California is suffering from a huge budget crunch. the Governator is talking about prisoner releases there. and with the state employees (free people. or are they?) there already under threat of implants, i'd say Ahnold will be calling Brown soon for the chip vendor information.
but i'll add anyway. David Tilman from U of MN has worked quite extensively with mono- and polycultures of plants/grass for purposes of productivity. his paper here talks about using switchgrass in combination with other plants to use degraded/poor ag. lands and still get better, even carbon negative, output than corn or soy beans for ethanol, without a lot of input. i don't know why this didn't get more press.
i didn't RTFA so this i might have the facts screwed up. a CO. hired Consultant, or farmed out some services to a consultant. the Consultant simply had his company name and business card to say he was a Security Expert. and things went downhill from there.
but if there was a widespread certifying authority, (like CISSP and SANS certs that eli pabst mentioned a few comments back in this thread. i don't know what that is but anyway) that says this consultant or service or whatever has passed muster, like Verisign and https or PKI authorities, that may help in finding reliable, honest, safe security consultants or services. but maybe i've got things all mixed.
is there some kind of accreditation or certification for security consultants? i understand credentials can be forged, but could an agency for security consultant certification help?
if the botnet thing is that serious, wouldn't it be a better solution if it was free?
i'm not trying to say it HAS TO be free. hell, most of the people that have compromised machines won't know they need the software and where to get it, free or commercial or whatever. just kind of wondering out loud is all.
i'm not arguing with your point. just want to add that it may be an easier decision if you know you can get some help, like ACLU or NLG, when you're deciding if you will stand up.
i'm not going to pretend i pay any attention to China and know what it's like in China fighting for civil liberties.
but from what i see in the U.S., people who attempt to fight for civil liberties and prevention of those kind of policies are perceived as nutjobs. it's about security. everyone and everything has to be protected. freedom has risk. that's part and parcel of the deal. but because security is so important and so many people can't be without, those who oppose civil libertarians want to think that stopping actions like the one in China are going to prevent protection for themselves.
I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I'd wager a hell of a lot of money that neither Bush nor Blair will get another term in office.
you're assuming that the election, and it's results, in the U.S. will be properly handled. no voting box inconsistencies. no recounts. no Secretary of State(FL)(now a congressperson) who is in charge of the election, and who is also in charge of the presidential candidate's state election campaign. no voters being improperly kicked off the role by a company that is paid millions for checking the roles and gets fatter contracts afterwards for doing its job wrong.
As long as there are some real scientists that have real scientific concerns, it doesn't matter that "most" do.
and a real scientist is? i hate to argue semantics, but... while you could say that some "real" scientists don't think warming is caused by humans, there are also "real" scientists who do think so.
Mr. Firewall wrote:
This specious claim comes from then-Senator Al Gore's infamous book titled "Earth in the Balance," a veritable treasure trove of environmentalist myths, half-truths and outright lies -- and has been thoroughly discredited many times.
In the meantime, a Gallup Poll taken at about the same time shows that a significant majority of "real" climatologists (those that are doing and publishing actual research) do NOT believe that humans are responsible for so-called "global warming."
Gore's book was published in 1993. it seems to me a lot of opinions have changed since then. it might just be what folks call liberal media, but a lot of the articles i read seem to indicate that human actions have and continue to affect the climate. what about I.P.C.C.?
So in other words we should CHANGE our entire way of life based on radical and unproven and disputed claims by environmentalists, but we shouldn't base our entire way of life based on growing evidence that we aren't witnessing anything out of the ordinary.
which is radical and unproven? that "developed"(pick your definition) societies existed without gas guzzling vehicles for hundreds of years or that walking down to the corner store, instead of driving to it, for a quart of milk is possible? the change takes place when we are pushed to accept driving to get anywhere.
I'm sorry, but exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. The environmentalists have been making exceptional cliams and prescribing massive changes to our way of life for more than a decade.
what's exceptional, that not every researcher accepts that humans are negatively affecting the climate, while most of them do?
this could be my fault, but i haven't seen anything yet that says more and more fossil fuels need to be burned in order to grow an economy.
used to be that was considered a part of a democracy. and i am sure most researchers consider an easy exchange of information important to furthering their endeavors. if a lot of scientific research could have military applications, are they going to start limiting even more information?
not to mention there are still other sources for weapons information...
that is going to be spun into some kind of justification for either Bush's war on terrorism or weapons in space. or at the very least, an excuse to point a finger at Muslims, somehow blaming them for the tragedy.
a year ago today, i was in the Grand Canyon, nearly stung by a scorpion that somehow got in my tent. did find out about what happened until 2 days later, coming up one of the trails. i stopped and took a break and someone told me and all i could do was sit there and try to believe what he said. "on vacation", i had a hard time understanding that life could go on, down such treacherous paths. been reading the comments and thinking about other columns i have read. i don't want to repeat everything that has been said, but to rehash one thing: saying that people are innocent (i am NOT reffering to those who died in the attacks) is incorrect, i think. naive is more appropriate. the U.S. govt(as a puppet for U.S. corporations). uses other means than military might to stomp on other people/countries. as for military power, another poster said that Iraq has enough chemical weapons to destroy the world 3X over. the U.S. has power to do the same. where is the concern about the U.S.? especially since GWB is bent on stopping terrorists wherever they may hide? how have i changed? no discernible way. the U.S.? other than being a security conscious? i can't figure out how. i haven't seen many more volunteers in the places i volunteer. still trash everywhere. where i live, the same acrimonious political races (only primaries!). i got back from 4 months travelling in S America 5 days ago and it was the same crass commercialism i have seen since i have been able to identify it as such. The people there were friendly, but they have crime and in some places, bombings. Most of the time, no one even thought to mention what happened here.
Slashdot Mirror
California is suffering from a huge budget crunch. the Governator is talking about prisoner releases there. and with the state employees (free people. or are they?) there already under threat of implants, i'd say Ahnold will be calling Brown soon for the chip vendor information.
oh, so the student should probably go to school overseas? ;)
but i'll add anyway. David Tilman from U of MN has worked quite extensively with mono- and polycultures of plants/grass for purposes of productivity. his paper here talks about using switchgrass in combination with other plants to use degraded/poor ag. lands and still get better, even carbon negative, output than corn or soy beans for ethanol, without a lot of input. i don't know why this didn't get more press.
wasn't that what the whole reset thing from a few ago was all about?
yeh, brilliant idea.
i didn't RTFA so this i might have the facts screwed up. a CO. hired Consultant, or farmed out some services to a consultant. the Consultant simply had his company name and business card to say he was a Security Expert. and things went downhill from there.
but if there was a widespread certifying authority, (like CISSP and SANS certs that eli pabst mentioned a few comments back in this thread. i don't know what that is but anyway) that says this consultant or service or whatever has passed muster, like Verisign and https or PKI authorities, that may help in finding reliable, honest, safe security consultants or services. but maybe i've got things all mixed.
well, maybe a standard established by a credible agency might help. that's all i'm saying.
is there some kind of accreditation or certification for security consultants? i understand credentials can be forged, but could an agency for security consultant certification help?
i see your point.
if the botnet thing is that serious, wouldn't it be a better solution if it was free?
i'm not trying to say it HAS TO be free. hell, most of the people that have compromised machines won't know they need the software and where to get it, free or commercial or whatever. just kind of wondering out loud is all.
i'm not arguing with your point. just want to add that it may be an easier decision if you know you can get some help, like ACLU or NLG, when you're deciding if you will stand up.
if TOR goes down, it's likely another network would pop up in it's place.
i'm not going to pretend i pay any attention to China and know what it's like in China fighting for civil liberties.
but from what i see in the U.S., people who attempt to fight for civil liberties and prevention of those kind of policies are perceived as nutjobs. it's about security. everyone and everything has to be protected. freedom has risk. that's part and parcel of the deal. but because security is so important and so many people can't be without, those who oppose civil libertarians want to think that stopping actions like the one in China are going to prevent protection for themselves.
Are these continued announcements of huge support from large OEMs an indication of a new era?"
only if it means there is finally support for these damn Broadcom wireless chips.
ahh. that explains my hour's worth of BSOD yesterday. couldn't have been anything i intentionally did. heh.
i visited BlackBoxVoting. come get my clueless ass.
(/. doesn't log our IPs, does it?)
the only "liberal" news i get hear is on the radio. otherwise i have to read it. ugh.
I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I'd wager a hell of a lot of money that neither Bush nor Blair will get another term in office.
you're assuming that the election, and it's results, in the U.S. will be properly handled. no voting box inconsistencies. no recounts. no Secretary of State(FL)(now a congressperson) who is in charge of the election, and who is also in charge of the presidential candidate's state election campaign. no voters being improperly kicked off the role by a company that is paid millions for checking the roles and gets fatter contracts afterwards for doing its job wrong.
Diebold has already fixed that. Everybody wins! Money or not.
As long as there are some real scientists that have real scientific concerns, it doesn't matter that "most" do.
and a real scientist is? i hate to argue semantics, but...
while you could say that some "real" scientists don't think warming is caused by humans, there are also "real" scientists who do think so.
Mr. Firewall wrote:
This specious claim comes from then-Senator Al Gore's infamous book titled "Earth in the Balance," a veritable treasure trove of environmentalist myths, half-truths and outright lies -- and has been thoroughly discredited many times.
In the meantime, a Gallup Poll taken at about the same time shows that a significant majority of "real" climatologists (those that are doing and publishing actual research) do NOT believe that humans are responsible for so-called "global warming."
Gore's book was published in 1993. it seems to me a lot of opinions have changed since then. it might just be what folks call liberal media, but a lot of the articles i read seem to indicate that human actions have and continue to affect the climate. what about I.P.C.C.?
which is radical and unproven? that "developed"(pick your definition) societies existed without gas guzzling vehicles for hundreds of years or that walking down to the corner store, instead of driving to it, for a quart of milk is possible? the change takes place when we are pushed to accept driving to get anywhere.
I'm sorry, but exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. The environmentalists have been making exceptional cliams and prescribing massive changes to our way of life for more than a decade.what's exceptional, that not every researcher accepts that humans are negatively affecting the climate, while most of them do?
this could be my fault, but i haven't seen anything yet that says more and more fossil fuels need to be burned in order to grow an economy.
used to be that was considered a part of a democracy. and i am sure most researchers consider an easy exchange of information important to furthering their endeavors. if a lot of scientific research could have military applications, are they going to start limiting even more information?
not to mention there are still other sources for weapons information...
...
guess you are right.
what a movement it will be.
that is going to be spun into some kind of justification for either Bush's war on terrorism or weapons in space. or at the very least, an excuse to point a finger at Muslims, somehow blaming them for the tragedy.
this makes me think of the preemptive arrests that took place last month in DC at the World Bank meeting.
guilty until proven innocent...
a year ago today, i was in the Grand Canyon, nearly stung by a scorpion that somehow got in my tent. did find out about what happened until 2 days later, coming up one of the trails. i stopped and took a break and someone told me and all i could do was sit there and try to believe what he said. "on vacation", i had a hard time understanding that life could go on, down such treacherous paths.
been reading the comments and thinking about other columns i have read. i don't want to repeat everything that has been said, but to rehash one thing: saying that people are innocent (i am NOT reffering to those who died in the attacks) is incorrect, i think. naive is more appropriate. the U.S. govt(as a puppet for U.S. corporations). uses other means than military might to stomp on other people/countries. as for military power, another poster said that Iraq has enough chemical weapons to destroy the world 3X over. the U.S. has power to do the same. where is the concern about the U.S.? especially since GWB is bent on stopping terrorists wherever they may hide?
how have i changed? no discernible way. the U.S.? other than being a security conscious? i can't figure out how. i haven't seen many more volunteers in the places i volunteer. still trash everywhere. where i live, the same acrimonious political races (only primaries!). i got back from 4 months travelling in S America 5 days ago and it was the same crass commercialism i have seen since i have been able to identify it as such. The people there were friendly, but they have crime and in some places, bombings. Most of the time, no one even thought to mention what happened here.