I thought the Iranians were complaining about Google not naming it the Arabian Gulf. Looks like I had it backwards.
Most Iranians are ethnically "Persian" and speak Farsi . They aren't Arabs. While most Iraqis are Arab, which is one reason they hate each other, and have for thousands of years.
That argument only works if you presume the people the FBI is catching are truly terrorists, in which case you're conceding the very point at the heart of the discussion.
That would be a stupid assumption.
There are a lot of people who might be sympathetic to a "terrorist" cause, but never instigate any such acts. But if someone purporting to be a fighter for their cause turns up, befriends a lonely disaffected person, asks for their help, talks them into helping over a year, the result is the creation of the one grooming them. They aren't "truly" terrorists. They're roleplaying in a game created by the FBI.
It likely doesn't work quite as well when the person giving the orders is someone perceived to be a criminal.
Terrorists don't perceive themselves as "criminals". They're freedom fighters, martyrs, heroes, etc. They are, to someone sympathetic to their cause "respected authority figures".
. If those creators go away, there will still be torrents, but they won't be Game of Thrones or Doctor Who..
The BBC isn't going away. They are funded by a licence fee. They also make a load from selling stuff and distributing overseas. Doctor Who might get its budget cut, but it wouldn't go off the air.
Anyway, I don't care about Hulu, except that I keep seeing websites that have embedded Hulu links for trailers or video clips that I can't access, being outside the US. If they require subscriptions too, then that would block a lot of Americans, so hopefully we'd go back to free sites like Youtube.
The one guy who strips off the DRM and then puts it up as a torrent.
I guess that's where the "WEB-DL" downloads come from.
Perfect quality, no station logos or pop-over promos for other shows. Worth waiting a few hours for.
Tell me, struggling to pay my rent each month with no savings, how I am supposed to use loopholes to become rich"? I don't need less tax, I need more income.
I must have misunderstood you.
Yeah, maybe if you had bothered to read the complete first sentence you might have a clue.
From TFA, the ground temperature at night can go up, by a maximum of 1 degree, by mixing warmer air from above down to the surface. But its only areas close to turbines. And its not like the greenhouse effect that traps more solar energy, the average over the volume remains the same.
The annoying thing is that we all know now that the denialists are going to add this to their talking points. "Hockey stick", "Climategate", "Wind farms cause warming, so we might as well burn oil shale".
start your own business -even part time -, guess what ? - ANOTHER LOOPHOLE
For fuck's sake that isn't a "loophole" in any sense of the word. Neither are any of the other schemes you describe. And as I don't live in the USA, most of them don't exist or are impossible here regardless.
I wasn't whining about my economic problems and asking you to tell me how to run my life. I'm sure you're well intentioned, but you're not talking about "loopholes".
You go to school? Ride public transportation? Use public anything? Get Federal taxes back in addition of what you paid? You are using the "loop holes" too That stuff is in magically pulled out of the air, it costs alot of money.
None of those are "loopholes". Public funding of education is not a fucking loophole, unless maybe you're a libertarian.
A loophole is the kind of thing this article is about, artificial arrangements to circumvent obligations. Not straight forward government funding for the public good.
Loopholes exist for everyone, including the guy you replied to. People smart enough to use them become rich. People that are not smart enough whine about it.
Bullshit. You have to be rich to begin with to use such "loopholes".
Tell me, struggling to pay my rent each month with no savings, how I am supposed to use loopholes to become rich"? I don't need less tax, I need more income.
Let's say a typical drive is 100GB and writes at 100MB/s. That will average over 15 minutes to write zeros to every sector on the drive. The destructive throughput of a hammer is pretty fast compared to that.
Depends whether you value you own time more than the computer's.
It's a lot more time and effort to open the case and take out the drive, get a hammer, get a bag or something to wrap the drive in, dispose of the pieces of the drive, close the case, put the hammer back in the shed, than to insert a nuke boot CD and do something useful while it chugs away.
That was the mistake. When you launched it, you made it political.
Who the hell are you addressing this at? 99% of scientists ARE not involved in the politics. Look at the thousands and thousands of papers on global warming and see how many names on them you recognise. Approximately zero. Feel free to ignore the prima donnas. That does not give you an excuse to ignore the thousands of others who were doing exactly what you advocated.
The Proof of Innocence Dmitri Krioukov (Submitted on 1 Apr 2012)
A way to fight your traffic tickets. The paper was awarded a special prize of $400 that the author did not have to pay to the state of California.
If you think this really happened, find a citation for the case that doesn't end up back at this same article.
But they didn't do any of that. Al Gore largely launched this movement and they helped him.
What complete nonsense. Who else is going to launch a "movement" except a politically aware person? There isn't a High Council of Scientists who can choose which people are allowed to speak in public on the subject. If there were the problem would have been solved decades ago. Instead we have any number of right wing assholes just lying in public about this, while the real scientists are dismissed and demonised. Al Gore is not a scientist, and that you keep going on and on about him just means you don't, or don't want to, understand the science so you just blow it off because you don't like Al Gore.
The original AC bitched about the advocacy of the astronauts and engineers as being unqualified. I pointed out that the same can be said of the AGW advocates.
The "AGW advocates" are backed up by several hundred actual named scientists, several thousand cited articles, in the IPCC report, for instance. The anti-AGW advocates are backed up by -- who? There aren't any actual climate scientists who signed the NASA letter (written by a coal lobbyist).
While my post is, "gee, the guy who *runs* the IPCC, the highest authority on AGW -- is a former railroad engineer
Gee, what a sleazy misrepresentation. And misspelling. Let's look him up:
Rajendra Kumar Pachauri (born 20 August 1940) has served as the chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 2002, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007[2][3] during his tenure. He has also been the director general of TERI, a research and policy organization in India, and chancellor of TERI University; besides being the chairman of the governing council of the National Agro Foundation (NAF), as well as the chairman of the board of Columbia University's International Research Institute for Climate and Society. Pachauri has been outspoken about climate change. He is now serving as the head of Yale's Climate and Energy Institute (YCEI).
Obviously those gullible fools at Columbia and Yale University were scammed by this railroad engineer pornographer.
The 49 signatures in the "NASA letter" don't include any climate scientists. The IPCC report included input from 676 climate scientists and cited 6000 scientific papers..
The full WGI report was published in March 2007, and last updated in September of that year. It includes a Summary for Policymakers (SPM), which was published in February 2007, and a Frequently Asked Questions section.
This section of the report, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, assessed current scientific knowledge of "the natural and human drivers of climate change" as well as observed changes in climate. It looked at the ability of science to attribute changes to different causes, and made projections of future climate change.
It was produced by 676 authors (152 lead authors, 26 review editors, and 498 contributing authors) from 40 countries, then reviewed by over 625 expert reviewers. More than 6,000 peer-reviewed publications were cited.
Perhaps, but only if you can get it published in journals the relevant Nobel committee will recognize. Good luck with that.
Remember a few months ago the team that thought they'd observed particles travelling faster than light? Everyone thought it was nuts, but that's what the data said, so it was published. And later, they found the flaw, and THAT was published. That's how science works. Things that challenge the status quo are interesting. Journals would love to publish something that made history.
Anyway, there are plenty of right wing media outlets that would make a fuss about this "censorship" if it were to happen. It couldn't get buried.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the Iranians were complaining about Google not naming it the Arabian Gulf. Looks like I had it backwards.
Most Iranians are ethnically "Persian" and speak Farsi . They aren't Arabs. While most Iraqis are Arab, which is one reason they hate each other, and have for thousands of years.
No, it's not. That's just your straw man. And you wonder why people don't listen... AGW skeptics are being called names like "deniers".
Yes. "Greedy lying assholes", "willfully ignorant", ""loonie conspiracy theorist" would be more descriptive of the different types..
That argument only works if you presume the people the FBI is catching are truly terrorists, in which case you're conceding the very point at the heart of the discussion.
That would be a stupid assumption.
There are a lot of people who might be sympathetic to a "terrorist" cause, but never instigate any such acts. But if someone purporting to be a fighter for their cause turns up, befriends a lonely disaffected person, asks for their help, talks them into helping over a year, the result is the creation of the one grooming them. They aren't "truly" terrorists. They're roleplaying in a game created by the FBI.
It likely doesn't work quite as well when the person giving the orders is someone perceived to be a criminal.
Terrorists don't perceive themselves as "criminals". They're freedom fighters, martyrs, heroes, etc. They are, to someone sympathetic to their cause "respected authority figures".
"They also make a load from selling stuff and distributing overseas." If everybody starts copying that portion of income disappears.
People are going to copy inflatable Daleks and Cyberman action figures?
. If those creators go away, there will still be torrents, but they won't be Game of Thrones or Doctor Who..
The BBC isn't going away. They are funded by a licence fee. They also make a load from selling stuff and distributing overseas. Doctor Who might get its budget cut, but it wouldn't go off the air.
Anyway, I don't care about Hulu, except that I keep seeing websites that have embedded Hulu links for trailers or video clips that I can't access, being outside the US. If they require subscriptions too, then that would block a lot of Americans, so hopefully we'd go back to free sites like Youtube.
The one guy who strips off the DRM and then puts it up as a torrent.
I guess that's where the "WEB-DL" downloads come from. Perfect quality, no station logos or pop-over promos for other shows. Worth waiting a few hours for.
Tell me, struggling to pay my rent each month with no savings, how I am supposed to use loopholes to become rich"? I don't need less tax, I need more income.
I must have misunderstood you.
Yeah, maybe if you had bothered to read the complete first sentence you might have a clue.
The annoying thing is that we all know now that the denialists are going to add this to their talking points. "Hockey stick", "Climategate", "Wind farms cause warming, so we might as well burn oil shale".
start your own business -even part time -, guess what ? - ANOTHER LOOPHOLE
For fuck's sake that isn't a "loophole" in any sense of the word. Neither are any of the other schemes you describe. And as I don't live in the USA, most of them don't exist or are impossible here regardless.
I wasn't whining about my economic problems and asking you to tell me how to run my life. I'm sure you're well intentioned, but you're not talking about "loopholes".
"loophole" is simply an insult, it means "an aspect of the law I don't like."
It does if you just make up definitions to suit whatever point you want to make.
I guess you are really a libertarian after all. Or just a dick.
You go to school? Ride public transportation? Use public anything? Get Federal taxes back in addition of what you paid? You are using the "loop holes" too That stuff is in magically pulled out of the air, it costs alot of money.
None of those are "loopholes". Public funding of education is not a fucking loophole, unless maybe you're a libertarian.
A loophole is the kind of thing this article is about, artificial arrangements to circumvent obligations. Not straight forward government funding for the public good.
Loopholes exist for everyone, including the guy you replied to. People smart enough to use them become rich. People that are not smart enough whine about it.
Bullshit. You have to be rich to begin with to use such "loopholes".
Tell me, struggling to pay my rent each month with no savings, how I am supposed to use loopholes to become rich"? I don't need less tax, I need more income.
Let's say a typical drive is 100GB and writes at 100MB/s. That will average over 15 minutes to write zeros to every sector on the drive. The destructive throughput of a hammer is pretty fast compared to that.
Depends whether you value you own time more than the computer's.
It's a lot more time and effort to open the case and take out the drive, get a hammer, get a bag or something to wrap the drive in, dispose of the pieces of the drive, close the case, put the hammer back in the shed, than to insert a nuke boot CD and do something useful while it chugs away.
This allows bigger construction in space. Which is needed for ... ?
Solar powered microwave satellites. L5 style colonies. The military would probably have some ideas too.
From TFA: "the competing Android platform strains under the weight of repeated malicious code outbreaks"
It takes a determined idiot to make a spelling mistake when copying and pasting from a website.
That was the mistake. When you launched it, you made it political.
Who the hell are you addressing this at? 99% of scientists ARE not involved in the politics. Look at the thousands and thousands of papers on global warming and see how many names on them you recognise. Approximately zero. Feel free to ignore the prima donnas. That does not give you an excuse to ignore the thousands of others who were doing exactly what you advocated.
And since when do people in the US submit April fools jokes at April 1, 4:00 AM GMT ?
Because he wanted an April 1 date on the article. Which he got. If you think this is real, you're an idiot.
We have no evidence it happened other than the article by the "physicist".
http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.0162
The Proof of Innocence
Dmitri Krioukov
(Submitted on 1 Apr 2012)
A way to fight your traffic tickets. The paper was awarded a special prize of $400 that the author did not have to pay to the state of California.
If you think this really happened, find a citation for the case that doesn't end up back at this same article.
But they didn't do any of that. Al Gore largely launched this movement and they helped him.
What complete nonsense. Who else is going to launch a "movement" except a politically aware person? There isn't a High Council of Scientists who can choose which people are allowed to speak in public on the subject. If there were the problem would have been solved decades ago. Instead we have any number of right wing assholes just lying in public about this, while the real scientists are dismissed and demonised. Al Gore is not a scientist, and that you keep going on and on about him just means you don't, or don't want to, understand the science so you just blow it off because you don't like Al Gore.
The original AC bitched about the advocacy of the astronauts and engineers as being unqualified. I pointed out that the same can be said of the AGW advocates.
The "AGW advocates" are backed up by several hundred actual named scientists, several thousand cited articles, in the IPCC report, for instance. The anti-AGW advocates are backed up by -- who? There aren't any actual climate scientists who signed the NASA letter (written by a coal lobbyist).
While my post is, "gee, the guy who *runs* the IPCC, the highest authority on AGW -- is a former railroad engineer
Gee, what a sleazy misrepresentation. And misspelling. Let's look him up:
Rajendra Kumar Pachauri (born 20 August 1940) has served as the chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 2002, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007[2][3] during his tenure. He has also been the director general of TERI, a research and policy organization in India, and chancellor of TERI University; besides being the chairman of the governing council of the National Agro Foundation (NAF), as well as the chairman of the board of Columbia University's International Research Institute for Climate and Society. Pachauri has been outspoken about climate change. He is now serving as the head of Yale's Climate and Energy Institute (YCEI).
Obviously those gullible fools at Columbia and Yale University were scammed by this railroad engineer pornographer.
You don't hear of Lutheranism by the Sword.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report
The full WGI report was published in March 2007, and last updated in September of that year. It includes a Summary for Policymakers (SPM), which was published in February 2007, and a Frequently Asked Questions section.
This section of the report, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, assessed current scientific knowledge of "the natural and human drivers of climate change" as well as observed changes in climate. It looked at the ability of science to attribute changes to different causes, and made projections of future climate change.
It was produced by 676 authors (152 lead authors, 26 review editors, and 498 contributing authors) from 40 countries, then reviewed by over 625 expert reviewers. More than 6,000 peer-reviewed publications were cited.
Perhaps, but only if you can get it published in journals the relevant Nobel committee will recognize. Good luck with that.
Remember a few months ago the team that thought they'd observed particles travelling faster than light? Everyone thought it was nuts, but that's what the data said, so it was published. And later, they found the flaw, and THAT was published. That's how science works. Things that challenge the status quo are interesting. Journals would love to publish something that made history.
Anyway, there are plenty of right wing media outlets that would make a fuss about this "censorship" if it were to happen. It couldn't get buried.