One example of externalities not presently charged to the electric vehicle industry is the lack of cleanup and mitigation in Canada and Russia around the big nickel mining areas...
EVs don't use Ni-Cd batteries, so I have no idea why you are thinking they use a lot of nickel...
Polarizing language always sets off my BS-meter. To see such excessive use of it in an article in a trade magazine published by a respected society (IEEE) is disturbing, and smacks of political bias.
It also makes it hard to take anything in such an article seriously. For example, it portends liberal use of weasel words in any following logical or technical argument. And, to be honest, I don't have the patience to wade through deliberate use of logical fallacies in an opinion piece. I'd rather spend my time reading something unbiased, and one that uses reason.
Firstly, he's not stateless. The US is not denying the fact he is currently a United States Citizen. A stateless person is one with no citizenship anywhere. A stateless person has no right of entry into any country; he has the right to return to the US any time he wants.
OK, so it's true enough that he is not indeed stateless.
But also, haven't two or three US Citizens ended up in essentially permanent detention without trial, in violation of the Bill of Rights?
That's no excuse to call himself stateless, but, he could reasonably call himself "effectively stateless," considering recent actions by some arms of the US government (as in the above).
Passport Canada has a description of actions that may get your passport revoked.
He is not a Canadian citizen, and Canadian law has no bearing on this issue.
Also, it is always a bad idea to assume anything when considering laws, especially between different countries. Legal systems may start from a particular base (e.g., Roman law, British Common law, etc.), but in any given country they take their own path based on subsequent legal decisions and laws enacted over time.
When someone is suspected of a crime and there is a good chance this person may seek to leave the country to evade prosecution, the passport will be revoked.
Nope. Being suspected of a crime ad having your passport confiscated? That's an abrogation of standard legal procedure (IANAL).
Now, if one is arrested, charged, and arraigned––and if the judge determines the person is a flight risk––the passport can be revoked.
Carrying a few keys is far preferable than having to memorize a bunch of passwords, pass-number codes, etc. Or alternatively to carrying several gigantic, plastic "electronic key fobs" that replace what used to fit easily in your pocket.
You need to use one to open the pool gate, of course, but don't take it into the water (meaning you must leave your housekey/fob on your blanket while you swim. Increased security my ass.)!
At the end of the day, you and I are still just bags of meat. We all find it natural to interact with the world by touch and feel –– by using or manipulating objects.
And, y'know, touch-screen-computerizing all interfaces does not automatically make them better. Sometimes, it is the opposite. For example, a major auto manufacturer recently removed the touch-screen control of audio, and replaced that with dials. DIALS for gosh sakes! Consumers had complained that they had had to look away from the (real) road to simply adjust the volume.
James Owens, a spokesman for Nadler, provided a statement on Sunday morning, a day after this article was published, saying: "I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans' phone calls without a specific warrant."
Huh? Can CNET tell the future? Don't they not know what an addendum is? Why is the article still dated June 15?!?
Precisely. Those emails were taken out of context.
As a scientist (unrelated to climate in any way), when I come across a manuscript for review that is completely devoid of use of the scientific method, then I get angry. They wasted the editor's time, and my time, with "work" that was not well-motivated, well-interpreted, etc. I then go out of my way to be as brutal as possible.
You see, I review manuscripts to make sure that they are up to basic standards, not whether they are "right." I would much rather be spending my time doing my own well-planned and interpreted research. But, when some crap article appears that it might be accepted to a respected journal, it is my duty to block it. On the other hand, I have reviewed and allowed several articles that actually disagreed with my predictions, but they were were good work, so they were allowed by me and published. My reputation is less valuable that the general endeavor of science.
It is also in my interest to keep charlatans out. If I and others don't, they will get a publication record that numerically (using impact factors) appears to be worthwhile. Then they will get tenure. Then they will teach their students to spam respectable journals until they find a reviewer too busy to actually review articles.
That is, in the long run, the "article spammers" will eventually come dominate the universities and publications, and science as an endeavor will suffer.
Physicians have the boards. Attorneys have the bar. But anyone who tells a reporter "I am a scientist" seems to get a pass, no matter how kooky and unsupported their ideas are.
Back to the climate-scientist emails, this is the type of thing they were discussing––keeping out frauds and fake scientists.
Of course, the NSA is only collecting times, durations, and phone numbers involved in all calls. They are not collecting names of individuals or businesses.
What's that? You say that a phone number is very nearly a unique personal identifier, and that the NSA can do a reverse-lookup on each number to determine the names of every individual or company whose data are collected? Hmmn. I see now.
Specific intent or being uninformed is no protection from violating someone's patent. The elevator DID violate the patent(s) by selling seed that was viable for planting.
NOTE: I am in no way defending any of the parties involved, just pointing out the facts. This was a terrible USSC decision.
That is indeed one vein of genetic engineering research in plants––to make crop-seed plants sterile, thus locking farmers in to buying seeds every year (as opposed to the millenia-old practice of keeping some seeds from harvest to re-plant the next year).
In the US, Monsanto uses contractual agreements (which farmers/suppliers must sign to buy their seeds) to prevent farmers from saving and replanting.
The idea behind the strategy is to sell such seeds in countries that don't have strong IP or contract law (developing nations). It's a sort of economic enslavement. How would you like it if the people of your country would all starve if Monsanto decided to jack the price of seeds up?
Yep. Pretty much the same deal there here in the US (aside from our lack of privacy laws).
We are all now essentially now just GPS-collared "output generators," or whatever the current marketing-speak term is.
Yes, it is scary, but the majority of citizens will not realize it until we have another you-know-who that rises to power somewhere. Or, hey, maybe their insurance rates go up because they have some sort of profile that makes them "high-risk." Oh, wait, that last thing is already happening.
Oh, also, many employers (for years) have run a credit-check on potential hires, or before promoting a current employee. Well, today, many employers are also buying a profile of potential hires/promotees from the data-aggregators (who buy info from cell providers, your bank, CVS, etc.). The troubling thing with this is that, although the credit-agencies have some legal constraints (though not enough), the data-aggregators do not really have any. Their databases are rife with errors and false correlations. There have been documented cases (which I'm too lazy to cite, but search NYT) where people have had several job offers revoked, over a period of months, each for no apparent reason. Y'know, HR Departments do not hire the best-and-brightest, do they?
Of course I did not attempt to rebut any of his conclusions. Why would I? They are based on bullshit and over-simplified methods. Therefore, no rebuttal is required. (One should not argue with an idiot, although I am doing just that here, with you.)
My work and funding has absolutely nothing to do with climate, air, global or planetary processes, astronomy, or any other field that might be tangentially related. I work in other fields. But I know bullshit when I smell it.
Slashdot Mirror
This smells like a big oil hit piece.
BINGO! Yours is the first post in this long thread that hit upon the truth of the "article" referenced for the thread.
One example of externalities not presently charged to the electric vehicle industry is the lack of cleanup and mitigation in Canada and Russia around the big nickel mining areas...
EVs don't use Ni-Cd batteries, so I have no idea why you are thinking they use a lot of nickel...
Polarizing language always sets off my BS-meter. To see such excessive use of it in an article in a trade magazine published by a respected society (IEEE) is disturbing, and smacks of political bias.
It also makes it hard to take anything in such an article seriously. For example, it portends liberal use of weasel words in any following logical or technical argument. And, to be honest, I don't have the patience to wade through deliberate use of logical fallacies in an opinion piece. I'd rather spend my time reading something unbiased, and one that uses reason.
Firstly, he's not stateless. The US is not denying the fact he is currently a United States Citizen. A stateless person is one with no citizenship anywhere. A stateless person has no right of entry into any country; he has the right to return to the US any time he wants.
OK, so it's true enough that he is not indeed stateless.
But also, haven't two or three US Citizens ended up in essentially permanent detention without trial, in violation of the Bill of Rights?
That's no excuse to call himself stateless, but, he could reasonably call himself "effectively stateless," considering recent actions by some arms of the US government (as in the above).
Passport Canada has a description of actions that may get your passport revoked.
He is not a Canadian citizen, and Canadian law has no bearing on this issue.
Also, it is always a bad idea to assume anything when considering laws, especially between different countries. Legal systems may start from a particular base (e.g., Roman law, British Common law, etc.), but in any given country they take their own path based on subsequent legal decisions and laws enacted over time.
When someone is suspected of a crime and there is a good chance this person may seek to leave the country to evade prosecution, the passport will be revoked.
Nope. Being suspected of a crime ad having your passport confiscated? That's an abrogation of standard legal procedure (IANAL).
Now, if one is arrested, charged, and arraigned––and if the judge determines the person is a flight risk––the passport can be revoked.
Take you hat off.
The Guadian's "article" is up, and in any case, just repeats the contents of Der Spiegel's article from yesterday.
Clouding the facts helps nothing.
I apologize. I had thought I was on FARK for a moment. What with the "babysitter" and "slurpee" and "grab" and "convenient."
My bad. This is a key & security thread. The Farkers can make a similar thread, and then take discussion in their own direction, on their own website.
Best to post such things as AC.
Agreed. Why get rid of physical keys?
Carrying a few keys is far preferable than having to memorize a bunch of passwords, pass-number codes, etc. Or alternatively to carrying several gigantic, plastic "electronic key fobs" that replace what used to fit easily in your pocket.
You need to use one to open the pool gate, of course, but don't take it into the water (meaning you must leave your housekey/fob on your blanket while you swim. Increased security my ass.)!
At the end of the day, you and I are still just bags of meat. We all find it natural to interact with the world by touch and feel –– by using or manipulating objects.
And, y'know, touch-screen-computerizing all interfaces does not automatically make them better. Sometimes, it is the opposite. For example, a major auto manufacturer recently removed the touch-screen control of audio, and replaced that with dials. DIALS for gosh sakes! Consumers had complained that they had had to look away from the (real) road to simply adjust the volume.
FTA, in the middle, see bolded text:
James Owens, a spokesman for Nadler, provided a statement on Sunday morning, a day after this article was published, saying: "I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans' phone calls without a specific warrant."
Huh? Can CNET tell the future? Don't they not know what an addendum is? Why is the article still dated June 15?!?
Precisely. Those emails were taken out of context.
As a scientist (unrelated to climate in any way), when I come across a manuscript for review that is completely devoid of use of the scientific method, then I get angry. They wasted the editor's time, and my time, with "work" that was not well-motivated, well-interpreted, etc. I then go out of my way to be as brutal as possible.
You see, I review manuscripts to make sure that they are up to basic standards, not whether they are "right." I would much rather be spending my time doing my own well-planned and interpreted research. But, when some crap article appears that it might be accepted to a respected journal, it is my duty to block it. On the other hand, I have reviewed and allowed several articles that actually disagreed with my predictions, but they were were good work, so they were allowed by me and published. My reputation is less valuable that the general endeavor of science.
It is also in my interest to keep charlatans out. If I and others don't, they will get a publication record that numerically (using impact factors) appears to be worthwhile. Then they will get tenure. Then they will teach their students to spam respectable journals until they find a reviewer too busy to actually review articles.
That is, in the long run, the "article spammers" will eventually come dominate the universities and publications, and science as an endeavor will suffer.
Physicians have the boards. Attorneys have the bar. But anyone who tells a reporter "I am a scientist" seems to get a pass, no matter how kooky and unsupported their ideas are.
Back to the climate-scientist emails, this is the type of thing they were discussing––keeping out frauds and fake scientists.
Oh, Photoshop reads DICOM files, too. If you are a power user, you will know what those are.
It has algorithms for measuring distances in x-rays and CT-scans. Areas, etc., too. That is needed by physicians and by medical researchers.
Uhm, for a power user, Origin, MatLab, Mathematica, Python, Photoshop, and others are far more appropriate than Excel.
Of course, the NSA is only collecting times, durations, and phone numbers involved in all calls. They are not collecting names of individuals or businesses.
What's that? You say that a phone number is very nearly a unique personal identifier, and that the NSA can do a reverse-lookup on each number to determine the names of every individual or company whose data are collected? Hmmn. I see now.
OK, to counter my anti-Bush USA Patriot Act comment up-thread––Obama renewed that awful thing.
Both are to blame.
Of course, it was Bush who got the awful USA Patriot Act passes in the first place...
Are Schmidt and Cohen drinking their own Kool-Aid?
Well, I guess it's good for business. That tends to happen in such situations.
Every US president has sought to expand presidential powers for at least the last 50 years. Overreach is not new.
This is not a good thing, but it is fact. Don't just blame the current and last administration. Blame them all, regardless of party.
Specific intent or being uninformed is no protection from violating someone's patent. The elevator DID violate the patent(s) by selling seed that was viable for planting.
NOTE: I am in no way defending any of the parties involved, just pointing out the facts. This was a terrible USSC decision.
Excellent point. The grain elevator sold him the seeds, which would make them liable for patent infringement.
I don't know if the farmer could go after them, but Monsanto certainly could. They violated the patent(s) by making the sale.
That is indeed one vein of genetic engineering research in plants––to make crop-seed plants sterile, thus locking farmers in to buying seeds every year (as opposed to the millenia-old practice of keeping some seeds from harvest to re-plant the next year).
In the US, Monsanto uses contractual agreements (which farmers/suppliers must sign to buy their seeds) to prevent farmers from saving and replanting.
The idea behind the strategy is to sell such seeds in countries that don't have strong IP or contract law (developing nations). It's a sort of economic enslavement. How would you like it if the people of your country would all starve if Monsanto decided to jack the price of seeds up?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_seeds
Yep. Pretty much the same deal there here in the US (aside from our lack of privacy laws).
We are all now essentially now just GPS-collared "output generators," or whatever the current marketing-speak term is.
Yes, it is scary, but the majority of citizens will not realize it until we have another you-know-who that rises to power somewhere. Or, hey, maybe their insurance rates go up because they have some sort of profile that makes them "high-risk." Oh, wait, that last thing is already happening.
Oh, also, many employers (for years) have run a credit-check on potential hires, or before promoting a current employee. Well, today, many employers are also buying a profile of potential hires/promotees from the data-aggregators (who buy info from cell providers, your bank, CVS, etc.). The troubling thing with this is that, although the credit-agencies have some legal constraints (though not enough), the data-aggregators do not really have any. Their databases are rife with errors and false correlations. There have been documented cases (which I'm too lazy to cite, but search NYT) where people have had several job offers revoked, over a period of months, each for no apparent reason. Y'know, HR Departments do not hire the best-and-brightest, do they?
Dear Troll,
Of course I did not attempt to rebut any of his conclusions. Why would I? They are based on bullshit and over-simplified methods. Therefore, no rebuttal is required. (One should not argue with an idiot, although I am doing just that here, with you.)
My work and funding has absolutely nothing to do with climate, air, global or planetary processes, astronomy, or any other field that might be tangentially related. I work in other fields. But I know bullshit when I smell it.