Once again, repeating an incorrect statement will not make it suddenly become correct.
Actually, it might. Terminology and definitions change based on usage. If enough people use the word incorrectly, it may become the correct usage by default and definition, known as semantic change.
See also: computer mouses, affect/effect, prove, epic
You have a Constitutional right to peaceful assembly but it does not say you have the right to assemble just any place you want. If you want to have people camp on your own lawn for months, I am cool with that.
The park is a public place, everyone contributed to its construction or its up keep based on a tax policy that was determined to be fair and arrived at by an elected body. I don't know about your city but in mine you can hold events in the park by sign up. Its first come first server, you book your time and you LEAVE when your time is over. That is the social contract. There are more rules governing how much time you can book etc etc..
Are you saying you want regulations about the right to peaceably assemble? Like, perhaps, a law that says people are only allowed to assemble peaceably when they have an appropriate permit? Like, a direct violation of the First Amendment? I'm just ensuring that you are aware that you are advocating for constitutional violations.
Since you've posted this multiple times -- do you have a Steam Forum account? From what I've read, that's the only set of accounts that was compromised, and thus it doesn't affect the majority of Steam users. I don't know anyone who actually uses the Steam Forums, so I don't know if those people have been contacted directly or not.
Additionally, I've seen 4 notices, directly from Steam, in the past 2 days. Every time I log in (twice at work, twice at home) I get a pop up with the current offers -- the first page of this has been the "Sorry, this hack thing happened" message from Gabe.
No, you're effectively walking around with blank IOUs. You hand one over as a transaction and trust the retailer to write down the correct amount, and trust that no one else standing around is making copies of the IOU. Then when you get your statement, you can say "Hey, someone wrote the wrong number for this IOU," and have the Credit Card company revert the transaction, paying nothing until the matter is resolved, either directly or by the courts, or you can say "Hey, I never handed out that IOU, someone made an illegal copy," and the Credit Card company reverts the charge and contacts the appropriate police agency to track down the offender to recover the illicitly obtained cash. Additionally, many of the elements of these transactions are recorded, making tracking of such problems significantly easier to track.
I can see how you might be confused, especially as people have lost confidence in most credit and financial institutions, but I'd say that credit card transactions remain, on average, safer for the average consumer than cash, albeit with no real possibility for anonymous transactions or arbitrary non-retail transactions.
From what I understand, the data is used in an encrypted form, and there is no way to decrypt it (at least, not on the server directly). It's a one-way encryption function, and they never need to manipulate or view the data so encrypted after they've stored it. When you type in your password, they run the same encryption function on what you typed and see if it (now encrypted) matches the stored encrypted data.
Many companies only accept resumes online. Several businesses only exist online. A large segment of the gaming industry is online-only at this point. My company prefers to use Video Conference via internet rather than phone-based conference calls. I have a long-distance girlfriend (she's gone back to school in another state) -- that relationship is much easier to maintain via Skype than phone calls (though we did the phone-route previously). I talk to my parents and my brother via Skype or Google Talk regularly (though we also use the phone). The video aspects of that are pretty cool for not missing out on elements of my niece's early life.
If I lost phone service, I could switch over all of that to pure internet-based calling. I couldn't switch all of that to phone-service. Yes, I'd say loss of internet would be much more crippling, economically and socially, than loss of phone service at this point.
Yes, how dare the people working in the government expect retirement plans and healthcare? Clearly they should all be doing their public service as volunteer work.
First, they collect Nectar, Pollen is a side-effect. Second, there's plenty for them to forage in an urban environment. Balcony Flower and Vegetable Gardens, Urban Parks, Roof-top Gardens and Greenhouses, Tree-lined streets, climbing ivy on buildings, various untended lots...
But people do use low-heat Laptops for that, and purchase low-power sub-$500 PCs with highly efficient chips (and the same sub-300 Watt Power Supplies) for those tasks. So similar power consumption, albeit possibly reduced somewhat by being more effective (less time spent crunching numbers when a large spreadsheet calculation is started), and less time need to scroll (higher resolution). Along with the advances in lighting and displays, which you've already noted partially in reference to monitors.
I will grant that many more people are using computers than were using them in the 286 era, moving over from typewriters and manual book keeping, but I'd argue that the reduction in paper manufacturing and transportation costs associated with it counter those effects.
According to Edmunds, a new BMW 7-series gets 17/25.
And, from the same source, the 5 series gets 20 cty/30 hwy mpg, and the Z4 gets 22 cty/34 hwy mpg. You know, the fuel-efficient ones, that were specified by the post you replied to. And look, they are apparently more efficient than the Beetle.
10 years ago, I was reading about break-throughs on thermal depolymerization to recover oil from waste products. It appears at least some of those plants have come online and are producing what I would consider "green" oil. Sure, it's still oil, but it's renewable (after a fashion), and it's using up waste products that would otherwise end up in landfills or incinerated.
I hadn't heard of an effective alternative to plants for photosynthesis, such as the methodology of your link, though I also wouldn't consider it geo-engineering, at least not directly. It's just a shortcut to a renewable cycle, cutting out the whole growing-plants middle bit that most require. Anyone interested in creating a renewable energy system would welcome that type of technology, though even then, electric technology is more efficient than internal combustion engines in cars, and the pollution issues in cities is more about air quality, so even with that being used to reclaim some emissions into fuel, you'd still want to convert people over to electrics for local commutes where possible.
Your old 286 had less computational ability than a smart phone, and last I checked, my smartphone doesn't have a CPU fan, and runs on a hell of a lot less power than a 286 required.
I'm not a car person, so I'm less sure ont his one -- if you ran the modern BMW and the old VW Beetle at the same speeds and with using the same non-essential extras (e.g. A/C, sound, GPS, etc...), would that fuel economy picture still favor the Beetle? I know there's a lot of neat engineering in the old Beetle, so it wouldn't really surprise me either way, but if you can get more HP per gallon, I don't see how that could fail to translate into better fuel economy for travelling, unless the BMW is somehow really poorly designed for aerodynamics, or if it is draining off power for some other use than locomotion. Is it a weight difference?
Possibly, though fuel usage and pollution emission are not necessarily identical. There's a good chance those ships have little to no filtering, and thus are emitting far more pollution per unit of fuel than any car on the road.
Water passes through the system -- used, but not "thrown away" in the same sense as something destined for a land fill or incinerator. Depending on the soap used, it can also just end up as a nice fertilizer downstream.
I expect most developers would have been using tethered devices, or emulators, not walking around with iOS 5 Beta on a normal-use device as their standard personal apps might not work well (or at all -- there are still popular apps that simply don't function on iOS5). So I wouldn't expect a developer release to have caught non-use battery drain issues at all.
Following this, you two seem to be talking around each other.
Er, no, you haven't. You've not even described a single thing you think is irreductibly complex. You just keep claiming that there is, but never show.
I thought the fluorescent cats were sufficient proof that, of biological organisms currently present, some were designed rather than evolved. Historically, that happened. Some guy said "Hey, you know what would be awesome? Glowing cats." And then he made them. It isn't that this is irreducibly complex, it's that you can't point at them and factually state "these evolved." They have features that cannot factually be accounted for without reference to design, because that's how they got there. Those cats were designed. Those traits appeared out of nowhere outside of their phylogenic tree. Right there. You can see it. It's historical, it happened before the present moment.
You acknowledged it right then, as well. That was all he was saying. "Genetic Engineering happens, so you can't accurately state that evolution accounts for all biological features on current organisms". He was pointing out that you need to put a time-stamp on that -- e.g. "Before genetic engineering in the 20th century, no organism had any features that could not be accounted for by evolution." The secondary claim was "You should acknowledge that since it can be shown here and now, it might be possible to find a similar unexpected and inexplicable jump in biology in history. We have not yet found such, but it would be intellectually dishonest to discount the possibility to 0."
This is ignoring the whole "green" thing, because I strongly suspect that when total end-to-end footprint is considered, all-electrics will turn out, in practice, long term, to not be any more green than equivalent gasoline autos. But I'd sure enjoy driving one.
This is already demonstrably and known as incorrect. Even assuming the best for efficiency rates for an ICE and the worst for transmission losses and electric motor efficiency, when using the same raw source material, burning fossil fuels in a large-scale electric power plant and charging up an electric car is still an overall gain in efficiency. That it can also run on a variety of other sources of electric power is just a bonus at that point.
Information from a single well-cited source (http://truecostblog.com/2009/01/04/electric-vs-gasoline/): "Electrical energy is created by burning fossil fuels in a power plant at 40% efficiency, followed by transmitting it to your house at 93% efficiency, and using it in an electric vehicle at 92% efficiency, providing a total efficiency of around 34% for an electric vehicle. Crude oil refineries operate at 75% efficiency, and gasoline distribution might cause another 6% energy loss. Since internal combustion engines are only 20% efficient, total efficiency would be around 14%. Assuming that the natural gas and oil to power our vehicles comes from the same well, we can directly compare these efficiencies, and thus conclude that electric vehicles are significantly more efficient."
Many (if not all) good text editors will allow you to add indents uniformly to blocks with tab, and remove them with shift+tab. That should allow you to retain scope appropriately for Python relatively easily (and is what you could be doing for your brace-copies anyway, so they retain proper indentation for flow and readability without hitting a auto-re-indent function).
Just curious here -- did they maintain legacy address redirects (so if someone does send e-mail to name@blah.derp.nasa.gov, it automatically recognizes that as uniqueified_name@nasa.gov)? From my understanding of most such systems, that shouldn't be hard to manage, I'm just curious if it was done.
There certainly is that point, though what would be considered "detrimental" seems to be questionable (see also: Climate Change Debates). Hydroelectric has some of the most directly visible effects (i.e. a giant pile of water held up by the dam) and the effects on wildlife are easily observed. Other forms will have more subtle effects -- slightly reduced wind-speed past a wind farm, changes in localized heat distribution and re-radiation around various solar traps, presumably some changes to ocean currents from tidal traps... Difficult to isolate the effects, but there certainly will be some.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's about the ability to threaten to kill people.
Two points:
1) Cars kill more people than guns do.
2) The right to keep and bear cars is not a constitutionally recognized right.
If cars kill more people than guns, wouldn't that make them a better armament than a gun, and therefore subject to the Second Amendment?
Once again, repeating an incorrect statement will not make it suddenly become correct.
Actually, it might. Terminology and definitions change based on usage. If enough people use the word incorrectly, it may become the correct usage by default and definition, known as semantic change.
See also: computer mouses, affect/effect, prove, epic
You have a Constitutional right to peaceful assembly but it does not say you have the right to assemble just any place you want. If you want to have people camp on your own lawn for months, I am cool with that.
The park is a public place, everyone contributed to its construction or its up keep based on a tax policy that was determined to be fair and arrived at by an elected body. I don't know about your city but in mine you can hold events in the park by sign up. Its first come first server, you book your time and you LEAVE when your time is over. That is the social contract. There are more rules governing how much time you can book etc etc..
Are you saying you want regulations about the right to peaceably assemble? Like, perhaps, a law that says people are only allowed to assemble peaceably when they have an appropriate permit? Like, a direct violation of the First Amendment? I'm just ensuring that you are aware that you are advocating for constitutional violations.
No, I don't think so. Just the Slashdot dream. Someday... Someday I'll be able to do that, too.
If you guys are *serious* about staying there and doing something then get a GOAL.
You mean like a declaration of grievances that require redress? Because they've got that...
The vast majority of people in the world have an above average (mean) number of limbs.
Since you've posted this multiple times -- do you have a Steam Forum account? From what I've read, that's the only set of accounts that was compromised, and thus it doesn't affect the majority of Steam users. I don't know anyone who actually uses the Steam Forums, so I don't know if those people have been contacted directly or not.
Additionally, I've seen 4 notices, directly from Steam, in the past 2 days. Every time I log in (twice at work, twice at home) I get a pop up with the current offers -- the first page of this has been the "Sorry, this hack thing happened" message from Gabe.
No, you're effectively walking around with blank IOUs. You hand one over as a transaction and trust the retailer to write down the correct amount, and trust that no one else standing around is making copies of the IOU. Then when you get your statement, you can say "Hey, someone wrote the wrong number for this IOU," and have the Credit Card company revert the transaction, paying nothing until the matter is resolved, either directly or by the courts, or you can say "Hey, I never handed out that IOU, someone made an illegal copy," and the Credit Card company reverts the charge and contacts the appropriate police agency to track down the offender to recover the illicitly obtained cash. Additionally, many of the elements of these transactions are recorded, making tracking of such problems significantly easier to track.
I can see how you might be confused, especially as people have lost confidence in most credit and financial institutions, but I'd say that credit card transactions remain, on average, safer for the average consumer than cash, albeit with no real possibility for anonymous transactions or arbitrary non-retail transactions.
From what I understand, the data is used in an encrypted form, and there is no way to decrypt it (at least, not on the server directly). It's a one-way encryption function, and they never need to manipulate or view the data so encrypted after they've stored it. When you type in your password, they run the same encryption function on what you typed and see if it (now encrypted) matches the stored encrypted data.
Many companies only accept resumes online. Several businesses only exist online. A large segment of the gaming industry is online-only at this point. My company prefers to use Video Conference via internet rather than phone-based conference calls. I have a long-distance girlfriend (she's gone back to school in another state) -- that relationship is much easier to maintain via Skype than phone calls (though we did the phone-route previously). I talk to my parents and my brother via Skype or Google Talk regularly (though we also use the phone). The video aspects of that are pretty cool for not missing out on elements of my niece's early life.
If I lost phone service, I could switch over all of that to pure internet-based calling. I couldn't switch all of that to phone-service. Yes, I'd say loss of internet would be much more crippling, economically and socially, than loss of phone service at this point.
Yes, how dare the people working in the government expect retirement plans and healthcare? Clearly they should all be doing their public service as volunteer work.
First, they collect Nectar, Pollen is a side-effect. Second, there's plenty for them to forage in an urban environment. Balcony Flower and Vegetable Gardens, Urban Parks, Roof-top Gardens and Greenhouses, Tree-lined streets, climbing ivy on buildings, various untended lots...
But people do use low-heat Laptops for that, and purchase low-power sub-$500 PCs with highly efficient chips (and the same sub-300 Watt Power Supplies) for those tasks. So similar power consumption, albeit possibly reduced somewhat by being more effective (less time spent crunching numbers when a large spreadsheet calculation is started), and less time need to scroll (higher resolution). Along with the advances in lighting and displays, which you've already noted partially in reference to monitors.
I will grant that many more people are using computers than were using them in the 286 era, moving over from typewriters and manual book keeping, but I'd argue that the reduction in paper manufacturing and transportation costs associated with it counter those effects.
According to Edmunds, a new BMW 7-series gets 17/25.
And, from the same source, the 5 series gets 20 cty/30 hwy mpg, and the Z4 gets 22 cty/34 hwy mpg. You know, the fuel-efficient ones, that were specified by the post you replied to. And look, they are apparently more efficient than the Beetle.
10 years ago, I was reading about break-throughs on thermal depolymerization to recover oil from waste products. It appears at least some of those plants have come online and are producing what I would consider "green" oil. Sure, it's still oil, but it's renewable (after a fashion), and it's using up waste products that would otherwise end up in landfills or incinerated.
I hadn't heard of an effective alternative to plants for photosynthesis, such as the methodology of your link, though I also wouldn't consider it geo-engineering, at least not directly. It's just a shortcut to a renewable cycle, cutting out the whole growing-plants middle bit that most require. Anyone interested in creating a renewable energy system would welcome that type of technology, though even then, electric technology is more efficient than internal combustion engines in cars, and the pollution issues in cities is more about air quality, so even with that being used to reclaim some emissions into fuel, you'd still want to convert people over to electrics for local commutes where possible.
Your old 286 had less computational ability than a smart phone, and last I checked, my smartphone doesn't have a CPU fan, and runs on a hell of a lot less power than a 286 required.
I'm not a car person, so I'm less sure ont his one -- if you ran the modern BMW and the old VW Beetle at the same speeds and with using the same non-essential extras (e.g. A/C, sound, GPS, etc...), would that fuel economy picture still favor the Beetle? I know there's a lot of neat engineering in the old Beetle, so it wouldn't really surprise me either way, but if you can get more HP per gallon, I don't see how that could fail to translate into better fuel economy for travelling, unless the BMW is somehow really poorly designed for aerodynamics, or if it is draining off power for some other use than locomotion. Is it a weight difference?
Possibly, though fuel usage and pollution emission are not necessarily identical. There's a good chance those ships have little to no filtering, and thus are emitting far more pollution per unit of fuel than any car on the road.
Water passes through the system -- used, but not "thrown away" in the same sense as something destined for a land fill or incinerator. Depending on the soap used, it can also just end up as a nice fertilizer downstream.
I expect most developers would have been using tethered devices, or emulators, not walking around with iOS 5 Beta on a normal-use device as their standard personal apps might not work well (or at all -- there are still popular apps that simply don't function on iOS5). So I wouldn't expect a developer release to have caught non-use battery drain issues at all.
Following this, you two seem to be talking around each other.
Er, no, you haven't. You've not even described a single thing you think is irreductibly complex. You just keep claiming that there is, but never show.
I thought the fluorescent cats were sufficient proof that, of biological organisms currently present, some were designed rather than evolved. Historically, that happened. Some guy said "Hey, you know what would be awesome? Glowing cats." And then he made them. It isn't that this is irreducibly complex, it's that you can't point at them and factually state "these evolved." They have features that cannot factually be accounted for without reference to design, because that's how they got there. Those cats were designed. Those traits appeared out of nowhere outside of their phylogenic tree. Right there. You can see it. It's historical, it happened before the present moment.
You acknowledged it right then, as well. That was all he was saying. "Genetic Engineering happens, so you can't accurately state that evolution accounts for all biological features on current organisms". He was pointing out that you need to put a time-stamp on that -- e.g. "Before genetic engineering in the 20th century, no organism had any features that could not be accounted for by evolution." The secondary claim was "You should acknowledge that since it can be shown here and now, it might be possible to find a similar unexpected and inexplicable jump in biology in history. We have not yet found such, but it would be intellectually dishonest to discount the possibility to 0."
This is ignoring the whole "green" thing, because I strongly suspect that when total end-to-end footprint is considered, all-electrics will turn out, in practice, long term, to not be any more green than equivalent gasoline autos. But I'd sure enjoy driving one.
This is already demonstrably and known as incorrect. Even assuming the best for efficiency rates for an ICE and the worst for transmission losses and electric motor efficiency, when using the same raw source material, burning fossil fuels in a large-scale electric power plant and charging up an electric car is still an overall gain in efficiency. That it can also run on a variety of other sources of electric power is just a bonus at that point.
Information from a single well-cited source (http://truecostblog.com/2009/01/04/electric-vs-gasoline/):
"Electrical energy is created by burning fossil fuels in a power plant at 40% efficiency, followed by transmitting it to your house at 93% efficiency, and using it in an electric vehicle at 92% efficiency, providing a total efficiency of around 34% for an electric vehicle. Crude oil refineries operate at 75% efficiency, and gasoline distribution might cause another 6% energy loss. Since internal combustion engines are only 20% efficient, total efficiency would be around 14%. Assuming that the natural gas and oil to power our vehicles comes from the same well, we can directly compare these efficiencies, and thus conclude that electric vehicles are significantly more efficient."
Well, if the oil subsidies shift to electricity subsidies at the same time, it should hold even pretty well.
Many (if not all) good text editors will allow you to add indents uniformly to blocks with tab, and remove them with shift+tab. That should allow you to retain scope appropriately for Python relatively easily (and is what you could be doing for your brace-copies anyway, so they retain proper indentation for flow and readability without hitting a auto-re-indent function).
Just curious here -- did they maintain legacy address redirects (so if someone does send e-mail to name@blah.derp.nasa.gov, it automatically recognizes that as uniqueified_name@nasa.gov)? From my understanding of most such systems, that shouldn't be hard to manage, I'm just curious if it was done.
There certainly is that point, though what would be considered "detrimental" seems to be questionable (see also: Climate Change Debates). Hydroelectric has some of the most directly visible effects (i.e. a giant pile of water held up by the dam) and the effects on wildlife are easily observed. Other forms will have more subtle effects -- slightly reduced wind-speed past a wind farm, changes in localized heat distribution and re-radiation around various solar traps, presumably some changes to ocean currents from tidal traps... Difficult to isolate the effects, but there certainly will be some.
Of course, at some point, we exceed the possible limits of what is the Earth would support: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/