty much took numerical simulations using supercomputers to be able to predict the gravitational wave signal from colliding black holes.
Up until these results, the search for gravitational waves was more like "well, gravitational waves theoretically could exist, we're not sure what would cause them or how strong they'd be, but let's look, and if we see any, then we'll know."
But, turns out, the earliest detectors were just way too insensitive to see these results.
It still follows basic thermodynamics once you break it down.
No, it does not. Neither quantum mechanics nor the relativity theory have anything to do with thermo dynamics, basic or not.
Huh? No, you can derive thermodynamics from quantum mechanical ensembles. (ref)
(Doesn't have anything to do with vacuum energy, though. Thermodynamics really only deals with changes in energy. An energy level that is inherent in vacuum is just a constant that can just be subtracted out.)
The thing here is that to date Einstein has a perfect track record. Which is pretty remarkable.
To date, everything they've ever tested says that the theory of relativity, as far as we've been able to investigate, hasn't shown any cracks.
Well, except for the niggling one where it demands a completely different vacuum energy level than the similarly well-tested theories of Quantum Mechanics.
But all the parts predicted by Einstein that have been tested have checked out. Quantum field theories predict high (or even infinite) values for vacuum energy... but those values aren't testable.
Strangely, Einstein's theories has been proved right even when Einstein himself was wrong. His objection to modern quantum mechanics was, basically, if it were correct then these bizarre Einstein-Podalsky-Rosen ("EPR") effects would be real, and that was just too weird for him, it would be spukhafte Fernwirkung. Well, turns out he was wrong about it being wrong, but his calculation was right-- the EPR effects are real, exactly as he (along with Podalsky and Rosen) described. And they are foundational to quantum mechanics as we know it.
Nobody actually ever thought that gravity waves wouldn't exist-- it's pretty much impossible to come up with a version of gravity that doesn't include waves.
But it's amazing that we can actually detect it.
Go to IPCC 5th Assessment report, chapter 9, page 28, graph (a) Observed and CHIMP5 Simulated Global Mean Surface Air Temperature, you'll see that there is at least a .3C difference between the CHIMP5 model mean and HADCrut4 and GISTEMP. Most consider the period of 1951 to 1980 to be the global average temperature baseline which has a value of 14 degrees Celsius and 2015 has warmed a supposed 0.98C that gives 0.3/0.98*100= 30.6% error!
I have problems excepting a 30% errors as predictive value
Wow, first I have to say, your catachresis is absolutely brilliant. "I can't accept the error, because it would except the error."
The quoted error bars on the climate prediction are plus or minus 50 percent. So, you are just saying that the quoted error bars mimic the difference in models.
Yep. The graph you refer to compares the results of 40 cases from 23 different models. The overall trend is clear-- up-- but different models vary on how much.
When people agree with the science of global warming, that is not excepted: the error bars are part of the science.
Wait, don't people still use USENET?
You lose.
1. you said the "garbage articles" passed along by people who "worry about climate change" could be debunked in "two minutes of thinking."
2. I posted a link to the source that people who pay attention to climate science most commonly reference: this one, http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/...
3. you did not debunk it. You didn't debunk any part of it. You didn't even try to debunk it.
4. Instead, you moved to an ad hominem argument. Nice try. I have, in fact, read it, but you can now change to a "yeah? prove it!" argument, which effectively changes the subject and nicely covers up the fact that you failed.
5. You said you could debunk it in "two minutes of thinking," but in fact, it has real facts, real data, and actual critical thinking. You can't debunk it-- not in "two minutes," not at all: you're afraid to even read it.
You failed. Game over.
So, it will now be the Beijing Opera!
Sorry, but you are wrong. Here is the data from four groups on three different continents: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/resea... temperatures have not been "remarkably steady for the past 19 years or so" - they have been rising.
Notice from your graph that temperatures are about the same as they were 19 years ago? That's what people call "the Pause".
what, in the graph I linked? That's very clearly a single high data point in 1998. Tell me true, do you really look at that graph and think it's not rising? Or are you just pretending to think that?
the Pause wasn't predicted by any of them (but it's within the error bars, just as it's within the error bars of the null hypothesis).
Huh? It's not even close to the error bars of the null hypothesis-- the null hypothesis would be that the temperature rise is a statistical fluke, and it will drop back down to the baseline. The error bars are 0.1C, and it needs to drop by 0.6C to make the null hypothesis plausible.
Data from before the models were created means nothing when it comes to verifying the models.
Data from before the models were created is unnecessary to comparing the model to the actual results.
The "garbage" article that pretty much all the climate scientists refer doubters to is this one: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/...
And you haven't read it. You're like every other moron that thinks they know something but is really just following the crowd. Good job.
I notice that, although you claimed you could debunk it in two minutes... you didn't.
Game over.
Science is settled, up until new measurements or better data or new models mean that the science needs to be revisited.
Settled does not mean 'dormant' or 'waiting for better data'; settled implies beyond reproach.
Maybe in law.
But that's not the way science works.
That solution is nuclear power.
Any politician that claims that the government needs to fund this and support that and ignores nuclear power is not serious about the problem. This tends to lead me to think that global warming is not the problem that they claim.
Barack Obama (October 2007, before becoming president): ”It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table.“
(2009, after becoming president): "We must harness the power of nuclear energy on behalf of our efforts to combat climate change.” (citation)
James Hansen (probably the most famous of the climate activists), 2013:
"We call on your organization to support the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as a practical means of addressing the climate change problem... in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power." (citation)
Wait, maybe some of the mods might be biased... I know, how about also implementing meta-moderation?
The actual LIGO Media Advisory is here: http://www.ligo.org/news/media... (with a bunch of links to background info)