You do realize that carbon dioxide is quite literally PLANT FOOD, don't you?
Yeah, but there's not much we can do about that. "People breathe, therefore it's ok to dump another half trillion tons of carbon out of the ground into the atmosphere" isn't really a convinving argument.
You do realize that carbon dioxide is quite literally PLANT FOOD, don't you?
Yes. Sure. Maybe some of that trillion tons (the half trillion we already liberated, and the other half trillion that's following on rapildy) will be absorbed by plant life. After all, it was plant life that it came from. Maybe if we take the carbon that had been captured by plants and stored over hundreds of millions of years as fossil fuels, and release it into the atmosphere in a few decades, maybe plant life will be able to keep up with that. Or maybe not.
I deliberately chose extreme examples, and I deliberately chose one example that I have sympathy with (that AGW presents a threat to the western way of life) and one that I do not (that there is a god).
Yeah, it's not a constructive attitude to take. But, if I'm convinced that global warming is going to wipe out the human race, then anyone who is arguing on the other side is directly contributing to the extermination of humanity, and that's not going to endear me to them. And in a broader sense regarding "liberals", tolerant people can't be expected to be tolerant of intolerance. Same with religion - if I'm convinced that anyone not worshipping God is helping the devil to destroy the world, then I'm not really going to be sympathetic to atheists or other religions. Of course to someone who disagrees with me on any of these positions, I'm just some nutjob. But if I'm right, well, what otherwise outrageous actions are acceptable in order to save the world?
If you have skill to contribute, put the work in, if you don't have skills, put some work in and gain them.
Or, just support the people who are doing it the way you want it done. Not everyone has the time to get personally involved in the free software movement, but most of us can throw a few zlotti in the direction of the people that they like.
My dad and I wrote a BASIC interpreter for the IBM PC in the '80s called BBasic, based on the Acorn BBC Micro dialect. BBC BASIC had an "EVAL" function, where it took a string and interpreted it as an expression. I persuaded dad that we should expand this functionality to an EXEC statement, that would take a string and interpret it as BASIC commands. If you put a line number at the start of the string, it would insert the code in the string into the program that was running - so you could have self-modifying BASIC code. There was one restriction, that if any of the points in the call stack were prior to the inserted statement, then it would fall over in a very untidy heap.
It actually turned out to be pretty useful, the one used that I can remember was to store persistent data within the program itself, and you could save a program as an executable that included a runtime interpreter.
I'm guessing that if this really is a list of Google accounts and passwords, that they got it from somewhere other than Google. As far as I know, Google doesn't store passwords, they store salted hashes of passwords.
It's possible that an organism might resemble the hexagonal parts of a buckyball but not the pentagonal parts if the pentagonal parts are uneven or convex.
Although this looks just like a normal icosahedron. I can't find a transalation other than an automated one.
Consider the continuum as it extends over time and space. Everything is and/or was a continuum, but occasionally holes and tears in the continuum occur that cause the appearance of hard distinctions between species.
Google shouldn't have to make intelligent decisions as to what needs to be removed. It should all be automatic. Either everything is removed, or nothing is removed. Only by court orders otherwise.
So I should be able to request that searches for "microsoft" should not go to "microsoft.com"? And Google should be forced to honour that?
Those people, who want to be forgotten, should go after those hosting the material, not the search engine pointing.
The reason that going via the search engine works, is that it is possible. Many content platforms don't have easy mechanisms for identifying and removing content, and many are hosted abroad (whereas Google is active in the EU and can therefore be instructed by EU authorities). Slashdot, for instance, has only ever removed comment content once to my knowledge and they made a huge deal over it. Search engines, however, have enough layers of indirection between the search box and the results that adding a rule to exclude certain results from certain keywords isn't all that difficult.
I don't think that the "right to be forgotten" is a good idea. But saying "Instead of doing it via a route that is possible, they should do it via a route that is impossible" isn't a helpful contribution. Just say it's a bad idea, rather than suggesting an impossible course of action.
The assembly member that proposed it, in the press release announcing the passing of the bill, talks about BitCoin, Amazon Coins, Starbucks Stars, and Diablo II Stones of Jordan*. Of course the legislation itself doesn't mention BitCoin, since the section that it repeals pre-dates BitCoin, and when you're repealing a section, you just say "Section X is repealed", not "Section X is repealed because BitCoin".
...and money laundering and sanction evading are illegal... and they can fine foreign banks for those activities that were carried out overseas... could they have fined banks for issuing currency overseas?
If we are looking at the system from "above", like looking down on a plate on which peas are rolling around, then the apparent distance between them is the same as the actual distance between them. If we're looking at them edge-on, then we don't really know how far apart they are. The apparent distance sets the lower bound for the actual distance, but the upper bound is unknown. And yes, there's always a degree of conjecture in astronnomy. All we can really say is that there are three black holes near the centre of that galaxy, and they are almost certainly in orbit around each other.
What people don't seem to understand is, science relies on publishing of un-proven theories. You observe, model, predict, publish, and eventually you will be either proven right or wrong. Without the "publish" step, especially in long-term sciences like astronomy where it could take centuries for a theory to tested (such as, "will that comet return in a hundred years"), you could make a thousand contradictory predictions and then publish the one that happened - by co-incidence - to be correct. If you limit yourself to a single prediction, which turns out to be correct, then you are worth paying attention to. My mum is always saying "Scientists keep getting things wrong, therefore all science is rubbish". Getting things wrong is crucual to scientific progress.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize that carbon dioxide is quite literally PLANT FOOD, don't you?
Yeah, but there's not much we can do about that. "People breathe, therefore it's ok to dump another half trillion tons of carbon out of the ground into the atmosphere" isn't really a convinving argument.
You do realize that carbon dioxide is quite literally PLANT FOOD, don't you?
Yes. Sure. Maybe some of that trillion tons (the half trillion we already liberated, and the other half trillion that's following on rapildy) will be absorbed by plant life. After all, it was plant life that it came from. Maybe if we take the carbon that had been captured by plants and stored over hundreds of millions of years as fossil fuels, and release it into the atmosphere in a few decades, maybe plant life will be able to keep up with that. Or maybe not.
I deliberately chose extreme examples, and I deliberately chose one example that I have sympathy with (that AGW presents a threat to the western way of life) and one that I do not (that there is a god).
Yeah, it's not a constructive attitude to take. But, if I'm convinced that global warming is going to wipe out the human race, then anyone who is arguing on the other side is directly contributing to the extermination of humanity, and that's not going to endear me to them. And in a broader sense regarding "liberals", tolerant people can't be expected to be tolerant of intolerance. Same with religion - if I'm convinced that anyone not worshipping God is helping the devil to destroy the world, then I'm not really going to be sympathetic to atheists or other religions. Of course to someone who disagrees with me on any of these positions, I'm just some nutjob. But if I'm right, well, what otherwise outrageous actions are acceptable in order to save the world?
If you have skill to contribute, put the work in, if you don't have skills, put some work in and gain them.
Or, just support the people who are doing it the way you want it done. Not everyone has the time to get personally involved in the free software movement, but most of us can throw a few zlotti in the direction of the people that they like.
...rankly, the FOSS community needs to make a choice - if they want the year of Linux on the desktop to stop being a joke and start being a reality...
That's a big "if". A lot of Linux developers really never have cared about desktops. "The year of Linux on the desktop" has always been a media thing.
My dad and I wrote a BASIC interpreter for the IBM PC in the '80s called BBasic, based on the Acorn BBC Micro dialect. BBC BASIC had an "EVAL" function, where it took a string and interpreted it as an expression. I persuaded dad that we should expand this functionality to an EXEC statement, that would take a string and interpret it as BASIC commands. If you put a line number at the start of the string, it would insert the code in the string into the program that was running - so you could have self-modifying BASIC code. There was one restriction, that if any of the points in the call stack were prior to the inserted statement, then it would fall over in a very untidy heap.
It actually turned out to be pretty useful, the one used that I can remember was to store persistent data within the program itself, and you could save a program as an executable that included a runtime interpreter.
Where did you get the password list from?
I'm guessing that if this really is a list of Google accounts and passwords, that they got it from somewhere other than Google. As far as I know, Google doesn't store passwords, they store salted hashes of passwords.
It's worse than that, it's exactly 100 years old today.
According to The Onion, 80% of our nation's grandchildren are above average.
Intelligent people can be immature. In fact, all intelligent people were immature at some stage.
It's possible that an organism might resemble the hexagonal parts of a buckyball but not the pentagonal parts if the pentagonal parts are uneven or convex.
Although this looks just like a normal icosahedron. I can't find a transalation other than an automated one.
Truncated icosahedron, maybe?
Consider the continuum as it extends over time and space. Everything is and/or was a continuum, but occasionally holes and tears in the continuum occur that cause the appearance of hard distinctions between species.
Drake's Equation hasn't predicted anything, because no-one knows what the vaues of any of the variables are.
The unit of energy is fff, the energy required to accelerate one firkin by one furlong-per-fortnight.
Citation needed.
Google shouldn't have to make intelligent decisions as to what needs to be removed. It should all be automatic. Either everything is removed, or nothing is removed. Only by court orders otherwise.
So I should be able to request that searches for "microsoft" should not go to "microsoft.com"? And Google should be forced to honour that?
Those people, who want to be forgotten, should go after those hosting the material, not the search engine pointing.
The reason that going via the search engine works, is that it is possible. Many content platforms don't have easy mechanisms for identifying and removing content, and many are hosted abroad (whereas Google is active in the EU and can therefore be instructed by EU authorities). Slashdot, for instance, has only ever removed comment content once to my knowledge and they made a huge deal over it. Search engines, however, have enough layers of indirection between the search box and the results that adding a rule to exclude certain results from certain keywords isn't all that difficult.
I don't think that the "right to be forgotten" is a good idea. But saying "Instead of doing it via a route that is possible, they should do it via a route that is impossible" isn't a helpful contribution. Just say it's a bad idea, rather than suggesting an impossible course of action.
Try www.google.com/ncr
Bitcon is NEVER mentioned.
It IS mentioned.
The assembly member that proposed it, in the press release announcing the passing of the bill, talks about BitCoin, Amazon Coins, Starbucks Stars, and Diablo II Stones of Jordan*. Of course the legislation itself doesn't mention BitCoin, since the section that it repeals pre-dates BitCoin, and when you're repealing a section, you just say "Section X is repealed", not "Section X is repealed because BitCoin".
*One of these is a lie.
...and money laundering and sanction evading are illegal... and they can fine foreign banks for those activities that were carried out overseas... could they have fined banks for issuing currency overseas?
If we are looking at the system from "above", like looking down on a plate on which peas are rolling around, then the apparent distance between them is the same as the actual distance between them. If we're looking at them edge-on, then we don't really know how far apart they are. The apparent distance sets the lower bound for the actual distance, but the upper bound is unknown. And yes, there's always a degree of conjecture in astronnomy. All we can really say is that there are three black holes near the centre of that galaxy, and they are almost certainly in orbit around each other.
What people don't seem to understand is, science relies on publishing of un-proven theories. You observe, model, predict, publish, and eventually you will be either proven right or wrong. Without the "publish" step, especially in long-term sciences like astronomy where it could take centuries for a theory to tested (such as, "will that comet return in a hundred years"), you could make a thousand contradictory predictions and then publish the one that happened - by co-incidence - to be correct. If you limit yourself to a single prediction, which turns out to be correct, then you are worth paying attention to. My mum is always saying "Scientists keep getting things wrong, therefore all science is rubbish". Getting things wrong is crucual to scientific progress.
The Hoover Dam has to be strong enough to hold back all that water. These only need to disrupt the wind.
Could they find a name that sounds more like a James Bond villain?
Scroll down to TTYM.