Ah, but Google is not shutting down. Google is simply discontinuing a service that is costing them very little in the way of resources but which, by its discontinuance, is breaking a contract they made with their customers. And most likely the only reason they are doing this is to eliminate the redundancy with YouTube.
Here we go again, wielding the language of Shakespeare with all the delicate sensitivity and purpose of a surgeon wielding a cosh.
While I feel your pain (or at least that inflicted by yonder blunt-force surgeon), I have to toss in one little warning: if you're going to drop a name in a spelling flame, it would be best not to cite a fellow who couldn't decide how to render his own last name. Was Shakespeare the master of the English language? Yes. Was he a master of regular orthography? Hell, no.
The ice core data argues strongly against historical CO2 fluctuations having any causal effect on temperature change. Furthermore, the "global warming" data does not show "global" warming, it shows significant warming in mountainous regions of Alaska, Western Canada, and Russia, and no trends elsewhere, consistent with small increases in insolation (which is further confirmed by warming on other planets).
So, are you saying that we have 1000-year temperature trend data for other planets? That's what your progress from ice core data to extraterrestrial insolation data implies.
We send a person to walk around on the moon, but it's impossible to shoot down a missile? Tell me another one.
No, it's simply impossible, with current technology, or anything we are likely to develop in the near future, to reliably shoot down a high enough percentage of incoming MIRVs on polar trajectories to make a massive nuclear attack survivable without an unworkable ratio of interceptors to targets. You see, a missile is what we call rather small (a few dozen meters in length, a few meters in diameter) and moves very, very fast and very, very unpredictably, while the moon is what we call very, very big (3.5 million meters across), and while it is also very, very fast, it's movement is also very, very predictable.
Objectivity on climate change is not an instance of it.
"Objectivity is whatever I say it is!"
That and Doom-Through-Impending-CO2-Poisoning are examples of people, whether politicians or scientists, trying to gain political advantage through bastardized science.
Not CO2 poisoning, but "greenhouse effect" warming: our ideas about global climate change are largely informed by our studies of the Venusian atmosphere in the 1960s, and global warming was predicted long before evidence of temperature increases were actually measured (just as the depletion of the ozone layer was predicted long before the Antarctic ozone hole was discovered). The funny thing is that all the arguments against global climate change appear to be coming from a specific ideological position, while many of the arguments in favor of global climate change are coming from different ideological positions (and the "science" in opposition is mostly a matter of saving the phenomena, i.e., multiplying entities in an attempt to find benign explanations for observed phenomena, and attacking opposing positions not on their science, but on their supposed ideological motivations; the only rational argument I've seen against global climate change is the questioning of the "hockey stick" graph, and that merely holds force against predictions of the rate of climate change, not its existence).
No, this is NOT a good thing. The litmus test is clearly ideological, so the end result is that the "science" recommendations will always be tilted to the ideology. Substitute out "science" and put in "intelligence" and you have the situation that led to the Bush Administration's expectation that Iraqis would welcome our forces with roses in the streets and the idea that the mission was "accomplished" in 2003.
Wikipedia has three layers. At the very bottom layer, there is a copy of the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Layered over that is Nupedia, the first iteration of the Wikipedia concept, which was an expert-authored (but not peer reviewed) online encyclopedia. Layered over THAT is the Wikipedia itself, largely inspired by GNUpedia and originally intended as a draft factory for Nupedia, that triumph of the wisdom of crowds - where, as ejito has pointed out, a lot of the material is cited directly from the Encyclopedia Britannica.
A common semi-myth about the ARPANET states that it was designed to be resistant to nuclear attack. The Internet Society writes about the merger of technical ideas that produced the ARPANET in A Brief History of the Internet, and states in a note:
It was from the RAND study that the false rumor started claiming that the ARPANET was somehow related to building a network resistant to nuclear war. This was never true of the ARPANET, only the unrelated (sic) RAND study on secure voice considered nuclear war. However, the later work on Internetting did emphasize robustness and survivability, including the capability to withstand losses of large portions of the underlying networks.
The ARPANET was designed to survive network losses, but the main reason was actually that the switching nodes and network links were not highly reliable, even without any nuclear attacks. Charles Herzfeld, ARPA director from 1965 to 1967, speaks about limited computer resources helping to spur ARPANET's creation:
The ARPANET was not started to create a Command and Control System that would survive a nuclear attack, as many now claim. To build such a system was clearly a major military need, but it was not ARPA's mission to do this; in fact, we would have been severely criticized had we tried. Rather, the ARPAnet came out of our frustration that there were only a limited number of large, powerful research computers in the country, and that many research investigators who should have access to them were geographically separated from them.
So no, the Internet was NOT meant to allow the military to maintain reliable communication in the face of a devastating nuclear attack. By the way, one of the founders of the Internet Society (the society whose account is quoted in the Wikipedia article) was a fellow by the name of Vint Cerf; I suspect that if the account were erroneous, he would have complained by now.
The moment one tries to curtail speech of any sort, it has a chilling effect.
There go 3000 years' worth of fraud laws. As Stanley Fish said, "There's no such thing as free speech - and it's a good thing, too." You have to curtail speech slightly: when a Don gives orders to one of his men to put a hit on a rival, would you have the Don be able to defend himself with the Beckett defense? "Oh, I said they should kill him, but that's free speech, and I didn't expect them to actually do it?"
After some research, I've discovered that it is currently thought that Libby leaked to Miller before Armitage leaked to Novak, but that Armitage leaked to Woodward before that; Woodward was researching a book, not an article, and the conversation was not exactly "on the record," and Woodward has worked in Intelligence (yep, that's right - Bob Woodward had a low-level MI job - read "The Secret Man" about Mark Felt), so the Armitage - Woodward leak should be seen as independent to the Libby - Miller leak. This suggests to me that we're both wrong. Both Armitage and Libby should be sent to prison.
The Richard Armitage argument has already been refuted; he "leaked" the info a month after Libby discussed it with a reporter, and Libby claims the reporter had already heard it. And I find it extremely difficult to believe that a bunch of posters on Slashdot would have an argument about whether or not Valerie Plame's identity was covert based upon a rather obscure part of the US Code unless someone (say a popular "conservative" blogger) were feeding them lines.
Only problem with your argument: the judge who imposed the penalty plays for the red team, so it's kind of hard for the red team to blame the blue team for the "excessively harsh penalty." That's right, the judge in this case was a Bush appointee.
All of this is coming from some kind of talking points documents, which is why more than one poster cites the same argument. Congratulations, you've been astroturfed!
The iPhone is GSM, not CDMA. Also, the reason they went with this specific hardware platform was to reduce power consumption and size and weight, and because certain of the features (e.g., visual voice mail) required network upgrades that only AT&T was willing to do.
Actually, Dick was rather ambivalent about the movie. Of course, he had serious psychological problems, and couldn't keep his mind made up about anything.
There is almost no relationship between "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale" and Total Recall. None of the story even takes place on Mars, there's just a bit of backstory at the end. If you want to read very good Dick SF, start with the short story "The Electric Ant" and the novels *The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch* and *The Man in the High Tower*.
Funny, I was under the impression that there was a lawsuit about some Microsoft technology that added links to other content providers' pages that argued that the practice was a violation of copyright (because by altering your content, they are in effect creating their own derivative work without your permissions). Couldn't you just slap them with a DMCA takedown notice?
The cost of a manned Mars mission is currently estimated at $120B, with the highest estimate I've ever seen (for the far more ambitious program that was proposed, and killed, during the first Bush administration) was $400B. The cost of the war in Iraq so far has been $320B; the GAO projects a total cost in the area of $640B, and I've seen some estimates in the low trillions of dollars. And I'd argue that the War in Iraq (not the one in Afghanistan, which is a different kettle of fish) has nothing to do with the future of humanity, or even of the US (except perhaps endangering that future by damaging our foreign relations).
No, Michael Jackson does not own the rights to the recordings. AppleCorps owns the rights to the recordings. Michael Jackson *used to* own the publishing rights for the sheet music (not the recordings).
The data is embedded into the files by the iTunes client on your own computer while the file is being downloaded, it is not being stored on the iTunes servers anywhere but in their account database - the same thing that thousands of online vendors do.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, but Google is not shutting down. Google is simply discontinuing a service that is costing them very little in the way of resources but which, by its discontinuance, is breaking a contract they made with their customers. And most likely the only reason they are doing this is to eliminate the redundancy with YouTube.
While I feel your pain (or at least that inflicted by yonder blunt-force surgeon), I have to toss in one little warning: if you're going to drop a name in a spelling flame, it would be best not to cite a fellow who couldn't decide how to render his own last name. Was Shakespeare the master of the English language? Yes. Was he a master of regular orthography? Hell, no.
The ice core data argues strongly against historical CO2 fluctuations having any causal effect on temperature change. Furthermore, the "global warming" data does not show "global" warming, it shows significant warming in mountainous regions of Alaska, Western Canada, and Russia, and no trends elsewhere, consistent with small increases in insolation (which is further confirmed by warming on other planets).
So, are you saying that we have 1000-year temperature trend data for other planets? That's what your progress from ice core data to extraterrestrial insolation data implies.
We send a person to walk around on the moon, but it's impossible to shoot down a missile? Tell me another one.
No, it's simply impossible, with current technology, or anything we are likely to develop in the near future, to reliably shoot down a high enough percentage of incoming MIRVs on polar trajectories to make a massive nuclear attack survivable without an unworkable ratio of interceptors to targets. You see, a missile is what we call rather small (a few dozen meters in length, a few meters in diameter) and moves very, very fast and very, very unpredictably, while the moon is what we call very, very big (3.5 million meters across), and while it is also very, very fast, it's movement is also very, very predictable.
Objectivity on climate change is not an instance of it.
"Objectivity is whatever I say it is!"
That and Doom-Through-Impending-CO2-Poisoning are examples of people, whether politicians or scientists, trying to gain political advantage through bastardized science.
Not CO2 poisoning, but "greenhouse effect" warming: our ideas about global climate change are largely informed by our studies of the Venusian atmosphere in the 1960s, and global warming was predicted long before evidence of temperature increases were actually measured (just as the depletion of the ozone layer was predicted long before the Antarctic ozone hole was discovered). The funny thing is that all the arguments against global climate change appear to be coming from a specific ideological position, while many of the arguments in favor of global climate change are coming from different ideological positions (and the "science" in opposition is mostly a matter of saving the phenomena, i.e., multiplying entities in an attempt to find benign explanations for observed phenomena, and attacking opposing positions not on their science, but on their supposed ideological motivations; the only rational argument I've seen against global climate change is the questioning of the "hockey stick" graph, and that merely holds force against predictions of the rate of climate change, not its existence).
No, this is NOT a good thing. The litmus test is clearly ideological, so the end result is that the "science" recommendations will always be tilted to the ideology. Substitute out "science" and put in "intelligence" and you have the situation that led to the Bush Administration's expectation that Iraqis would welcome our forces with roses in the streets and the idea that the mission was "accomplished" in 2003.
Wikipedia has three layers. At the very bottom layer, there is a copy of the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Layered over that is Nupedia, the first iteration of the Wikipedia concept, which was an expert-authored (but not peer reviewed) online encyclopedia. Layered over THAT is the Wikipedia itself, largely inspired by GNUpedia and originally intended as a draft factory for Nupedia, that triumph of the wisdom of crowds - where, as ejito has pointed out, a lot of the material is cited directly from the Encyclopedia Britannica.
The web actually was designed to allow scientists to share information and computational resources, though. According to the Wikipedia article, by the way, ARPANET had nothing to do with nuclear attack contingency planning:.
So no, the Internet was NOT meant to allow the military to maintain reliable communication in the face of a devastating nuclear attack. By the way, one of the founders of the Internet Society (the society whose account is quoted in the Wikipedia article) was a fellow by the name of Vint Cerf; I suspect that if the account were erroneous, he would have complained by now.
If this is what kdawson believes, why should I believe his stories on government oppression or global warming?
Maybe you know that argumentum ad verecundiam is a fallacy, and so is its obverse?
The moment one tries to curtail speech of any sort, it has a chilling effect.
There go 3000 years' worth of fraud laws. As Stanley Fish said, "There's no such thing as free speech - and it's a good thing, too." You have to curtail speech slightly: when a Don gives orders to one of his men to put a hit on a rival, would you have the Don be able to defend himself with the Beckett defense? "Oh, I said they should kill him, but that's free speech, and I didn't expect them to actually do it?"
OMIGOD!!! They Degaussed the Earth!!!
After some research, I've discovered that it is currently thought that Libby leaked to Miller before Armitage leaked to Novak, but that Armitage leaked to Woodward before that; Woodward was researching a book, not an article, and the conversation was not exactly "on the record," and Woodward has worked in Intelligence (yep, that's right - Bob Woodward had a low-level MI job - read "The Secret Man" about Mark Felt), so the Armitage - Woodward leak should be seen as independent to the Libby - Miller leak. This suggests to me that we're both wrong. Both Armitage and Libby should be sent to prison.
The Richard Armitage argument has already been refuted; he "leaked" the info a month after Libby discussed it with a reporter, and Libby claims the reporter had already heard it. And I find it extremely difficult to believe that a bunch of posters on Slashdot would have an argument about whether or not Valerie Plame's identity was covert based upon a rather obscure part of the US Code unless someone (say a popular "conservative" blogger) were feeding them lines.
a Mormon? A divorced Italian? A trial lawyer? An ex-POW?
Only problem with your argument: the judge who imposed the penalty plays for the red team, so it's kind of hard for the red team to blame the blue team for the "excessively harsh penalty." That's right, the judge in this case was a Bush appointee.
All of this is coming from some kind of talking points documents, which is why more than one poster cites the same argument. Congratulations, you've been astroturfed!
The iPhone is GSM, not CDMA. Also, the reason they went with this specific hardware platform was to reduce power consumption and size and weight, and because certain of the features (e.g., visual voice mail) required network upgrades that only AT&T was willing to do.
It's not the gravity, it's the fact that there isn't a strong enough magnetic field to shield the atmosphere from being blown away by the solar wind.
Actually, Dick was rather ambivalent about the movie. Of course, he had serious psychological problems, and couldn't keep his mind made up about anything.
There is almost no relationship between "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale" and Total Recall. None of the story even takes place on Mars, there's just a bit of backstory at the end. If you want to read very good Dick SF, start with the short story "The Electric Ant" and the novels *The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch* and *The Man in the High Tower*.
I believe that the grandparent was speaking as the copyright owner.
Funny, I was under the impression that there was a lawsuit about some Microsoft technology that added links to other content providers' pages that argued that the practice was a violation of copyright (because by altering your content, they are in effect creating their own derivative work without your permissions). Couldn't you just slap them with a DMCA takedown notice?
The cost of a manned Mars mission is currently estimated at $120B, with the highest estimate I've ever seen (for the far more ambitious program that was proposed, and killed, during the first Bush administration) was $400B. The cost of the war in Iraq so far has been $320B; the GAO projects a total cost in the area of $640B, and I've seen some estimates in the low trillions of dollars. And I'd argue that the War in Iraq (not the one in Afghanistan, which is a different kettle of fish) has nothing to do with the future of humanity, or even of the US (except perhaps endangering that future by damaging our foreign relations).
How the hell could anyone live through the 1980s (except maybe as an infant) and not know the lines "We've got a thing that's called radar love?"
No, Michael Jackson does not own the rights to the recordings. AppleCorps owns the rights to the recordings. Michael Jackson *used to* own the publishing rights for the sheet music (not the recordings).
The data is embedded into the files by the iTunes client on your own computer while the file is being downloaded, it is not being stored on the iTunes servers anywhere but in their account database - the same thing that thousands of online vendors do.