and by Microsoft including Ubuntu inside Windows desktop environments,
It allows Microsoft to control the Ubuntu "experience" and blame Ubuntu for any user dissatisfaction when it is really a Windows container problem. "Look, see, you can run Ubuntu and doesn't Windows actually run much better and faster?"
it allows hundreds of millions of users try Ubuntu without having to wipe their disk, re-partition it, install a hypervisor
Hundreds of millions of users can already run Ubuntu without having to do any of that. I have two USB sticks with Xubuntu on them that boot just fine on my Windows computers, and that's a 16.4 version, I think. Making that stick was absolutely trivial -- I used a bootable Xubuntu DVD and told it to install on/dev/sde.
Not two days ago I came across a bag full of old USB sticks and one of them has a label "Ubuntu" on it. It was much harder to make back in them good ole days, but it, too, is a Ubuntu system unencumbered by an underlying Windows OS.
how exactly does preventing large donors from donating "help" the Linux Foundation?
It doesn't. But preventing large donors who have a vested interest in the failure of Linux as FOSS does. Isn't/. the forum where we hear regular diatribes against large campaign donations because they "buy" the political system? Isn't there a parallel here?
As for the summary saying how great it is that it bring "SQL Server" to Linux, I say "why?" MySQL, Postgres, and a handful of other, better, databases already exist. What does SQL Server add?
I'm not sure why. Is there some point in your deliberate obfuscation?
I am attempting to clarify your incorrect representation of what "science" is. That is not obfuscating, it is the opposite. And you're now resorting to name games.
The way science is done is that you propose a hypothesis, and compare it against observations.
You cannot use random observations, you need to design your experiments carefully to rule out extraneous causes. And to rule out correlation you need to have a control for any experiment you conduct. It is not science to say "I cannot account for this variable so it must be the cause".
If you want to attribute the temperature rise to another cause, identify that cause.
Stop it. I am not trying to attribute anything to anything.
You reached the end of what I wrote and kept reading things I didn't say, and now you keep demanding I identify causes.
All I am saying is that science, in this case, is missing the necessary control experiment that allows true proof, so it is not the true scientific method. You cannot disprove the null hypothesis (which is not actually what you claimed it was based on what measurements we are taking) without a control experiment.
If you can't reject the hypothesis because you didn't ever frame a hypothesis-- it really isn't science.
And you cannot reject the null hypothesis without doing the experiment, so that, too, isn't really science when you say you have such proof.
It is the best we can do without the ability to actually have a control, so the best we can say is that the answer is probably right, it is likely to be right. The "consensus" says... isn't science, it's voting on the truth.
The fact that you seem to be missing is that we have good measurements.
We have reasonable measurements of concentration of CO2 and temperature. Not "good" since the sampling is very very sparse compared to the volume of the planetary atmosphere and area of the surface. We don't have measurements of "anthropogenic gasses" since that would require a huge amount of instrumentation at the sources. Yes, we also can measure isotope ratios in the samples we do have, and from that try to back out the sources of the gasses, but that's limited in scope.
If you are proposing that some other input is accounting for the temperature increase, you need to identify that input.
"We can't think of any other cause, so it must be X." That's not how science works.
As for your other question, about paleoclimate
I'm sorry, but I didn't ask a question about paleoclimate. I made a statement of fact.
But just saying "the temperature has risen beforet" really isn't science.
It is part of the scientific process when you know for a fact that the cause you are attempting to pin the blame for a current event on did not exist when similar things happened in the past. It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there can be other causes, the exclusion of which also requires a control Earth that isn't available.
tell me what you are hypothesizing is the input factor that made it rise in the past,
I'll tell you what. Read what I write and then stop at the end. Don't challenge me to provide answers for things I didn't say. That will save us all a lot of time.
Music on hold I can accept. Low volume, just enough to tell me that the call hasn't been disconnected.
What is absolutely unacceptable are the endless human voice announcements telling me how valuable my call is, or even worse, how I could use www.some.company.com to access my account and not have to wait on hold.
First, when I hear a voice I assume someone has answered so I have to stop doing what I was doing and start listening. The first time I get used to the voice and ignore it, it's the support tech actually talking and he hangs up because I'm ignoring him. And second, if www.some.company.com was able to deal with the problem I'm calling about I WOULD NOT BE CALLING.
This desire to have human voices telling people things really gets in the way when it is an amateur radio repeater ID. If it's the stock computer voices you can tell it's the computer. immediately. When it's the recorded voice of the repeater trustee you have to listen long enough to determine that it is an ID and not someone popping up needing to talk to someone. Ego, pure and simple. "My repeater has my voice on it..." isn't a good reason to do it.
3. The warming rate does not fit the null-hypothesis ("anthropogenic gasses have no effect on global climate.")
That is not actually the null hypothesis for the data currently being collected, since "greenhouse gas" and "anthropogenically sourced greenhouse gas" are not synonyms.
To rule out the null hypothesis, you actually have to test based on that null hypothesis. That means removing all other potential causes and varying only the parameter under study. If you want to disprove the null hypothesis as you have stated it, you need to have two systems: one with AGG and one without. The one without is the control. Where is the control Earth?
Without a control, you have correlation and not causation. Correlation is interesting. Causation is science.
THAT'S how science works.
And science tells us that since warming has happened without humans being around (according to the proxies we have for temperature) we KNOW for a fact that there can be other causes. Without a control to rule them out, we have nothing but correlations.
Human Volunteers
- Cost less
- Are probably more accurate
- Have no technical/mechanical failures
- Are almost impossible to "hack", cheat, etc
- And most importantly are far more trustworthy than these god dam machines.
My mother used to be a poll worker in a relatively small township in a relatively small county. It was her job to count and monitor the counting of ballots after the poll closed.
She would tell me about the process after she got home. There were regular arguments between the poll workers of opposite parties whether someone had legally marked their ballot for one candidate or another. The law said a cross-mark. "X" or "+". No fill in the box, and no check marks. The latter was to prevent a poll worker from either voting a ballot or ruining one by checking multiple boxes while unfolding or smoothing out the paper. It was too easy to hide a bit of pencil lead under a bandaid on a finger and make all kinds of marks on a ballot as it was being processed. Much harder to make an "X" than a check.
So, no, humans are not more trustworthy or "almost impossible" to hack. The fact that there are supposed to always be two poll workers of opposite parties monitoring the process proves this. You don't need two if one is impossible to hack.
And if we all paid tax on it, that would make up for Trump not paying taxes for the last umpteen years
And if we all were smart and used the tax laws correctly, none of us would be paying more in taxes than Donald did, either.
Unless you have actual evidence of fraudulent tax returns (and don't you think IRS would be all over this by now if there were?) then your beef is with the law, not the people who obey the law and wind up not paying what you think they should in taxes.
If not, next gen drones will just fly in on maps and distance, not needing active guidance that can be detected.
It is very hard to build guidance systems that can be accurate without position guidance of some sort. The accelerometers and gyros used in the small single chip sensors that have made stabilized drone flight easy respond to accelerations and changes in angle. Flight in a wind which provides a consistent drift is unaccelerated and will not be detected by those devices.
If you take a Phantom 3, for example, and switch it to non-GPS mode, it will quite happily drift with the prevailing winds and require manual control for station-keeping.
You're right. you said "criminal behavior", not "crime".
You're right. I said "criminal behaviour" in a generic statement of the extents to which one side is going to cover things up. I was not referring to this one specific activity, I was talking about a broad range of issues.
You can't treat Clinton like she committed a crime because in your head you know it's possible, somehow, though we just haven't found the evidence yet.
Comey admitted there was evidence, but that it would not be possible to find a prosecutor to act on it. You are now participating in that general behaviour my comment referred to which was, I will admit, possible to interpret in a way it was not meant.
Why would that be unethical?
Because it creates exactly the issue that is has created, and none of the campaign staff have the authority or the responsibility to correct statements that the State Department releases to the public before they are released. Nor should staff of a political campaign have such authority or responsibility. If the State Department facts aren't correct, the campaign staff has plenty of opportunity to correct them with NYT directly. They do know how to contact the New York Times, you know.
State: The Times is asking us about a quote from the Secretary where she claimed the sky is blue.
Podesta (or whoever): The secretary wants to emphasize that she said the sky is a steel blue, and that she did point out the clouds on the horizon.
She is not "the Secretary" anymore, and the quote the State Department was providing was correct. If the New York Times wants a clarification on a quote that HRC made while she was Secretary of State, the correct person to ask is HRC herself, because HRC herself is the best and only source for the intent and meaning of anything she said. The New York Times does know how to contact HRC (or her staff) directly, you know.
Would you be as forgiving if this were, say, the IRS releasing information about Donald Trump's taxes and they changed their release based on requests from the Trump campaign staff? The IRS would be expected to speak in facts they could support; changing the facts they release because a Trump campaign staffer asked them to would be highly unethical.
Jesus Christ, you mean if I had specifically pointed out that they were communicating with her appointed representatives, instead of naturally assuming that you would understand that, then this entire idiotic thread could have been avoided?
You have taken an insulting tone here, but I'll try not to respond likewise.
No, this thread has nothing to do with WHO COMMUNICATED WITH WHOM other than correcting your claim that it was with HRC herself as a way of arguing that it wasn't a problem. You can't argue that this isn't an issue because the person being communicated was HRC herself because it wasn't. It was her campaign staff.
This still leaves the issue of her campaign staff asking for AND GETTING changes to information that the State Department was going to release to the New York Times.
Well, I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you.
That's fine. You don't see an issue with a campaign staff vetting official statements from the State Department. I do. This doesn't merit all of the nonsensical hyperbole you've spewed about things I didn't say.
We might as well assume the worst.
More hyperbole and things I didn't say. I didn't say we're assuming the worst. I said that what has already happened is bad. Depending on what those changes were it could be much worse. And you know that.
All your "lines" show is that you're trying to paint this issue as something to do with State requesting records from HRC when it is not. State already knows it requested records, so why would they need to be corrected by campaign staff on that point? No, it has to do with State sending information to HRC's campaign staff so they could coordinate answers to avoid confusion and contradiction. As much as you want to keep referring to the previous records requests, that's irrelevant.
You want a line that shows it was shady? Ok.
"Here's some facts we are sending to the NYT in response to something they asked about."
"Please change your facts so that they say what we want them to say."
"Ok. Done."
See, I can create an "April 20" exchange just like you can. I don't have to be as specific about it, I can use generic words like "facts" and "change". But you've already said you don't think changes to official state department press releases made at the request of an ongoing political campaign are an issue.
Oh, do you?
Yes, I do, and you continue despite knowing that. It's as if you are deliberately trying to avoid the actual issue to excuse what actually happened.
So, let me try to understand what you're suggesting here. Are you trying to suggest that if the State Department has questions for Clinton, that John Kerry takes the time out of his day to personally call up Hillary Clinton
I said nothing of the sort and you know it. YOU said that the State Department had sent email to the former Secretary of State before sending it to the NYT ("Because the "non-governmental person" is the former secretary"), and that is simply not true. None of the people you admit were contacted were HRC, they were ALL members of her CAMPAIGN STAFF.
Nobody said anything about Kerry or that only the current Secretary should contact the previous Secretary, and you know that. The issue has nothing to do with who in the State Department sent the information to be vetted, and you know that, too.
How the hell do you know that the changes were unethical? Fill me in!
Because ANY changes made based on requests from the campaign staff of an ongoing campaign is unethical. I don't know how much clearer that can be said. The State Department should not be vetting an information release with the campaign for any candidate, they should release the facts as they know them and let the candidate take care of sending the NYT her spin on those facts. It really is that simple.
You're assuming there's some shady shit going on here.
No, I know there's something shady, because the fact the changes were made is already known. I think you've even agreed that there was something changed.
I hope you'll pardon me if I don't drop everything and organize a mob to put Clinton under civil arrest.
I never said anything like that, either, and you know it. I tire of your endless hyperbole.
The only outrage I'm able to feel right now is directed at you for apparently thinking that I should be outraged
I am not outraged, nor have I ever said that you should be outraged, and you know that, too.
You're pissed off because State contacted the former secretaries' representatives, instead of John Kerry personally calling up each of those secretaries himself to ask them if they could just send their records right over. Because that's totally how our government does business.
This issue has nothing to do with State's request for records from the former secretary for long term archive, it has to do with allowing her campaign staff to request changes to information to be released to the New York Times. But you know that.
Since you seem incapable of anything but hyperbole in defense of HRC, I'll just stop trying to correct you on what I've said and haven't said and let you continue to make it up on your own. You clearly are having more fun doing that than trying to discuss this problem seriously.
And State did not email John Podesta. That's also a fact.
Emails from the files of Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta...
The press secretary from State (spokeswoman, whatever they call her) sent an email to Clinton's press secretary and others with her campaign.
Which members of Clinton's campaign staff have been Secretary of State?
The people involved are Lauren Hickey, the person at State, who emailed Heather Samuelson, who is apparently a lawyer involved with determining which emails get released and which don't, plus Philippe Reines, an HRC senior advisor while she was at state and a current aide, and Nick Merill, the HRC traveling press secretary.
None of them have been the Secretary. And I'll say this again since it didn't sink in the first time. It is not a problem that the SD sent HRCs campaign a copy of material it was going to send to NYT. It was unethical for SD to CHANGE THE MATERIAL IT SENT based on requests from CAMPAIGN STAFF of a current and active political campaign. We don't know what the change was; but the fact it happened is not appropriate. If the State Department doesn't know an answer to something, it should say so and let the NYT ask HRC themselves. There is no need to coordinate answers to prevent confusion and contradiction.
What if the information that State was releasing was factually incorrect, vague, etc, and the campaign was seeking to correct or clarify?
What if? Then HRC could contact NYT with the corrections directly. Then the public could see both the State Department answer and HRC's answer and not wonder what it was that HRC's CAMPAIGN STAFF didn't want to come out in public.
On the list of reasons why I dislike her, I'll file this particular email somewhere in the low to mid hundreds.
On that we agree, but you are arguing that it is a non-problem, not that it is a lesser problem than many of the other problems. If you are agreeing that it is a problem, then why keep saying it isn't?
It's not "a political campaign", it's the former secretary.
Oh, stop it. None of the people involved in the email was a former secretary of state, they were ALL members of her POLITICAL CAMPAIGN STAFF.
And, what did they change? She says there was a change "re records"
We don't know what was changed. But SD changing things based on a campaign staff request is the problem.
no, it's just a horse.
And here you are arguing it isn't a problem of any kind, despite admitting that it is in your list of reasons why to dislike her.
Because the "non-governmental person" is the former secretary
John Podesta's name does not appear on the list of past secretaries of state. John Podesta's email.
I don't see an inherent problem with the State Department sending information to a "non-governmental person" before they release it to the public.
I don't either. The problem comes when the campaign staffers to whom it was sent then ask for and are granted changes to the material before it is then actually released to the public.
Please stop trying to paint the issue as just the pre-release, because that's not what the issue is. It's more than that. It's like trying to claim that your car ran out of gas because you tuned the radio to 101.3 FM. It ran out of gas because you got in the car, started driving, tuned the radio to 101.3FM, and then ignoring the gas gauge you drove past half a dozen gas stations without bothering to fill up. There's the mandatory car analogy.
Is it because she was campaigning?
It was because the material was sent to a political campaign and the campaign got it changed.
Would the proper response have been "we can't comment on the activity of the former secretary because she's engaged in an election campaign,
No, the proper response would have been "thank you for notifying us of information you are sending to the NYT about the candidate we work for", not "please change this material before you release it to the public." Yes, "thank you" would have gone over much better.
And you're getting modded up for trying to put words in my mouth. I didn't say "crime", you did.
If they actually had agreed to lie about something,
It's called "an example of what kind of thing could have happened", not factual evidence that the State Department wanted to know what color to say the sky is.
The fine summary tells us that nobody has figured out what was changed by the State Department at the campaign's request.
The fact is, it is unethical for a political campaign to be vetting information that the State Department sends to the NYT, both for the NYT to allow it and the State Department to do it. No, it wasn't state confabbing with the ex-director -- John Podesta and Nick Merrill haven't been directors ever.
The Dept was asked to comment on a particular story about the previous secretary, which they did, and also forwarded her a copy of their response.
They must have provided the copy to the campaign before they sent it to NYT, because they couldn't have corrected it based on campaign staff suggestions otherwise. That's where the problem comes in, not that they would send a copy after the fact to the campaign.
They each need to know what the other is saying in order to avoid contradiction and confusion.
If both parties tell the truth, then there is no contradiction or confusion.
"What color are you going to tell the New York Times the sky is?"
"I am going to say 'green'."
"Ok, I'll say 'green' too, so there is no contradiction or confusion."
Then you are sorely, sorely mistaken about how communications between organisations and the media happens.
This was communications between the US State Department and the Hillary Clinton political campaign. Neither are "media".
And it's not a government agency checking with a campaign; it's a government agency coordinating with the ex-director about whom the media is asking questions.
Neither John Podesta nor Nick Merrill were ex-directors of the State Department.
Seriously, the efforts people on one side are going to in order to excuse criminal behaviour is shameful.
They are the "privacy concern" in the first place, using battery levels as a piece of identifying data for your browser session.
For a session, they already have your IP address and port information. They have the info in the user agent header.
Of what value is a tracking system that reports a different user just because someone has put his device on a charger, or that thinks it is talking to someone different because the battery level has gone down?
For AT&T's part, this is their response to their loss of the natural monopoly they had in the 80's,
It would be silly to claim that they're thinking about something from almost four decades ago when they consider merging with Time Warner. AT&T from four decades ago is a very different company from what they are today.
And it wasn't a natural monopoly, it truly was a government-granted one. Even then, there were other local telcos. General Telephone, for example. They had to jump onto Ma Bell's long distance circuits to provide that service, however.
but which is seriously threatened by the advent of mesh area networks which could in theory obviate the need for ISP's altogether.
It is hard for them to be threatened by something that exists only "in theory" and will probably stay that way for a long time. A working mesh network requires a density of devices that isn't likely to happen outside a dense urban area, and even then the buildings necessary to pack that many people into an area would be a hindrance to the signals the network would need to work.
People are just not going to buy new wireless devices so they can donate their capacity to other people, and this will result in a limited throughput for those who do. The only way a mesh network will come about anytime soon is if an ISP does the installation and sells access.
And I'm working on my insulin pump right now. Get rid of the fascist government-mandated performance limitations and I'll be able to do 90 to 0 in ten seconds (mg/dL). Woo hoo!
If they don't eventually invest in fibre, companies like Google that are laying fibre will eventually eat their lunch.
The fact that Google is drawing back on fiber tells us that the demand for fiber is not sufficient to create the supply. It's easy for a technological web blog to think that everyone must want gigabit fiber service because, well, everyone should want it! But it is easy to forget that the vast majority of people in the US simply don't think they need fiber.
If/. was a good indicator of what "everyone wants", then everyone on/. would a billionaire for coming up with ideas for things that everyone wants.
Water, electricity, gas, all provided by profit-driven companies. I'm not sure what the correlation is.
Where I live, electricity and gas are profit-driven corporate services.
Water is a city service. This makes the water bill the go-to method for the city council to add new taxes for just about everything. Our water bill has a tax to provide free bus service for everyone, a tax to pay for tree trimming, a tax to pay for sidewalk maintenance, a tax to pay for street maintenance.... That last one was the first major tax added to the water bill and was supposed to be temporary to pay for fixing one specific bit of road that the contractor screwed up when he built it ten years prior. That tax worked out so well and generated so much money that it became permanent, and now we've got all kinds of unrelated taxes added to our water bills.
So not only is the OP wrong in claiming that those four things should be provided by the friendly government, two or three of them have long been corporate services without significant issues, and the fourth (data) is an attempt to convert "I want" into "everyone needs".
And thus it was OK for DSL to be a monopoly, cable to be a monopoly, and satellite to be a monopoy.
Except that DSL isn't a monopoly, satellite has never been a monopoly, and the government did outlaw exclusive franchise agreements (government-granted monopolies) for cable a long time ago. And in this context -- being an ISP -- there has never been a monopoly on that.
Slashdot Mirror
and by Microsoft including Ubuntu inside Windows desktop environments,
It allows Microsoft to control the Ubuntu "experience" and blame Ubuntu for any user dissatisfaction when it is really a Windows container problem. "Look, see, you can run Ubuntu and doesn't Windows actually run much better and faster?"
it allows hundreds of millions of users try Ubuntu without having to wipe their disk, re-partition it, install a hypervisor
Hundreds of millions of users can already run Ubuntu without having to do any of that. I have two USB sticks with Xubuntu on them that boot just fine on my Windows computers, and that's a 16.4 version, I think. Making that stick was absolutely trivial -- I used a bootable Xubuntu DVD and told it to install on /dev/sde.
Not two days ago I came across a bag full of old USB sticks and one of them has a label "Ubuntu" on it. It was much harder to make back in them good ole days, but it, too, is a Ubuntu system unencumbered by an underlying Windows OS.
how exactly does preventing large donors from donating "help" the Linux Foundation?
It doesn't. But preventing large donors who have a vested interest in the failure of Linux as FOSS does. Isn't /. the forum where we hear regular diatribes against large campaign donations because they "buy" the political system? Isn't there a parallel here?
As for the summary saying how great it is that it bring "SQL Server" to Linux, I say "why?" MySQL, Postgres, and a handful of other, better, databases already exist. What does SQL Server add?
I'm not sure why. Is there some point in your deliberate obfuscation?
I am attempting to clarify your incorrect representation of what "science" is. That is not obfuscating, it is the opposite. And you're now resorting to name games.
The way science is done is that you propose a hypothesis, and compare it against observations.
You cannot use random observations, you need to design your experiments carefully to rule out extraneous causes. And to rule out correlation you need to have a control for any experiment you conduct. It is not science to say "I cannot account for this variable so it must be the cause".
If you want to attribute the temperature rise to another cause, identify that cause.
Stop it. I am not trying to attribute anything to anything. You reached the end of what I wrote and kept reading things I didn't say, and now you keep demanding I identify causes.
All I am saying is that science, in this case, is missing the necessary control experiment that allows true proof, so it is not the true scientific method. You cannot disprove the null hypothesis (which is not actually what you claimed it was based on what measurements we are taking) without a control experiment.
If you can't reject the hypothesis because you didn't ever frame a hypothesis-- it really isn't science.
And you cannot reject the null hypothesis without doing the experiment, so that, too, isn't really science when you say you have such proof.
It is the best we can do without the ability to actually have a control, so the best we can say is that the answer is probably right, it is likely to be right. The "consensus" says ... isn't science, it's voting on the truth.
Do you get it now?
The fact that you seem to be missing is that we have good measurements.
We have reasonable measurements of concentration of CO2 and temperature. Not "good" since the sampling is very very sparse compared to the volume of the planetary atmosphere and area of the surface. We don't have measurements of "anthropogenic gasses" since that would require a huge amount of instrumentation at the sources. Yes, we also can measure isotope ratios in the samples we do have, and from that try to back out the sources of the gasses, but that's limited in scope.
If you are proposing that some other input is accounting for the temperature increase, you need to identify that input .
"We can't think of any other cause, so it must be X." That's not how science works.
As for your other question, about paleoclimate
I'm sorry, but I didn't ask a question about paleoclimate. I made a statement of fact.
But just saying "the temperature has risen beforet" really isn't science.
It is part of the scientific process when you know for a fact that the cause you are attempting to pin the blame for a current event on did not exist when similar things happened in the past. It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there can be other causes, the exclusion of which also requires a control Earth that isn't available.
tell me what you are hypothesizing is the input factor that made it rise in the past,
I'll tell you what. Read what I write and then stop at the end. Don't challenge me to provide answers for things I didn't say. That will save us all a lot of time.
What is absolutely unacceptable are the endless human voice announcements telling me how valuable my call is, or even worse, how I could use www.some.company.com to access my account and not have to wait on hold.
First, when I hear a voice I assume someone has answered so I have to stop doing what I was doing and start listening. The first time I get used to the voice and ignore it, it's the support tech actually talking and he hangs up because I'm ignoring him. And second, if www.some.company.com was able to deal with the problem I'm calling about I WOULD NOT BE CALLING.
This desire to have human voices telling people things really gets in the way when it is an amateur radio repeater ID. If it's the stock computer voices you can tell it's the computer. immediately. When it's the recorded voice of the repeater trustee you have to listen long enough to determine that it is an ID and not someone popping up needing to talk to someone. Ego, pure and simple. "My repeater has my voice on it ..." isn't a good reason to do it.
3. The warming rate does not fit the null-hypothesis ("anthropogenic gasses have no effect on global climate.")
That is not actually the null hypothesis for the data currently being collected, since "greenhouse gas" and "anthropogenically sourced greenhouse gas" are not synonyms.
To rule out the null hypothesis, you actually have to test based on that null hypothesis. That means removing all other potential causes and varying only the parameter under study. If you want to disprove the null hypothesis as you have stated it, you need to have two systems: one with AGG and one without. The one without is the control. Where is the control Earth?
Without a control, you have correlation and not causation. Correlation is interesting. Causation is science. THAT'S how science works.
And science tells us that since warming has happened without humans being around (according to the proxies we have for temperature) we KNOW for a fact that there can be other causes. Without a control to rule them out, we have nothing but correlations.
If you're wondering how he eats and breathes And other science facts, Just repeat to yourself "It's just a show, I should really just relax ...
Human Volunteers
- Cost less
- Are probably more accurate
- Have no technical/mechanical failures
- Are almost impossible to "hack", cheat, etc
- And most importantly are far more trustworthy than these god dam machines.
My mother used to be a poll worker in a relatively small township in a relatively small county. It was her job to count and monitor the counting of ballots after the poll closed.
She would tell me about the process after she got home. There were regular arguments between the poll workers of opposite parties whether someone had legally marked their ballot for one candidate or another. The law said a cross-mark. "X" or "+". No fill in the box, and no check marks. The latter was to prevent a poll worker from either voting a ballot or ruining one by checking multiple boxes while unfolding or smoothing out the paper. It was too easy to hide a bit of pencil lead under a bandaid on a finger and make all kinds of marks on a ballot as it was being processed. Much harder to make an "X" than a check.
So, no, humans are not more trustworthy or "almost impossible" to hack. The fact that there are supposed to always be two poll workers of opposite parties monitoring the process proves this. You don't need two if one is impossible to hack.
And if we all paid tax on it, that would make up for Trump not paying taxes for the last umpteen years
And if we all were smart and used the tax laws correctly, none of us would be paying more in taxes than Donald did, either.
Unless you have actual evidence of fraudulent tax returns (and don't you think IRS would be all over this by now if there were?) then your beef is with the law, not the people who obey the law and wind up not paying what you think they should in taxes.
If not, next gen drones will just fly in on maps and distance, not needing active guidance that can be detected.
It is very hard to build guidance systems that can be accurate without position guidance of some sort. The accelerometers and gyros used in the small single chip sensors that have made stabilized drone flight easy respond to accelerations and changes in angle. Flight in a wind which provides a consistent drift is unaccelerated and will not be detected by those devices.
If you take a Phantom 3, for example, and switch it to non-GPS mode, it will quite happily drift with the prevailing winds and require manual control for station-keeping.
You're right. you said "criminal behavior", not "crime".
You're right. I said "criminal behaviour" in a generic statement of the extents to which one side is going to cover things up. I was not referring to this one specific activity, I was talking about a broad range of issues.
You can't treat Clinton like she committed a crime because in your head you know it's possible, somehow, though we just haven't found the evidence yet.
Comey admitted there was evidence, but that it would not be possible to find a prosecutor to act on it. You are now participating in that general behaviour my comment referred to which was, I will admit, possible to interpret in a way it was not meant.
Why would that be unethical?
Because it creates exactly the issue that is has created, and none of the campaign staff have the authority or the responsibility to correct statements that the State Department releases to the public before they are released. Nor should staff of a political campaign have such authority or responsibility. If the State Department facts aren't correct, the campaign staff has plenty of opportunity to correct them with NYT directly. They do know how to contact the New York Times, you know.
State: The Times is asking us about a quote from the Secretary where she claimed the sky is blue. Podesta (or whoever): The secretary wants to emphasize that she said the sky is a steel blue, and that she did point out the clouds on the horizon.
She is not "the Secretary" anymore, and the quote the State Department was providing was correct. If the New York Times wants a clarification on a quote that HRC made while she was Secretary of State, the correct person to ask is HRC herself, because HRC herself is the best and only source for the intent and meaning of anything she said. The New York Times does know how to contact HRC (or her staff) directly, you know.
Would you be as forgiving if this were, say, the IRS releasing information about Donald Trump's taxes and they changed their release based on requests from the Trump campaign staff? The IRS would be expected to speak in facts they could support; changing the facts they release because a Trump campaign staffer asked them to would be highly unethical.
Jesus Christ, you mean if I had specifically pointed out that they were communicating with her appointed representatives, instead of naturally assuming that you would understand that, then this entire idiotic thread could have been avoided?
You have taken an insulting tone here, but I'll try not to respond likewise.
No, this thread has nothing to do with WHO COMMUNICATED WITH WHOM other than correcting your claim that it was with HRC herself as a way of arguing that it wasn't a problem. You can't argue that this isn't an issue because the person being communicated was HRC herself because it wasn't. It was her campaign staff.
This still leaves the issue of her campaign staff asking for AND GETTING changes to information that the State Department was going to release to the New York Times.
Well, I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you.
That's fine. You don't see an issue with a campaign staff vetting official statements from the State Department. I do. This doesn't merit all of the nonsensical hyperbole you've spewed about things I didn't say.
We might as well assume the worst.
More hyperbole and things I didn't say. I didn't say we're assuming the worst. I said that what has already happened is bad. Depending on what those changes were it could be much worse. And you know that.
All your "lines" show is that you're trying to paint this issue as something to do with State requesting records from HRC when it is not. State already knows it requested records, so why would they need to be corrected by campaign staff on that point? No, it has to do with State sending information to HRC's campaign staff so they could coordinate answers to avoid confusion and contradiction. As much as you want to keep referring to the previous records requests, that's irrelevant.
You want a line that shows it was shady? Ok.
"Here's some facts we are sending to the NYT in response to something they asked about."
"Please change your facts so that they say what we want them to say."
"Ok. Done."
See, I can create an "April 20" exchange just like you can. I don't have to be as specific about it, I can use generic words like "facts" and "change". But you've already said you don't think changes to official state department press releases made at the request of an ongoing political campaign are an issue.
Oh, do you?
Yes, I do, and you continue despite knowing that. It's as if you are deliberately trying to avoid the actual issue to excuse what actually happened.
So, let me try to understand what you're suggesting here. Are you trying to suggest that if the State Department has questions for Clinton, that John Kerry takes the time out of his day to personally call up Hillary Clinton
I said nothing of the sort and you know it. YOU said that the State Department had sent email to the former Secretary of State before sending it to the NYT ("Because the "non-governmental person" is the former secretary"), and that is simply not true. None of the people you admit were contacted were HRC, they were ALL members of her CAMPAIGN STAFF.
Nobody said anything about Kerry or that only the current Secretary should contact the previous Secretary, and you know that. The issue has nothing to do with who in the State Department sent the information to be vetted, and you know that, too.
How the hell do you know that the changes were unethical? Fill me in!
Because ANY changes made based on requests from the campaign staff of an ongoing campaign is unethical. I don't know how much clearer that can be said. The State Department should not be vetting an information release with the campaign for any candidate, they should release the facts as they know them and let the candidate take care of sending the NYT her spin on those facts. It really is that simple.
You're assuming there's some shady shit going on here.
No, I know there's something shady, because the fact the changes were made is already known. I think you've even agreed that there was something changed.
I hope you'll pardon me if I don't drop everything and organize a mob to put Clinton under civil arrest.
I never said anything like that, either, and you know it. I tire of your endless hyperbole.
The only outrage I'm able to feel right now is directed at you for apparently thinking that I should be outraged
I am not outraged, nor have I ever said that you should be outraged, and you know that, too.
You're pissed off because State contacted the former secretaries' representatives, instead of John Kerry personally calling up each of those secretaries himself to ask them if they could just send their records right over. Because that's totally how our government does business.
This issue has nothing to do with State's request for records from the former secretary for long term archive, it has to do with allowing her campaign staff to request changes to information to be released to the New York Times. But you know that.
Since you seem incapable of anything but hyperbole in defense of HRC, I'll just stop trying to correct you on what I've said and haven't said and let you continue to make it up on your own. You clearly are having more fun doing that than trying to discuss this problem seriously.
And State did not email John Podesta. That's also a fact.
The press secretary from State (spokeswoman, whatever they call her) sent an email to Clinton's press secretary and others with her campaign.
Which members of Clinton's campaign staff have been Secretary of State?
The people involved are Lauren Hickey, the person at State, who emailed Heather Samuelson, who is apparently a lawyer involved with determining which emails get released and which don't, plus Philippe Reines, an HRC senior advisor while she was at state and a current aide, and Nick Merill, the HRC traveling press secretary.
None of them have been the Secretary. And I'll say this again since it didn't sink in the first time. It is not a problem that the SD sent HRCs campaign a copy of material it was going to send to NYT. It was unethical for SD to CHANGE THE MATERIAL IT SENT based on requests from CAMPAIGN STAFF of a current and active political campaign. We don't know what the change was; but the fact it happened is not appropriate. If the State Department doesn't know an answer to something, it should say so and let the NYT ask HRC themselves. There is no need to coordinate answers to prevent confusion and contradiction.
What if the information that State was releasing was factually incorrect, vague, etc, and the campaign was seeking to correct or clarify?
What if? Then HRC could contact NYT with the corrections directly. Then the public could see both the State Department answer and HRC's answer and not wonder what it was that HRC's CAMPAIGN STAFF didn't want to come out in public.
On the list of reasons why I dislike her, I'll file this particular email somewhere in the low to mid hundreds.
On that we agree, but you are arguing that it is a non-problem, not that it is a lesser problem than many of the other problems. If you are agreeing that it is a problem, then why keep saying it isn't?
It's not "a political campaign", it's the former secretary.
Oh, stop it. None of the people involved in the email was a former secretary of state, they were ALL members of her POLITICAL CAMPAIGN STAFF.
And, what did they change? She says there was a change "re records"
We don't know what was changed. But SD changing things based on a campaign staff request is the problem.
no, it's just a horse.
And here you are arguing it isn't a problem of any kind, despite admitting that it is in your list of reasons why to dislike her.
What legitimate reason is there for flying drones over prisons?
I live in a prison, you insensitive clod, and I have hobbies, too.
Because the "non-governmental person" is the former secretary
John Podesta's name does not appear on the list of past secretaries of state. John Podesta's email.
I don't see an inherent problem with the State Department sending information to a "non-governmental person" before they release it to the public.
I don't either. The problem comes when the campaign staffers to whom it was sent then ask for and are granted changes to the material before it is then actually released to the public.
Please stop trying to paint the issue as just the pre-release, because that's not what the issue is. It's more than that. It's like trying to claim that your car ran out of gas because you tuned the radio to 101.3 FM. It ran out of gas because you got in the car, started driving, tuned the radio to 101.3FM, and then ignoring the gas gauge you drove past half a dozen gas stations without bothering to fill up. There's the mandatory car analogy.
Is it because she was campaigning?
It was because the material was sent to a political campaign and the campaign got it changed.
Would the proper response have been "we can't comment on the activity of the former secretary because she's engaged in an election campaign,
No, the proper response would have been "thank you for notifying us of information you are sending to the NYT about the candidate we work for", not "please change this material before you release it to the public." Yes, "thank you" would have gone over much better.
The idea that it's a crime
And you're getting modded up for trying to put words in my mouth. I didn't say "crime", you did.
If they actually had agreed to lie about something,
It's called "an example of what kind of thing could have happened", not factual evidence that the State Department wanted to know what color to say the sky is.
The fine summary tells us that nobody has figured out what was changed by the State Department at the campaign's request.
The fact is, it is unethical for a political campaign to be vetting information that the State Department sends to the NYT, both for the NYT to allow it and the State Department to do it. No, it wasn't state confabbing with the ex-director -- John Podesta and Nick Merrill haven't been directors ever.
The Dept was asked to comment on a particular story about the previous secretary, which they did, and also forwarded her a copy of their response.
They must have provided the copy to the campaign before they sent it to NYT, because they couldn't have corrected it based on campaign staff suggestions otherwise. That's where the problem comes in, not that they would send a copy after the fact to the campaign.
They each need to know what the other is saying in order to avoid contradiction and confusion.
If both parties tell the truth, then there is no contradiction or confusion.
"What color are you going to tell the New York Times the sky is?"
"I am going to say 'green'."
"Ok, I'll say 'green' too, so there is no contradiction or confusion."
Then you are sorely, sorely mistaken about how communications between organisations and the media happens.
This was communications between the US State Department and the Hillary Clinton political campaign. Neither are "media".
And it's not a government agency checking with a campaign; it's a government agency coordinating with the ex-director about whom the media is asking questions.
Neither John Podesta nor Nick Merrill were ex-directors of the State Department.
Seriously, the efforts people on one side are going to in order to excuse criminal behaviour is shameful.
They are the "privacy concern" in the first place, using battery levels as a piece of identifying data for your browser session.
For a session, they already have your IP address and port information. They have the info in the user agent header.
Of what value is a tracking system that reports a different user just because someone has put his device on a charger, or that thinks it is talking to someone different because the battery level has gone down?
For AT&T's part, this is their response to their loss of the natural monopoly they had in the 80's,
It would be silly to claim that they're thinking about something from almost four decades ago when they consider merging with Time Warner. AT&T from four decades ago is a very different company from what they are today.
And it wasn't a natural monopoly, it truly was a government-granted one. Even then, there were other local telcos. General Telephone, for example. They had to jump onto Ma Bell's long distance circuits to provide that service, however.
but which is seriously threatened by the advent of mesh area networks which could in theory obviate the need for ISP's altogether.
It is hard for them to be threatened by something that exists only "in theory" and will probably stay that way for a long time. A working mesh network requires a density of devices that isn't likely to happen outside a dense urban area, and even then the buildings necessary to pack that many people into an area would be a hindrance to the signals the network would need to work.
People are just not going to buy new wireless devices so they can donate their capacity to other people, and this will result in a limited throughput for those who do. The only way a mesh network will come about anytime soon is if an ISP does the installation and sells access.
And I'm working on my insulin pump right now. Get rid of the fascist government-mandated performance limitations and I'll be able to do 90 to 0 in ten seconds (mg/dL). Woo hoo!
If they don't eventually invest in fibre, companies like Google that are laying fibre will eventually eat their lunch.
The fact that Google is drawing back on fiber tells us that the demand for fiber is not sufficient to create the supply. It's easy for a technological web blog to think that everyone must want gigabit fiber service because, well, everyone should want it! But it is easy to forget that the vast majority of people in the US simply don't think they need fiber.
If /. was a good indicator of what "everyone wants", then everyone on /. would a billionaire for coming up with ideas for things that everyone wants.
Water, electricity, gas, all provided by profit-driven companies. I'm not sure what the correlation is.
Where I live, electricity and gas are profit-driven corporate services.
Water is a city service. This makes the water bill the go-to method for the city council to add new taxes for just about everything. Our water bill has a tax to provide free bus service for everyone, a tax to pay for tree trimming, a tax to pay for sidewalk maintenance, a tax to pay for street maintenance .... That last one was the first major tax added to the water bill and was supposed to be temporary to pay for fixing one specific bit of road that the contractor screwed up when he built it ten years prior. That tax worked out so well and generated so much money that it became permanent, and now we've got all kinds of unrelated taxes added to our water bills.
So not only is the OP wrong in claiming that those four things should be provided by the friendly government, two or three of them have long been corporate services without significant issues, and the fourth (data) is an attempt to convert "I want" into "everyone needs".
And thus it was OK for DSL to be a monopoly, cable to be a monopoly, and satellite to be a monopoy.
Except that DSL isn't a monopoly, satellite has never been a monopoly, and the government did outlaw exclusive franchise agreements (government-granted monopolies) for cable a long time ago. And in this context -- being an ISP -- there has never been a monopoly on that.
"It doesn't seem to be doing much of what we'd call 'dancing', is it?"
It's a dancing bear - the point is not how well the bear dances.
Anything Alice and Bob said while developing the encryption - the whole process of agreeing on how it works - was overhead by Eve.
Alice and Bob started with an encryption system and then developed one of their own.