Unfortunately, large scale 'experimentation' in the oceans has been done and continues to be done, only it is undirected and unmonitored. Drift net fleets continue to clear-cut vast swaths of the oceans. Pollution continues to be dumped directly into the oceans.
What I hate about environmentalists is that they really want to do nothing and they want everyone to do nothing, as if that is a solution in and of itself. It is just not going to happen. People are going to continue doing things. There really is only one question. Should we do things in a directed and monitored fashion or continue to do things in haphazard ways with unknown results?
I fall on the side of doing terraforming on Terra. Concentrate on reversing desertfication. Siphon ocean water into the Salton Sea and Death Valley and start greening the mojave. The engineering has already been done, it's just a matter of having the political will to do it. And that will require getting the environmentalists to stop trying to keep the environment exactly like it is today. As if Southern California isn't already a huge experiment in completely changing the environment for the worse.
It's supposed to be News for Nerds... not News for Ignorant, Inbred, Illiterate, Apple fan-bois.
Idiots talking about how this is going to decrease Windows usage? About how this could be good for Linux?
Here's another hint: Dell sells more linux boxes then Apple. But you wouldn't know that from the summary or any of the stupid, waste of space comments, including yours. Just M$ bashing and Jobs jobbing.
you never go back... It's the black hole of computers and I've lost a few friends there.
Anywhile, if any1 had bothered to RTFA, this isn't about MAC OS or LINUX or WINDOWS...IT'S ABOUT COMPUTER MANUFACTURERS...M$ doesn't even rank, YOU DUMB DORKS....
The number 1 spot is taken by a company that sells LINUX computers...GUESS WHO????...I'll give you a small hint: HE'S AS BIG AN ASS AS STEVIE OR BILL...
Apple sells crap for twice as much as it is worth and people buy it. It's amazing that they survived but there's a sucker born every minute.
Maybe you should look into the Cuban missle crisis and some of the recently declassified Soviet documents from that era.
I'll sum it up for you... Castro wanted to nuke the US. It wasn't the blockade or Kennedy that got the Soviets to abandon Cuba, it was Castro.
But, continue to blame everything on the US. Only a vocal minority cares and you've found one of their favorite sites.
It's not demoncats or repugnicans, it is the worthless, pampered, greedy and self-centered Baby Boomers.
Worst. Generation. Ever.
I used to worry that they would destroy the US but they are so incompetent that I sleep fine now. We just have to out live them and then maybe we can start solving problems and stop being victims.
If you want linux on the desktop, idiots are actually an asset.
What linux needs is a whole lot of clueless users like this guy and his ilk who would shell out $20 for a free operating system. They are the same types that will blindly install anything and everything, move, modify and delete things arbitrarily and make a fuss when their actions cause things to break. Linux needs this, because it's the only way to make linux better on the desktop.
As a server, linux is great and has been for years. As a desktop, it's almost great in some parts and approaching adequate in others.
I think you are incredibly naieve to think that the means of propogation of information can not be controlled. You are also incredibly naieve to think that information once released can not be destroyed. There are historical precedents for both and from all ages including our own.
You are correct about some things. Paris Hilton can not stop the propagation of her sex video. However, in jurisdictions where the rule of law prevails, she can stop people from making a profit, or posting it on youtube, or selling tapes or dvds of the video. I don't see anything wrong with that.
If someone steals my credit history or medical records and tries to profit from that act, then I should have some legal recourse. Otherwise, I'm going into the data stealing business and I'm going to start with you and yours, Mr 30 years in the IT industry.
"That is why some philosophers keep arguing about the fundamental nature of information, in particular about if information is "discovered" (i.e. it somehow exists outside the physical universe) or if it is "invented"."
This sounds like the same BS the materialists are trying to pull with 'free will', framing the question while putting the target up on a pedestal to knock it down. A better question is whether information existed at or before the time of the big bang. If it did exist, is it the same information today or did it change? Obviously, much of what we call information has changed since the big bang. So, how do we know when information will change and will we even be able to recognize the change (think speed of light not being a constant).
OTOH, if what we call information didn't exist before the big bang, then it must have been created. This raises even more questions. Can information also be destroyed? Does newly created information have to follow the precepts of older information?
OTGH, we have to consider that this could be a false dichotomy and that the universe doesn't really give a rat's ass what we think.
Hmmm, um, I know, I know, someone who works in a windows shop? Is that the answer?
A friend had me do a small web app for his sales team and he didn't care at all about FF support. He wanted to do it in ajax or something but I convinced him to use PHP, mysql and Apache. I tested using IE, but I know it also worked in FF.
This is exactly the problem. It's the 3rd ammendment. It was intended to be important. Placed before the 4th which is a humdinger of an ammendment. Do you really think that Jefferson, Adams, Washington and Franklin would waste the 3rd ammendment on a toothless protection from boarding troops in peace time.
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, they can take your home because someone else is growing pot on it. They can take your home to put up a stadium or a new marina or freeway or whatever they want. Why, because the 3rd ammendment is just about boarding troops. Like any one really needs that.
It's sad because if the 3rd ammendment was restored, it would stop some of this nonsense and would give the people more power, which they sorely need.
The logical problem with your arguments (I'm being generous here) is that you focus solely on the taking of information from conglomerates. I'm sure you would have serious problems with someone taking your personal photos, videos, etc from you. Got any home made pornos you want to keep private? Under your system, anyone could take your filthy videos and share them.
Okay, so you don't have any home made pornos, so you don't care about that. Just like you don't care about the kitsch being taken from the conglomerates. So let's try to find something you do care about. Do you have kids? Ever take a picture of them in the bath? It's okay to share them as well because it's information and cannot be stolen. How about digitized medical records? Again, under your system it's information and cannot be stolen. Why it's practically begging to be shared with the world.
the yellow cake that Saddam had was under UN control. So how do you reconstitute a nuclear program when all of your yellow cake is in sealed drums and watched? Obviously Saddam needed to obtain a new supply.
The question Joe Wilson never answers, and which he was sent to Niger to find out, is 'What were the Iraqis doing in Niger?'. Their number one export is yellow cake, followed by livestock, chickpeas and onions. If they were there to buy livestock, chickpeas or onions, I would think that they would just announce it to the world.
The point is that the 3rd ammendment is being ignored. Private property, in the 5th ammendment, does not include somebodies house being referenced in the 3rd ammendment. That was the clear intent of the founders and it is being ignored. We may as well not have a 3rd ammendment because it is completely meaningless.
Basically what you are saying is that the government can seize your house to turn into a bed and breakfast, tax revenues, but they can't ask you to put a soldier in your spare bedroom?
That
is
just
crazy.
Americans are more worried about the gits in Gitmo then the grandmother getting kicked out of her home so the Cowboys, er, Jerry Jones, can build a new stadium. It is just sad, because the bill of rights is not that tough of a read. I'm sure the Supreme Court would laugh their asses off if anyone tried to make this argument, cause that would limit the governments right to build freeways and airports and all the other tax revenue ventures.
I'll give you one example that happens all over America.
A sports franchise wants a new stadium. The city cooperates by forcing everyone who owns land or houses in the new stadium site to sell. Usually there are more then a few who don't want to, but the city just takes their land and gives them fair value.
The Constitution says that the government can not seize your property. But even before it says that, it says that the government cannot quarter troops in your house, except in time of war and even then only with compensation. What good is the right to deny the quartering of troops when your home is now under the 30 yard line or home plate? Clearly the intention of the founders was to protect property rights, but some where thru the years, this right has been completely removed.
The constitution is a piece of paper and if you think otherwise, you are fooling yourself.
Which would require time travel by the telcos. It is clear that the NSA would be the only ones who broke the law in the case you are citing, which I might add you have no proof of ever occuring.
Maybe you should change your username to dense. You definately should move out of Texas. Try California, there are lots of liberal idiots out there.
It doesn't really matter whether it is 72 hours or 2 weeks, the telcos have no way to know in advance whether the NSA is going to comply with the law. Thus time travel is required.
For the telcos to have broken the law, they would have had to continue to allow the tap for the 9 cases where the FISA court did not uphold the tap. Wow, 9 whole cases where the telcos maybe, might have, you don't even know for sure, broke the law.
Congress and the NSA are to blame, not the telcos. It is that simple. Not obtuse at all.
It's a bad law, but it is the law. The law allows the NSA to tap anything for up to 2 weeks, provide that they eventually get a warrant. That's the way the law was written, by a lawyer, in congress.
So, short of travelling into the future and back again, how exactly are the telcos suppossed to know whether the NSA is complying with the law? Also, since the FISA court is secret, when they travel to the future, the telco time-travelers aren't going to be told the results, so they really are screwed.
Don't let me discourage you from thinking congress will save the day.
Travelling thru the UAE is also pretty scary. Make sure you don't eat any poppy seed muffins on the way or have any hemp-based bird seed in your luggage. People have been detained for just having something on the soles of their shoes which could have came from anywhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, large scale 'experimentation' in the oceans has been done and continues to be done, only it is undirected and unmonitored. Drift net fleets continue to clear-cut vast swaths of the oceans. Pollution continues to be dumped directly into the oceans.
What I hate about environmentalists is that they really want to do nothing and they want everyone to do nothing, as if that is a solution in and of itself. It is just not going to happen. People are going to continue doing things. There really is only one question. Should we do things in a directed and monitored fashion or continue to do things in haphazard ways with unknown results?
I fall on the side of doing terraforming on Terra. Concentrate on reversing desertfication. Siphon ocean water into the Salton Sea and Death Valley and start greening the mojave. The engineering has already been done, it's just a matter of having the political will to do it. And that will require getting the environmentalists to stop trying to keep the environment exactly like it is today. As if Southern California isn't already a huge experiment in completely changing the environment for the worse.
It's supposed to be News for Nerds... not News for Ignorant, Inbred, Illiterate, Apple fan-bois.
Idiots talking about how this is going to decrease Windows usage? About how this could be good for Linux?
Here's another hint: Dell sells more linux boxes then Apple. But you wouldn't know that from the summary or any of the stupid, waste of space comments, including yours. Just M$ bashing and Jobs jobbing.
you never go back... It's the black hole of computers and I've lost a few friends there.
Anywhile, if any1 had bothered to RTFA, this isn't about MAC OS or LINUX or WINDOWS...IT'S ABOUT COMPUTER MANUFACTURERS...M$ doesn't even rank, YOU DUMB DORKS....
The number 1 spot is taken by a company that sells LINUX computers...GUESS WHO????...I'll give you a small hint: HE'S AS BIG AN ASS AS STEVIE OR BILL...
Apple sells crap for twice as much as it is worth and people buy it. It's amazing that they survived but there's a sucker born every minute.
Maybe you should look into the Cuban missle crisis and some of the recently declassified Soviet documents from that era. I'll sum it up for you... Castro wanted to nuke the US. It wasn't the blockade or Kennedy that got the Soviets to abandon Cuba, it was Castro. But, continue to blame everything on the US. Only a vocal minority cares and you've found one of their favorite sites.
It's not demoncats or repugnicans, it is the worthless, pampered, greedy and self-centered Baby Boomers.
Worst. Generation. Ever.
I used to worry that they would destroy the US but they are so incompetent that I sleep fine now. We just have to out live them and then maybe we can start solving problems and stop being victims.
That's funny because the Iraqi congress and president both have higher approval ratings then their US couter-parts.
I know you weren't trying to be funny, but what proof do you have that reconciliation on the political level is not occuring?
First line of defense for the Bush legal team...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
If I were Psystar or one of their customers, I would ask for a jury trial. Juries love it when big mega corporations take on the little guy.
Try telling that to someone in Darfur or Saudi Arabia or lots and lots of other places.
Can we throw in materialists who don't believe in free will? I find them to be a pretty scary bunch.
If you want linux on the desktop, idiots are actually an asset.
What linux needs is a whole lot of clueless users like this guy and his ilk who would shell out $20 for a free operating system. They are the same types that will blindly install anything and everything, move, modify and delete things arbitrarily and make a fuss when their actions cause things to break. Linux needs this, because it's the only way to make linux better on the desktop.
As a server, linux is great and has been for years. As a desktop, it's almost great in some parts and approaching adequate in others.
I think you are incredibly naieve to think that the means of propogation of information can not be controlled. You are also incredibly naieve to think that information once released can not be destroyed. There are historical precedents for both and from all ages including our own.
You are correct about some things. Paris Hilton can not stop the propagation of her sex video. However, in jurisdictions where the rule of law prevails, she can stop people from making a profit, or posting it on youtube, or selling tapes or dvds of the video. I don't see anything wrong with that.
If someone steals my credit history or medical records and tries to profit from that act, then I should have some legal recourse. Otherwise, I'm going into the data stealing business and I'm going to start with you and yours, Mr 30 years in the IT industry.
"That is why some philosophers keep arguing about the fundamental nature of information, in particular about if information is "discovered" (i.e. it somehow exists outside the physical universe) or if it is "invented"."
This sounds like the same BS the materialists are trying to pull with 'free will', framing the question while putting the target up on a pedestal to knock it down. A better question is whether information existed at or before the time of the big bang. If it did exist, is it the same information today or did it change? Obviously, much of what we call information has changed since the big bang. So, how do we know when information will change and will we even be able to recognize the change (think speed of light not being a constant).
OTOH, if what we call information didn't exist before the big bang, then it must have been created. This raises even more questions. Can information also be destroyed? Does newly created information have to follow the precepts of older information?
OTGH, we have to consider that this could be a false dichotomy and that the universe doesn't really give a rat's ass what we think.
I'll take a guess...
Hmmm, um, I know, I know, someone who works in a windows shop? Is that the answer?
A friend had me do a small web app for his sales team and he didn't care at all about FF support. He wanted to do it in ajax or something but I convinced him to use PHP, mysql and Apache. I tested using IE, but I know it also worked in FF.
This is exactly the problem. It's the 3rd ammendment. It was intended to be important. Placed before the 4th which is a humdinger of an ammendment. Do you really think that Jefferson, Adams, Washington and Franklin would waste the 3rd ammendment on a toothless protection from boarding troops in peace time.
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, they can take your home because someone else is growing pot on it. They can take your home to put up a stadium or a new marina or freeway or whatever they want. Why, because the 3rd ammendment is just about boarding troops. Like any one really needs that.
It's sad because if the 3rd ammendment was restored, it would stop some of this nonsense and would give the people more power, which they sorely need.
The logical problem with your arguments (I'm being generous here) is that you focus solely on the taking of information from conglomerates. I'm sure you would have serious problems with someone taking your personal photos, videos, etc from you. Got any home made pornos you want to keep private? Under your system, anyone could take your filthy videos and share them. Okay, so you don't have any home made pornos, so you don't care about that. Just like you don't care about the kitsch being taken from the conglomerates. So let's try to find something you do care about. Do you have kids? Ever take a picture of them in the bath? It's okay to share them as well because it's information and cannot be stolen. How about digitized medical records? Again, under your system it's information and cannot be stolen. Why it's practically begging to be shared with the world.
the yellow cake that Saddam had was under UN control. So how do you reconstitute a nuclear program when all of your yellow cake is in sealed drums and watched? Obviously Saddam needed to obtain a new supply.
The question Joe Wilson never answers, and which he was sent to Niger to find out, is 'What were the Iraqis doing in Niger?'. Their number one export is yellow cake, followed by livestock, chickpeas and onions. If they were there to buy livestock, chickpeas or onions, I would think that they would just announce it to the world.
The point is that the 3rd ammendment is being ignored. Private property, in the 5th ammendment, does not include somebodies house being referenced in the 3rd ammendment. That was the clear intent of the founders and it is being ignored. We may as well not have a 3rd ammendment because it is completely meaningless.
Basically what you are saying is that the government can seize your house to turn into a bed and breakfast, tax revenues, but they can't ask you to put a soldier in your spare bedroom?
That
is
just
crazy.
Americans are more worried about the gits in Gitmo then the grandmother getting kicked out of her home so the Cowboys, er, Jerry Jones, can build a new stadium. It is just sad, because the bill of rights is not that tough of a read. I'm sure the Supreme Court would laugh their asses off if anyone tried to make this argument, cause that would limit the governments right to build freeways and airports and all the other tax revenue ventures.
I'll give you one example that happens all over America.
A sports franchise wants a new stadium. The city cooperates by forcing everyone who owns land or houses in the new stadium site to sell. Usually there are more then a few who don't want to, but the city just takes their land and gives them fair value.
The Constitution says that the government can not seize your property. But even before it says that, it says that the government cannot quarter troops in your house, except in time of war and even then only with compensation. What good is the right to deny the quartering of troops when your home is now under the 30 yard line or home plate? Clearly the intention of the founders was to protect property rights, but some where thru the years, this right has been completely removed.
The constitution is a piece of paper and if you think otherwise, you are fooling yourself.
So the telcos broke the law at most 9 times. Wow. Spectacular. Glad to see congress tackling the big issues.
Wanting not to get sued is not an admission of guilt. It's common sense. Except on Slashdot.
It's hard to argue with two morons at once, but I'll try to keep my composure.
Which would require time travel by the telcos. It is clear that the NSA would be the only ones who broke the law in the case you are citing, which I might add you have no proof of ever occuring.
Maybe you should change your username to dense. You definately should move out of Texas. Try California, there are lots of liberal idiots out there.
"For the telcos to have broken the law, they would have had to continue to allow the tap for the 9 cases where the FISA court did not uphold the tap."
English not your first language? Nor second, I'm guessing. Et tu, asshole.
It doesn't really matter whether it is 72 hours or 2 weeks, the telcos have no way to know in advance whether the NSA is going to comply with the law. Thus time travel is required.
For the telcos to have broken the law, they would have had to continue to allow the tap for the 9 cases where the FISA court did not uphold the tap. Wow, 9 whole cases where the telcos maybe, might have, you don't even know for sure, broke the law.
Congress and the NSA are to blame, not the telcos. It is that simple. Not obtuse at all.
It's a bad law, but it is the law. The law allows the NSA to tap anything for up to 2 weeks, provide that they eventually get a warrant. That's the way the law was written, by a lawyer, in congress.
So, short of travelling into the future and back again, how exactly are the telcos suppossed to know whether the NSA is complying with the law? Also, since the FISA court is secret, when they travel to the future, the telco time-travelers aren't going to be told the results, so they really are screwed.
Don't let me discourage you from thinking congress will save the day.
Travelling thru the UAE is also pretty scary. Make sure you don't eat any poppy seed muffins on the way or have any hemp-based bird seed in your luggage. People have been detained for just having something on the soles of their shoes which could have came from anywhere.