Yeah, it's not at all the same since Wikileaks is an organization, not a communications medium. An accurate substitution would be something like replacing Twitter with the World Wide Web, which clearly does not make sense.
I've never heard messages on Twitter called "twitters", they are called "tweets". Either way, if the entire meaning of a sentence is changed then it can't be considered "just" a grammar error. That would only apply if the intended meaning was obvious despite the mistake.
That's nothing at all like what happened with Mandriva. Mageia wasn't forked off just as Mandriva looked like it was going to make mainstream success, it forked off because the future of the company was in jeopardy.
I'm inclined to agree with that. I doubt this small local change in the climate will cause serious problems. Many things we do have much more noticeable changes to local climates. That doesn't mean I think what you said in your original post was correct:)
Do you not understand what "as close to the original as possible" means? Clearly that means they are aware there are parts of the original design that would not be possible to reproduce. Any parts of the original design which are no longer allowed for whatever reason would among them.
No, what they are measuring is a real climate change. By your logic, if you could magically pipe arctic air into a rain forest it wouldn't change the climate at all because the average temperature of the system isn't changing. The part that you miss is that the actual local temperatures matter a lot. In fact they're all that matter. The measure of the average global temperature you hear a lot about in the context of global warming is a convenient yardstick, but what is actually important is how it translates to hotter/colder/wetter/drier conditions in specific locations.
How many large meteors are in our orbit, and how long do they stay in a reasonable distance to work on? Seems unlikely you could have an effective mining operation from just whatever happens to float by.
Why rule out all binary star systems? Most stars in the galaxy are binaries and yet there is no reason why if a pair of stars are far enough apart or close enough together that a planet could exist in a stable orbit in a habitable zone. Is there?
I have to use Windows regularly and I can tell you I don't have the problem you do. Disabling automatic updates is trivial, in fact I'm pretty sure the option is stuck right in your face when you first setup windows so you can't miss it. It's really your own fault if you left it on.
I use Linux, but you sound like a troll to me too. You claim you only use Windows twice a year, and yet you complain about the number of updates that are supposedly forced on you?
No that's not right. It's true that to get an asteroid into orbit you would need to slow it down to almost the same velocity as earth. However to get it to hit the Earth you don't need to get it to any specific speed, any path that intersects with earth at any speed will do. You certainly would't have to add speed, asteroids are almost always moving at a very high velocity relative to earth to begin with.
If something is scraping it, it is available to be read by humans.
If it's leaving your personal home network unencrypted then it's available to be read by humans. How does it make a difference that they are telling you about a script that's running on it?
I see a difference between random meteors that happen to get caught up in earth's gravitational pull and ones that are selected for their size and directed towards earth. Sure most meteors miss us, but they were never aimed at us in the first place. I have little doubt that you guys are right that's it's safe, but you're doing an absolutely terrible job of conveying the reasons why.
It's all about the context of the email. Someone who took another position somewhere else would expect the email and think nothing of it. If the same email is sent to someone who isn't expecting it however, they would be likely to assume the worse.
Republicans attack Obama no matter what he does - not because of the action itself but because they want to try and see their party gain advantage. Democrats do the same.
No they don't, certainly not to the same degree at least. This is one area where there is a clear distinction between the parties. Remember that health care plan proposed by Republicans back in the 90's as an alternative to Hilary Clinton's plan? Now that it has Obama's name on it what happened to all that Republican support? That's just one example, but there are plenty of examples of Republican's doing complete 180s on bills for complete partisan reasons. I don't remember the bill, but a few years ago a Republican sponsor of a bill dropped his support of it as soon as Obama endorsed it.
This sort of thing seems to happen way more with Republicans, in fact I don't remember a Democrat ever doing something like that. The parties both suck, but they are not the same in every way and one is far more partisan then the other.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it's not at all the same since Wikileaks is an organization, not a communications medium. An accurate substitution would be something like replacing Twitter with the World Wide Web, which clearly does not make sense.
I've never heard messages on Twitter called "twitters", they are called "tweets". Either way, if the entire meaning of a sentence is changed then it can't be considered "just" a grammar error. That would only apply if the intended meaning was obvious despite the mistake.
Presidential visits to Iraq and Afghanistan have been unannounced for as long as I can remember, this is not unusual.
I wouldn't expect anyone to understand it without reading the article, the headline is just plain wrong.
That's nothing at all like what happened with Mandriva. Mageia wasn't forked off just as Mandriva looked like it was going to make mainstream success, it forked off because the future of the company was in jeopardy.
I'm inclined to agree with that. I doubt this small local change in the climate will cause serious problems. Many things we do have much more noticeable changes to local climates. That doesn't mean I think what you said in your original post was correct :)
Do you not understand what "as close to the original as possible" means? Clearly that means they are aware there are parts of the original design that would not be possible to reproduce. Any parts of the original design which are no longer allowed for whatever reason would among them.
No, what they are measuring is a real climate change. By your logic, if you could magically pipe arctic air into a rain forest it wouldn't change the climate at all because the average temperature of the system isn't changing. The part that you miss is that the actual local temperatures matter a lot. In fact they're all that matter. The measure of the average global temperature you hear a lot about in the context of global warming is a convenient yardstick, but what is actually important is how it translates to hotter/colder/wetter/drier conditions in specific locations.
Here in southern California it's common to find stores carrying Mexican Coke because it's made with real sugar.
Facts are what they are, they have nothing to do with personal beliefs. Do you really think you can just wish reality away when you don't like it?
How many large meteors are in our orbit, and how long do they stay in a reasonable distance to work on? Seems unlikely you could have an effective mining operation from just whatever happens to float by.
Why rule out all binary star systems? Most stars in the galaxy are binaries and yet there is no reason why if a pair of stars are far enough apart or close enough together that a planet could exist in a stable orbit in a habitable zone. Is there?
Nope, I am always annoyed at posts mentioning similarities to sci-fi.
I have to use Windows regularly and I can tell you I don't have the problem you do. Disabling automatic updates is trivial, in fact I'm pretty sure the option is stuck right in your face when you first setup windows so you can't miss it. It's really your own fault if you left it on.
I use Linux, but you sound like a troll to me too. You claim you only use Windows twice a year, and yet you complain about the number of updates that are supposedly forced on you?
Right, that's why I said he should just go ahead and call them deniers. Do you disagree with something I said?
No that's not right. It's true that to get an asteroid into orbit you would need to slow it down to almost the same velocity as earth. However to get it to hit the Earth you don't need to get it to any specific speed, any path that intersects with earth at any speed will do. You certainly would't have to add speed, asteroids are almost always moving at a very high velocity relative to earth to begin with.
What wrong with calling them deniers? You have a bias against them, an entirely appropriate bias based on their behavior, so why try to hide it?
If something is scraping it, it is available to be read by humans.
If it's leaving your personal home network unencrypted then it's available to be read by humans. How does it make a difference that they are telling you about a script that's running on it?
I see a difference between random meteors that happen to get caught up in earth's gravitational pull and ones that are selected for their size and directed towards earth. Sure most meteors miss us, but they were never aimed at us in the first place. I have little doubt that you guys are right that's it's safe, but you're doing an absolutely terrible job of conveying the reasons why.
It's all about the context of the email. Someone who took another position somewhere else would expect the email and think nothing of it. If the same email is sent to someone who isn't expecting it however, they would be likely to assume the worse.
Republicans attack Obama no matter what he does - not because of the action itself but because they want to try and see their party gain advantage. Democrats do the same.
No they don't, certainly not to the same degree at least. This is one area where there is a clear distinction between the parties. Remember that health care plan proposed by Republicans back in the 90's as an alternative to Hilary Clinton's plan? Now that it has Obama's name on it what happened to all that Republican support? That's just one example, but there are plenty of examples of Republican's doing complete 180s on bills for complete partisan reasons. I don't remember the bill, but a few years ago a Republican sponsor of a bill dropped his support of it as soon as Obama endorsed it.
This sort of thing seems to happen way more with Republicans, in fact I don't remember a Democrat ever doing something like that. The parties both suck, but they are not the same in every way and one is far more partisan then the other.
No, but he did imply that voting out Obama would make a difference. It won't.
How big is your gas tank? Most American cars are 15 gallons and it takes nowhere near 10-15 minutes.
It's both, just because a chemical process takes place in a biological context doesn't mean it stops being chemistry.