1. Before anyone makes any decisions about which proposals get accepted, have whoever initially got the submission hide the names of the presenters. 2. Rank proposals from 1..n on the factors that can be easily gleaned from the proposals: topic interest, qualifications of presenter, rigor, etc. 3. Now, put the names back on, and go through the list starting at the top to ensure that the actual people's resumes match up with how the proposals represented them and their work. Reject any that don't. 4. When you have enough to fill the conference, that's it, you're done.
The key is that you're making the subjective decisions without any indication of what color or gender somebody is. (Except that the presenter is not likely to be a hyper-intelligent shade of the color blue.)
Follow the jurisdiction you're in: For example, you can't do business from the US with Wikileaks, but have to allow business from the Ecuador with Wikileaks, that sort of thing.
I'm guessing you're laboring under the mistaken impression that there is any disagreement between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to civil liberties protections. There isn't: both major parties oppose civil liberties in the name of "national security".
The man who was killed, Ahmed al-Jabari, wasn't just "one of the leaders of Hamas". According to Gershon Baskin, who was involved in Israeli-Hamas negotiations: "Passing messages between the two sides, I was able to learn firsthand that Mr. Jabari wasn’t just interested in a long-term cease-fire; he was also the person responsible for enforcing previous cease-fire understandings brokered by the Egyptian intelligence agency. Mr. Jabari enforced those cease-fires only after confirming that Israel was prepared to stop its attacks on Gaza. On the morning that he was killed, Mr. Jabari received a draft proposal for an extended cease-fire with Israel, including mechanisms that would verify intentions and ensure compliance. This draft was agreed upon by me and Hamas’s deputy foreign minister, Mr. Hamad, when we met last week in Egypt."
In other words, if Israel had really wanted a cease-fire agreement, they would have just waited for Jabari to sign the deal. Instead, they killed him.
Actually, Socrates knew exactly what he was doing. His students had bribed the guards and planned an escape for him, but instead he decided to sit around talking about how he didn't think death was all that bad, and drink the hemlock. According to Plato, Socrates' actual last words were: "Crito, I owe a rooster to Asclepius, will you remember to pay the debt?" (Benjamin Jowett translation)
Tesla doesn't solve the problem of cars. Tesla (or any other electric vehicle) moves the problem from the car to whatever is charging the batteries for those cars. That's sort of an improvement, because it means you could use non-carbon-emitting power sources to charge the battery, but it doesn't solve the problem.
The real solutions are going to require either: A. Technological breakthrough of some kind that allows for cheap renewable energy. This is mostly what the Department of Energy has been trying to do under Steven Chu, with not-great results. B. Everyone to significantly change their behavior to conserve carbon-emitting energy. This would require big changes like carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, public transit expansion, and other politically unpalatable options.
So currently my best bet is that we're boned, because the technological solution isn't happening and the other solutions won't happen until it's already too late.
My guess: 1. Somebody who legitimately has the keys put them on a cell phone or laptop. 2. Somebody else pwns that device (because it's not running a super-secure OS), sees the keys. 3. The person with access doesn't know he's been hacked, or doesn't want to admit it, so the rest of the organization doesn't get notified and can't change the keys. 4. Voila, easy access to FreeBSD's servers.
That's one of the standard techniques in getting around security: You target the relatively insecure partner with legitimate access to your real target.
And I want to point out that the only reason I brought up the burqa was not to suggest that they're right or wrong, but merely to point out that a lot of people incorrectly think that Western standards of obscenity are universal, when they definitely aren't.
Actually, they're not even universal within the US: What's totally acceptable at the Folsom Street Fair is completely unacceptable in Amish country.
Also 'we the people' was a public letter to a king.
Wrong document: The Declaration of Independence was the entire Continental Congress flipping off George III (which should be pointed out, came over a year after the fighting started). The Constitution (which starts of "We the People") was written 11 years later for the benefit of the then-bickering states.
The original idea behind free speech was that no one could prevent you from making a political statement.
Actually, it seems like the basic goal of the anti-Federalist faction (led by Thomas Jefferson, although James Madison was also involved) was to prevent a government from attempting to control thought. Of any kind. That's why freedom of religion, press, speech, and assembly go together: The idea is that a free person should be able to think what they will, believe what they will, and spread their ideas around by written word or speaking privately and publicly.
Then, by popular demand, free speech got cheesed out to mean "any public statement," whether relevant or not.
Who gets to decide what kind of statement qualifies as "relevant"?
In parts of the Middle East, a woman showing her hair is considered harlotry, while in parts of Polynesia a woman going topless is not. In some areas of sub-Saharan Africa, women going topless is ok, but showing her thighs is obscene. If you're operating globally, who's cultural norms do you use for censorship? Because about the only pictures of women that are universally acceptable would have everyone in burqas.
It gets even more complicated than that: Do you allow Eve topless, but not the Virgin Mary? Do you allow Venus de Milo or Michaelangelo's David, but not modern nude art? If you allow nude sculptures or paintings, do you censor nude photographs? If you allow nude photographs, what's the line between works of art and porn?
And mail services guarantee package delivery to the entire country usually (I'm not 100% sure how this works for the US with things like the republic of marshall islands or the like, which are sort of overseas independent dependencies of the US government, but not full blow territories like puerto rico).
The USPS will deliver absolutely everywhere - rural Alaska, overseas territories (they may work through the local territorial government to make that happen), Army and Navy posts abroad, you name it, they'll send it. FedEx and UPS actually pays them to handle deliveries to a lot of areas where it's not profitable to send a truck.
Everybody hates it and it costs us a ridiculous amount of money.
That ridiculous cost to us is ridiculous profits to somebody else. That somebody can in turn give to any politician who wishes to eliminate the TSA up to 2500 reasons per election cycle to change their mind.
Couldn't a Dictionary making company claim Prior Art?
Probably not: 1. This isn't a patent, it's a trademark. 2. Trademarks are allowed to be common names so long as the name doesn't directly relate to the product being sold. For instance, "apple" can be trademarked for computing equipment, but not for fruit.
However, if the name "Memory" appears in any book of common card games as an alternate name of the game "Concentration" prior to the introduction of Hasbro's "Memory", then they're likely to be in trouble.
Also keep in mind that if they were bothering to make statues or paintings of somebody, it's probably because they thought that the subject was attractive. Greek statuary was no more representative of the general population as the cover of Cosmopolitan would be representative of modern Americans.
If you compared the average American to a Greek citizen of 1000 BC, who would appear more physically fit?
The average Greek was likely to be half-starved, quite possibly ill without a good treatment available, if male was likely carrying a war wound or two, and was dead at 45.
The average American is somewhat overweight (which is bad, but not as bad as starving), is receiving proper medical care for any illnesses, is in generally ok health, and will die at somewhere around age 77.
Actually, I think Plato's writings are extremely instructive in this: 1. Athens was seen as the most educated and artistic city in Greece at the time. This makes sense: It was one of the dominent Greek states, and unlike its rival Sparta placed a high value on music, art, theater, and learning.
2. At the same time, most of the dialogues make it abundantly clear that Socrates thinks he's surrounded by idiots. In fact, the only people Socrates tends to credit with having the slight semblence of a clue are: philosophers, musicians, poets, craftsmen (but only about their crafts), and farmers (but only about their animals or crops). By contrast, he considers the politicians and intelligentsia (the sophists) to be mostly spewing lies and bogosity.
3. The Athenians voted to execute Socrates for 2 reasons: i. They didn't like the conclusions he was reaching, namely that they were idiots. ii. The accuser wanted to gain popular support so he could win political office. There were some charges involved, but Socrates spells out very clearly in the Apology that they were about as legitimate as the accusations in a Stalin show trial.
So if you use Socrates as your proof that ancient Greeks on average were smarter than modern people, you're wrong: He mostly proved that ancient Greeks were just like modern Americans: A few awesome geniuses, a lot of complete idiots. Also, as brilliant as much of the writings of some of the Greeks were, many Greek citizens were illiterate, which means those writings would have been completely inaccessible.
Are you saying (A) AGW is happening, but it's not a serious problem? If so, what is your standard for it becoming a serious problem?
(B) AGW is happening, it is a serious problem, but there's a better way to stop it than anything that's been proposed? If so, what's that proposal, and how does it solve the problem more effectively than anything mentioned?
(C) AGW is happening, it is a serious problem, but we shouldn't do anything about it? If so, what's your plan for dealing with the expected consequences of doing nothing?
Those are the legitimate (although probably incorrect) arguments. The next two are also very commonly the truth, but aren't so legitimate: (D) Ideologically, I find the proposals to deal with AGW distasteful, I'm not being personally affected by AGW up until now and believe I'm going to not be harmed by it in the future, and therefor the easiest thing for me to do is to pretend it's not a problem?
(E) I'm being paid to spread doubt about AGW? (Not all that likely, given your posting history)
In about 30 seconds with Google, I found: - an entire book on the subject - Greenpeace, for whatever their word is worth, claiming that the Koch brothers have donated over $61 million to the cause of denying global warming. - a 2007 article from Newsweek about it.
I could keep going, but the point is that this is a demonstrably incorrect counterargument (or the pro-global warming folks have some sort of massive conspiracy that they've been able to keep going for a couple of decades).
Slashdot Mirror
1. Before anyone makes any decisions about which proposals get accepted, have whoever initially got the submission hide the names of the presenters.
2. Rank proposals from 1..n on the factors that can be easily gleaned from the proposals: topic interest, qualifications of presenter, rigor, etc.
3. Now, put the names back on, and go through the list starting at the top to ensure that the actual people's resumes match up with how the proposals represented them and their work. Reject any that don't.
4. When you have enough to fill the conference, that's it, you're done.
The key is that you're making the subjective decisions without any indication of what color or gender somebody is. (Except that the presenter is not likely to be a hyper-intelligent shade of the color blue.)
Follow the jurisdiction you're in: For example, you can't do business from the US with Wikileaks, but have to allow business from the Ecuador with Wikileaks, that sort of thing.
I'm guessing you're laboring under the mistaken impression that there is any disagreement between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to civil liberties protections. There isn't: both major parties oppose civil liberties in the name of "national security".
I'm afraid unless Google and some other major corporations get involved very publicly this is a fait accompli.
You're underestimating how corrupt the US political system is.
Israel assassinated one of the leaders of Hamas
The man who was killed, Ahmed al-Jabari, wasn't just "one of the leaders of Hamas". According to Gershon Baskin, who was involved in Israeli-Hamas negotiations:
"Passing messages between the two sides, I was able to learn firsthand that Mr. Jabari wasn’t just interested in a long-term cease-fire; he was also the person responsible for enforcing previous cease-fire understandings brokered by the Egyptian intelligence agency. Mr. Jabari enforced those cease-fires only after confirming that Israel was prepared to stop its attacks on Gaza. On the morning that he was killed, Mr. Jabari received a draft proposal for an extended cease-fire with Israel, including mechanisms that would verify intentions and ensure compliance. This draft was agreed upon by me and Hamas’s deputy foreign minister, Mr. Hamad, when we met last week in Egypt."
In other words, if Israel had really wanted a cease-fire agreement, they would have just waited for Jabari to sign the deal. Instead, they killed him.
You can have it judge if someone is hostile or a combatant and only exercise the force required.
Yeah, what could possibly go wrong?
"Please put down your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply."
Actually, Socrates knew exactly what he was doing. His students had bribed the guards and planned an escape for him, but instead he decided to sit around talking about how he didn't think death was all that bad, and drink the hemlock. According to Plato, Socrates' actual last words were:
"Crito, I owe a rooster to Asclepius, will you remember to pay the debt?" (Benjamin Jowett translation)
Tesla doesn't solve the problem of cars. Tesla (or any other electric vehicle) moves the problem from the car to whatever is charging the batteries for those cars. That's sort of an improvement, because it means you could use non-carbon-emitting power sources to charge the battery, but it doesn't solve the problem.
The real solutions are going to require either:
A. Technological breakthrough of some kind that allows for cheap renewable energy. This is mostly what the Department of Energy has been trying to do under Steven Chu, with not-great results.
B. Everyone to significantly change their behavior to conserve carbon-emitting energy. This would require big changes like carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, public transit expansion, and other politically unpalatable options.
So currently my best bet is that we're boned, because the technological solution isn't happening and the other solutions won't happen until it's already too late.
You mean like these guys?
My guess:
1. Somebody who legitimately has the keys put them on a cell phone or laptop.
2. Somebody else pwns that device (because it's not running a super-secure OS), sees the keys.
3. The person with access doesn't know he's been hacked, or doesn't want to admit it, so the rest of the organization doesn't get notified and can't change the keys.
4. Voila, easy access to FreeBSD's servers.
That's one of the standard techniques in getting around security: You target the relatively insecure partner with legitimate access to your real target.
And I want to point out that the only reason I brought up the burqa was not to suggest that they're right or wrong, but merely to point out that a lot of people incorrectly think that Western standards of obscenity are universal, when they definitely aren't.
Actually, they're not even universal within the US: What's totally acceptable at the Folsom Street Fair is completely unacceptable in Amish country.
Also 'we the people' was a public letter to a king.
Wrong document: The Declaration of Independence was the entire Continental Congress flipping off George III (which should be pointed out, came over a year after the fighting started). The Constitution (which starts of "We the People") was written 11 years later for the benefit of the then-bickering states.
The original idea behind free speech was that no one could prevent you from making a political statement.
Actually, it seems like the basic goal of the anti-Federalist faction (led by Thomas Jefferson, although James Madison was also involved) was to prevent a government from attempting to control thought. Of any kind. That's why freedom of religion, press, speech, and assembly go together: The idea is that a free person should be able to think what they will, believe what they will, and spread their ideas around by written word or speaking privately and publicly.
Then, by popular demand, free speech got cheesed out to mean "any public statement," whether relevant or not.
Who gets to decide what kind of statement qualifies as "relevant"?
In parts of the Middle East, a woman showing her hair is considered harlotry, while in parts of Polynesia a woman going topless is not. In some areas of sub-Saharan Africa, women going topless is ok, but showing her thighs is obscene. If you're operating globally, who's cultural norms do you use for censorship? Because about the only pictures of women that are universally acceptable would have everyone in burqas.
It gets even more complicated than that: Do you allow Eve topless, but not the Virgin Mary? Do you allow Venus de Milo or Michaelangelo's David, but not modern nude art? If you allow nude sculptures or paintings, do you censor nude photographs? If you allow nude photographs, what's the line between works of art and porn?
You do know about the whole Henry VIII thing, right? The UK hasn't been Catholic for centuries.
And mail services guarantee package delivery to the entire country usually (I'm not 100% sure how this works for the US with things like the republic of marshall islands or the like, which are sort of overseas independent dependencies of the US government, but not full blow territories like puerto rico).
The USPS will deliver absolutely everywhere - rural Alaska, overseas territories (they may work through the local territorial government to make that happen), Army and Navy posts abroad, you name it, they'll send it. FedEx and UPS actually pays them to handle deliveries to a lot of areas where it's not profitable to send a truck.
Everybody hates it and it costs us a ridiculous amount of money.
That ridiculous cost to us is ridiculous profits to somebody else. That somebody can in turn give to any politician who wishes to eliminate the TSA up to 2500 reasons per election cycle to change their mind.
So you're saying you want spam, spam, spam, spam, tomato sauce, spam, spam, cheese, spam, spam, and crust?
Yo' momma's so fat that she was visible from 100 light years away!
Couldn't a Dictionary making company claim Prior Art?
Probably not:
1. This isn't a patent, it's a trademark.
2. Trademarks are allowed to be common names so long as the name doesn't directly relate to the product being sold. For instance, "apple" can be trademarked for computing equipment, but not for fruit.
However, if the name "Memory" appears in any book of common card games as an alternate name of the game "Concentration" prior to the introduction of Hasbro's "Memory", then they're likely to be in trouble.
Also keep in mind that if they were bothering to make statues or paintings of somebody, it's probably because they thought that the subject was attractive. Greek statuary was no more representative of the general population as the cover of Cosmopolitan would be representative of modern Americans.
If you compared the average American to a Greek citizen of 1000 BC, who would appear more physically fit?
The average Greek was likely to be half-starved, quite possibly ill without a good treatment available, if male was likely carrying a war wound or two, and was dead at 45.
The average American is somewhat overweight (which is bad, but not as bad as starving), is receiving proper medical care for any illnesses, is in generally ok health, and will die at somewhere around age 77.
Actually, I think Plato's writings are extremely instructive in this:
1. Athens was seen as the most educated and artistic city in Greece at the time. This makes sense: It was one of the dominent Greek states, and unlike its rival Sparta placed a high value on music, art, theater, and learning.
2. At the same time, most of the dialogues make it abundantly clear that Socrates thinks he's surrounded by idiots. In fact, the only people Socrates tends to credit with having the slight semblence of a clue are: philosophers, musicians, poets, craftsmen (but only about their crafts), and farmers (but only about their animals or crops). By contrast, he considers the politicians and intelligentsia (the sophists) to be mostly spewing lies and bogosity.
3. The Athenians voted to execute Socrates for 2 reasons: i. They didn't like the conclusions he was reaching, namely that they were idiots. ii. The accuser wanted to gain popular support so he could win political office. There were some charges involved, but Socrates spells out very clearly in the Apology that they were about as legitimate as the accusations in a Stalin show trial.
So if you use Socrates as your proof that ancient Greeks on average were smarter than modern people, you're wrong: He mostly proved that ancient Greeks were just like modern Americans: A few awesome geniuses, a lot of complete idiots. Also, as brilliant as much of the writings of some of the Greeks were, many Greek citizens were illiterate, which means those writings would have been completely inaccessible.
Are you saying
(A) AGW is happening, but it's not a serious problem? If so, what is your standard for it becoming a serious problem?
(B) AGW is happening, it is a serious problem, but there's a better way to stop it than anything that's been proposed? If so, what's that proposal, and how does it solve the problem more effectively than anything mentioned?
(C) AGW is happening, it is a serious problem, but we shouldn't do anything about it? If so, what's your plan for dealing with the expected consequences of doing nothing?
Those are the legitimate (although probably incorrect) arguments. The next two are also very commonly the truth, but aren't so legitimate:
(D) Ideologically, I find the proposals to deal with AGW distasteful, I'm not being personally affected by AGW up until now and believe I'm going to not be harmed by it in the future, and therefor the easiest thing for me to do is to pretend it's not a problem?
(E) I'm being paid to spread doubt about AGW? (Not all that likely, given your posting history)
In about 30 seconds with Google, I found:
- an entire book on the subject
- Greenpeace, for whatever their word is worth, claiming that the Koch brothers have donated over $61 million to the cause of denying global warming.
- a 2007 article from Newsweek about it.
I could keep going, but the point is that this is a demonstrably incorrect counterargument (or the pro-global warming folks have some sort of massive conspiracy that they've been able to keep going for a couple of decades).