Re:To the Retard who Posted this Story
on
New Ice Age Theory
·
· Score: 2, Informative
VEnus shouldn't be affected at all, it has a dark surface. The clouds reflect all of the sunlight.
Venus' albedo is 0.65; i.e. it reflects 65% of the light, thus it absorbs 35%. Earth's albedo is about 0.3, the Moon's 0.12. Venus would be even hotter if it was less reflective, but still it absorbs a lot of sunlight.
Bush relayed what intelligence agencies were telling him
No, Bush (or actually Cheney) told the intelligence agencies what results he wanted, and they delivered them. They didn't actually make stuff up compeletely, but they used entirely unreliable sources as if they were authoritative, and discounted anything that indicated otherwise. Basically, the Gulf of Tonkin all over again, with similar long-term results.
Isn't it time for the people of the US to rise up and kick the current administration's ASS out of government, by force if necessary? Isn't the problem that too many people today think that violence is NEVER justified, when in fact it is only SELDOM justified?
You don't need to shoot anyone. Just get off your fat asses and VOTE. What is the turnout rate? 40%? People died to give you the right to vote. Use it.
his argument that a company should lower its prices to discourage stealing is ridiculous. You're saying that because Rolex charges $5k for a watch, then it's OK to steal one.
The OP was making a simple observation of market forces, not morality. And no one is stealing anything. So the Rolex analogy is inflammatory. But kudos for not using the cliched "Mercedes" comparison.
However, I personally think that MS tolerates piracy in less-developed countries as away of securing market share without having to reduce its sticker price and suffering grey-market sales (though there has been some of that). When a market matures, there are millions of people addicted to MS Office, IE, etc who can be pushed into legalising their software at the next upgrade, by applying pressure to their governments (recall Hu Jintao having dinner with Bill last year). P
I'm sure Ballmer prefers pirated Windows to legit Linux in any country. Of course, I can't prove this, and they'd never admit it.
Fine. Email is one thing; I've accessed my email in Pokhara, Nepal. But I have no desire or need to set up a virtual workstation away from my office. If I actually did want to work on the move, I'd use a laptop, or notebook PC. But as I said, there's more to a working environment than a computer screen. Google can't make me a cup of coffee, sharpen my pencil, etc.
Perhaps, but it also gives us greater mobility in the sense that we can move from computer to computer anywhere in the world, and continue seamlessly where we left off.
Who actually needs to work like that? Most people go to work, sit at the same desk and use the same keyboard on the same PC every day. You have your chair at the right height, a mouse that fits your hand, a cushion that fits your back, your calendar on the wall, your paper files in a cabinet. For the small percentage of people who do wander around and alight at a random desk, that's fine. But for most it's just adding an extra lag and making their productivity dependent on perfect connectivity.
As the article points out some people use the stock SPAM to make a fast buck on the hype.
TFA points out that some people TRY to do this, but will actually lose money, as the window to buy low has already passed; and it is difficult if not impossible to sell penny stocks short fast enough to make money on the downside.
It shouldn't be that hard to educate computer users and explain to them that nobody will ever contact them to help them better their lives, just like nobody pop out of the blue and make their lives better in real-life.
Advertisers spend billions making people believe in these things. How many people are in way over their heads with credit card debt, for instance? How many people believe they "May already have won" a lottery?
I just saw Supersize Me. One point made was that McDonald's spends over $1 billion a year on advertising. The government spent $2 million promoting healthy diet.
The spammers' profit is the other investors' loss. As TFA says, a spammer can make on average 5.79% by buying before the spam is sent and dumping on the rise; while those who buy on receiving the spam on average lose 5.5%. So people quite definitely are hurt, aside from all the chaos caused by the billions of spams.
You're just being stubbornly stupid, when you weren't there and don't know what you are talking about.
I was there.
Yes, there were scientists that were worried about warming.
Make up your mind. Warming or cooling?
You are ready to use mass media reports as hard evidence when it suits you, but when they contradict your prejudices you dismiss them as sensationalism. This is why I am always careful to note the source of a "fact". If you state that "scientists believe something", you had better be able to directly quote one. You've had plenty of chance to do so, but prefer name calling instead of proving your case.
Neither I not the other poster asserted that any of the articles we remember reading, nor any of the literature mentioned in either of the wiki articles you refer to may be right. You are not reading our posts at all. My assertion, and that of the other poster, is that one reason a lot of people now find the assertions of the scientific community more difficult to believe than might otherwise be the case is because of the articles we read in the 70's, as noted in your quote. As I noted in my earlier post, the press was just as excited and shrill over those "reports" as they have been at times regarding cooling.
Given that 0% of images with text on them are genuine
Since I don't have a fax, sometimes I get a scan of a document by email, as brokers, for instace, ask me to sign and send it back, to have a signed document on file. Yeah, easily faked, but that's what they do.
And some companies send bills as images too. But most use PDFs, which brings up the horrible prospect that next year spammers will be sending documents as PDF attachments; and perhaps also exploiting the vulnerabilites of that format.
As an aside, I notice much of the word salad I get now seems to be Biblical text.
It is occasionally asserted that "in the 1970's, the scientific establishment believed in global cooling" [5] and therefore we should be skeptical of global warming now. However, the scientific literature does not support this (see below); there is limited support from the popular press [6].
While what you say has a ring of truth to it, the unencrypted version still will have the 'fingerprint' in it, and upon inspection,
Without the password, it can't be inspected.
We already trust people with security, and keeping a log of the files that you have purchased a right to use is not such a big deal. Its like a box of receipts kept in your possession and somewhere other than your possession.
So for every file I have I must keep a "receipt". And if I transform a file in a way to lose that receipt, I'm considered guilty of some crime. Guilty until proven innocent.
But this one is not intrusive,
It's extremely intrusive. To work it requires giving access to ALL my files to some body (or their software agent) to verify that I'm not a thief, at frequent intervals (ultimately, every time I access a file). A perfect use for Palladium.
But isn't this even more reason for them not to be held liable for those files being infringing?
Yes. But the obvious response of the *AA types will be that nothing can be hosted anywhere anaonymously, and encryption is an indication of guilt. That wouldn't hold up under any current laws, but the chillng effect of legal harassment could make it the de facto rule.
. It would also make it easy for file sharing sites to automatically remove content containing listed copyright 'finger prints'.
Not for long. Many of the files at Rapidshare are encypted RAR files. Without knowing the passwords, they're just so much random data. If finger printing became common, methods like this would become universal.
I've been wondering the same thing ever since the original Napster. "What the heck were they thinking? Did these guys really think that they weren't going to get sued into oblivion?"
Rapidshare, unlike Napster, provides no indexing service. Anyone can upload files, but you have to be told, by the uploader, the URL to download. It's no different, except in scale, from any webspace provider, or for that matter, email service. Also Rapidshare does take down files almost immediately a complaint is received, and people have tested this, they will take down any file complained about without notice or checking what it actually is. So if Rapidshare is made responsible for what people upload to its space, then every webspace provider in the world (or at least, in Germany) is in trouble.
That's how it should be. We don't go to businesses that pollute and tell them ok, go ahead and pollute and everytime we catch you we're going to tell you to stop doing it. No, we tell them don't pollute. When we catch them dumping their toxic shit in the river we fine them or jail them or some number of other things.
Very true. But a completely stupid and inapplicable analogy. It wasn't enough to call call file sharers "thieves", "pedophiles" or "terrorists", now they're "toxic waste polluters" too.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_star. Fortunately for us, if the sun is variable, it's much less so than these.
Venus' albedo is 0.65; i.e. it reflects 65% of the light, thus it absorbs 35%. Earth's albedo is about 0.3, the Moon's 0.12. Venus would be even hotter if it was less reflective, but still it absorbs a lot of sunlight.
Ask after we've been observing them for 40,000 years.
Aside from that, there are many stars with regular fluctations in brightness of all kinds of periods.
How can you not provide a link to the actual video in question? I wasted 5 minutes digging this up....
No, Bush (or actually Cheney) told the intelligence agencies what results he wanted, and they delivered them. They didn't actually make stuff up compeletely, but they used entirely unreliable sources as if they were authoritative, and discounted anything that indicated otherwise. Basically, the Gulf of Tonkin all over again, with similar long-term results.
You don't need to shoot anyone. Just get off your fat asses and VOTE. What is the turnout rate? 40%? People died to give you the right to vote. Use it.
The OP was making a simple observation of market forces, not morality. And no one is stealing anything. So the Rolex analogy is inflammatory. But kudos for not using the cliched "Mercedes" comparison.
However, I personally think that MS tolerates piracy in less-developed countries as away of securing market share without having to reduce its sticker price and suffering grey-market sales (though there has been some of that). When a market matures, there are millions of people addicted to MS Office, IE, etc who can be pushed into legalising their software at the next upgrade, by applying pressure to their governments (recall Hu Jintao having dinner with Bill last year). P I'm sure Ballmer prefers pirated Windows to legit Linux in any country. Of course, I can't prove this, and they'd never admit it.
Fine. Email is one thing; I've accessed my email in Pokhara, Nepal. But I have no desire or need to set up a virtual workstation away from my office. If I actually did want to work on the move, I'd use a laptop, or notebook PC. But as I said, there's more to a working environment than a computer screen. Google can't make me a cup of coffee, sharpen my pencil, etc.
Who actually needs to work like that? Most people go to work, sit at the same desk and use the same keyboard on the same PC every day. You have your chair at the right height, a mouse that fits your hand, a cushion that fits your back, your calendar on the wall, your paper files in a cabinet. For the small percentage of people who do wander around and alight at a random desk, that's fine. But for most it's just adding an extra lag and making their productivity dependent on perfect connectivity.
TFA points out that some people TRY to do this, but will actually lose money, as the window to buy low has already passed; and it is difficult if not impossible to sell penny stocks short fast enough to make money on the downside.
If you change "nobody gets hurt" to "Only idiots and their familes get hurt", then okay.
Advertisers spend billions making people believe in these things. How many people are in way over their heads with credit card debt, for instance? How many people believe they "May already have won" a lottery?
I just saw Supersize Me. One point made was that McDonald's spends over $1 billion a year on advertising. The government spent $2 million promoting healthy diet.
The spammers' profit is the other investors' loss. As TFA says, a spammer can make on average 5.79% by buying before the spam is sent and dumping on the rise; while those who buy on receiving the spam on average lose 5.5%. So people quite definitely are hurt, aside from all the chaos caused by the billions of spams.
It's easy to obfuscate the font encoding so extracted text is gibberish, while displaying correctly. And also of course PDFs can contain images.
I was there.
Yes, there were scientists that were worried about warming.
Make up your mind. Warming or cooling?
You are ready to use mass media reports as hard evidence when it suits you, but when they contradict your prejudices you dismiss them as sensationalism. This is why I am always careful to note the source of a "fact". If you state that "scientists believe something", you had better be able to directly quote one. You've had plenty of chance to do so, but prefer name calling instead of proving your case.
The post I replied to was :
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=217504&thresho ld=1&commentsort=0&mode=nested&cid=17660450
"there were scientist crying about global COOLING!"
He did not say "I read lots of stories, etc, etc". He stated that scientists said this. That was what I refuted. They did not.
The rest of your post is irrelevant to this issue, which is simply one of misattribution.
Since I don't have a fax, sometimes I get a scan of a document by email, as brokers, for instace, ask me to sign and send it back, to have a signed document on file. Yeah, easily faked, but that's what they do.
And some companies send bills as images too. But most use PDFs, which brings up the horrible prospect that next year spammers will be sending documents as PDF attachments; and perhaps also exploiting the vulnerabilites of that format.
As an aside, I notice much of the word salad I get now seems to be Biblical text.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
Without the password, it can't be inspected.
We already trust people with security, and keeping a log of the files that you have purchased a right to use is not such a big deal. Its like a box of receipts kept in your possession and somewhere other than your possession.
So for every file I have I must keep a "receipt". And if I transform a file in a way to lose that receipt, I'm considered guilty of some crime. Guilty until proven innocent.
But this one is not intrusive,
It's extremely intrusive. To work it requires giving access to ALL my files to some body (or their software agent) to verify that I'm not a thief, at frequent intervals (ultimately, every time I access a file). A perfect use for Palladium.
Yes. But the obvious response of the *AA types will be that nothing can be hosted anywhere anaonymously, and encryption is an indication of guilt. That wouldn't hold up under any current laws, but the chillng effect of legal harassment could make it the de facto rule.
Step 1.6: Users move to website in a different country.
Not for long. Many of the files at Rapidshare are encypted RAR files. Without knowing the passwords, they're just so much random data. If finger printing became common, methods like this would become universal.
Rapidshare, unlike Napster, provides no indexing service. Anyone can upload files, but you have to be told, by the uploader, the URL to download. It's no different, except in scale, from any webspace provider, or for that matter, email service. Also Rapidshare does take down files almost immediately a complaint is received, and people have tested this, they will take down any file complained about without notice or checking what it actually is. So if Rapidshare is made responsible for what people upload to its space, then every webspace provider in the world (or at least, in Germany) is in trouble.
Very true. But a completely stupid and inapplicable analogy. It wasn't enough to call call file sharers "thieves", "pedophiles" or "terrorists", now they're "toxic waste polluters" too.
There's evidence for the Holocaust. There isn't any for your claim.
And by the way, GODWIN. Discussion over.