One country in North America will lag the US in adoption, that would be Canada. Canada, the northern backwater for affordable digital connectivity rights, will lag for all the same reasons suggested for the US, except the US population will eventually galvanize and change things... something that will not happen in passive ol' Canada.
More numbers presented as spat out by models but NO mention of the error. Yes, the number spat out by the model is precise but is it accurate? That depends on the assumptions made for the model. Therefore there must be a possible error. So what is it? Why is it never mentioned?
Bottom line: if the margin of error is of the same or greater magnitude as the value, then any predictions you make must be complete eg. " the temp may rise by as much as x OR decline by as much as y. Anything else is less than honest and in the hands of politicians and an unquestioning public, dangerous.
a) Who stood to gain from using sarin gas on the population? Not the Syrian govt as that was guaranteed to draw unecessary attention from the intl community while accomplishing very little tactically. BUT the rebels had everything to gain and a demonstrated willingness to do anything to anyone to further their cause;
b) Iran is getting uncomfortably close to having its own nuclear strike capability. With covert and semi-covert deterents exposed, all that is left is an overt action, say a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities;
c) Iran has been out of the public eye. They haven't been doing anything that would make them look 'strike worthy' to the general public EXCEPT they are an ally of Syria.
So how to strike at Iran without it looking like a pure bullying action?
a) Get in to a war in Syria b) Draw Syria's allies into the war c) Strike at Iran, move in with occupying forces, dismantle nuclear infrastructure d) Declare peace and leave a token force to draw the fire of grass roots terrorists (like in Iraq, it keeps the terrorists from trying to hit targets in the US/UK because it is a much easier target).
This latest 'intelligence' from a less than trustworthy agency serves to prepare the public to increasingly begin looking anew at Iran as a 'bad guy' - '... not only are they allies with the gas-wielding Syrian despots but they have also instigated attacks against our people!"
Fundamental freedoms? Like the freedom for your personal correspondance to be captured and scrutinized, without your knowledge, as if you were presumed to be guilty, regardless of whether you actually are American or not? That fundamental freedom?
Whether you are forbidden to speak or your speech is watched for unstated transgressions, it amounts to the same infringement. At least the Vietnamese government has provided a warning and some direction as to what is acceptable.
a) intentionally - to highlight how Snowden took 'brilliant' action to work around a secure system ie. he is a bad guy who did illegal stuff, not merely a 'whistleblower' taking information within easy reach; or
b) unintentionally - because the comment reveals a staggering lack of understanding of what exactly was required to do what Snowden did. Maybe the guy is just trying to get quoted to satisfy his need for attention or he is genuinely stupid and resentful of smarter people. Well, 'brilliant' people, 'cause he likely thinks that he's smart... which is kind of sad.
Either way, it is the comment of someone who would not have the moral fibre or courage to do anything close to what Snowden did.
Now that we are poised to be able to control another human body through a mind-link (http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/08/27/1827256/uw-researchers-demonstrate-first-direct-communication-between-human-brains), you better hope the controller has morals.
Really... so we stuff CO2 in the ground, under the sea, in bricks, whatever; how long before it comes back? It's not like it will disappear, it will still be there. So will it pop back up when the buildings bricked with the stuff are demolished? Will the CO2 get re-released from the earth/sea in one, two, or X years? Isn't the whole carbon capture just a way of deferring consequences, passing them off to some future generation?
Sooner of later, regardless of what we do, we will have to grapple with the reality that is our planet. Our species' greatest asset is that it can adapt, NOT change/control/bend-the-planet-to-our-will but _adapt_.
Planet's getting warmer? Suck it up, buttercup. Things change.
Regardless of the purported effect on climate, we, as individuals, should be using all our resources as efficiently as possible.
Do you hate fossil fuels? Then why do you own an SUV, walk so little, and consume plastic in such abundance? Do you hate coal-fired power plants/nuclear plants? Then why do you have so many electronic devices, an airconditioner permanently on, and a swimming pool in your backyard? Do you hate the cutting of forests? Then why do you photocopy everything, print everything, buy a newly built house, and lovingly wrap every Christmas present?
No, the solution is not government or big money. It is bottom up. And frankly, look around you and the evidence is clear: neither you nor your family nor your friends nor your community... care enough to change.
Bottom line: we do not know enough about the workings of the climate to even pretend we understand what is happening and why, let alone to believe that we can come up with a 'solution'. We can just do what our species does best: adapt.
You are not entitled as a public servant to criticise your own department anonymously from within that department. That would and should get you fired just as it would if you were in the private sector. If you're not happy, change the system from within (chain of command) OR openly become a whistleblower OR get out of the system and lodge your complaints openly. To sneak commentary anonymously from within is the action of a coward who isn't sure that the complaint is actually defensible.
Democrats clearly only seem trustworthy. Obama certainly seemed like a caring, honest, and sincere leader. But, yeah, not so much. The ineptness of Republicans and their childlike inability to resist blowing their own horn, means that they are relatively transparent. Better the devil you know...
The cockpit windscreens of aircraft with any kind of service under their belts are replete with micro-cracks even though the windscreens remain transparent to the naked eye. When you shine a laser on the windscreen, all the cracks 'light up' through internal scattering and reflection. The higher power the laser, the more dramatic the effect. For the pilot, the windscreen suddenly becomes a sparkling dazzle of bright pinpricks and lines of whatever colour of laser light is used. This dramatically obscures the pilots view of his/her surroundings which is a serious concern for a pilot flying at low level close to obstructions like say, the ocean and ships (for comparison, picture driving really fast down a two lane highway and someone threw a blanket across your windshield). The desired result is that the aircraft pull up and away hopefully breaking off an attack and also becoming a bit more visible to the ship's radar (ie. out of sea clutter) and hence an easier target.
So, to call these lasers 'weapons' is a stretch. They were an active, short-range, countermeasure, analogous to radio jamming, and didn't damage eyesight, burn skin, melt metal, etc.
... as we increasingly see the nationalistic silos being re-erected. Don't go '.com', go '.ca' to show your patriotism to Canada. Only a matter of time before we get '.pq' for Province of Quebec (with only websites in French allowed and the word 'pasta' forbidden).
.., be scared now. The CIA, really?! You _know_, absolutely and without doubt, that they are doing this with the intent of hurting someone or more likely, a whole bunch of someones.
... really, _700 years_ of records? And the margin of error on those early 'records' would be? And the margins of error on your model's assumptions would be? Oh, and did all your models agree on this or were they in agreement +/- some margin?
Vague hand waving at best, attempt to placate/influence at worst.
What should have been said, "We _guess_ that _maybe_ it was a 1 in 700 hundred-ish year-ish event. But that could be totally wrong. Thanks for listening."
... besides the very obvious 'use our resources wisely and efficiently', all other suggestions at engineering climate change are short-sighted and arrogant in the extreme. We humans do not understand our climate mechanisms well enough to presume we can 'fix' what ails us. The best we can do is scale back on our gross inefficiencies e.g wireless recharging (a staggeringly inefficient use of electricity in the name of convenience),our wasteful use of polymers (from fossil fuels) most of which goes to a landfill after one use.
Changing out the whole darn program is pretty daunting and (it seems) impossible. But why not just incrementally replace portions? Eventually, it would all get changed out no, it would just take a while? I'm not a professional programmer so I'm genuinely curious about the challenges.
Slashdot Mirror
One country in North America will lag the US in adoption, that would be Canada. Canada, the northern backwater for affordable digital connectivity rights, will lag for all the same reasons suggested for the US, except the US population will eventually galvanize and change things ... something that will not happen in passive ol' Canada.
More numbers presented as spat out by models but NO mention of the error. Yes, the number spat out by the model is precise but is it accurate? That depends on the assumptions made for the model. Therefore there must be a possible error. So what is it? Why is it never mentioned?
Bottom line: if the margin of error is of the same or greater magnitude as the value, then any predictions you make must be complete eg. " the temp may rise by as much as x OR decline by as much as y. Anything else is less than honest and in the hands of politicians and an unquestioning public, dangerous.
So, observe:
a) Who stood to gain from using sarin gas on the population? Not the Syrian govt as that was guaranteed to draw unecessary attention from the intl community while accomplishing very little tactically. BUT the rebels had everything to gain and a demonstrated willingness to do anything to anyone to further their cause;
b) Iran is getting uncomfortably close to having its own nuclear strike capability. With covert and semi-covert deterents exposed, all that is left is an overt action, say a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities;
c) Iran has been out of the public eye. They haven't been doing anything that would make them look 'strike worthy' to the general public EXCEPT they are an ally of Syria.
So how to strike at Iran without it looking like a pure bullying action?
a) Get in to a war in Syria
b) Draw Syria's allies into the war
c) Strike at Iran, move in with occupying forces, dismantle nuclear infrastructure
d) Declare peace and leave a token force to draw the fire of grass roots terrorists (like in Iraq, it keeps the terrorists from trying to hit targets in the US/UK because it is a much easier target).
This latest 'intelligence' from a less than trustworthy agency serves to prepare the public to increasingly begin looking anew at Iran as a 'bad guy' - ' ... not only are they allies with the gas-wielding Syrian despots but they have also instigated attacks against our people!"
Fundamental freedoms? Like the freedom for your personal correspondance to be captured and scrutinized, without your knowledge, as if you were presumed to be guilty, regardless of whether you actually are American or not? That fundamental freedom?
Whether you are forbidden to speak or your speech is watched for unstated transgressions, it amounts to the same infringement. At least the Vietnamese government has provided a warning and some direction as to what is acceptable.
One guesses the comment is made:
a) intentionally - to highlight how Snowden took 'brilliant' action to work around a secure system ie. he is a bad guy who did illegal stuff, not merely a 'whistleblower' taking information within easy reach; or
b) unintentionally - because the comment reveals a staggering lack of understanding of what exactly was required to do what Snowden did. Maybe the guy is just trying to get quoted to satisfy his need for attention or he is genuinely stupid and resentful of smarter people. Well, 'brilliant' people, 'cause he likely thinks that he's smart ... which is kind of sad.
Either way, it is the comment of someone who would not have the moral fibre or courage to do anything close to what Snowden did.
Your sig: "exacerbated" not "exasperated" ... but agree with the rest of your post.
Now that we are poised to be able to control another human body through a mind-link (http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/08/27/1827256/uw-researchers-demonstrate-first-direct-communication-between-human-brains), you better hope the controller has morals.
Really ... so we stuff CO2 in the ground, under the sea, in bricks, whatever; how long before it comes back? It's not like it will disappear, it will still be there. So will it pop back up when the buildings bricked with the stuff are demolished? Will the CO2 get re-released from the earth/sea in one, two, or X years? Isn't the whole carbon capture just a way of deferring consequences, passing them off to some future generation?
Sooner of later, regardless of what we do, we will have to grapple with the reality that is our planet. Our species' greatest asset is that it can adapt, NOT change/control/bend-the-planet-to-our-will but _adapt_.
Planet's getting warmer? Suck it up, buttercup. Things change.
Only individuals have the power to do anything.
Regardless of the purported effect on climate, we, as individuals, should be using all our resources as efficiently as possible.
Do you hate fossil fuels? Then why do you own an SUV, walk so little, and consume plastic in such abundance?
Do you hate coal-fired power plants/nuclear plants? Then why do you have so many electronic devices, an airconditioner permanently on, and a swimming pool in your backyard?
Do you hate the cutting of forests? Then why do you photocopy everything, print everything, buy a newly built house, and lovingly wrap every Christmas present?
No, the solution is not government or big money. It is bottom up. And frankly, look around you and the evidence is clear: neither you nor your family nor your friends nor your community ... care enough to change.
... is compulsory reading to put all climate claims in perspective. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan_(2007_book)
Bottom line: we do not know enough about the workings of the climate to even pretend we understand what is happening and why, let alone to believe that we can come up with a 'solution'. We can just do what our species does best: adapt.
KGB didn't store images for so long.
Dudes and dudettes, you _are_ fat. And have been for a while. If anything is new, it's just that there seems to be more 'morbid' obesity.
You are not entitled as a public servant to criticise your own department anonymously from within that department. That would and should get you fired just as it would if you were in the private sector. If you're not happy, change the system from within (chain of command) OR openly become a whistleblower OR get out of the system and lodge your complaints openly. To sneak commentary anonymously from within is the action of a coward who isn't sure that the complaint is actually defensible.
Democrats clearly only seem trustworthy. Obama certainly seemed like a caring, honest, and sincere leader. But, yeah, not so much. The ineptness of Republicans and their childlike inability to resist blowing their own horn, means that they are relatively transparent. Better the devil you know ...
The cockpit windscreens of aircraft with any kind of service under their belts are replete with micro-cracks even though the windscreens remain transparent to the naked eye. When you shine a laser on the windscreen, all the cracks 'light up' through internal scattering and reflection. The higher power the laser, the more dramatic the effect. For the pilot, the windscreen suddenly becomes a sparkling dazzle of bright pinpricks and lines of whatever colour of laser light is used. This dramatically obscures the pilots view of his/her surroundings which is a serious concern for a pilot flying at low level close to obstructions like say, the ocean and ships (for comparison, picture driving really fast down a two lane highway and someone threw a blanket across your windshield). The desired result is that the aircraft pull up and away hopefully breaking off an attack and also becoming a bit more visible to the ship's radar (ie. out of sea clutter) and hence an easier target.
So, to call these lasers 'weapons' is a stretch. They were an active, short-range, countermeasure, analogous to radio jamming, and didn't damage eyesight, burn skin, melt metal, etc.
What aren't you getting Microsoft? Too expensive, too crippled, so you have to make it worth it!
... so I could sing and dance like the commercials suggested. It was _that_ simple.
Clearly MS only hire the best and brightest engineers. The management and marketing folk however, were all bottom of their class ....
... if you get away from the games long enough to create something. Cool.
My mind was stuck in a 'Is she a total idiot to not see the difference?", followed by, "How arrogant to even make the comparison!", indignation loop.
... as we increasingly see the nationalistic silos being re-erected. Don't go '.com', go '.ca' to show your patriotism to Canada. Only a matter of time before we get '.pq' for Province of Quebec (with only websites in French allowed and the word 'pasta' forbidden).
.., be scared now. The CIA, really?! You _know_, absolutely and without doubt, that they are doing this with the intent of hurting someone or more likely, a whole bunch of someones.
... really, _700 years_ of records? And the margin of error on those early 'records' would be? And the margins of error on your model's assumptions would be? Oh, and did all your models agree on this or were they in agreement +/- some margin?
Vague hand waving at best, attempt to placate/influence at worst.
What should have been said, "We _guess_ that _maybe_ it was a 1 in 700 hundred-ish year-ish event. But that could be totally wrong. Thanks for listening."
... besides the very obvious 'use our resources wisely and efficiently', all other suggestions at engineering climate change are short-sighted and arrogant in the extreme. We humans do not understand our climate mechanisms well enough to presume we can 'fix' what ails us. The best we can do is scale back on our gross inefficiencies e.g wireless recharging (a staggeringly inefficient use of electricity in the name of convenience),our wasteful use of polymers (from fossil fuels) most of which goes to a landfill after one use.
Changing out the whole darn program is pretty daunting and (it seems) impossible. But why not just incrementally replace portions? Eventually, it would all get changed out no, it would just take a while? I'm not a professional programmer so I'm genuinely curious about the challenges.
... DRM prevents them being read on other planets.