I understood that there have been 3 eruptions, the last 2 of which are roughly 600000 years apart. Not a very large dataset to make a prediction from.
The "Supervolcanoes" show was sensationalized (alarmist?) in order to get people to watch it. Did it contain some facts? Sure. Were those facts chosen and presented in such a way to support one theory? In this case the "it's overdue to blow at any moment" theory? Sure seems that way. A quote from a summary of a made-for-TV show isn't necessarily scientific (or valid). Here's 2 more quotes from the same source (an ad for a TV show) and one I made up. See if you can spot which one is mine.
"Scientists have very few answers, but they do know that the impact of a Yellowstone eruption is terrifying to comprehend. Huge areas of the USA would be destroyed, the US economy would probably collapse, and thousands might die."
"And it would devastate the planet."
"The sky is falling"
Where's the peer review, the presentation of all the data before reaching a conclusion? The impartiality that we think of when we think science?
Wouldn't that just make ebay into another online store, only for used stuff? The attraction of ebay is winning something for less that you're willing to pay.
Guns aren't toys, he wasn't using it as one. Sounds like they taught him how to use the gun. More importantly, he used it properly. Ergo, they were responsible. What makes you think otherwise?
What makes you think it an "unintended consequence"?
I'm sure there are principled folks who are thinking that this great big DB will help keep our society safe. I'm equally sure there are equally powerful, but not so principled, folks who want this to further their schemes of maintaining power.
The nature of Institutions is to maintain their power by any means. If some individuals are harmed in the course of the maintenance of power, well, too bad. Human history is replete with examples of individuals and groups being imprisoned, tortured, killed, etc. Just for the crime of opposing the status quo. Don't just think Germany in the 30's, go back to the Catholic Church (and Rome before that). Galileo was almost executed, not for being correct in his observations about celestial bodies, but for the "crime" of telling folks about them in a way that the church felt threatened by. I'm sure others can provide examples of abuse of power from any institution in any era.
Seems to me the government already has more power than I want it to have. In my mind, the inclusion of information on folks that aren't charged with a crime is too easy to abuse. And there is no doubt it will be abused. It's human nature.
I don't know that I'd say religion creates extremism. Seems to me that's just a convenient excuse. Even if there were no such thing as religion, we'd still come up with a justification to try and destroy "others".
What you described as the "face of religion" is also the face of Man.
Good point. Where do folks get the idea that blame applies only to the Administration? Last I checked, the "Other Branch" that was supposed to balance (Congress) rolled over.
"Hey, all of this monitoring stuff the bureaucracy's lusted for for years sounds like a great idea".
Now supposedly Congress is going to grow a set? I'll believe it when I see it. They won't give a damn until this is used against one of them as a political tactic (not if, when).
First, you don't know all the evidence. Basing judgement on what you read or hear in the news (hearsay and rumor rather than fact)is stupid.
Is it stupid that the judge didn't overreact? Just becasue folks in the good old USA like to overreact and blow things out of proportion doesn't mean the rest of the world should follow suit.
Like it or not, the right descision was made. If you were so smart, you'd be a judge, instead of posting on/.
Yes, the users are, but the telcos want more. That seemed to be the gist of the article. Imagine I'm AT&T. For a fee, I'll give priority to traffic to/from your website over that of competitors. The endi user get's to your site fast, and since Americans are impatient, the theory is that consumers will stop going to your competitors and go more to your site. Then your competitors pay the fee. And so on...
From an end-user standpoint, we've become accustomed to an internet that doesn't prioritize traffic. However, I don't think that will have a huge impact as the regulators determine the new rules. People will whine about this, but in the end the telcos will get what they want, the consumer will get screwed, and it will stay that way.
I look at the latest merger between AT&T and SBC and think "Wait a minute, did AT&T get broke up in the 80's? Now it's comming back toether. How does that work?"
Have them work while they're sick at home? Amazing. I notice you weren't suggesting you could work while you were sick at home.
It also ties in to the point from the author's blog, that laptops were sometimes used to get people to work more hours.
I'd like to see a manager look at productivity. Amount and quality of work being completed, vs amount of hours one's direct reports are at their desks. Old ideas are hard to let go of.
It's easy to complain. Can you provide a solution?
If you are willing to put in whatever work it takes to change this, great. If you want to sit and whine but do no work to effect a change, then you deserve what you get.
There are some who believe the whole public education system is about teaching what corporations want people to think. I don't know if I completely buy it, but this guy makes a complelling case.
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.ht m
their goal is to sell products. Doubleclick sells advertising, not products. All Doubleclick cares is someone is willing to pay them to serve pop-up adds. Double-click doesn't care if anyone buys the product being advertised or not.
Scanners are becoming cheaper, so it isn't the waste of money that it used to be. Depending on how many employees are tracked with a scanner instead of a punch-clock, it might be money well spent.
I couldn't tell from the article that Best Buy really has a security flaw. Most everyone has assumed that this guy is some sort of "computer expert". I think this guy is full of shit. "Give me 2.5 million or else."
"The public is growing less willing to participate in surveys, industry leaders say. "
I feel like I'm constantly being bugged. Phone surveys, commercials (even before movies, now that really pisses me off!), and spam are 3 areas that jump to mind. Fortunately there are ways to deal with each. When I read the article, my thought is "Too bad. I never asked you to call me". The article talked about going back to door-to-door polls. That will cost them more money and it makes for harder work. I'm sure that is what really has the industry concerned.
My bet is that he doesn't give a damn. Because people are selfish.
I care because of the time I spend online. My friends who aren't "geeks" really don't care what goes on on the internet. It's just not important to them.
Slashdot Mirror
I understood that there have been 3 eruptions, the last 2 of which are roughly 600000 years apart. Not a very large dataset to make a prediction from.
The "Supervolcanoes" show was sensationalized (alarmist?) in order to get people to watch it. Did it contain some facts? Sure. Were those facts chosen and presented in such a way to support one theory? In this case the "it's overdue to blow at any moment" theory? Sure seems that way. A quote from a summary of a made-for-TV show isn't necessarily scientific (or valid). Here's 2 more quotes from the same source (an ad for a TV show) and one I made up. See if you can spot which one is mine.
"Scientists have very few answers, but they do know that the impact of a Yellowstone eruption is terrifying to comprehend. Huge areas of the USA would be destroyed, the US economy would probably collapse, and thousands might die."
"And it would devastate the planet."
"The sky is falling"
Where's the peer review, the presentation of all the data before reaching a conclusion? The impartiality that we think of when we think science?
I enjoy Rolling Stone's reporting, but this article is opinion/editorial, not reporting
Wouldn't that just make ebay into another online store, only for used stuff?
The attraction of ebay is winning something for less that you're willing to pay.
Guns aren't toys, he wasn't using it as one. Sounds like they taught him how to use the gun. More importantly, he used it properly. Ergo, they were responsible.
What makes you think otherwise?
What makes you think it an "unintended consequence"?
I'm sure there are principled folks who are thinking that this great big DB will help keep our society safe. I'm equally sure there are equally powerful, but not so principled, folks who want this to further their schemes of maintaining power.
The nature of Institutions is to maintain their power by any means. If some individuals are harmed in the course of the maintenance of power, well, too bad. Human history is replete with examples of individuals and groups being imprisoned, tortured, killed, etc. Just for the crime of opposing the status quo. Don't just think Germany in the 30's, go back to the Catholic Church (and Rome before that). Galileo was almost executed, not for being correct in his observations about celestial bodies, but for the "crime" of telling folks about them in a way that the church felt threatened by. I'm sure others can provide examples of abuse of power from any institution in any era.
Seems to me the government already has more power than I want it to have. In my mind, the inclusion of information on folks that aren't charged with a crime is too easy to abuse. And there is no doubt it will be abused. It's human nature.
I don't know that I'd say religion creates extremism. Seems to me that's just a convenient excuse. Even if there were no such thing as religion, we'd still come up with a justification to try and destroy "others".
What you described as the "face of religion" is also the face of Man.
Good point. Where do folks get the idea that blame applies only to the Administration? Last I checked, the "Other Branch" that was supposed to balance (Congress) rolled over.
"Hey, all of this monitoring stuff the bureaucracy's lusted for for years sounds like a great idea".
Now supposedly Congress is going to grow a set? I'll believe it when I see it. They won't give a damn until this is used against one of them as a political tactic (not if, when).
I can't hear you because I have my Powerbooks in my ears.
Apologies to Patrick Roy for stealing his quote.
Now that's funny, I don't care who you are...
Stupid court results? Why stupid?
/.
First, you don't know all the evidence. Basing judgement on what you read or hear in the news (hearsay and rumor rather than fact)is stupid.
Is it stupid that the judge didn't overreact? Just becasue folks in the good old USA like to overreact and blow things out of proportion doesn't mean the rest of the world should follow suit.
Like it or not, the right descision was made. If you were so smart, you'd be a judge, instead of posting on
Yes, the users are, but the telcos want more. That seemed to be the gist of the article.
Imagine I'm AT&T. For a fee, I'll give priority to traffic to/from your website over that of competitors. The endi user get's to your site fast, and since Americans are impatient, the theory is that consumers will stop going to your competitors and go more to your site. Then your competitors pay the fee. And so on...
From an end-user standpoint, we've become accustomed to an internet that doesn't prioritize traffic. However, I don't think that will have a huge impact as the regulators determine the new rules. People will whine about this, but in the end the telcos will get what they want, the consumer will get screwed, and it will stay that way.
I look at the latest merger between AT&T and SBC and think "Wait a minute, did AT&T get broke up in the 80's? Now it's comming back toether. How does that work?"
Can I pick "E.) All of the above"?
Have them work while they're sick at home? Amazing. I notice you weren't suggesting you could work while you were sick at home.
It also ties in to the point from the author's blog, that laptops were sometimes used to get people to work more hours.
I'd like to see a manager look at productivity. Amount and quality of work being completed, vs amount of hours one's direct reports are at their desks. Old ideas are hard to let go of.
He forgot to say that it's not on a network :)
I thought everyone read /. at work...
My bandwidth at home is reserved for porn.
It's easy to complain. Can you provide a solution?
If you are willing to put in whatever work it takes to change this, great. If you want to sit and whine but do no work to effect a change, then you deserve what you get.
There are some who believe the whole public education system is about teaching what corporations want people to think. I don't know if I completely buy it, but this guy makes a complelling case.
t m
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.h
their goal is to sell products. Doubleclick sells advertising, not products. All Doubleclick cares is someone is willing to pay them to serve pop-up adds. Double-click doesn't care if anyone buys the product being advertised or not.
Check out the Aviator -AX6
Scanners are becoming cheaper, so it isn't the waste of money that it used to be. Depending on how many employees are tracked with a scanner instead of a punch-clock, it might be money well spent.
: A company that sells products to block spam conducts a study that finds that there is still a need for products that they sell.
I just find it ironic.
I couldn't tell from the article that Best Buy really has a security flaw. Most everyone has assumed that this guy is some sort of "computer expert". I think this guy is full of shit. "Give me 2.5 million or else."
Even the article is hip to your point.
"The public is growing less willing to participate in surveys, industry leaders say. "
I feel like I'm constantly being bugged. Phone surveys, commercials (even before movies, now that really pisses me off!), and spam are 3 areas that jump to mind.
Fortunately there are ways to deal with each. When I read the article, my thought is "Too bad. I never asked you to call me".
The article talked about going back to door-to-door polls. That will cost them more money and it makes for harder work. I'm sure that is what really has the industry concerned.
My bet is that he doesn't give a damn. Because people are selfish.
I care because of the time I spend online. My friends who aren't "geeks" really don't care what goes on on the internet. It's just not important to them.
"Everyone is a loser, particularly Hollywood studios, the retailer community and, most importantly, the consumer"
If "the consumer" is really the most important, why are they mentioned last?