The bigger question everyone fails to ask... Is all this crap we inject into the atmosphere good for us humans?
If you mean CO2, then in small concentrations it is quite safe for humans. Good for plants, too.
So why not change for that reason alone, regardless if climate change is true or not.
Because all that "crap" is a byproduct of processes that keep us fed, clothed, and entertained. Those processes also keep our homes lit, warm in the winter and cool in the summer, etc. And they let us get from place to place faster and easier than walking. Starving and freezing to death in a cold house with no internet isn't something I'd undertake without a darned good reason.
Now please note that before excessive snowfall, no fucking global warming campaigners said ANYTHING about "there will be a blizzard in 2010 and it will prove global warming".
Hey, they predicted the disastrous Atlantic hurricane seasons of 2006 and 2007!
I've HATED Corn based ethanol for YEARS... Everyone would point to some country in South America (Brazil?) about how good Ethanol was and the amount of fuel created etc... But that was end of process SUGAR CANE! NOT a major food source!
Sugar cane is even MORE vital. It's a major potable alcohol source (rum). Definitely not something we need to waste in cars.
You would think that a site that actually talks about science would be supportive of the science that's out there. But then there's loads of people like you who find it easier to believe that there's a cabal of scientists who are bending the numbers of their research in order to...what exactly? Fat science grants?
The cabal exists, of that there is no doubt, certainly since the leaked emails. That they are bending numbers there is IMO little doubt. Of course, the existence of the cabal is independent of the truth of the matter, but it does cast a lot of doubt on the evidence.
Certainly then you've not been exposed to any scientists doing work.
Actually, I have. Not in climate research, however.
I think you are basing your "opposite of rehabilitation" conclusion on too little information. I am willing to bet he could have gotten a job, but not a job that would put his IT skills to use. This is to be expected as he has already proven he can not be trusted in such a position.
The fact that you can explain the mechanism doesn't make it go away. His skills were in IT; he could no longer use them legitimately, giving him the choice between unskilled labor and crime. This provides a strong incentive for crime... and he's already someone predisposed to it. I'm not excusing him; I'm just pointing out that judicial punishment made him into a worse criminal than he was.
What makes them think the mines will explode? I mean its not like these things were engineered to last 60 years.
The main explosive of a mine is typically something shock-sensitive and not at all fragile, like TNT. The detonators (which would have some other sort of explosive) may be no good, but a good shock will still set off the main explosive.
No. That generalization of his quote is incorrect.
It's not a generalization. He said "I feel that my family and I are more at risk from gamers than we are from the outlaw motorcycle gangs who also hate me and are running a candidate against me".
Of course, this "note" could easily be bogus, like the cat incident. Perhaps it will turn out that the note wasn't slipped under his door, it was placed on his refrigerator. It wasn't written by a gamer, it was by his daughter. And it wasn't a death threat, but a grocery list.
Yeah, sorry. I gotta go with the biker dude as the scarier of the two.
Maybe he means the other kind of biker gang. You know, the 130 pound mid-20s guys (and somewhat lighter gals) who are built like Tyrannosaurus Rex (huge legs, skinny little arms), dress in bright colored Spandex and wear those funny foam caps.
He turned to crime for income. He hadn't before, if one believes TFA. My point is that the justice system, rather than having a deterrent effect, actually provided him with incentives to commit greater crimes. There's something wrong there; it's the opposite of rehabilitation.
Of course, it happens all the time with non-computer-related crime as well.
The 1970's "global cooling" myth has been debunked quite soundly.
If by "debunked" you mean "handwaved away by revisionists".
The actual prevailing science through the 1970's is that the planet was actually experiencing global warming
Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania ha always been allied with Eurasia and at war with Eastasia.
I don't wonder why there are so many skeptics.
We're all paid by the oil companies. I get a check for $500 from XOM every month. It couldn't have anything to do with the outright lies of the "consensus", nor their tactics, nor the fact that the only ways they can make a testable prediction that will actually be borne out are to predict something everyone knew anyway, or to have so many different models covering so many scenarios that one of them will be near the target.
He starts by doing legitimate penetration testing; he leaves backdoors for himself, but doesn't do anything nasty with them. Then he starts hacking into government computers, and does the same thing; leaves a door open but doesn't do anything else nasty. The FBI catches him for it... but rather than bust him, they attempt to enslave him. He helps them bust another computer criminal ring. But after a while he refuses to serve them and they do bust him. They lie and claim he was of no help, and throw him in jail for a year and a half. When he gets out, his skills are now useful for nothing but crime; no legitimate company will touch him. So, naturally, he does turn to crime. This time actually doing some damage. Well, what did you expect?
True...but just to be clear (and I speak as someone who owns a business in Washington), the specific tax in question is the state "Business and Occupation" tax, which (for manufacturing activities, at least) is a tax levied at.484% of the gross revenue of the business - not the net income, not the net profit, but the gross total of checks that came in the door .
My state personal income tax is based on the gross as well. So is the federal personal income tax, with some exceptions. If they only taxed me on the money I managed to keep, I'd be a lot better off.
Just curious.... Is the company name changing or is this just branding of services?
Only the branding of services... probably because someone sensible in the company knows the new name probably won't last. Email addresses won't change. There's an article from the Philly fishwrap here
Accenture, Cingular, Elementis, Altria, I mean, what the fuck is that? At least the idiots at "Consignia" had the sense to revert back to the name that everyone understood and recognized for decades, i.e. 'Royal Mail.'
Accenture lost the Arthur Andersen name when they split from the accounting firm. Just in time for the Andersen name to be blackened by the Enron scandal. So, definitely a good name change for them.
Clearly, "Xfinity" is inteded to sound like "ex-finity", thus the opposite of "infinity". The opposite of infinity is zero... whether that refers to quality of service, chance of getting a useful response from customer service, throughput, or bytes transferred without overage fees, I don't know. I'm certain it's nothing to do with the bill, though.
No. The only thing you are required to attest to under the penalty of perjury in a DMCA notice is that you own or represent the owner of the copyright of the work you are claiming was infringed. All the rest can be lies (including the part where you say it's true to the best of your knowledge). If you own just one copyright, you can, without committing perjury, send a DMCA notice to anyone's ISP demanding they take something down as an infringement of your copyright. Even if you know damn well it's false.
Hypothetically... under this law... could I do publish a copyrighted book, verbatim, by encapsulating it in a "fact statement". My book would begin like this: It is a fact that J.K. Rowling wrote the following words "[insert entire Harry Potter novel here"] Is this not publishing a fact, which is un-copyrightable? Why would this not stand up in court?
Because judges have been dealing with that kind of sophistry since at least the time of the Sophists, and they're not going to buy it.
I am definitely no lawyer, but couldn't a class action defamation or fraud suit be brought back against the IFPI for the incorrect reports?
Also no lawyer, but maybe tortious interference with a contract. Thing is, it gets to court, the judge sees the IFPI as Authority and the defendants as a bunch of music-stealing whiners, throws out the complaints, and charges the defendants with the IFPIs legal fees. At least, that's what happened when people objected to DirecTV suing people who had bought certain legal pieces of hardware which could be used for decoding DirecTV among other purposes.
accused blogger must file a counter-claim or, after an unquantified number of complaints -- valid or otherwise -- the law forces Google (or any other blogging platform) to terminate the accounts of "repeat offenders," even if their only mistake was not to file paperwork against the accusations of an anonymous robot -- sad and wrong, but mandated by current law.
Unless the law has changed recently, all DMCA notices must contain the signature of the complaining party. So it can't be an _anonymous_ robot. If Google has agreed to an expidited, unsigned, automated, takedown process, it's not the law's fault.
If they are signing them, the fact that the law doesn't make false DMCA notices explicitly illegal is the problem.
Author claims a massive performance drop if things aren't aligned right. Ubuntu already does it with parted and fdisk can do it manually. So, no big problem; fdisk ought to be fixed to have sane defaults with a 4096 byte block size, sure. That can't be all that difficult.
The author also seems to think that only a 30% increase in times for misaligned writes should be expected. I'm not sure why. In a naive implementation I'd expect a 100% increase in time (each block now needs to be written twice). Linux, obviously, doesn't use a naive implementation. It's expected that if the hardware violates the assumptions behind the techniques Linux uses to achieve high performance, that those techniques end up making things very slow instead.
It could also be, "Leave and we'll kill your family." Or economic threats, or they could have threatened anyone who ever worked in the China offices with arrest and prosecution, they have a lot of ugly tools at their disposal. Probably not, but when you're dealing with a government you don't always know the whole story.
I don't know if China would mistreat former Google employees if Google simply left. But I'd say there's a darned good chance they would detain and otherwise mistreat Google employees if Google were to start openly claiming that China was behind the attacks; you just can't expect them to badmouth China's government while they still have people there.
I Robot is a pretty decent film, and is true to a lot of Asimov's themes (particularly, the effect of widespread dependence on robots on human society, as explored in the Elijah Baley novels).
It, however, followed them to the opposite conclusion. Asimov in the later Foundation series had the robots take the First Law to extremes and let it justify micromanaging humanity for its own good. The "I, Robot" movie had them do the same thing. But Asimov portrayed this as a good thing, whereas the movie clearly came out against it.
Copying bits and pieces from other works without explicit attribution has been common in literature and the visual arts (and probably in music as well, though notes and passages rather than samples) for centuries if not millennia. Everyone writing literature in English ends up taking something from Shakespeare at some point (as well as many others), and Shakespeare borrowed liberally from others. Should Asimov have been hung by his thumbs for starting a story with (Melville's) "Call me Ishmael"? Should the Star Trek writers be given the sack because of Khan's "From hell's heart I stab at thee" speech? Neither gave credit.
Painters are even more obvious about it; many works include parts of earlier works; some even include entire earlier works.
The strict standards of plagiarism applied to academic works or journalistic works shouldn't be applied to other works.
This was an example of the problem of evil. A problem is so cliched, people have been pondering it for thousands of years without coming up with any real answers...
The problem of evil is easy to solve. The reason people have been pondering it for thousands of years is they've been trying to solve it within a system of postulates that the existence of evil contradicts, and they are neither willing to modify the postulates nor able to ignore evil's existence.
(some solutions to the problem of evil are atheism, dualism (e.g. Manichaeism), and the belief that God is just a mean bastard sometimes)
Slashdot Mirror
If you mean CO2, then in small concentrations it is quite safe for humans. Good for plants, too.
Because all that "crap" is a byproduct of processes that keep us fed, clothed, and entertained. Those processes also keep our homes lit, warm in the winter and cool in the summer, etc. And they let us get from place to place faster and easier than walking. Starving and freezing to death in a cold house with no internet isn't something I'd undertake without a darned good reason.
Bigger Glaciers
Hey, they predicted the disastrous Atlantic hurricane seasons of 2006 and 2007!
Oh, wait, didn't happen. Never mind.
Sugar cane is even MORE vital. It's a major potable alcohol source (rum). Definitely not something we need to waste in cars.
The cabal exists, of that there is no doubt, certainly since the leaked emails. That they are bending numbers there is IMO little doubt. Of course, the existence of the cabal is independent of the truth of the matter, but it does cast a lot of doubt on the evidence.
Actually, I have. Not in climate research, however.
The fact that you can explain the mechanism doesn't make it go away. His skills were in IT; he could no longer use them legitimately, giving him the choice between unskilled labor and crime. This provides a strong incentive for crime... and he's already someone predisposed to it. I'm not excusing him; I'm just pointing out that judicial punishment made him into a worse criminal than he was.
The main explosive of a mine is typically something shock-sensitive and not at all fragile, like TNT. The detonators (which would have some other sort of explosive) may be no good, but a good shock will still set off the main explosive.
It's not a generalization. He said "I feel that my family and I are more at risk from gamers than we are from the outlaw motorcycle gangs who also hate me and are running a candidate against me".
Of course, this "note" could easily be bogus, like the cat incident. Perhaps it will turn out that the note wasn't slipped under his door, it was placed on his refrigerator. It wasn't written by a gamer, it was by his daughter. And it wasn't a death threat, but a grocery list.
Maybe he means the other kind of biker gang. You know, the 130 pound mid-20s guys (and somewhat lighter gals) who are built like Tyrannosaurus Rex (huge legs, skinny little arms), dress in bright colored Spandex and wear those funny foam caps.
Naa. They're still scarier than the gamers.
He turned to crime for income. He hadn't before, if one believes TFA. My point is that the justice system, rather than having a deterrent effect, actually provided him with incentives to commit greater crimes. There's something wrong there; it's the opposite of rehabilitation.
Of course, it happens all the time with non-computer-related crime as well.
If by "debunked" you mean "handwaved away by revisionists".
Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania ha always been allied with Eurasia and at war with Eastasia.
We're all paid by the oil companies. I get a check for $500 from XOM every month. It couldn't have anything to do with the outright lies of the "consensus", nor their tactics, nor the fact that the only ways they can make a testable prediction that will actually be borne out are to predict something everyone knew anyway, or to have so many different models covering so many scenarios that one of them will be near the target.
He starts by doing legitimate penetration testing; he leaves backdoors for himself, but doesn't do anything nasty with them. Then he starts hacking into government computers, and does the same thing; leaves a door open but doesn't do anything else nasty. The FBI catches him for it... but rather than bust him, they attempt to enslave him. He helps them bust another computer criminal ring. But after a while he refuses to serve them and they do bust him. They lie and claim he was of no help, and throw him in jail for a year and a half. When he gets out, his skills are now useful for nothing but crime; no legitimate company will touch him. So, naturally, he does turn to crime. This time actually doing some damage. Well, what did you expect?
My state personal income tax is based on the gross as well. So is the federal personal income tax, with some exceptions. If they only taxed me on the money I managed to keep, I'd be a lot better off.
Only the branding of services... probably because someone sensible in the company knows the new name probably won't last. Email addresses won't change. There's an article from the Philly fishwrap here
Accenture lost the Arthur Andersen name when they split from the accounting firm. Just in time for the Andersen name to be blackened by the Enron scandal. So, definitely a good name change for them.
Clearly, "Xfinity" is inteded to sound like "ex-finity", thus the opposite of "infinity". The opposite of infinity is zero... whether that refers to quality of service, chance of getting a useful response from customer service, throughput, or bytes transferred without overage fees, I don't know. I'm certain it's nothing to do with the bill, though.
No. The only thing you are required to attest to under the penalty of perjury in a DMCA notice is that you own or represent the owner of the copyright of the work you are claiming was infringed. All the rest can be lies (including the part where you say it's true to the best of your knowledge). If you own just one copyright, you can, without committing perjury, send a DMCA notice to anyone's ISP demanding they take something down as an infringement of your copyright. Even if you know damn well it's false.
Because judges have been dealing with that kind of sophistry since at least the time of the Sophists, and they're not going to buy it.
Also no lawyer, but maybe tortious interference with a contract. Thing is, it gets to court, the judge sees the IFPI as Authority and the defendants as a bunch of music-stealing whiners, throws out the complaints, and charges the defendants with the IFPIs legal fees. At least, that's what happened when people objected to DirecTV suing people who had bought certain legal pieces of hardware which could be used for decoding DirecTV among other purposes.
Unless the law has changed recently, all DMCA notices must contain the signature of the complaining party. So it can't be an _anonymous_ robot. If Google has agreed to an expidited, unsigned, automated, takedown process, it's not the law's fault.
If they are signing them, the fact that the law doesn't make false DMCA notices explicitly illegal is the problem.
Author claims a massive performance drop if things aren't aligned right. Ubuntu already does it with parted and fdisk can do it manually. So, no big problem; fdisk ought to be fixed to have sane defaults with a 4096 byte block size, sure. That can't be all that difficult.
The author also seems to think that only a 30% increase in times for misaligned writes should be expected. I'm not sure why. In a naive implementation I'd expect a 100% increase in time (each block now needs to be written twice). Linux, obviously, doesn't use a naive implementation. It's expected that if the hardware violates the assumptions behind the techniques Linux uses to achieve high performance, that those techniques end up making things very slow instead.
I don't know if China would mistreat former Google employees if Google simply left. But I'd say there's a darned good chance they would detain and otherwise mistreat Google employees if Google were to start openly claiming that China was behind the attacks; you just can't expect them to badmouth China's government while they still have people there.
It, however, followed them to the opposite conclusion. Asimov in the later Foundation series had the robots take the First Law to extremes and let it justify micromanaging humanity for its own good. The "I, Robot" movie had them do the same thing. But Asimov portrayed this as a good thing, whereas the movie clearly came out against it.
Copying bits and pieces from other works without explicit attribution has been common in literature and the visual arts (and probably in music as well, though notes and passages rather than samples) for centuries if not millennia. Everyone writing literature in English ends up taking something from Shakespeare at some point (as well as many others), and Shakespeare borrowed liberally from others. Should Asimov have been hung by his thumbs for starting a story with (Melville's) "Call me Ishmael"? Should the Star Trek writers be given the sack because of Khan's "From hell's heart I stab at thee" speech? Neither gave credit.
Painters are even more obvious about it; many works include parts of earlier works; some even include entire earlier works.
The strict standards of plagiarism applied to academic works or journalistic works shouldn't be applied to other works.
The problem of evil is easy to solve. The reason people have been pondering it for thousands of years is they've been trying to solve it within a system of postulates that the existence of evil contradicts, and they are neither willing to modify the postulates nor able to ignore evil's existence.
(some solutions to the problem of evil are atheism, dualism (e.g. Manichaeism), and the belief that God is just a mean bastard sometimes)