Have you ever read even 1 paper on the climate ? "This is what happens in x% of the cases, and it tests significant... <3 pages about the numerical method> Now given the yearly numerical variation it looks like this has to do with $known_effect (e.g. "summer in South America"), but the exact relation is not known".
It's really trivial to look at past errors and say "see, these guys know nothing". I'll be much more impressed if you'd actually come up with some science of your own that makes some sort of verifiable prediction. In the meantime, you're nothing but a Monday morning quarterback.
You do realize that if we compare the validity of the IPCC prediction in 1990, with the base hypothesis "nothing happens"... which one do you think will win ?
Can you please at least agree that this looks very bad. "We've got data that proves bla-bla, now agree to Kyoto and pay trillions !", "Okay, let's see that data", "no you can't have you'll just use it to discredit our cause".
Can you explain why it would be such a bad thing to give climate skeptics full access to the data ? Why wouldn't that be a very good thing ?
Both sides are obviously political. Neither plays by the rules of science at all.
Actually the data supports that the climate is warming due to a feedback loop that's unrolling in the oceans that's warming the planet. And yes, the initial push that started this feedback loop is started by a combination of human and volcanic activity. That push also occured centuries ago, long before your grandfather was born.
The evolution of climate, so the models tell us, is like a grenade exploding in slow motion, it's about a third through the fireball. And what we're trying to do is to put the pin back in.
Something people really should start learning about espionage and computer security. If the enemy is really good, you'll never even realize there is an enemy. You'll just be outwitted miraculously at every turn in a conventional setting.
It'll look more like a Kasparov versus the neighbor kids chess game than anything else.
If you agree with Darwin's definition, "good" == "fitness" == "the option to kill everyone else, either fast (usually violently), or slow (usually outbreeding them)". If you agree with that view, then it's absolutely not worse. In fact it's an absolute necessity to have this option.
If you agree with the philosopher's definition "good" == "whatever feels good", then it's really bad. Sadly, the philosophers' states, like in ancient Greece for example... did not survive. None of them.
The problem with our current "there is only one ideology (an extremist new-testament view, but with the caveat that you're supposed to call yourself an atheist, despite behaving like prescribed and complaining about others violating that behaviour)" approach is that it prevents people from even seeing the structure of alternative approaches, and what makes them tick. It totally prevents people from seeing how you can sabotage things, both in cases where that's exactly what you'd want, and in cases where it's the opposite. We can't even see that we're sabotaging ourselves these days.
All true, but the only way to truly reduce individual power is to allow for free competition, and give power based on past performance (ie. on how much $ your past exploits produced). Which is of course why it always turns out to be the left side of the aisle supporting dictatorships and oppression.
Without massive power, and massive abuses, there can be no centrally controlled system. Without centrally controlled systems, all leftist political ideology is completely stuck.
Incidentally, the birdsong video is back online. The thing to keep in mind here is that this system was fully automated. An AI algorithm made a seemingly dumb mistake (I'll bet you it won't be nearly as stupid if you look at how the algorithm works, instead of just feeling superior), and the program ran it's course.
It's a stupid mistake of an automated algorithm. You can blame google for this, but essentially it's a more complex version of the old "sudo nohup rm -Rf/" paste. Apparently google seems to think that the uploaded videos can't be watched by actual people, that'd be too pricey. So if you want to have a free youtube, mistakes like this will be part of the experience. Imho, they're doing pretty fucking well at this.
As for the religious intolerance double standard on google's youtube, essentially allowing muslims to post videos inciting genocide and having a "don't offend" standard for everyone else. Now that is a problem. It is not a problem limited to youtube though, and the source of the problem is that muslims just don't seem to be offended at videos calling for massacres and genocide, resulting in a lot of these videos never getting reported. This is exactly the attitude you find in muslim countries press and it's an attitude that's spreading. The other side of the problem boils down to muslims using violence to suppress any criticism, in their own countries and everywhere else. Often there's organised campaigns on messageboards getting masses of people to "report" videos "they find offensive" resulting in those videos getting taken offline.
Everyone claims that since the enlightenment that attitude "doesn't work", but in my humble opinion, mobs using dumb violence against "enlightened" people, whether atheists or "competing" religions (or even against things like socialism)... seems to work pretty fucking well to erode our so-called "rights".
Why don't you try opening private correspondence between 2 Americans in the UK, and see what happens ? There's an international statute of postal secrecy, and there is barely any country in the world that hasn't signed it. Same goes for telephone calls. State secrets of allies (even wider than what you'd consider allies: anyone who has exchanged ambassadors) are also protected (so yes, the UK police will try to prevent Iranian state secrets from leaking, unless specifically directed otherwise by the ministry of foreign affairs. Even in that case, such publication is *not* protected by freedom of the press). Publishing that information, purposefully, to enemies, is worse.
Publishing the ambassadors' documents was a heinous crime.
Could you specify what law was broken by this particular individual?
Revealing the identity of intelligence officers (in multiple countries, UK, Australia and US) Privacy laws Postal code laws (opening private correspondence is a very serious - federal and international - offence) State secrets laws (everything said by an ambassador - a real one - is a state secret) Treason laws (publishing this information, including to enemies of the US) Treason laws (publishing allied nations secrets)
That's just a wild first guess. Unless you pay me for it, I'm not looking up actual law references. Especially the first one is not a victimless crime.
It exposed real people to real danger, just to flatter his own ego and conspiracy theories.
This worry has been expressed by many people, but could you support that with evidence?
First there's the people who have been named, both intelligence officers and activists. Several of the people Assange named have disappeared (aside from intelligence agents, a number of Chinese activists in addition to a couple of arab human rights activists, and yes most of those disappeared probably simply did it themselves and went into hiding, or at least - I hope they did).
Second there's the issue that this information (the updates, and due to the fact that access to everything has been revoked, everything else as well) is now inaccessible to lots of people who need it, including diplomats and soldiers on the field. Second there's plenty of damage to negotiated agreements, with as a big first example the agreements with the Iraqi government.
Thirdly, if true, there's the issue of what this caused in Tunisia. While the end result MAY (might) be good (if it doesn't turn into a women-mutilating theocracy like the one Egypt's turning into), using violence and deception to cause large-scale violence is VERY bad.
And, of course, for conspiracy theorists those files turned out to be a big disappointment, unless...... you actually paid attention to the news? Do you know how many news stories and political changes have taken place at least in part because of the information that was leaked?
News stories : plenty. Although the saudis wanting Iran nuked was the biggest thing imho. Other news stories I saw were more of a local nature (ie. small details things involving the local ambassador, more funny and not important). The "disgraces", like involving muslim political leaders were more "tangential" (like how they arrived in a Ferrari with golden wheelcaps on a meeting). Political change : zero, with the possible exception that it accelerated the tunisian "revolution" (it did not cause it, and the jury is still out on the result. There is much reason to be worried). The only thing that's really changed is that soldiers and diplomatic staff are now denied access to this information source, making communication between people negotiating treaties, soldiers, police officers, and all sorts of agents of the US (say, judges, prosecutors,...) in the field go through the entire chain of command.
I don't really care. Publishing the ambassadors' documents was a heinous crime. It exposed real people to real danger, just to flatter his own ego and conspiracy theories. And, of course, for conspiracy theorists those files turned out to be a big disappointment, unless your conspiracy theory was that saudis want to nuke iran.
Also, a sealed indictment will obviously be unsealed at trial. So what is so "sinister" about that ? Indictments are sealed all the time for all sorts of reasons. If an offender is currently residing abroad as in this case, that by itself is more than enough reason to seal it.
With the tiny difference that that doesn't involve attacking people.
Vigilantes are cool, sexy, nearly always total morons, and they hurt people. They do what they do specifically to hurt people who they think deserve it. It baffles me how people can on one hand "hate" the us (or whatever, I'm sure there's an oil company in there somewhere) for not always doing 100% due process properly (and screwing up at times)... and support things like anonymous.
In the near term, smoking marijuana irritates the airways and can cause coughing, and public health advocates stress that it causes impairment that reduces attention, lowers motivation and heightens the risk of accidents. Over days or weeks, chronic use can lead to problems with learning and memory. But whether smoking marijuana sets off the type of pulmonary changes that lead to lasting damage like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a leading cause of death among Americans, was not entirely clear.
Sure, no health effects. In reality short-term it creates problem with several cognitive functions, and irritates the airways, which is known to easily lead to complications like pneumonia.
Dr. Kertesz noted that with heavier marijuana use, described as 10 joint-years of exposure or more, lung function did begin to decline. And for a person who smokes both marijuana and cigarettes, “the net effect is going to be continued loss of lung function.”
So if you smoke more than 1 joint in 25/10 = 2.5 days, you do indeed permanently impair lung function.
This does, of course, technically agree with what you said. It's just that "moderate" is a hell of a lot more moderation that one would think from your statements. 3 joints per week = permanent lung damage.
One cigarette per week is also "harmless" (as in doesn't cause enough damage to significantly raise health risks). I do not know where this threshold lies for tobacco.
The Left will block it because they balk at the idea of handing control of the internet over people who are easily swayed by governments with records of human rights abuses
Man I want to live in that world. The left, if you take either the ideology or the international, is the source of at least half the worldwide human rights abuses. Are they going to oppose themselves ? The left is in love with people blocking criticism and the UN is happy to make them believe they're allies, generally by flat-out lying.
and Right will block it because they hate the UN and will see this as another step in the creation of the New World Order.
True, but since when are they against the new world order ? Plus the UN will promise to go after copyright violators (and of course not do it, same story as with human rights violations). While the UN screams bloody murder about being leftist, in practice they react in a very rightist way : they let everyone fend for themselves unless absolutely impossible. Between that, they only care about themselves and forcing their ideology on the world.
The only thing political parties understand is direct personal power. I hope the UN won't be able to provide it.
>2. If you get a packet, you send it on, no matter who it is from or to whom it is going.
Sounds like you're trying to make a rule specifically allowing DDoS'ing.
I wouldn't worry. There is absolutely no danger of the UN accepting that rule.
This is more their way of doing things : "If you get a packet, you shall contact, in writing and in triplicate, all countries of the UN and those not in the UN, and if any of them objects within 6 months you may not forward the packet"
Heh... while I don't pretend to understand it, our company legal department insists that this means you can't give any one person the means to shut down the company. That, according to them, means giving all the firewall passwords to one guy. Same with router accounts, root accounts,... you name it.
It's not about accountability afterwards, it's about preventive controls. One person must not be able to do too much by himself. What is "too much"... well that's where we circumvent legal, of course.
Really, everyone smokes pot in unfiltered hand-rolled cigarettes, which is a lot worse than plain store-bought tobacco cigarettes because they offer zero protection against the actual burning material. Well I've seen one middle-eastern guy use a hookah, but apparently that's even worse.
Oh yeah, these are the guys that told you cigarettes were healthy, and that there was no reliable evidence that they harmed people.
Not really, they worked with Phillip Morris to spread material on the effects of secondhand smoke, which was questionable at the time they did so (they had long since stopped doing this before actual studies confirmed the effects). Every think tank ofcourse helps it's sponsors...
You need to keep history of something in mind. There's a history to every idea, as hard as that is to see. Until 1954, the official medical opinion on smoking itself was that it was healthy as well (there were suspicions from 1912 onwards). Even today I heard someone claim that smoking pot does not have worse health effects than tobacco smoke (think about it : no filters on the sigarettes -> you're actually inhaling burning leaves directly into your lungs which will never again come out. Healthy ? Of course not)
This is still happening to other products too. E.g. soda is supposedly healthy (esp. soda with "added vitamin C" or some such. It's not healthy at all). And sugar-free soda is worse, again something often denied. Or another popular one, that TL lights are healthy and generally good, especially CFL bulbs. We all know you get headaches from them, they can induce epileptic seizures, and research confirms long-term health effects. But they're "better for the environment". I guess environment doesn't include people.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you ever read even 1 paper on the climate ? "This is what happens in x% of the cases, and it tests significant ... <3 pages about the numerical method> Now given the yearly numerical variation it looks like this has to do with $known_effect (e.g. "summer in South America"), but the exact relation is not known".
It's really trivial to look at past errors and say "see, these guys know nothing". I'll be much more impressed if you'd actually come up with some science of your own that makes some sort of verifiable prediction. In the meantime, you're nothing but a Monday morning quarterback.
You do realize that if we compare the validity of the IPCC prediction in 1990, with the base hypothesis "nothing happens" ... which one do you think will win ?
About your signature ... why should "many bleed" ?
You ever read a few social "studies" sponsored by democrats ?
Both parties are sick in the same bed here.
Can you please at least agree that this looks very bad. "We've got data that proves bla-bla, now agree to Kyoto and pay trillions !", "Okay, let's see that data", "no you can't have you'll just use it to discredit our cause".
Can you explain why it would be such a bad thing to give climate skeptics full access to the data ? Why wouldn't that be a very good thing ?
Both sides are obviously political. Neither plays by the rules of science at all.
Actually the data supports that the climate is warming due to a feedback loop that's unrolling in the oceans that's warming the planet. And yes, the initial push that started this feedback loop is started by a combination of human and volcanic activity. That push also occured centuries ago, long before your grandfather was born.
The evolution of climate, so the models tell us, is like a grenade exploding in slow motion, it's about a third through the fireball. And what we're trying to do is to put the pin back in.
Something people really should start learning about espionage and computer security. If the enemy is really good, you'll never even realize there is an enemy. You'll just be outwitted miraculously at every turn in a conventional setting.
It'll look more like a Kasparov versus the neighbor kids chess game than anything else.
That depends on your definition of "worse".
If you agree with Darwin's definition, "good" == "fitness" == "the option to kill everyone else, either fast (usually violently), or slow (usually outbreeding them)". If you agree with that view, then it's absolutely not worse. In fact it's an absolute necessity to have this option.
If you agree with the philosopher's definition "good" == "whatever feels good", then it's really bad. Sadly, the philosophers' states, like in ancient Greece for example ... did not survive. None of them.
The problem with our current "there is only one ideology (an extremist new-testament view, but with the caveat that you're supposed to call yourself an atheist, despite behaving like prescribed and complaining about others violating that behaviour)" approach is that it prevents people from even seeing the structure of alternative approaches, and what makes them tick. It totally prevents people from seeing how you can sabotage things, both in cases where that's exactly what you'd want, and in cases where it's the opposite. We can't even see that we're sabotaging ourselves these days.
The UN ? Limit casualties ? Surely you mean maximize civilian casualties ?
Man I want some of the stuff you're smoking.
All true, but the only way to truly reduce individual power is to allow for free competition, and give power based on past performance (ie. on how much $ your past exploits produced). Which is of course why it always turns out to be the left side of the aisle supporting dictatorships and oppression.
Without massive power, and massive abuses, there can be no centrally controlled system. Without centrally controlled systems, all leftist political ideology is completely stuck.
Except ... you know who pays for the whole thing.
Incidentally, the birdsong video is back online. The thing to keep in mind here is that this system was fully automated. An AI algorithm made a seemingly dumb mistake (I'll bet you it won't be nearly as stupid if you look at how the algorithm works, instead of just feeling superior), and the program ran it's course.
It's a stupid mistake of an automated algorithm. You can blame google for this, but essentially it's a more complex version of the old "sudo nohup rm -Rf /" paste. Apparently google seems to think that the uploaded videos can't be watched by actual people, that'd be too pricey. So if you want to have a free youtube, mistakes like this will be part of the experience. Imho, they're doing pretty fucking well at this.
As for the religious intolerance double standard on google's youtube, essentially allowing muslims to post videos inciting genocide and having a "don't offend" standard for everyone else. Now that is a problem. It is not a problem limited to youtube though, and the source of the problem is that muslims just don't seem to be offended at videos calling for massacres and genocide, resulting in a lot of these videos never getting reported. This is exactly the attitude you find in muslim countries press and it's an attitude that's spreading. The other side of the problem boils down to muslims using violence to suppress any criticism, in their own countries and everywhere else. Often there's organised campaigns on messageboards getting masses of people to "report" videos "they find offensive" resulting in those videos getting taken offline.
Everyone claims that since the enlightenment that attitude "doesn't work", but in my humble opinion, mobs using dumb violence against "enlightened" people, whether atheists or "competing" religions (or even against things like socialism) ... seems to work pretty fucking well to erode our so-called "rights".
Why don't you try opening private correspondence between 2 Americans in the UK, and see what happens ? There's an international statute of postal secrecy, and there is barely any country in the world that hasn't signed it. Same goes for telephone calls. State secrets of allies (even wider than what you'd consider allies: anyone who has exchanged ambassadors) are also protected (so yes, the UK police will try to prevent Iranian state secrets from leaking, unless specifically directed otherwise by the ministry of foreign affairs. Even in that case, such publication is *not* protected by freedom of the press). Publishing that information, purposefully, to enemies, is worse.
Could you fill me in on some details?
Publishing the ambassadors' documents was a heinous crime.
Could you specify what law was broken by this particular individual?
Revealing the identity of intelligence officers (in multiple countries, UK, Australia and US)
Privacy laws
Postal code laws (opening private correspondence is a very serious - federal and international - offence)
State secrets laws (everything said by an ambassador - a real one - is a state secret)
Treason laws (publishing this information, including to enemies of the US)
Treason laws (publishing allied nations secrets)
That's just a wild first guess. Unless you pay me for it, I'm not looking up actual law references. Especially the first one is not a victimless crime.
It exposed real people to real danger, just to flatter his own ego and conspiracy theories.
This worry has been expressed by many people, but could you support that with evidence?
First there's the people who have been named, both intelligence officers and activists. Several of the people Assange named have disappeared (aside from intelligence agents, a number of Chinese activists in addition to a couple of arab human rights activists, and yes most of those disappeared probably simply did it themselves and went into hiding, or at least - I hope they did).
Second there's the issue that this information (the updates, and due to the fact that access to everything has been revoked, everything else as well) is now inaccessible to lots of people who need it, including diplomats and soldiers on the field. Second there's plenty of damage to negotiated agreements, with as a big first example the agreements with the Iraqi government.
Thirdly, if true, there's the issue of what this caused in Tunisia. While the end result MAY (might) be good (if it doesn't turn into a women-mutilating theocracy like the one Egypt's turning into), using violence and deception to cause large-scale violence is VERY bad.
And, of course, for conspiracy theorists those files turned out to be a big disappointment, unless ... ... you actually paid attention to the news? Do you know how many news stories and political changes have taken place at least in part because of the information that was leaked?
News stories : plenty. Although the saudis wanting Iran nuked was the biggest thing imho. Other news stories I saw were more of a local nature (ie. small details things involving the local ambassador, more funny and not important). The "disgraces", like involving muslim political leaders were more "tangential" (like how they arrived in a Ferrari with golden wheelcaps on a meeting). ...) in the field go through the entire chain of command.
Political change : zero, with the possible exception that it accelerated the tunisian "revolution" (it did not cause it, and the jury is still out on the result. There is much reason to be worried). The only thing that's really changed is that soldiers and diplomatic staff are now denied access to this information source, making communication between people negotiating treaties, soldiers, police officers, and all sorts of agents of the US (say, judges, prosecutors,
I don't really care. Publishing the ambassadors' documents was a heinous crime. It exposed real people to real danger, just to flatter his own ego and conspiracy theories. And, of course, for conspiracy theorists those files turned out to be a big disappointment, unless your conspiracy theory was that saudis want to nuke iran.
Also, a sealed indictment will obviously be unsealed at trial. So what is so "sinister" about that ? Indictments are sealed all the time for all sorts of reasons. If an offender is currently residing abroad as in this case, that by itself is more than enough reason to seal it.
Consistency and doing the popular thing (hating the church in this case) don't mix very well.
With the tiny difference that that doesn't involve attacking people.
Vigilantes are cool, sexy, nearly always total morons, and they hurt people. They do what they do specifically to hurt people who they think deserve it. It baffles me how people can on one hand "hate" the us (or whatever, I'm sure there's an oil company in there somewhere) for not always doing 100% due process properly (and screwing up at times) ... and support things like anonymous.
I now declare this thread 100% off-topic.
Just so we know ... how exactly is DRM worse than war ?
I don't, but I will NEVER use any platform that endorses DRM *ever*
Good, the parent organisation of slashdot "endorses" DRM a few times : they sell titles made by DRM pushers, protected by a number of DRM schemes.
I guess you won't reply to this post.
From your link :
In the near term, smoking marijuana irritates the airways and can cause coughing, and public health advocates stress that it causes impairment that reduces attention, lowers motivation and heightens the risk of accidents. Over days or weeks, chronic use can lead to problems with learning and memory. But whether smoking marijuana sets off the type of pulmonary changes that lead to lasting damage like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a leading cause of death among Americans, was not entirely clear.
Sure, no health effects. In reality short-term it creates problem with several cognitive functions, and irritates the airways, which is known to easily lead to complications like pneumonia.
Dr. Kertesz noted that with heavier marijuana use, described as 10 joint-years of exposure or more, lung function did begin to decline. And for a person who smokes both marijuana and cigarettes, “the net effect is going to be continued loss of lung function.”
So if you smoke more than 1 joint in 25/10 = 2.5 days, you do indeed permanently impair lung function.
This does, of course, technically agree with what you said. It's just that "moderate" is a hell of a lot more moderation that one would think from your statements. 3 joints per week = permanent lung damage.
One cigarette per week is also "harmless" (as in doesn't cause enough damage to significantly raise health risks). I do not know where this threshold lies for tobacco.
The Left will block it because they balk at the idea of handing control of the internet over people who are easily swayed by governments with records of human rights abuses
Man I want to live in that world. The left, if you take either the ideology or the international, is the source of at least half the worldwide human rights abuses. Are they going to oppose themselves ? The left is in love with people blocking criticism and the UN is happy to make them believe they're allies, generally by flat-out lying.
and Right will block it because they hate the UN and will see this as another step in the creation of the New World Order.
True, but since when are they against the new world order ? Plus the UN will promise to go after copyright violators (and of course not do it, same story as with human rights violations). While the UN screams bloody murder about being leftist, in practice they react in a very rightist way : they let everyone fend for themselves unless absolutely impossible. Between that, they only care about themselves and forcing their ideology on the world.
The only thing political parties understand is direct personal power. I hope the UN won't be able to provide it.
>2. If you get a packet, you send it on, no matter who it is from or to whom it is going.
Sounds like you're trying to make a rule specifically allowing DDoS'ing.
I wouldn't worry. There is absolutely no danger of the UN accepting that rule.
This is more their way of doing things :
"If you get a packet, you shall contact, in writing and in triplicate, all countries of the UN and those not in the UN, and if any of them objects within 6 months you may not forward the packet"
Heh ... while I don't pretend to understand it, our company legal department insists that this means you can't give any one person the means to shut down the company. That, according to them, means giving all the firewall passwords to one guy. Same with router accounts, root accounts, ... you name it.
It's not about accountability afterwards, it's about preventive controls. One person must not be able to do too much by himself. What is "too much" ... well that's where we circumvent legal, of course.
Really, everyone smokes pot in unfiltered hand-rolled cigarettes, which is a lot worse than plain store-bought tobacco cigarettes because they offer zero protection against the actual burning material. Well I've seen one middle-eastern guy use a hookah, but apparently that's even worse.
Or another popular one, that TL lights are healthy and generally good, especially CFL bulbs. We all know you get headaches from them
Wait, what? Do you get headaches from wi-fi networks, too?
Ahem, and for the record, I'm only allergic to to pink wifi networks, the blue ones are fine.
Oh yeah, these are the guys that told you cigarettes were healthy, and that there was no reliable evidence that they harmed people.
Not really, they worked with Phillip Morris to spread material on the effects of secondhand smoke, which was questionable at the time they did so (they had long since stopped doing this before actual studies confirmed the effects). Every think tank ofcourse helps it's sponsors ...
You need to keep history of something in mind. There's a history to every idea, as hard as that is to see. Until 1954, the official medical opinion on smoking itself was that it was healthy as well (there were suspicions from 1912 onwards). Even today I heard someone claim that smoking pot does not have worse health effects than tobacco smoke (think about it : no filters on the sigarettes -> you're actually inhaling burning leaves directly into your lungs which will never again come out. Healthy ? Of course not)
This is still happening to other products too. E.g. soda is supposedly healthy (esp. soda with "added vitamin C" or some such. It's not healthy at all). And sugar-free soda is worse, again something often denied. Or another popular one, that TL lights are healthy and generally good, especially CFL bulbs. We all know you get headaches from them, they can induce epileptic seizures, and research confirms long-term health effects. But they're "better for the environment". I guess environment doesn't include people.