We could go back and forth about whether geo-engineering schemes are ever a good idea or even remotely feasible. Thanks for an interesting conversation, but keep in mind the limits of science as it stands today. I can't help but be reminded of how eggs used to be considered a nearly perfect food, then were demonized for years over their cholesterol content, only to be (at least partially) rehabilitated once the role of cholesterol in he body was better understood.
Be careful not to trip over the piles of bullshit.
Easy: you turn it on and see if the temperature goes down. The effect is fast and so should be quickly noticeable. You don't even have to start at a global scale; you can do it regionally.
Any regional effect you could produce would be a far different thing than the long term effects on the entire global system. You're making a lot of assumptions.
I'm merely pointing out that geoengineering schemes are testable and we don't have to "bet the planet" on them.
By definition you do. Regional effects within a global system and global effects are two far different things.
By the way, if you DID try this in the ocean, I can conceive of simple mechanical designs for buoys that would use wave energy to store and spray the water, but you would still need to make the buoys - think of the time, money and energy required. By contrast, we have virtually the entire world's population eagerly spending money and effort to purchase, operate and maintain the very devices that are spewing greenhouse gasses into the air, namely oil burning vehicles and electric things like lights and A/C, which in turn need electricity which is most often produced via burning coal. Basically, I'm against any scheme that doesn't address the runaway worldwide increase in fossil fuel use first-otherwise we are fighting the symptoms but not the source of the problem. There's a fundamental difference between the simple reduction in emissions and a planetary scale effort to compensate for those emissions. They are two completely different things.
Aerosol geoengineering would certainly work to reduce temperatures, because volcanoes already do that. The current scheme discussed here is less well studied.
Volcano eruptions reduce temperature by solid particulate, not aerosolized liquid - the definition of aerosol include both but it's two different things. The global effects of the scheme in TFA cannot be studied unless tried on a global scale.
Two points: First, that any effort to compensate for the global effects of greenhouse gas production is doomed to failure without first addressing the core issue of greenhouse gas production itself. Second, that geoengineering schemes are intrinsically untestable because the ability to produce regional effects within the global system and altering the global system itself are completely different things.
You are confusing Climatology with Meteorology. They are not the same. With regards to Climatology, the model does exist, and it has accurately predicted what has happened in the past - this would be the "solid base of data" that you are declaring to be nonexistent. To reiterate: Climatologists came up with a model based on data they discovered, and then found more data that largely backed up the model.
Of course they're not the same - As I said, it's a simplistic example. Sure there's a "model", but to assert that we can use it to accurately predict the effects of random geoengineering schemes is nonsense. While I'm willing to buy into the idea that the CO2, etc., that we've been dumping into the atmosphere is driving up temperature, it's a massive leap of faith to assert that we understand the system well enough to screw around with it. I'd suggest that we know less than you think we do. The first and best measure to be taken is to find ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the source.
It's probably more of a desperate measure.
Probably?
Yes, I do know the difference between a dependent and an independent variable. I would not consider "Water Vapor" to be a "new and untested variable" in our Earth's climate, however.
The massive amounts suggested in TFA certainly are new and untested, but I'm also worried about the heavy metals, radioactive isotopes and other non-degrading chemicals being spewed into the atmosphere by burning coal and oil. The best response to all these concerns is to burn less fossil fuel.
--They use, or misuse, science to bolster their cause as they see fit, -Some misuse science, and some do not.
How does the layman tell the difference? The people I object to misuse the science.
-There is a way to prove it: you can try it.
Not on my planet. How can you possibly "try it" in any valid, reproducible and meaningful way when the goal is reduction in mean global temperature? Why not just attack it at the source rather than screw around with things we don't understand? Besides, where does the water come from and where does the energy come from to power the sprays? In order to do this on a scale that will have a planetary effect how many of these things would be needed? Pie in the sky bullshit!
-Geoengineering schemes probably work...
A completely unsupported assertion. Unpredictable side effects? Are you SURE these would be better than the sea level rising? You certainly seem confident. I'm not.
I noticed that you said there are geoengineering schemes that would "almost certainly work", "almost" being the word that catches my eye. Are you that confident in the odds that you're willing to bet the planet?
Besides, we aren't talking about saving the planet but saving ourselves - this assumes we are more important than everything else on the planet. I'm not trying to imply anything about a "natural order of things", but merely attempting to keep things in perspective.
Play logic games if you want, the fact of the matter is that the environmental movement is political, not scientific. They use, or misuse, science to bolster their cause as they see fit, but well-meaning intent does not automatically mean that their interpretation of the science is correct.
Climatology is immature in the sense that we don't have a solid base of data that reliably tells us the consequences of a schemes like the one proposed in TFA. A simple check of the accuracy of your local weather forecast reveals the likelihood of a given outcome, e.g. rain, is expressed in percentages. This is a simplistic example, but reflects our current inability to accurately predict even common climatic events. Additionally, these predictions are based more on direct observations rather than an abstracted mathematical model that accurately predicts climatic events - that model just doesn't exist.
Why bet the planet if there is no way to prove a geoengineering scheme will work? It's hubris at it's worst! The climate has changed before and will change again regardless of human actions. Personally I'd much rather focus on things we can prove are dangerous like the presence of toxic industrial effluent in the water supply. The focus of global warming has detracted from many other legitimate and PROVEN hazards that can be more easily and directly dealt with. Besides, the simplest and most direct method of dealing with greenhouse gas emissions is to reduce them, not introduce a new and untested variable into an extremely complicated system. You DO know the difference between dependent and independent variables, don't you?
My point was not about money, but the potential negative planetary effects of an untestable geoengineering scheme. I'm not biased against environmentalism but rather the confusion of politics and propaganda with hard science.
I can't help but wonder how much their actions are being guided by the big recording corporations vs. the lawyers running the organization. Their actions are all over the map - they can't seem to decide whether to keep mugging downloaders for the cash or to run a PR campaign against file sharing.
For years, existing technology dictated a particular business model that made them all a lot of money. Now, technology has changed, but they see the old business model as their birthright. What the record companies have to do is abandon the media sales paradigm - which is apparently a tough pill to swallow for them - and start offering ad-supported "free" downloading of low bitrate mp3's. Selling vinyl records or cd's or preloaded chips or whatever is going to be a sideshow from now on. The availability of free, legal downloads will basically undercut the file sharers if they actually provide consumers with better value than the torrents, e.g., wallpapers, videos and other content.
Their insistence on charging 99 cents per track for downloads reflects their continued greed and cluelessness. Downloading a given CD @ $0.99/track as MP3s is a far worse deal for the consumer than a CD purchase when you factor out the cost of production and distribution costs associated with CDs. Additionally, the CD is a relatively permanent offline master copy - I've lost track (no pun intended) of how many times I've lost music due to hard drive crashes, data corruption, etc.. If they charged 10 cents a track for high-quality downloads it becomes an impulse buy - I'd gladly buy tons of high quality tracks at that price provided at least some of the revenue went to the artists. I'm not blind to the fact that record companies give value back to the artists in terms of management expertise and promotion but their cut is inevitably going to be a lot smaller - something they refuse to accept.
So what you're saying is that a giant invisible conspiracy of everyone professionally connected to modern western health care is stifling the truth about vaccines? It's not like I'm going to waste time provide your desired counter-example, since undoubtedly you would find fault in order to cling to your beliefs.
What's happening with the anti-vaccine crowd is basically a bunch of idiots telling each other lies. You may now consider yourself duly educated. Consider yourself also to be lucky; I don't usually waste time arguing with idiots but I'm feeling charitable today.
This made me giggle but I'm not sure why. Perhaps because most Vietnamese I've met hate the Chinese, but then again the Hmong hate the Vietnamese. It must be the double irony that made me laugh.
How do you even know your friend's experience is meaningful? Do you know the average amount of time it takes for back pain to spontaneously disappear? It's most likely a "do nothing and it hurts for a week, take the cure and it only hurts for 7 days" kind of scenario.
I think what you're trying to say is that there may be some scientifically testable benefit to some of these traditional therapies. If you read the PDR for a while you will notice that the effects of many drugs are compared to a placebo. Subtract the percentage of people effects or side effects while taking a placebo and you can get a rough idea of the actual effects of a given medication.
I once read an article with a photo of a young Chinese woman smiling for the camera while undergoing open heart surgery. Her only anesthesia was acupuncture. Would you agree to undergo the same procedure?
Belief can be an incredibly powerful thing. Reliably harnessing it is quite another.
What scares me is that genuine concern over global warming could spur popular support for one of these crackpot schemes.
"Green" activists, in their self righteous zeal to save the planet, have latched on to global warming as a means to further their anti-pollution, anti-industrial political agendas. These self appointed do-gooders *know* they're right, since their well-meaning desire to help others justifies any means to their end. This movement echos the "silent spring" hysteria used by the environmental movement to ban DDT in the 1960's & '70's. In that case, while increased regulation of industrial chemicals was undoubtedly a good thing, unscientific hysteria designed to move public opinion at all costs was definitely not.
Planetary climatology is an extremely immature science at best, and I sincerely doubt that any climatologist worth his salt would back any action other than reduction in the gas emissions believed to contribute to climate change.
The new tactic is lobby not litigate - far worse in the long run since they can keep trying to influence policy and legislation ad infinitem even if they get shot down the first time.
If you're so certain you're correct and can back it up with reproducible data, why not submit your study or meta-analysis to a major journal like JAMA, NEJM or The Lancet? The basic idea is that the risks from vaccination are outweighed by the risks of getting the disease your are vaccinating against.
If you can conclusively prove that the risks associated with vaccination outweighs the morbidity and mortality rates of the the disease itself, you should have no problem persuading the medical community at large. Personally I sincerely doubt that this is the case and as a such have had my own children fully vaccinated.
Freedom of expression clearly has limits. Popular music for sale IS a mass market product. You seem to be confusing art with entertainment. Your connecting this to people shooting people is simply a non sequitur. And I certainly never said that all images of unclothed minors are publicity stunts. It's possible that such images could be considered art, but never in the context of a mass marketed entertainment product.
Let's say some asshole talks your naive 14 year old daughter into stripping for his album cover and doesn't pay her, credit her, nothing. Because he noodles out a few ditties on a guitar and it's recorded on the enclosed media means it's automatically art? Bullshit! The idea that what these people are doing is somehow important enough to justify sexually exploiting a minor is ridiculous. The idea that popular music is truly *important* at all is part of a sales pitch that you're buying into hook, line and sinker.
Given the history and function of the the NSA, it probably isn't going to be doing data mining, or anything else that they actually SAY it's going to be doing.
How's this for paranoia:
It's likely that the NSA cut a deal with Microsoft decades ago to allow a back door into any system running MS products. The Chinese now manufacture most of the computer hardware and are working to include hardware based, OS-independent back doors into as many systems as they can. Since a back door built into a chip is almost undetectable, the NSA is ramping up it's ability to counter hardware-based system intrusions and they require chip fabbing abilities to accomplish this. The nearby MS facility serves as a convenient repository of OS & systems expertise in order to seamlessly integrate the american controlled hardware based back doors into the OS.
Meh. Can any "band" really put anything they want on their product and defend it as "art"? None of these guys are artistically important. Their intent was never anything than to sell more records. These things are a commercial mass merchandise item.
Let's take this to it's logical conclusion: The Jonas Brothers (or better yet, the Naked Brothers Band) and Miley Cyrus put out a collaboration album with a full-frontal nudity photo of them all as cover art. All are minors at the time of production. The music sucks, of course. No, better yet, they are touched by muses and put out the greatest pop music ever. They put out some bullshit claim about the cover's artistic value. Millions of copies sell. Is it art or a publicity stunt? It's STILL a publicity stunt!
At some point the community at large has a right -a duty, even- to stop this kind of crass commercial exploitation hiding behind claims of artistic expression and free speech. Since minors are legally considered to be unable to make an informed decision about this sort of thing, in no case should photos of unclothed minors be considered "art", at least (or especially) when paired with a product intended for mass market sale.
The argument goes "terrorists run Iran and Iran is developing ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons, therefore we need an antimissile shield against terrorist missiles". No, I don't buy into it, but that's how it goes. It all sounds like pork to me.
Frankly, I'm extremely surprised Israel hasn't already destroyed the Iranian nuke plant, since they're the #1 target and know damn well it doesn't matter how the nuclear material enters their country. On the other hand, they may well have had a nice chat with the Iranians explaining just how much of their country will be turned into glass should the Iranians sponsor an attack on Israeli soil. MAD does work even if missile defense doesn't.
Good point. IIRC coal fired power plants have spewed more radioactive material into the atmosphere than nuclear plants ever did, including the accidents. The greenies really shot themselves (and everyone else) in the foot by confusing nuclear power with nuclear weapons in all the "no nukes" bullshit they used to peddle. God save us from ignoramus do-gooders. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Judging from past behavior, Apple doesn't care: they seem to be content being a niche player selling cool but overpriced stuff to people who want cool but overpriced stuff. AT&T may or may not be happy with Apple but in the end it's irrelevant since there are other carriers for Apple. It doesn't seem like this is aimed at Apple at all. Google and perhaps Microsoft are more likely targets - especially Google because of Android & the open source thing.
The REAL question is "will the market care?". AT&T is a big company but only one player in a diverse world market.
I thought the same thing when I saw the ".ro". Ram is so goddamn fast anymore I can't believe there's any benefit at all to "defragging" it. However, regarding paging the systems we use have design roots that date back decades. Back in the day, ram was prohibitively expensive and had to be treated like a valuable, limited resource and the OS was designed to deal with that fact. We now are stuck with paging systems that are archaic compared to the present state of RAM prices. The fact that we can often get away with turning off the entire paging system tells us something about this. Paging might still make sense in certain situations, but how many commonly used applications truly need several gigabytes of ram in order to function properly?
I've been using AMD processors for years for two reasons. One is to keep the competition alive because it's a good thing. The second is because AMD processors are usually a better deal.
If you look at the benchmark charts over at Tom's Hardware, you can get a rough idea of how the processors rank in terms of performance. Then, when you go out an price them, the stuff that gives you the best bang for the buck is usually AMD. Not talking cutting edge or server class processors but the kind of thing you would actually buy to build a decent system without breaking the bank.
I have no grudge against Intel whatsoever - they're a great company with great products, but competition with AMD is one of the things that keeps them that way.
There is no way in hell I could have made it through dental school with just a kindle. It might be a decent backup for followup work but I just can't see any electronic device taking the place of the texts. With all the multi-colored highlighting and extensive margin notes that were necessary for me to process the information a kindle would be a hindrance if that was all I had.
Digital data is notoriously ephemeral - one spark and everything is gone. With books it takes a fire, flood or deliberate disposal to make them disappear. In order to get a letter of recommendation from a particular professor I had to produce a term paper that was 10 years old. It was wedged in between two texts from the course - I can guarantee that if it was digital it would have been gone - none of the 3.5" floppies had readable data but the printout wasn't even yellowed.
Slashdot Mirror
We could go back and forth about whether geo-engineering schemes are ever a good idea or even remotely feasible. Thanks for an interesting conversation, but keep in mind the limits of science as it stands today. I can't help but be reminded of how eggs used to be considered a nearly perfect food, then were demonized for years over their cholesterol content, only to be (at least partially) rehabilitated once the role of cholesterol in he body was better understood.
Be careful not to trip over the piles of bullshit.
Easy: you turn it on and see if the temperature goes down. The effect is fast and so should be quickly noticeable. You don't even have to start at a global scale; you can do it regionally.
Any regional effect you could produce would be a far different thing than the long term effects on the entire global system. You're making a lot of assumptions.
I'm merely pointing out that geoengineering schemes are testable and we don't have to "bet the planet" on them.
By definition you do. Regional effects within a global system and global effects are two far different things.
By the way, if you DID try this in the ocean, I can conceive of simple mechanical designs for buoys that would use wave energy to store and spray the water, but you would still need to make the buoys - think of the time, money and energy required. By contrast, we have virtually the entire world's population eagerly spending money and effort to purchase, operate and maintain the very devices that are spewing greenhouse gasses into the air, namely oil burning vehicles and electric things like lights and A/C, which in turn need electricity which is most often produced via burning coal. Basically, I'm against any scheme that doesn't address the runaway worldwide increase in fossil fuel use first-otherwise we are fighting the symptoms but not the source of the problem. There's a fundamental difference between the simple reduction in emissions and a planetary scale effort to compensate for those emissions. They are two completely different things.
Aerosol geoengineering would certainly work to reduce temperatures, because volcanoes already do that. The current scheme discussed here is less well studied.
Volcano eruptions reduce temperature by solid particulate, not aerosolized liquid - the definition of aerosol include both but it's two different things. The global effects of the scheme in TFA cannot be studied unless tried on a global scale.
Two points: First, that any effort to compensate for the global effects of greenhouse gas production is doomed to failure without first addressing the core issue of greenhouse gas production itself. Second, that geoengineering schemes are intrinsically untestable because the ability to produce regional effects within the global system and altering the global system itself are completely different things.
You are confusing Climatology with Meteorology. They are not the same. With regards to Climatology, the model does exist, and it has accurately predicted what has happened in the past - this would be the "solid base of data" that you are declaring to be nonexistent. To reiterate: Climatologists came up with a model based on data they discovered, and then found more data that largely backed up the model.
Of course they're not the same - As I said, it's a simplistic example. Sure there's a "model", but to assert that we can use it to accurately predict the effects of random geoengineering schemes is nonsense. While I'm willing to buy into the idea that the CO2, etc., that we've been dumping into the atmosphere is driving up temperature, it's a massive leap of faith to assert that we understand the system well enough to screw around with it. I'd suggest that we know less than you think we do. The first and best measure to be taken is to find ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the source.
It's probably more of a desperate measure.
Probably?
Yes, I do know the difference between a dependent and an independent variable. I would not consider "Water Vapor" to be a "new and untested variable" in our Earth's climate, however.
The massive amounts suggested in TFA certainly are new and untested, but I'm also worried about the heavy metals, radioactive isotopes and other non-degrading chemicals being spewed into the atmosphere by burning coal and oil. The best response to all these concerns is to burn less fossil fuel.
--They use, or misuse, science to bolster their cause as they see fit,
-Some misuse science, and some do not.
How does the layman tell the difference? The people I object to misuse the science.
-There is a way to prove it: you can try it.
Not on my planet. How can you possibly "try it" in any valid, reproducible and meaningful way when the goal is reduction in mean global temperature? Why not just attack it at the source rather than screw around with things we don't understand? Besides, where does the water come from and where does the energy come from to power the sprays? In order to do this on a scale that will have a planetary effect how many of these things would be needed? Pie in the sky bullshit!
-Geoengineering schemes probably work...
A completely unsupported assertion. Unpredictable side effects? Are you SURE these would be better than the sea level rising? You certainly seem confident. I'm not.
I noticed that you said there are geoengineering schemes that would "almost certainly work", "almost" being the word that catches my eye. Are you that confident in the odds that you're willing to bet the planet?
Besides, we aren't talking about saving the planet but saving ourselves - this assumes we are more important than everything else on the planet. I'm not trying to imply anything about a "natural order of things", but merely attempting to keep things in perspective.
Play logic games if you want, the fact of the matter is that the environmental movement is political, not scientific. They use, or misuse, science to bolster their cause as they see fit, but well-meaning intent does not automatically mean that their interpretation of the science is correct.
Climatology is immature in the sense that we don't have a solid base of data that reliably tells us the consequences of a schemes like the one proposed in TFA. A simple check of the accuracy of your local weather forecast reveals the likelihood of a given outcome, e.g. rain, is expressed in percentages. This is a simplistic example, but reflects our current inability to accurately predict even common climatic events. Additionally, these predictions are based more on direct observations rather than an abstracted mathematical model that accurately predicts climatic events - that model just doesn't exist.
Why bet the planet if there is no way to prove a geoengineering scheme will work? It's hubris at it's worst! The climate has changed before and will change again regardless of human actions. Personally I'd much rather focus on things we can prove are dangerous like the presence of toxic industrial effluent in the water supply. The focus of global warming has detracted from many other legitimate and PROVEN hazards that can be more easily and directly dealt with. Besides, the simplest and most direct method of dealing with greenhouse gas emissions is to reduce them, not introduce a new and untested variable into an extremely complicated system. You DO know the difference between dependent and independent variables, don't you?
My point was not about money, but the potential negative planetary effects of an untestable geoengineering scheme. I'm not biased against environmentalism but rather the confusion of politics and propaganda with hard science.
I can't help but wonder how much their actions are being guided by the big recording corporations vs. the lawyers running the organization. Their actions are all over the map - they can't seem to decide whether to keep mugging downloaders for the cash or to run a PR campaign against file sharing.
For years, existing technology dictated a particular business model that made them all a lot of money. Now, technology has changed, but they see the old business model as their birthright. What the record companies have to do is abandon the media sales paradigm - which is apparently a tough pill to swallow for them - and start offering ad-supported "free" downloading of low bitrate mp3's. Selling vinyl records or cd's or preloaded chips or whatever is going to be a sideshow from now on. The availability of free, legal downloads will basically undercut the file sharers if they actually provide consumers with better value than the torrents, e.g., wallpapers, videos and other content.
Their insistence on charging 99 cents per track for downloads reflects their continued greed and cluelessness. Downloading a given CD @ $0.99/track as MP3s is a far worse deal for the consumer than a CD purchase when you factor out the cost of production and distribution costs associated with CDs. Additionally, the CD is a relatively permanent offline master copy - I've lost track (no pun intended) of how many times I've lost music due to hard drive crashes, data corruption, etc.. If they charged 10 cents a track for high-quality downloads it becomes an impulse buy - I'd gladly buy tons of high quality tracks at that price provided at least some of the revenue went to the artists. I'm not blind to the fact that record companies give value back to the artists in terms of management expertise and promotion but their cut is inevitably going to be a lot smaller - something they refuse to accept.
So what you're saying is that a giant invisible conspiracy of everyone professionally connected to modern western health care is stifling the truth about vaccines? It's not like I'm going to waste time provide your desired counter-example, since undoubtedly you would find fault in order to cling to your beliefs.
What's happening with the anti-vaccine crowd is basically a bunch of idiots telling each other lies. You may now consider yourself duly educated. Consider yourself also to be lucky; I don't usually waste time arguing with idiots but I'm feeling charitable today.
This made me giggle but I'm not sure why. Perhaps because most Vietnamese I've met hate the Chinese, but then again the Hmong hate the Vietnamese. It must be the double irony that made me laugh.
How do you even know your friend's experience is meaningful? Do you know the average amount of time it takes for back pain to spontaneously disappear? It's most likely a "do nothing and it hurts for a week, take the cure and it only hurts for 7 days" kind of scenario.
I think what you're trying to say is that there may be some scientifically testable benefit to some of these traditional therapies. If you read the PDR for a while you will notice that the effects of many drugs are compared to a placebo. Subtract the percentage of people effects or side effects while taking a placebo and you can get a rough idea of the actual effects of a given medication.
I once read an article with a photo of a young Chinese woman smiling for the camera while undergoing open heart surgery. Her only anesthesia was acupuncture. Would you agree to undergo the same procedure?
Belief can be an incredibly powerful thing. Reliably harnessing it is quite another.
What scares me is that genuine concern over global warming could spur popular support for one of these crackpot schemes.
"Green" activists, in their self righteous zeal to save the planet, have latched on to global warming as a means to further their anti-pollution, anti-industrial political agendas. These self appointed do-gooders *know* they're right, since their well-meaning desire to help others justifies any means to their end. This movement echos the "silent spring" hysteria used by the environmental movement to ban DDT in the 1960's & '70's. In that case, while increased regulation of industrial chemicals was undoubtedly a good thing, unscientific hysteria designed to move public opinion at all costs was definitely not.
Planetary climatology is an extremely immature science at best, and I sincerely doubt that any climatologist worth his salt would back any action other than reduction in the gas emissions believed to contribute to climate change.
The new tactic is lobby not litigate - far worse in the long run since they can keep trying to influence policy and legislation ad infinitem even if they get shot down the first time.
If you're so certain you're correct and can back it up with reproducible data, why not submit your study or meta-analysis to a major journal like JAMA, NEJM or The Lancet? The basic idea is that the risks from vaccination are outweighed by the risks of getting the disease your are vaccinating against.
If you can conclusively prove that the risks associated with vaccination outweighs the morbidity and mortality rates of the the disease itself, you should have no problem persuading the medical community at large. Personally I sincerely doubt that this is the case and as a such have had my own children fully vaccinated.
Freedom of expression clearly has limits. Popular music for sale IS a mass market product. You seem to be confusing art with entertainment. Your connecting this to people shooting people is simply a non sequitur. And I certainly never said that all images of unclothed minors are publicity stunts. It's possible that such images could be considered art, but never in the context of a mass marketed entertainment product.
Let's say some asshole talks your naive 14 year old daughter into stripping for his album cover and doesn't pay her, credit her, nothing. Because he noodles out a few ditties on a guitar and it's recorded on the enclosed media means it's automatically art? Bullshit! The idea that what these people are doing is somehow important enough to justify sexually exploiting a minor is ridiculous. The idea that popular music is truly *important* at all is part of a sales pitch that you're buying into hook, line and sinker.
Given the history and function of the the NSA, it probably isn't going to be doing data mining, or anything else that they actually SAY it's going to be doing.
How's this for paranoia:
It's likely that the NSA cut a deal with Microsoft decades ago to allow a back door into any system running MS products. The Chinese now manufacture most of the computer hardware and are working to include hardware based, OS-independent back doors into as many systems as they can. Since a back door built into a chip is almost undetectable, the NSA is ramping up it's ability to counter hardware-based system intrusions and they require chip fabbing abilities to accomplish this. The nearby MS facility serves as a convenient repository of OS & systems expertise in order to seamlessly integrate the american controlled hardware based back doors into the OS.
Paranoid enough?
OK, time to go back on the meds...
Meh. Can any "band" really put anything they want on their product and defend it as "art"? None of these guys are artistically important. Their intent was never anything than to sell more records. These things are a commercial mass merchandise item.
Let's take this to it's logical conclusion: The Jonas Brothers (or better yet, the Naked Brothers Band) and Miley Cyrus put out a collaboration album with a full-frontal nudity photo of them all as cover art. All are minors at the time of production. The music sucks, of course. No, better yet, they are touched by muses and put out the greatest pop music ever. They put out some bullshit claim about the cover's artistic value. Millions of copies sell. Is it art or a publicity stunt? It's STILL a publicity stunt!
At some point the community at large has a right -a duty, even- to stop this kind of crass commercial exploitation hiding behind claims of artistic expression and free speech. Since minors are legally considered to be unable to make an informed decision about this sort of thing, in no case should photos of unclothed minors be considered "art", at least (or especially) when paired with a product intended for mass market sale.
Discuss.
The argument goes "terrorists run Iran and Iran is developing ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons, therefore we need an antimissile shield against terrorist missiles". No, I don't buy into it, but that's how it goes. It all sounds like pork to me.
Frankly, I'm extremely surprised Israel hasn't already destroyed the Iranian nuke plant, since they're the #1 target and know damn well it doesn't matter how the nuclear material enters their country. On the other hand, they may well have had a nice chat with the Iranians explaining just how much of their country will be turned into glass should the Iranians sponsor an attack on Israeli soil. MAD does work even if missile defense doesn't.
we are just starting to live with that particular can of worms.
Good point. IIRC coal fired power plants have spewed more radioactive material into the atmosphere than nuclear plants ever did, including the accidents. The greenies really shot themselves (and everyone else) in the foot by confusing nuclear power with nuclear weapons in all the "no nukes" bullshit they used to peddle. God save us from ignoramus do-gooders. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Judging from past behavior, Apple doesn't care: they seem to be content being a niche player selling cool but overpriced stuff to people who want cool but overpriced stuff. AT&T may or may not be happy with Apple but in the end it's irrelevant since there are other carriers for Apple. It doesn't seem like this is aimed at Apple at all. Google and perhaps Microsoft are more likely targets - especially Google because of Android & the open source thing.
The REAL question is "will the market care?". AT&T is a big company but only one player in a diverse world market.
Your first comment was modded funny, so apparently others thought they saw sarcasm. OTOH this comment makes the first one kind of scary.
I thought the same thing when I saw the ".ro". Ram is so goddamn fast anymore I can't believe there's any benefit at all to "defragging" it. However, regarding paging the systems we use have design roots that date back decades. Back in the day, ram was prohibitively expensive and had to be treated like a valuable, limited resource and the OS was designed to deal with that fact. We now are stuck with paging systems that are archaic compared to the present state of RAM prices. The fact that we can often get away with turning off the entire paging system tells us something about this. Paging might still make sense in certain situations, but how many commonly used applications truly need several gigabytes of ram in order to function properly?
The point of having a good lawyer is to ensure that you never need his services.
I've been using AMD processors for years for two reasons. One is to keep the competition alive because it's a good thing. The second is because AMD processors are usually a better deal.
If you look at the benchmark charts over at Tom's Hardware, you can get a rough idea of how the processors rank in terms of performance. Then, when you go out an price them, the stuff that gives you the best bang for the buck is usually AMD. Not talking cutting edge or server class processors but the kind of thing you would actually buy to build a decent system without breaking the bank.
I have no grudge against Intel whatsoever - they're a great company with great products, but competition with AMD is one of the things that keeps them that way.
There is no way in hell I could have made it through dental school with just a kindle. It might be a decent backup for followup work but I just can't see any electronic device taking the place of the texts. With all the multi-colored highlighting and extensive margin notes that were necessary for me to process the information a kindle would be a hindrance if that was all I had.
Digital data is notoriously ephemeral - one spark and everything is gone. With books it takes a fire, flood or deliberate disposal to make them disappear. In order to get a letter of recommendation from a particular professor I had to produce a term paper that was 10 years old. It was wedged in between two texts from the course - I can guarantee that if it was digital it would have been gone - none of the 3.5" floppies had readable data but the printout wasn't even yellowed.