None of them are connected to the Internet but the people who manage them are absolutely reliant on the Internet to exchange information about the systems they manage.
In which case turning OFF the Internet would accomplish... what?
No. Wow, you really try hard to not understand stuff. It's easy to find data on (pecuniary) damages caused by environmentalists, e.g. in the Wikipedia article on eco-terrorism (a misnomer, but that's what it's called). It's difficult to find statistics on eco-violence, ie. assaults with an environmental political background, e.g. that Wikipedia article has no of information on it, despite the name. It's difficult to find because it's not an important statistic, nobody bothers to calculate or publish it. Maybe looking extensively (like for half an hour) would turn something up, but even that seems optimistic.
In a similar vein, you'll agree that the number of assaults with a blue-cheese-brand-dispute background are lower than the number of drug related assaults, but you'll be hard pressed to find a statistic on the former to back up that fact.
Whatever, finding something akin to a statistic on eco-violence would take half an hour, and I'm not wasting that kind of time on you. It's hard to find because it's not relevant (like a statistic on deaths by choking on pretzels). Since the AC who introduced this whole thing ('environmentalists use more bombs than neo-nazis') did so without giving any external references, I don't feel obligated to come up with one. It's comparatively easy to find data on damages caused by environmentalists (e.g. Wikipedia eco-terrorism), which makes sense, since it's (publicly perceived to be) a real issue, unlike bombs and actual violence against people.
You're claiming that people say women (in particular) need to be protected from such a behavior. Nobody said that, I certainly never did. Straw man. I have no idea why you would keep stressing the gender thing, anyway, the same could have happened in all kinds of constellations. You are the one who keeps making this into a debate about gender equality, when there is really no reason for that at all.
You're claiming that it's not a crime. I didn't say that it is, the article doesn't say it, the summary doesn't say it. Straw man. I don't even particularly care if it's a crime. People are just saying that it's a repugnant thing to do. Obviously everyone is responsible for "vetting their partners", and obviously no one should be tricked in such a manner, certainly not by a police officer acting in an official capacity -- even if people do it all the time.
Sigh. I don't know about many bombs either group planted. I doubt the AC who originally compared the two has any idea, either. In both cases, I'm pretty sure that the number is low enough that it's a fairly unreliable metric to draw a conclusion from.
I do know for a fact that neo-nazis are responsible for far more violent crime than environmentalists. Violent assault with a right-wing extremist background happens often enough that number of instances are reported a couple of times per year. Violent assault with an environmentalist background happens so incredibly rarely that every single instance is pretty much newsworthy. There are more incidents of neo-nazi violence in the city I live in than there are violent acts of "eco-terrorism" in all of Europe. Comparing the two is comical, like comparing the fatalities from lightning strike to the fatalities from car accidents.
Huh, seems like a long explanation for something any reasonable reader should have understood. I get the feeling I'm being trolled.
So you think that this is a non-story because it's so normal that it's not worth talking about and/or because it's so outrageous that it's obviously a lie told by the terrorist-criminals. Yeah, that makes sense.
I had to look up muckraker, seems like a bizarre word to use in a derogatory way. Muckraking is exactly what is needed here. More public oversight, either way.
If the female protesters are willing, why not? This isn't even a tempest in a teacup.
Why not? Is that a rhetorical question or do you really not know? Most people consider it morally wrong to sleep with someone after having lied to them on such a fundamental thing.
Or, is Slashdot, the Guardian, and the submitter suggesting that women are incapable of making decisions about with whom to have sex and that pre-marital sex should be made illegal?
Pathetic straw man.
Or, are you suggesting that a woman who willingly engages in sex with a man should be able to retroactively claim rape when she finds out he is not the man she thought he was?
Another straw man. Though I can imagine there are actually cases where this is exactly what happened.
I guess we should start arresting every man who has ever cheated on a woman and was found out; or who ever had sex with a woman and then never called her again; or who ever had a drunken one night stand.
Straw man. Cheating on someone in a non-open relationship is something most people consider morally (but not legally) wrong.
And, I am sure no protesters have ever had sex to gain information or access to an area, too, right?
Errrr well I guess it's happened, but I never heard about any of these kinds of protesters purposely seducing anyone to get information. Of course, that's not really what happened here, either; I don't think anybody can seriously claim he slept with those women to get information. He probably slept with those women because he could.
And of course, that's another logical fallacy, tu quoque.
The Guardian, a liberal newspaper that supports the idea that female protesters are incompetent, stupid and should be chaperoned. And, Slashdot, samzenpus, and the submitter supporting the idea. What a lovely bunch of hypocrites.
More straw man arguments. Those might be your consequences from the story, don't attribute them to other people (or institutions or websites, for that matter). You haven't established any instances of hypocrisy, either.
For what it's worth, you're wrong, left-leaning media generally did not applaud those kind of tactics back then and actually heavily publicized and criticized the strange amalgamation of right-wing extremist parties and government agents. I'd wager a guess that left-leaning people and media were more critical of it than the centrist/right-wing guys.
The situation was different in some ways, too; the government agents had already been part of that political scene and were approached to be informants. So not trained officers/spies who infiltrated the neo-nazis. And the government agency was an intelligence service, not police/prosecution. Not that I'm saying either makes a difference, I'll leave that to the reader.
No, you don't see it in the article because of the many thousands, even tens of thousands of animal rights and environmental groups only the tiniest minority resorts to violence. The same can not be said for neo-nazis. So even without going into their motivation, there is a huge difference.
GGP says that animal rights activists have planted more bombs than neo-nazis in the past 20 years. I don't know how many bombs either group planted, but implying that environmentalists have commited more violent acts and caused more harm than neo-nazis is -- well it's just laughable.
Modern wars may be even more destructive, but "non-modern" wars were also horrifying enough that the GP is gut-wrenchingly misguided either way. I really hope more people don't think like him. There is this strange notion that wars before the 20th century were somehow clean and of limited scope, two armies meeting on the battlefield under the eyes of their generals, duking it out. But casualties among soldiers and civilians were massive back then. Famine and disease were rampant; this was before modern medicine, and, for that matter, humanitarian law. Also before the nuclear bomb, granted.
That's, um, great? You're not the GP so I don't know whether you also live in a world of irrational fear; nevertheless chances are that without those nanny-mandated electronic systems you're probably a greater danger to yourself and others. But you sure evaded the eminent threat of EM radiation related car breakdowns.
Links (or anything, really, keywords, a name, an airplane model), please. The question whether there is even the possibility of personal electronic devices interfering with commercial air liners seems to be at the heart of the issue.
Life must be a terrifying experience for you considering the fact that you (and, oh no, your family, too) are constantly surrounded by far more serious and far more likely threats than a non-FCC approved iPod-knockoff interfering with a commercial airplane. Not sure if or how you can even stand to go outside the door. Ever stop and wonder if your mobile phone might interfere with a car's electronics causing the breaks to lock at an inopportune moment? Can you guarantee with absolute certainty that this can't happen?
I was posting the image (which isn't mine) to make a point, not to praise it. That said, I think it still looks pretty interesting in grayscale. In some ways I actually like it better desaturated.
Well, there are situations where you need multiple exposure to avoid clipping some details. E.g. images like this one: http://hdrcreme.com/photos/23496-Entrance-of-a-Small-Church There is no way a consumer camera can get the detail of the interior of the dark room (and the colorful window) as well as the bright outsides.
Re:Article doesn't live up to expectations
on
Bastardi's Wager
·
· Score: 1
I don't mind skeptics who actually dissect data and are up to speed on what is at least in the IPCC reports. I do mind "skeptics" who have no idea what's going on and are only capable of putting up strawmen that have been knocked down years ago.
Annoying, isn't it? I get that with all kinds of topics: I might have a certain position, but often I would love to see the opposing point of view argued well. Including being able to anticipate criticism and preempting it. It's way too often that blog posts and news articles don't really go beyond the argumentative depth of a Slashdot post, without the benefit of opposing views in the replies balancing it out and pruning flawed arguments.
Sure, but if you take more than a couple of seconds, Windows will assume the program isn't cooperating and offer to kill it. Which could be nasty when it happens during an update.
Flash is well on its way out: there is an established strategy for moving away from it, and people are taking it. Google is clearly one of the companies behind the push towards richer HTML web apps which are replacing Flash. At some point in the not-too-distance future, I fully expect them to stop bundling it, until then it's a convenient way of making sure users are updated to the version with the least amount of security holes. Furthermore, Flash isn't the result of an open standards process like HTML5 is, so the comparison doesn't work very well. It's a good idea to keep HTML5 not only open but also free.
I had never heard of that plant. It's apparently illegal to cultivate (in the open) in Georgia, but that law isn't enforced. Everywhere else, it seems to be quite legal. In many places, a ban would be absurd, since Kudzu is not very resistant to freezing temperatures. It's also a genuinely useful plant, as several parts seem to be edible.
Your point is taken, though, there might be good reasons for banning the cultivation of certain invasive plants.
Slashdot Mirror
None of them are connected to the Internet but the people who manage them are absolutely reliant on the Internet to exchange information about the systems they manage.
In which case turning OFF the Internet would accomplish... what?
No. Wow, you really try hard to not understand stuff. It's easy to find data on (pecuniary) damages caused by environmentalists, e.g. in the Wikipedia article on eco-terrorism (a misnomer, but that's what it's called). It's difficult to find statistics on eco-violence, ie. assaults with an environmental political background, e.g. that Wikipedia article has no of information on it, despite the name. It's difficult to find because it's not an important statistic, nobody bothers to calculate or publish it. Maybe looking extensively (like for half an hour) would turn something up, but even that seems optimistic.
In a similar vein, you'll agree that the number of assaults with a blue-cheese-brand-dispute background are lower than the number of drug related assaults, but you'll be hard pressed to find a statistic on the former to back up that fact.
Feel free to continue to call me names.
No big deal, if electricity is free we'll just leave the fridge open all day every day! Instant planetary cooling!
Whatever, finding something akin to a statistic on eco-violence would take half an hour, and I'm not wasting that kind of time on you. It's hard to find because it's not relevant (like a statistic on deaths by choking on pretzels). Since the AC who introduced this whole thing ('environmentalists use more bombs than neo-nazis') did so without giving any external references, I don't feel obligated to come up with one. It's comparatively easy to find data on damages caused by environmentalists (e.g. Wikipedia eco-terrorism), which makes sense, since it's (publicly perceived to be) a real issue, unlike bombs and actual violence against people.
OTOH it took about a minute to find stuff about right-wing violence: 137 deaths due to neo-nazi violence since 1990 in Germany. Deaths, mind you, not just cases of assault, that number is way higher (nearly 1000 just for 2009).
Try looking up "straw man".
You're claiming that people say women (in particular) need to be protected from such a behavior. Nobody said that, I certainly never did. Straw man. I have no idea why you would keep stressing the gender thing, anyway, the same could have happened in all kinds of constellations. You are the one who keeps making this into a debate about gender equality, when there is really no reason for that at all.
You're claiming that it's not a crime. I didn't say that it is, the article doesn't say it, the summary doesn't say it. Straw man. I don't even particularly care if it's a crime. People are just saying that it's a repugnant thing to do. Obviously everyone is responsible for "vetting their partners", and obviously no one should be tricked in such a manner, certainly not by a police officer acting in an official capacity -- even if people do it all the time.
Sigh. I don't know about many bombs either group planted. I doubt the AC who originally compared the two has any idea, either. In both cases, I'm pretty sure that the number is low enough that it's a fairly unreliable metric to draw a conclusion from.
I do know for a fact that neo-nazis are responsible for far more violent crime than environmentalists. Violent assault with a right-wing extremist background happens often enough that number of instances are reported a couple of times per year. Violent assault with an environmentalist background happens so incredibly rarely that every single instance is pretty much newsworthy. There are more incidents of neo-nazi violence in the city I live in than there are violent acts of "eco-terrorism" in all of Europe. Comparing the two is comical, like comparing the fatalities from lightning strike to the fatalities from car accidents.
Huh, seems like a long explanation for something any reasonable reader should have understood. I get the feeling I'm being trolled.
So you think that this is a non-story because it's so normal that it's not worth talking about and/or because it's so outrageous that it's obviously a lie told by the terrorist-criminals. Yeah, that makes sense.
I had to look up muckraker, seems like a bizarre word to use in a derogatory way. Muckraking is exactly what is needed here. More public oversight, either way.
If the female protesters are willing, why not? This isn't even a tempest in a teacup.
Why not? Is that a rhetorical question or do you really not know? Most people consider it morally wrong to sleep with someone after having lied to them on such a fundamental thing.
Or, is Slashdot, the Guardian, and the submitter suggesting that women are incapable of making decisions about with whom to have sex and that pre-marital sex should be made illegal?
Pathetic straw man.
Or, are you suggesting that a woman who willingly engages in sex with a man should be able to retroactively claim rape when she finds out he is not the man she thought he was?
Another straw man. Though I can imagine there are actually cases where this is exactly what happened.
I guess we should start arresting every man who has ever cheated on a woman and was found out; or who ever had sex with a woman and then never called her again; or who ever had a drunken one night stand.
Straw man. Cheating on someone in a non-open relationship is something most people consider morally (but not legally) wrong.
And, I am sure no protesters have ever had sex to gain information or access to an area, too, right?
Errrr well I guess it's happened, but I never heard about any of these kinds of protesters purposely seducing anyone to get information. Of course, that's not really what happened here, either; I don't think anybody can seriously claim he slept with those women to get information. He probably slept with those women because he could.
And of course, that's another logical fallacy, tu quoque.
The Guardian, a liberal newspaper that supports the idea that female protesters are incompetent, stupid and should be chaperoned. And, Slashdot, samzenpus, and the submitter supporting the idea. What a lovely bunch of hypocrites.
More straw man arguments. Those might be your consequences from the story, don't attribute them to other people (or institutions or websites, for that matter). You haven't established any instances of hypocrisy, either.
For what it's worth, you're wrong, left-leaning media generally did not applaud those kind of tactics back then and actually heavily publicized and criticized the strange amalgamation of right-wing extremist parties and government agents. I'd wager a guess that left-leaning people and media were more critical of it than the centrist/right-wing guys.
The situation was different in some ways, too; the government agents had already been part of that political scene and were approached to be informants. So not trained officers/spies who infiltrated the neo-nazis. And the government agency was an intelligence service, not police/prosecution. Not that I'm saying either makes a difference, I'll leave that to the reader.
No, you don't see it in the article because of the many thousands, even tens of thousands of animal rights and environmental groups only the tiniest minority resorts to violence. The same can not be said for neo-nazis. So even without going into their motivation, there is a huge difference.
GGP says that animal rights activists have planted more bombs than neo-nazis in the past 20 years. I don't know how many bombs either group planted, but implying that environmentalists have commited more violent acts and caused more harm than neo-nazis is -- well it's just laughable.
Your assurance that British cops are trained well and generally act in good faith within the confines of reason and law have put my mind at rest.
Actually, he didn't offer any kind of definition.
Modern wars may be even more destructive, but "non-modern" wars were also horrifying enough that the GP is gut-wrenchingly misguided either way. I really hope more people don't think like him. There is this strange notion that wars before the 20th century were somehow clean and of limited scope, two armies meeting on the battlefield under the eyes of their generals, duking it out. But casualties among soldiers and civilians were massive back then. Famine and disease were rampant; this was before modern medicine, and, for that matter, humanitarian law. Also before the nuclear bomb, granted.
Or watch this. Pretty crazy.
That's, um, great? You're not the GP so I don't know whether you also live in a world of irrational fear; nevertheless chances are that without those nanny-mandated electronic systems you're probably a greater danger to yourself and others. But you sure evaded the eminent threat of EM radiation related car breakdowns.
Links (or anything, really, keywords, a name, an airplane model), please. The question whether there is even the possibility of personal electronic devices interfering with commercial air liners seems to be at the heart of the issue.
Life must be a terrifying experience for you considering the fact that you (and, oh no, your family, too) are constantly surrounded by far more serious and far more likely threats than a non-FCC approved iPod-knockoff interfering with a commercial airplane. Not sure if or how you can even stand to go outside the door. Ever stop and wonder if your mobile phone might interfere with a car's electronics causing the breaks to lock at an inopportune moment? Can you guarantee with absolute certainty that this can't happen?
I was posting the image (which isn't mine) to make a point, not to praise it. That said, I think it still looks pretty interesting in grayscale. In some ways I actually like it better desaturated.
Well, there are situations where you need multiple exposure to avoid clipping some details. E.g. images like this one: http://hdrcreme.com/photos/23496-Entrance-of-a-Small-Church There is no way a consumer camera can get the detail of the interior of the dark room (and the colorful window) as well as the bright outsides.
I don't mind skeptics who actually dissect data and are up to speed on what is at least in the IPCC reports. I do mind "skeptics" who have no idea what's going on and are only capable of putting up strawmen that have been knocked down years ago.
Annoying, isn't it? I get that with all kinds of topics: I might have a certain position, but often I would love to see the opposing point of view argued well. Including being able to anticipate criticism and preempting it. It's way too often that blog posts and news articles don't really go beyond the argumentative depth of a Slashdot post, without the benefit of opposing views in the replies balancing it out and pruning flawed arguments.
Sure, but if you take more than a couple of seconds, Windows will assume the program isn't cooperating and offer to kill it. Which could be nasty when it happens during an update.
Duh, all that does is shift the problem to a different layer. The same issues still apply.
Flash is well on its way out: there is an established strategy for moving away from it, and people are taking it. Google is clearly one of the companies behind the push towards richer HTML web apps which are replacing Flash. At some point in the not-too-distance future, I fully expect them to stop bundling it, until then it's a convenient way of making sure users are updated to the version with the least amount of security holes. Furthermore, Flash isn't the result of an open standards process like HTML5 is, so the comparison doesn't work very well. It's a good idea to keep HTML5 not only open but also free.
I had never heard of that plant. It's apparently illegal to cultivate (in the open) in Georgia, but that law isn't enforced. Everywhere else, it seems to be quite legal. In many places, a ban would be absurd, since Kudzu is not very resistant to freezing temperatures. It's also a genuinely useful plant, as several parts seem to be edible.
Your point is taken, though, there might be good reasons for banning the cultivation of certain invasive plants.
Never played Civilization, I take it. It really is an educational game in many respects.