I don't recall any proof that this server was completely without security or updates.
Exactly the prior poster's point.
To be honest, I could give a damn less if Clinton did a crappy job of email security.
I'm sure you don't give a damn about a lot of important things. So what? Here's the relevant matters. First, it looks like Clinton broke the US's laws on handling classified information multiple times, each time a felony. Second, there's a really good chance she created security holes which were exploited, which is what this thread is about. You might not care, but anyone who does care about the US's national security should be concerned at how sloppy she's been here.
Third, there's the matter of why she did that. Namely, that it appears she did so to evade laws that would have made her emails accessible to FOIA requests and archival by the federal government.
Seriously folks, why are we still bitching about email security? The choice is between Clinton and someone who would make the worst used car salesman blush. Trump has no redeemable qualities. He says one thing, then ten minutes later contradicts himself. Hell, most politicians keep the promises they make, or at least try. Trump doesn't even admit to what he said yesterday, or even admit that half the crap he shovels is utter unworkable nonsense, and he knows it.
Your concern would be more relevant, if Clinton didn't do the same thing and wasn't the same kind of beast. Trump just is just a bit more blatant about it. I wouldn't buy a used car from either Trump or Clinton, but at least Trump would be entertaining.
My view is that I'd take the complainers about Trump more seriously, if they were backing someone who wasn't crooked like a snake. But it's clearly an attempt at a lesser of two evils ploy. And like a lot of people, I just don't see that Clinton is the lesser of two evils.
Why schedule this free maintenance ASAP and not worry at all about being killed or having your face disfigured for no good reason?
If you're going to worry about a minuscule chance of harm, then you'll find something else to worry about even if you conduct the sacred rituals of the Recall. This is why we invented invisible sky gods. That way when something bad happens, it at least happens for a reason, no doubt good, and you no longer have to worry about it.
Ok, then what does having a higher standard of living create such problems? Sounds like you imply that a higher standard of living means that workers cost more?
Your viewpoint is fundamentally broken. Here's why.
Captialism requires growth because we are people.
Here, I imagine you are referring to end of life services and retirement which in many countries require an influx of new workers in order to sustain the system. But there's no reason to spend that much on that stuff. Further, most of those are extravagant promises made by parties which have nothing to do with capitalism. US Social Security or the Japanese postal savings system are not capitalist constructs.
By definition, in a capitalist system, value is extracted by the owners of capital who are not otherwise productive in creating value, other than by mere ownership of capital.
Well, you have to offer something in turn for the considerable value owners of capital bring. Mere ownership of capital is a big deal despite all the downplaying you do here. It allows the businesses and the jobs to exist in the first place.
Without growth, every person other than an owner of capital is in a permanent state of receiving less value than they contribute.
Again, your bias against owners of capital shows. Whether a society is growing or not, everyone should receive less value than they contribute! Because why would I borrow from an owner of capital or hire someone to do a job, if the cost of their capital or labor was more than the benefit I would receive from it?
Why, exactly, would a situation where non-owners receive less than the value they create, with no upward movement on that value, be acceptable forever?
Because those non-owners would receive much less than the value they could potentially create, if they weren't so gainfully employed. It doesn't matter who employs them, be it an owner of capital, society, or a worker commune. The would be workers, collectively, have to generate more value than their cost else the system can't be sustained.
I'ts not H1B, its not outsourcing, it's not even globalization. It's capitalism
No. It's a failed response to globalization. We'll see this in your next paragraph.
The secret about capitalism that people don't think about - it REQUIRES growth. As people/companies engage in "creative destruction" something must be built to compensate. But what if the economy isn't growing? what if it's just satiated? You still have the destruction, and you still have the cost-cutting. Do you want to have your cost cutting as H1Bs? Or as prison labor? or as call centers in India? it's all just symptoms of the same root need.
While it isn't true that capitalism requires growth, let's consider the problem at face value. You imply that there isn't growth and hence, capitalism is the problem. But why isn't there growth? "it's just satiated".
But do we have satiation? Is every need of humanity being met? Are we living as long and as healthy as we want to? Do we have all the stuff we want? Do we have the opportunities or the society we want? No, we don't. And thus, we have lots of room for growth, indicating that we are no where near being satiated.
Thus, it is not satiation which inhibits growth today.
Well, what else could it be? You mentioned H1-B, outsourcing, and globalization. Globalization brings up an important point. The world is growing rapidly in the economic sense. We're not in a regime at the global scale where capitalism would be a problem by your assumption about growth. The lack of growth is a local problem not a global one. The mention of H1-B and outsourcing is further confirmation that this is a US-centric problem not a global problem.
At this point, we should be asking why the US has such problems with lack of growth while other countries which also implement capitalism do not.
My view is that Uber's existence is sufficient justification for their existence.
By that logic, HIV's existence is sufficient justification for its existence and we should stop trying to find a way to cure it.
No, I wouldn't consider that "logic". You are ignoring context of my argument that is relevant. For example, HIV does not provide a service that large numbers of people choose to use every day.
Can you justify your own existence? What I find remarkable about babble like yours is how little understanding there is of consequences. No one has the understanding of society or reality to decide who "should" exist. It'll just create destruction obstructions to human progress by people too stupid and short sighted to create the sort of things, like Uber, which they are judging.
My view is that Uber's existence is sufficient justification for their existence.
It strikes me that a highly automated car which requires a human driver is the worst of both worlds. It inherits the foibles of the human driver; puts them in a situation where they will be guaranteed to be bored, inattentive, and in the long run poorly skilled; has them act only at the worst possible times when the automated system gives up; and probably will make the driver financially liable for the result.
Sure, a human driver can benefit from a higher degree of automated support. But my view is that either the driver should be highly engaged or not at all. There is no middle ground here.
The car in front of you tells your car where the ice is. I might not buy all the arguments that the self-driving car advocates dish out, but some of them stick.
Like I pointed out-- IR cameras detect the radio opacity of the surface they are trained on. Ice and liquid water both absorb IR light. The camera will not be enough to tell the car that there is ice, instead of water.
Even if we were to assume your claim is true, and it is not, you still have the matter of the human eye not being any better at the task.
Granted, for safety, a wet surface should not be driven faster than, IIRC, 35mph due to hydroplaning. The reality is that occupants will complain mightily about their autonomous vehicle driving that slow because it sprinkled a little, and the car is unlikely to observe such a restraint as a consequence.
Because exposing the manufacture to huge liability is better than customer complaints? Not feeling it.
Without other data telling it that the opaque road surface is from ice instead of rain, or slush, the vehicle will think the road is wet, not icy. Being alert when the car is barreling down the road unaware of the hazard, and telling the car "hey, slow down, there is ice!" is a good safety check for the autonomous system. it doesnt mean you have to drive for it, it just makes the drive safer because the car has another system (the occupant) to help it make driving decisions.
The occupant still has to be relevant in order for this to matter. You still have yet to explain how an observant human (who let us note, wouldn't really be that observant due to the lack of engagement and the lack of useful sensory apparatus) is going to be any improvement over the examples of humans having sex. Throwing on another system to help make driving decisions doesn't necessarily lead to an improvement in safety.
I imagine some wealthy fuck and his floozy fucking on the way to a hotel for "business trip" on an iced up road, colliding with the center partition doing 75mph, with all the trimmings.
Because automated cars driving 75 MPH on ice will be a thing. And drivers who are alert, rather than fucking their floozy are going to be relevant. If you're going to automate driving to the point that the human sitting behind the wheel isn't actually doing anything except in rare situations, then I don't see the point of having the human in the loop.
You know like me making that mistake of having depression in college which meant I did poorly. Years later I had the stupid idea that maybe if I kick ass in premed that I could get into med school. Yup, the fact I had a 3.95 in premed course work (Lowest grade was a B+ in English. Yes I took calc based physics, I wanted a challenge.) and a 33 on my MCAT (lowest score was a 10 in verbal) didn't get around the fact my 10+ year old undergrad grades were low. (I was stupid to believe that lady from admissions at the near by medical school when she told us they tended to focus on the more recent stuff.)
Yes, this is why people don't want to show any failure.
So how many times did you try for med school again? This is called "making excuses".
A record lack of hurricanes is just as extreme as a record number of them. I didn't ignore this, I highlighted it.
As I said earlier, this is confirmation bias. And since such a viewpoint can never be falsified (since everything is extreme weather with the right contortion of thought and statistics),it's profoundly unscientific. Real scientists at least make predictions that can be tested.
I'm sorry but all I can say is your reading comprehension is poor here. I indicated we would likely see this activity at some point in the future, eventually. Indicating we don't see this now and pointed out why it would take time is merely consistent with my remark and not with me ignoring anything.
And I explained what was wrong with that indication. Just say "thank you" and think about something else.
The fire creates hot air which rises out the chimney, pulling more air from within the room faster than I am able to heat that air from the original source. The fire generates a glow of heat in it's immediate vicinity but it isn't enough to offset the heat it pulls from the house and across the rest of the house the temperature drops to a record low for that time period.
It's not a good analogue because the outside and the rest of the house are being heated as well in the global warming scenario. And there was a huge draft up that chimney even before you lit the fire. Sure, it could be that the house is overall cooler than it would otherwise be, but that's not a given. You have to show it would happen, no merely assume it.
You seem to be pushing an denial agenda. I'm not pushing any agenda. The warming trend itself is well documented over time in historical records. The disputed portions are in the cause, whether it will accelerate going forward, and what exactly the result will be. I'm not taking a position on any of those things, simply pointing out there have been weather extremes, hot, cold, storms, drought, and even lack of storms where we normally expect them.
Did I claim you were pushing a denialist agenda? This is what confirmation bias looks like. I "seem" a denialist because you're looking for any excuse to ignore good argument. Just because there is a warming trend or even an extreme weather trend (which needs more evidence to establish BTW), doesn't mean that there is more extreme cold.
And there are long tails to extreme weather events, including extreme cold. We would expect to see those weather extremes you mention even in the absence of a significant global warming effect.
Second, point 1) is completely irrelevant. We're not going to be more or less likely a simulation if 1) is true or false.
Wrong. You clearly don't even understand what Bostrom means by "posthuman", or you wouldn't make such a ridiculous objection.
I already explained my position. The assertion of point 1) is completely irrelevant. And Bostrom's idea of "posthuman" is just not that relevant either. I think I have a pretty good idea that someone who can make Dyson spheres merely for computation (which incidentally is a rather strong assumption about the physics of said world simulating us, don't you think?) is not just a Cheetos-stained code monkey with a bigger computer.
This also conflates probabilities of events inside our universe with things that are not in our universe. It's another not even wrong thing.
Your objections about inside/outside are complete nonsense.
I already gave my argument. Think about it this time instead of making monkey noises. My statement which you quote is fact. This is exactly what Bostrum did. And thus, he conflates something which is knowable with something which is not. Not even wrong.
And third, note that the author conflates "ancestor simulations" with "living in a simulation".
There is no difference.
I already explained why your rebuttal is wrong. One can simulate physics that is radically different than whatever their ancestors experienced and hence, is a simulation which is not an ancestor simulation. Come on, you have a brain. Use it rather than wasting my time with this unthinking crap.
It seems, heh, "likely" that anything with the computing power to simulate ancestors would also have the computing power to simulate alien universes with alien physics and alien lifeforms.
Yes, and your point is? The point of the proof was to argue how likely it is that we, in our universe, are a simulation. Alien universe simulations aren't relevant.
My point is that this is another example of why the overall argument is terrible. For example, going back to that notorious argument 1), it means that we might be in a universe simulation with radically different difficulties for being posthuman than the universe which simulated us. This once again illustrates the huge flaw with conflating probabilities inside our universe with probabilities outside our universe.
Also this quote of mine outlines a simulation which is not an ancestor simulation and happened to address your prior concern.
Further, how many times are we being simulated? For all we know, there may be an infinite number of current overlapping simulations of our reality or the simulation(s) might have stopped eons ago and we aren't currently being simulated. There is so much which is not even wrong when you start from a position of zero knowledge.
On a global scale sure there is more heat, on a local scale, this absolutely could result in colder temps.
Not everywhere. The local scale cooling has a reason, such as disruption of the Gulf Stream, to explain it. Not some vague catch-all "there's more energy in the system".
More heat that builds more quickly can form a current in air or water that more efficiently siphons that heat away from adjacent areas.
The thing is, you still are starting from a warmer Earth. I still think that means fewer not more cool weather extremes.
These alleged siphons of heat would also radiate that heat more efficiently to space. When will these be accounted for in temperature forcing models?
There is an interesting cognitive dissonance deployed here probably for propaganda purposes. Somehow we have a cooling mechanism which can selectively explain cool weather extremes without impacting on the aggressive (and so far unmatched by reality) predictions of the heating effects of CO2.
Constitutional Conventions are inherently flexible, thus if the PM decides to do something like Prorogue Parliament earlier then he should do by convention, specifically to prevent the Opposition from firing him, the Governor General [wikipedia.org] doesn't have to rule that he can't do that shit.
The Canadian constitution doesn't give the PM that power, but rather to the Governor General. It is convention which effective gives the PM the power to prorogue the Parliament via "advisement". And what happens when a PM abuses that power like Harper did in 2008 and 2009? And glancing at the above Wikipedia page, I notice a court did indeed have to rule that someone couldn't interfere with the PM's "advice".
However, the Federal Court of Canada, in a 2009 ruling, found that tampering with the Crown's prerogatives could not be done via normal legislation, requiring instead an amendment to the constitution pursuant to Section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Interestingly enough, most countries have Court systems that are much more powerful then the Canadian. Typically Prosecutors will be ensconced in the Judicial branch, it's not unusual that whether a given official is the Prosecutor or the Judge in a case is luck of the draw, and rather then lengthy arguments about standing before any hearing on an interesting topic they'll just have the damn hearing. Which can be quicker then having months of hearings on standing, then appeals of those hearings, appeals of the appeals, etc.
As for how well the system works, it works quite well in America. We like legalistic bullshit. We really like that, since the Judiciary is too weak to change most rules (and refuses to change the rules it can change), the system is game-able. Other countries that try similar systems tend to collapse. Which is why nobody has a Judicial system like ours.
What is bizarre here is your insistence this is somehow different than other countries. I have given examples both of gaming of the judicial system in Canada and a case where a Canadian court had to rule on the legality of interfering with a legal convention. Further, not having a multi-century old constitution is not a strength. I bet there will be several constitutions that get recycled over the next half century due to having become unworkable, France, Italy, and the EU come to mind as likely candidates.
What is the problem with the US is the laws not how the courts rule on them. It wouldn't be any different anywhere else. When they create the same laws that they will reap the same problems.
Well the stripping of headers might have been a legitimate way of anonymizing the information for unsecured communication.
I guess we'll hear from the FBI one way or another what their opinion of that activity's legality is.
As for the rest you've now got a lot more felons than Clinton because numerous people were either directly aware, or at least had a pretty good idea, and didn't really care. Most of the classified stuff wasn't even sent by her, why don't you want those people prosecuted as well? Or does the crime seem less serious when you realize you'd need to arrest half the state department.
I don't have a problem with arresting and punishing a bunch of people who broke the law. Funny, how it suddenly becomes about them rather than about Clinton who is enabling all this.
Remember the Bush email controversy? You really think there wasn't a ton of classified information that got sent over the RNC servers? If they actually recovered the emails and found classified info do you think they should have convicted dozens of people from the Bush White House of a felony?
Well, show these crimes occurred then. Don't just claim without facts that they did. And if they did occur, sure, try and convict them. Funny how you suddenly want a bunch of Bush criminals to walk just because Clinton might be subject to the same laws as them.
But not worth more than it was. So you agree 100%, but in the most disagreeable way possible. What a prick.
Well, I don't know that. What I do know is that the January 10, 2000 price would not have lasted even three months due to the subsequent dot com burst which started two months later. Time Warner bought AOL at an all time high, making it one of the biggest scores for a dot com company and not coincidentally one of the dumbest moves by an established company during that time.
My view is that a stock rising on an announcement is an indicator that the market consensus is that share holders in that business will do well. A stock falling is market consensus to the contrary. The AOL-Time Warner situation indicated that AOL's side was advantageous. That plus the easily foreseen future collapse of AOL's stock price meant that AOL made an incredible deal at the expense of Time Warner shareholders. AOL who instigated this merger did amazingly well which what you'd want with a merger.
But now look at the HP-Compaq merger. First, we have the negative indicator that both stocks dropped in price on the merger. Second, we took the Compaq server and PC business which has been alleged in this thread as the driver for the merger from the more successful competitor and gave it to the worse one. A collapse in combined market share followed which I don't think was coincidence.
It's worth noting too that a lot of acrimony and further dumbing down of the HP board of directors happened during this time with the eventual departure of the Hewlett and Packard family representatives in protest of the merger which I think goes a long way to explaining the subsequent series of really dumb decisions by the board (who had lost the last people with a long term interest in the company).
In summary, not many people benefited from the HP-Compaq merger. The person at the top of that short list was Carly Fiorina. Then some bankers handling te merger. That's probably most of the beneficiaries right there.While in the case of the AOL-Time Warner merger, we can point to the entire AOL side doing really well as a result of the merger.
Can you tell me the value of $10,000 of AOL stock held at opening on January 10, 2000 would be worth today? Given the dot-com bust, I'd assume that it's worth less now than before.
My view is that this was one of the biggest scores of the dot comm era. AOL got a huge company with a real balance sheet to massively dilute its shares with AOL stock. As a result, $10,000 of AOL stock is worth a lot more now than it would have been.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't recall any proof that this server was completely without security or updates.
Exactly the prior poster's point.
To be honest, I could give a damn less if Clinton did a crappy job of email security.
I'm sure you don't give a damn about a lot of important things. So what? Here's the relevant matters. First, it looks like Clinton broke the US's laws on handling classified information multiple times, each time a felony. Second, there's a really good chance she created security holes which were exploited, which is what this thread is about. You might not care, but anyone who does care about the US's national security should be concerned at how sloppy she's been here.
Third, there's the matter of why she did that. Namely, that it appears she did so to evade laws that would have made her emails accessible to FOIA requests and archival by the federal government.
Seriously folks, why are we still bitching about email security? The choice is between Clinton and someone who would make the worst used car salesman blush. Trump has no redeemable qualities. He says one thing, then ten minutes later contradicts himself. Hell, most politicians keep the promises they make, or at least try. Trump doesn't even admit to what he said yesterday, or even admit that half the crap he shovels is utter unworkable nonsense, and he knows it.
Your concern would be more relevant, if Clinton didn't do the same thing and wasn't the same kind of beast. Trump just is just a bit more blatant about it. I wouldn't buy a used car from either Trump or Clinton, but at least Trump would be entertaining.
My view is that I'd take the complainers about Trump more seriously, if they were backing someone who wasn't crooked like a snake. But it's clearly an attempt at a lesser of two evils ploy. And like a lot of people, I just don't see that Clinton is the lesser of two evils.
It's better to save a dozen lives than have an airbag manufacturer.
Why schedule this free maintenance ASAP and not worry at all about being killed or having your face disfigured for no good reason?
If you're going to worry about a minuscule chance of harm, then you'll find something else to worry about even if you conduct the sacred rituals of the Recall. This is why we invented invisible sky gods. That way when something bad happens, it at least happens for a reason, no doubt good, and you no longer have to worry about it.
Ok, then what does having a higher standard of living create such problems? Sounds like you imply that a higher standard of living means that workers cost more?
Captialism requires growth because we are people.
Here, I imagine you are referring to end of life services and retirement which in many countries require an influx of new workers in order to sustain the system. But there's no reason to spend that much on that stuff. Further, most of those are extravagant promises made by parties which have nothing to do with capitalism. US Social Security or the Japanese postal savings system are not capitalist constructs.
By definition, in a capitalist system, value is extracted by the owners of capital who are not otherwise productive in creating value, other than by mere ownership of capital.
Well, you have to offer something in turn for the considerable value owners of capital bring. Mere ownership of capital is a big deal despite all the downplaying you do here. It allows the businesses and the jobs to exist in the first place.
Without growth, every person other than an owner of capital is in a permanent state of receiving less value than they contribute.
Again, your bias against owners of capital shows. Whether a society is growing or not, everyone should receive less value than they contribute! Because why would I borrow from an owner of capital or hire someone to do a job, if the cost of their capital or labor was more than the benefit I would receive from it?
Why, exactly, would a situation where non-owners receive less than the value they create, with no upward movement on that value, be acceptable forever?
Because those non-owners would receive much less than the value they could potentially create, if they weren't so gainfully employed. It doesn't matter who employs them, be it an owner of capital, society, or a worker commune. The would be workers, collectively, have to generate more value than their cost else the system can't be sustained.
I'ts not H1B, its not outsourcing, it's not even globalization. It's capitalism
No. It's a failed response to globalization. We'll see this in your next paragraph.
The secret about capitalism that people don't think about - it REQUIRES growth. As people/companies engage in "creative destruction" something must be built to compensate. But what if the economy isn't growing? what if it's just satiated? You still have the destruction, and you still have the cost-cutting. Do you want to have your cost cutting as H1Bs? Or as prison labor? or as call centers in India? it's all just symptoms of the same root need.
While it isn't true that capitalism requires growth, let's consider the problem at face value. You imply that there isn't growth and hence, capitalism is the problem. But why isn't there growth? "it's just satiated".
But do we have satiation? Is every need of humanity being met? Are we living as long and as healthy as we want to? Do we have all the stuff we want? Do we have the opportunities or the society we want? No, we don't. And thus, we have lots of room for growth, indicating that we are no where near being satiated.
Thus, it is not satiation which inhibits growth today.
Well, what else could it be? You mentioned H1-B, outsourcing, and globalization. Globalization brings up an important point. The world is growing rapidly in the economic sense. We're not in a regime at the global scale where capitalism would be a problem by your assumption about growth. The lack of growth is a local problem not a global one. The mention of H1-B and outsourcing is further confirmation that this is a US-centric problem not a global problem.
At this point, we should be asking why the US has such problems with lack of growth while other countries which also implement capitalism do not.
Half a percent per 100 miles is really low.
My view is that Uber's existence is sufficient justification for their existence.
By that logic, HIV's existence is sufficient justification for its existence and we should stop trying to find a way to cure it.
No, I wouldn't consider that "logic". You are ignoring context of my argument that is relevant. For example, HIV does not provide a service that large numbers of people choose to use every day.
I guess it all depends on whether you care if stupid and short sighted people are obstructing progress. I happen to care.
I'll tell it to the buggy whip industry too. Customers are not there for your convenience!
Can anyone justify Uber's existence?
Can you justify your own existence? What I find remarkable about babble like yours is how little understanding there is of consequences. No one has the understanding of society or reality to decide who "should" exist. It'll just create destruction obstructions to human progress by people too stupid and short sighted to create the sort of things, like Uber, which they are judging.
My view is that Uber's existence is sufficient justification for their existence.
when the whole point of Uber is to be flexible for drivers.
It's not. And no matter how flexible you might want to be for drivers, passengers are not out there at the convenience of the driver.
It strikes me that a highly automated car which requires a human driver is the worst of both worlds. It inherits the foibles of the human driver; puts them in a situation where they will be guaranteed to be bored, inattentive, and in the long run poorly skilled; has them act only at the worst possible times when the automated system gives up; and probably will make the driver financially liable for the result.
Sure, a human driver can benefit from a higher degree of automated support. But my view is that either the driver should be highly engaged or not at all. There is no middle ground here.
The car in front of you tells your car where the ice is. I might not buy all the arguments that the self-driving car advocates dish out, but some of them stick.
Like I pointed out-- IR cameras detect the radio opacity of the surface they are trained on. Ice and liquid water both absorb IR light. The camera will not be enough to tell the car that there is ice, instead of water.
Even if we were to assume your claim is true, and it is not, you still have the matter of the human eye not being any better at the task.
Granted, for safety, a wet surface should not be driven faster than, IIRC, 35mph due to hydroplaning. The reality is that occupants will complain mightily about their autonomous vehicle driving that slow because it sprinkled a little, and the car is unlikely to observe such a restraint as a consequence.
Because exposing the manufacture to huge liability is better than customer complaints? Not feeling it.
Without other data telling it that the opaque road surface is from ice instead of rain, or slush, the vehicle will think the road is wet, not icy. Being alert when the car is barreling down the road unaware of the hazard, and telling the car "hey, slow down, there is ice!" is a good safety check for the autonomous system. it doesnt mean you have to drive for it, it just makes the drive safer because the car has another system (the occupant) to help it make driving decisions.
The occupant still has to be relevant in order for this to matter. You still have yet to explain how an observant human (who let us note, wouldn't really be that observant due to the lack of engagement and the lack of useful sensory apparatus) is going to be any improvement over the examples of humans having sex. Throwing on another system to help make driving decisions doesn't necessarily lead to an improvement in safety.
I imagine some wealthy fuck and his floozy fucking on the way to a hotel for "business trip" on an iced up road, colliding with the center partition doing 75mph, with all the trimmings.
Because automated cars driving 75 MPH on ice will be a thing. And drivers who are alert, rather than fucking their floozy are going to be relevant. If you're going to automate driving to the point that the human sitting behind the wheel isn't actually doing anything except in rare situations, then I don't see the point of having the human in the loop.
You know like me making that mistake of having depression in college which meant I did poorly. Years later I had the stupid idea that maybe if I kick ass in premed that I could get into med school. Yup, the fact I had a 3.95 in premed course work (Lowest grade was a B+ in English. Yes I took calc based physics, I wanted a challenge.) and a 33 on my MCAT (lowest score was a 10 in verbal) didn't get around the fact my 10+ year old undergrad grades were low. (I was stupid to believe that lady from admissions at the near by medical school when she told us they tended to focus on the more recent stuff.)
Yes, this is why people don't want to show any failure.
So how many times did you try for med school again? This is called "making excuses".
A record lack of hurricanes is just as extreme as a record number of them. I didn't ignore this, I highlighted it.
As I said earlier, this is confirmation bias. And since such a viewpoint can never be falsified (since everything is extreme weather with the right contortion of thought and statistics) ,it's profoundly unscientific. Real scientists at least make predictions that can be tested.
I'm sorry but all I can say is your reading comprehension is poor here. I indicated we would likely see this activity at some point in the future, eventually. Indicating we don't see this now and pointed out why it would take time is merely consistent with my remark and not with me ignoring anything.
And I explained what was wrong with that indication. Just say "thank you" and think about something else.
The fire creates hot air which rises out the chimney, pulling more air from within the room faster than I am able to heat that air from the original source. The fire generates a glow of heat in it's immediate vicinity but it isn't enough to offset the heat it pulls from the house and across the rest of the house the temperature drops to a record low for that time period.
It's not a good analogue because the outside and the rest of the house are being heated as well in the global warming scenario. And there was a huge draft up that chimney even before you lit the fire. Sure, it could be that the house is overall cooler than it would otherwise be, but that's not a given. You have to show it would happen, no merely assume it.
You seem to be pushing an denial agenda. I'm not pushing any agenda. The warming trend itself is well documented over time in historical records. The disputed portions are in the cause, whether it will accelerate going forward, and what exactly the result will be. I'm not taking a position on any of those things, simply pointing out there have been weather extremes, hot, cold, storms, drought, and even lack of storms where we normally expect them.
Did I claim you were pushing a denialist agenda? This is what confirmation bias looks like. I "seem" a denialist because you're looking for any excuse to ignore good argument. Just because there is a warming trend or even an extreme weather trend (which needs more evidence to establish BTW), doesn't mean that there is more extreme cold.
And there are long tails to extreme weather events, including extreme cold. We would expect to see those weather extremes you mention even in the absence of a significant global warming effect.
Second, point 1) is completely irrelevant. We're not going to be more or less likely a simulation if 1) is true or false.
Wrong. You clearly don't even understand what Bostrom means by "posthuman", or you wouldn't make such a ridiculous objection.
I already explained my position. The assertion of point 1) is completely irrelevant. And Bostrom's idea of "posthuman" is just not that relevant either. I think I have a pretty good idea that someone who can make Dyson spheres merely for computation (which incidentally is a rather strong assumption about the physics of said world simulating us, don't you think?) is not just a Cheetos-stained code monkey with a bigger computer.
This also conflates probabilities of events inside our universe with things that are not in our universe. It's another not even wrong thing.
Your objections about inside/outside are complete nonsense.
I already gave my argument. Think about it this time instead of making monkey noises. My statement which you quote is fact. This is exactly what Bostrum did. And thus, he conflates something which is knowable with something which is not. Not even wrong.
And third, note that the author conflates "ancestor simulations" with "living in a simulation".
There is no difference.
I already explained why your rebuttal is wrong. One can simulate physics that is radically different than whatever their ancestors experienced and hence, is a simulation which is not an ancestor simulation. Come on, you have a brain. Use it rather than wasting my time with this unthinking crap.
It seems, heh, "likely" that anything with the computing power to simulate ancestors would also have the computing power to simulate alien universes with alien physics and alien lifeforms.
Yes, and your point is? The point of the proof was to argue how likely it is that we, in our universe, are a simulation. Alien universe simulations aren't relevant.
My point is that this is another example of why the overall argument is terrible. For example, going back to that notorious argument 1), it means that we might be in a universe simulation with radically different difficulties for being posthuman than the universe which simulated us. This once again illustrates the huge flaw with conflating probabilities inside our universe with probabilities outside our universe.
Also this quote of mine outlines a simulation which is not an ancestor simulation and happened to address your prior concern.
Further, how many times are we being simulated? For all we know, there may be an infinite number of current overlapping simulations of our reality or the simulation(s) might have stopped eons ago and we aren't currently being simulated. There is so much which is not even wrong when you start from a position of zero knowledge.
On a global scale sure there is more heat, on a local scale, this absolutely could result in colder temps.
Not everywhere. The local scale cooling has a reason, such as disruption of the Gulf Stream, to explain it. Not some vague catch-all "there's more energy in the system".
More heat that builds more quickly can form a current in air or water that more efficiently siphons that heat away from adjacent areas.
The thing is, you still are starting from a warmer Earth. I still think that means fewer not more cool weather extremes.
These alleged siphons of heat would also radiate that heat more efficiently to space. When will these be accounted for in temperature forcing models?
There is an interesting cognitive dissonance deployed here probably for propaganda purposes. Somehow we have a cooling mechanism which can selectively explain cool weather extremes without impacting on the aggressive (and so far unmatched by reality) predictions of the heating effects of CO2.
Constitutional Conventions are inherently flexible, thus if the PM decides to do something like Prorogue Parliament earlier then he should do by convention, specifically to prevent the Opposition from firing him, the Governor General [wikipedia.org] doesn't have to rule that he can't do that shit.
The Canadian constitution doesn't give the PM that power, but rather to the Governor General. It is convention which effective gives the PM the power to prorogue the Parliament via "advisement". And what happens when a PM abuses that power like Harper did in 2008 and 2009? And glancing at the above Wikipedia page, I notice a court did indeed have to rule that someone couldn't interfere with the PM's "advice".
However, the Federal Court of Canada, in a 2009 ruling, found that tampering with the Crown's prerogatives could not be done via normal legislation, requiring instead an amendment to the constitution pursuant to Section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Interestingly enough, most countries have Court systems that are much more powerful then the Canadian. Typically Prosecutors will be ensconced in the Judicial branch, it's not unusual that whether a given official is the Prosecutor or the Judge in a case is luck of the draw, and rather then lengthy arguments about standing before any hearing on an interesting topic they'll just have the damn hearing. Which can be quicker then having months of hearings on standing, then appeals of those hearings, appeals of the appeals, etc.
As for how well the system works, it works quite well in America. We like legalistic bullshit. We really like that, since the Judiciary is too weak to change most rules (and refuses to change the rules it can change), the system is game-able. Other countries that try similar systems tend to collapse. Which is why nobody has a Judicial system like ours.
What is bizarre here is your insistence this is somehow different than other countries. I have given examples both of gaming of the judicial system in Canada and a case where a Canadian court had to rule on the legality of interfering with a legal convention. Further, not having a multi-century old constitution is not a strength. I bet there will be several constitutions that get recycled over the next half century due to having become unworkable, France, Italy, and the EU come to mind as likely candidates.
What is the problem with the US is the laws not how the courts rule on them. It wouldn't be any different anywhere else. When they create the same laws that they will reap the same problems.
Well the stripping of headers might have been a legitimate way of anonymizing the information for unsecured communication.
I guess we'll hear from the FBI one way or another what their opinion of that activity's legality is.
As for the rest you've now got a lot more felons than Clinton because numerous people were either directly aware, or at least had a pretty good idea, and didn't really care. Most of the classified stuff wasn't even sent by her, why don't you want those people prosecuted as well? Or does the crime seem less serious when you realize you'd need to arrest half the state department.
I don't have a problem with arresting and punishing a bunch of people who broke the law. Funny, how it suddenly becomes about them rather than about Clinton who is enabling all this.
Remember the Bush email controversy? You really think there wasn't a ton of classified information that got sent over the RNC servers? If they actually recovered the emails and found classified info do you think they should have convicted dozens of people from the Bush White House of a felony?
Well, show these crimes occurred then. Don't just claim without facts that they did. And if they did occur, sure, try and convict them. Funny how you suddenly want a bunch of Bush criminals to walk just because Clinton might be subject to the same laws as them.
But not worth more than it was. So you agree 100%, but in the most disagreeable way possible. What a prick.
Well, I don't know that. What I do know is that the January 10, 2000 price would not have lasted even three months due to the subsequent dot com burst which started two months later. Time Warner bought AOL at an all time high, making it one of the biggest scores for a dot com company and not coincidentally one of the dumbest moves by an established company during that time.
My view is that a stock rising on an announcement is an indicator that the market consensus is that share holders in that business will do well. A stock falling is market consensus to the contrary. The AOL-Time Warner situation indicated that AOL's side was advantageous. That plus the easily foreseen future collapse of AOL's stock price meant that AOL made an incredible deal at the expense of Time Warner shareholders. AOL who instigated this merger did amazingly well which what you'd want with a merger.
But now look at the HP-Compaq merger. First, we have the negative indicator that both stocks dropped in price on the merger. Second, we took the Compaq server and PC business which has been alleged in this thread as the driver for the merger from the more successful competitor and gave it to the worse one. A collapse in combined market share followed which I don't think was coincidence.
It's worth noting too that a lot of acrimony and further dumbing down of the HP board of directors happened during this time with the eventual departure of the Hewlett and Packard family representatives in protest of the merger which I think goes a long way to explaining the subsequent series of really dumb decisions by the board (who had lost the last people with a long term interest in the company).
In summary, not many people benefited from the HP-Compaq merger. The person at the top of that short list was Carly Fiorina. Then some bankers handling te merger. That's probably most of the beneficiaries right there.While in the case of the AOL-Time Warner merger, we can point to the entire AOL side doing really well as a result of the merger.
Can you tell me the value of $10,000 of AOL stock held at opening on January 10, 2000 would be worth today? Given the dot-com bust, I'd assume that it's worth less now than before.
My view is that this was one of the biggest scores of the dot comm era. AOL got a huge company with a real balance sheet to massively dilute its shares with AOL stock. As a result, $10,000 of AOL stock is worth a lot more now than it would have been.