If it is the place you work, it is not your email.
Yes, it is my email. The fact I don't run the server doesn't make it not my email.
So I would not care what happens with it.
I know you don't care what happens with it. I care, and I need to care, because that is how I get communications from other departments on campus, including human resources and payroll and purchasing.
That does not even mean that they use Gmail.
I'm sorry, but just because the email doesn't end in gmail.com doesn't mean they haven't outsourced the service to gmail and all email doesn't go through gmail servers.
And the governement agency that has a google account: tell them to run their own servers (Oh, wait. That is how POTUS got power).
Ok, TDS is your shtick and everything is Trump's fault. I can't tell anyone what server they have to run.
Yes, still not your email, so not your problem. It is the agencies problem.
Your naivete is really cute. Someday you'll move out of your parent's basement and get a job in the real world and learn better. When purchasing says they need documentation that something I ordered was received before it will be paid, in the immediate sense it is not my problem. In the long run, when the vendor I want to buy something from again tells me he won't deal with me because he never got paid for the last order, it becomes my problem. Or when the vendor starts tacking on late fees and my boss wants to know why he's wasting money on late fees, it's even more my problem.
So no, the point stands. Just telling someone that they can run their own servers deoesn't mean they can, even if they know how to, and it doesn't solve the gmail confidential mail problem.
What's to prevent you from accessing Gmail via an IMAP client?
An interesting question. Here's the result of an experiment.
First, sending "confidential" email is not the default, at least not for any of my accounts. For my main one, I had to ask to be switched to the new gmail. Once I did that, the compose window added a lock icon to turn on sending confidential email. This added a large notice in the compose window telling me that I was sending such an email, and that this would be enabled until Aug. 27. However, the second time I logged in today I had to re-enable the secure email.
I sent another of my gmail accounts that I normally access via IMAP a secure message, and I had earlier sent one to a non-gmail address.
In both cases, through IMAP to gmail and IMAP to non-gmail, I was shown an email that told me that "I" had sent "me" "an email via Gmail confidential mode". It showed me the subject, and gave me a link to open the email. I.e., access to the email itself is NOT provided via IMAP, only via a web browser.
The two destinations differ from this point. My non-gmail recipient was shown a page that told me I had gotten a confidential email and I must click on another link that would send me (at the same address) a verification email. If someone had hacked my email and was reading this confidential email, then he's also get the confirmation email. No security there.
The gmail destination demands that I log into my gmail account to read the confidential email.
When I go directly to my gmail inbox by logging in and selecting the confidential email, I am shown the same message as what I see in my IMAP inboxes. (I'm told I have received such a message and given a link to read it.) Clicking the link in this last test opens a new window and then displays the message. When I try to print the message, the printout shows "printing is not allowed by the sender", even if I have blocked javascript using noscript.
It is pretty clear that Google stores the notification message in your gmail inbox, and sends the same notification to non-gmail email servers. The only way to access the email is via the special link to a different, web-only server.
I did not try setting the "SMS verification" option for the confidential email. I'm guessing that gmail would ask me for a text-able phone number and gladly tie that to the email address of the recipient. I'm not going to do that just to test this system.
Why are we entitled to more than them? Answer that simple question
I didn't say we were. I said it was hypocritical to tell one group that what they are doing is bad and evil while you tell another group that it ok for them to continue. Period.
You show your obvious entitlement mentality when you talk of reverting to 1990 levels.
I don't really give a damn what year you use for defining baseline. Being a hypocrite isn't in the year you choose, it's in having two different messages.
You plan is to grandfather in our high levels of pollution
The fact you think I have "a plan" proves you either didn't bother reading what I actually wrote, or your reading comprehension skills are seriously failing you.
Yeah, because the rice-grain implant is like, totally free and stuff.
Who said it was? I said they save the cost of employees. That's a much larger cost than a couple of dollars for an RFID thing. Getting rid of just one employee at $100k cost (remember benefits and taxes before you complain that he's only paid $50k) would pay for 5000 RFID things at $20 each. And that's a one-time cost, where the employee is recurring.
"A student has an Echo and adds the Canvas Skill to their Alexa account.
A choice made by the student. A poor choice, but still his choice. It is essentially no different than a student posting his grade reports on the building bulletin board.
They aren't student accounts for the SLU Dots. Students can run their own Dot and make stupid choices, but SLU hasn't made that choice for them.
Weasel words. The input is parsed and transcribed. Who needs a recording?
Lie words. I have a Dot. Using the Alexa app, I can listen to the recording of every time Alexa has woken up and thought she was asked something. I don't know what "Alexa Business" does, but Alexa certainly does make and keep recordings.
Or is there some new definition of "recording" where "a digitized copy of audio that can be played back later" does not count as a "recording"?
You are on/. You will have the technical lnowlwdge to have your own domain and can find a cheap provider for your email, including your own server.
I have had my own domains for decades, and run a couple of my own mail servers. Do'h.
But the place I work has outsourced email to... Google, as has a government agency I volunteer with. They're going to be sending email to gmail accounts. Both are based on requirements for archiving email, and neither are going away.
Luxury towers are inhabited by people who have the means to spend the money to consume more energy. This means central air and the money to pay the corresponding electric bill.
I was struck by the fact that buildings do not emit CO2 -- unless they have gas appliances or fireplaces, and these building wouldn't. So the issue is apparently the use of electricity.
Now, electricity is what makes automobiles "zero emission". Why doesn't it make buildings the same?
I'd guess an automated process run amok myself. Why would someone manually change the field of expertise of someone they're trying to sell the services of, and likewise the pricing, etc.? Written quickly based on perceived patterns in input data, tested on a few other inputs, then turned loose. Kind of like the crappy javascript "email validation" code written by crappy programmers who based their tests on what their and their bosses email addresses look like, which fail miserably when validating a huge number of quite legal and valid email addresses in real life. The standards are pretty clear on what characters can appear in the local part of an email address, yet their validation excludes lots of them.
I'd be curious if you are in any way related to the company.
Remember what curiosity did to the cat. But no, I am not involved with either company in any way. I've just seen lots of empirically-derived programs from even professional programmers fail in lots of magical and mystical ways, and don't assume it's malicious, just stupid.
otherwise they'd know that you could not rely on it to make a call any better than a human umpire could make, not even close in fact.
With appropriately placed high-frame-rate cameras (two) and a simple modification to player uniforms, it would be almost trivial to build an efficient, accurate strike/ball detecting system. The question is very simple: "did, at any time, the ball (spherical white object) pass through the 3-dimensional space defined by planes parallel to the ground at two marked spots on a batter and the five-sided polygon on the ground?"
Using the same overhead camera the detection of "strike by failed swing" could also be detected. "Did the bat pass the point where it counts as a swing?"
A human eye can be trained to do both measurements, but over the course of a many hour game the human will tire and become less accurate. He will also be susceptible to psychological games such as catchers pulling the glove back inside the strike zone after catching something that should be a ball.
People, could we please stop thinking that 'AI' solves everything?
This has nothing to do with AI, just as it has nothing to do with robots.
Machines are great at determining play-field collisions in 2d. That's, pretty much, what a strike box is.
It is a 3D box. The top and bottom are based on the batter's dimensions. The horizontal dimensions are the five sides of home plate. Just because the TV shows a 2D rectangle doesn't mean it's a fact.
While it certainly was a bad way of generating new passwords for the users they needed to transition to the new systems, it isn't as earth shattering as it is being made out to be.
While we could guess that Gravis Zero's password is "supergravis", we'd have to know what the email address he uses as his username is.
And we have to get to his account before he changes the password. The only people who knew the system changed and there is a default password problem are those who were migrated -- a limited set of people. (Three million SuperProf users, but no mention of how many Tutor Page tutors there were.) Until, of course, some of them ran to the media to let everyone know that their new SuperProf accounts were guessable. Lisa the Clarinetist ran to the media complaining about a whole bunch of things unrelated to this security issue. One of those awful things that SuperProf did? They sent her a text at a number she used for contacts with students without her permission! The cads!
SuperProf has resolved the problem, however, so let the storm reach hurricane force and sweep through the media for another week.
If the default passwords are so easily guessable, what other security weaknesses does SuperProf have? Can someone break into their servers, and get the SSN and bank account numbers of their tutors and students?
It's much, much worse. I just logged in using the default password for my Swahili tutor and I was able to break into their servers and enter the launch codes for not just the North Korean nuclear missiles, but Iran, India, Pakistan, and Tuvalu's missiles as well. You've all got about ten minutes before the world ends in a glowing fireball. Those sirens you are hearing aren't a cop or ambulance going by, they're the "kiss your ass goodbye" warning.
And more of convenience to the employer than of distrust. They already "trust but verify" by having key card access to places. What they save is the cost of most of the employees who have to do the "verify" part, and training/supervision/management of them.
For example say you want to buy your groceries in cash, well there's four self-checkout lanes (electronic only), two card-only registries and one cash registry. Which always has a line.
Grocery stores have a vested interest in making checking out easy. If there is one lane that "always has a line" then they'll be looking at how to solve that problem. Most likely there will be NO "electronic only" or "card only" lanes, just as there are no such "only" lanes at any of the groceries I shop at now.
Then you start selling period cards only electronically.
This would be a huge benefit to society as a whole. If many women could not get their "period card" except "electronically", then there'd be fewer unwanted pregnancies. I expect, though, it would just become another embarrassing errand for the boyfriend to do. "Honey, can you run out to the store and pick me up some tampons and a period card?"
then make the "perk" level the new normal and the rest effectively penalized.
You don' t need an "app" for this to happen. The local Safeway has about 90% of the items on the shelf with yellow shelf tags "club price". Those club prices are still much higher than the other major store in town, and I have to imagine that Safeway stays in business by predating on carless college students.
I wish you were right since that would mean that Trump pulling out was a thoughtful and morally weighted decision because he intelligently concluded that the Paris agreement didn't go far enough and was vapor due to being non-binding.
I am right, even if the reason he made the decision didn't include "didn't go far enough". "Didn't go far enough" is so vague as to be as useless as the accord itself. Would more draconian promises without any binding effects be any better, even though it would be "going further" than the existing accord?
since even a non-binding agreement is better than none at all, since it means that the world is at least acknowledging the problem.
There is that one small upside, but the larger downside is that it means "the world" also assumes that it has done something significant when it has done nothing. Well, lots of diplomats got a nice vacation in Paris and got to eat a lot of expensive French food and stay in nice hotels, and a lot of them got to brag about how much good they did for the health of the planet, but I don't consider that to be significant accomplishment.
Unfortunately those were not his motivations. His reasons where that he claimed it
I'm sorry, but you're confusing what he said about the accord with why he actually pulled us out. What he claimed it would do is not necessarily the reason he pulled us out. He's also right, in that DOING what the non-binding accord calls for would hurt US industry and the economy. But since there was no requirement to DO, the accord meant nothing, and pulling out was a sign that virtue signalling is not a reasonable approach to solving a technological problem.
We have been told to stop, but that's quite different from actually stopping.
Of course that's true.
It is still hypocritical to argue that third world nations should be allowed to do something that you claim is a world-destroying, life-threatening mistake, and you are telling the first world nations to stop.
You want to cut CO2, cut it from the people who make the most, not the people who make the least.
Also of course. But telling third world nations they can continue on the upward path while demanding others slide backwards is hypocritical. Either everyone has to refrain from destroying the planet or nobody has to.
And, I'll point out, third world countries that are already low CO2 emitters have to cut much less, in absolute terms, than any first world country. "Revert to 1990 levels" is a lot of CO2 for large countries, but not much for the third world.
I get it though, we like to stay on top as long as we can, and stopping other countries from catching up is a good way to do it.
I get it. You hate the planet, so you'd rather that the third world "catch up" to the emissions of the first world ones.
Why swap places?
Because that's what draconian limits on first world economies and no limits on third world ones would result in. It's a result, not a specific goal.
Are you really going to tell a Chinese person he can't buy a car because it will increase China's CO2 and be bad for the environment, all while America drives the most inefficient fleet of cars.
Are you not going to tell a Chinese person that his action is going to cause harm to the planet just because someone someplace else hasn't listened to you? Spite much?
Why are we surprised when they don't listen to us or take us seriously.
We aren't, because we've had a series of leaders who do stupid things like sign on to useless, meaningless, virtue-signalling protocols that promised the moon but could achieve nothing but creating more hot air. The only people who are surprised are those who were deluded into thinking that such diplomatic solutions were going to accomplish technological goals.
There's an Internet meme for this. Anytime someone proposes laws or rules that they claim would stop spam, a common response is a stock form with checkbox items explaining why it won't work. One of those items is "you are proposing a sociological solution to a technical problem."
"stop burning fossil fuels", when before it was going to take eliminating CO2 emissions.
It's the same thing.
Hardly. CO2 comes from more things than just burning fossil fuels. To eliminate CO2 emissions requires stopping all sources, not just one. Reducing is not eliminating.
The difference is like saying you want to eliminate automobiles from the city streets, and then passing a ban on Fords. You've reduced the number of automobiles temporarily, but you have not eliminated them. There might still be an overall increase as more people move into the city with their non-Ford cars, and Ford owners switch to other makes to get around your ridiculous ban.
Way to elevate the conversation.
It was a minor comment as part of the major point: eliminating CO2 emissions requires all life on the planet to cease. I jokingly made that result a part of a crackpot philosophical system, but the main point remains, and I allowed you an easy way to ignore it by doing so. My bad.
It is caused by the heat trapped by the CO2 that comes from converting C and O to CO2.
What???
Neither a climate scientist nor a chemist are you? C is the symbol for carbon. O is the symbol for oxygen. Carbon, or the carbon in carbon containing compounds, can combine with oxygen from oxygen containing compounds to create carbon dioxide. This carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, which means that it traps heat coming from the sun from escaping back into space after it reaches the earth. This is called "anthropogenic global warming", or AGW for short, when the CO2 comes from a human activity.
It is NOT the heat released from the oxidation of carbon -- I'm sorry, for the non-chemist, that means converting C and O into CO2 and/or CO -- that causes AGW. The planet is not heating up because of the heat released from your campfire. It is the trapping of the heat from the solar input by the CO2 after being generated and released into the atmosphere.
How do we know that it isn't the heat from the combustion that causes AGW? Because the heat that comes out of the fire had to come from somewhere, and that was from the heat used in creating the compounds in the firewood and the free oxygen. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. The chemical process of burning firewood is taking place in a closed system. A very large closed system, but still closed -- the Earth. The heat that leads to AGW is coming from outside that system. Radiation from the sun.
This is all basic science. It took many sentences to explain to you in full what I said in one last time, but it is still pretty basic science.
Animals are not a carbon sequestering method. We take carbon and oxygen and emit it as CO2.
That carbon came from eating plants which got it from the atmosphere. That atmospheric carbon ends up sequestered (for a time) in the animal.
And then it is emitted again as CO2. Yes, indeed, humans emit CO2. Where the carbon came from isn't relevant to that.
Now, you appear to be making an argument related to sequestered carbon. Humans aren't emitting CO2 because they are just releasing sequestered carbon. That's what it looks like you are saying. Well, burning fossil fuels is also releasing sequestered carbon. If one source of CO2 is NOT "emission" because it is just releasing sequestered C, and the other source IS "emission" even though it is also just releasing sequestered C, then there is a problem in definitions somewhere.
Now, climate scientists have come up with some convoluted means of "proving" which CO2 molecules came from "natural sources" and which from "anthropogenic" ones (which to any chemist reading the methods looks like gobble-de-gook), but they have not tried to claim that "anthropogenic CO2" behaves differently than other CO2 with respect to heat trappi
No. I mean no further warming once we stop burning fossil fuels.
Then you were clarifying something that said exactly what it meant. Since you felt a need to clarify, I assumed it must mean something other than the obvious. But now it refers to "stop burning fossil fuels", when before it was going to take eliminating CO2 emissions.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but the quote I gave was from the literature: (Holden et al. 2018).
Your link was to a blog at wordpress. The "about me" for the blog author started by saying the author is not a climate scientist. Citing a blog from a non-climate scientist because he agrees with the near-consensus is at odds with the standard practice of insulting and dismissing non-client scientists as "they're not a climate scientist and thus can have no informed opinion about anything to do with climate science" when they have an opposing viewpoint. I didn't say you specifically do that, but that's the standard response when any non-climate scientist tries to point to flaws in the data or how it is interpreted.
Right. That was my point when I said "Warming will not stop at the end of the century unless emissions cease,"
"The end of the century" has nothing to do with it. There is no magic to Dec. 31, 2200. If "emissions cease" then either the warming will stop or it won't. It won't, because ceasing emissions will not change the input or output of the heat flow process. The greenhouse will still be a greenhouse.
You've gone well deep into crazy land with that one.
Well, it's nice that you notice. I'm echoing some of the crazier concepts that some climate change zealots pronounce. You know, like "Gaia is getting Her revenge on those who ravage her." The point was that unless all animal life is gone, there's going to be CO2 emissions. It's like that song... "every breath you take, every move you make..."
That's not sequestered carbon emitted by the animals. It has no effect on atmospheric CO2.
Animals are not a carbon sequestering method. We take carbon and oxygen and emit it as CO2.
AGW will stop when we stop burning fossil fuels.
AGW is not caused by the heat released when we burn fossil fuels. It is caused by the heat trapped by the CO2 that comes from converting C and O to CO2. That CO2 does not magically disappear at the end of the century, so warming caused by trapped heat will continue -- until the CO2 is actually reduced. Just stopping the use of fossil fuels doesn't remove CO2, and it doesn't stop all CO2 emission. (And this is ignoring other greenhouse gasses like methane, which will come bubbling up from the frigid ocean bottoms once the methane hydrates warm up and release it. Have you ever seen "burning ice"? I have. A chunk of methane hydrate looks just like ice, but you can light it on fire. You don't need to burn it to have a greenhouse gas, even.)
In the Paris climate agreement nations (except Trump's USA of course) have agreed to limit it to 2C.
I'll do even better. I'll agree to limit it to 1.01C. Problem solved. Now we can move on to homelessness and solve that.
Since that is a non-binding agreement and nobody will give a shit, the projected increase is probably going to be 3.5C.
It was a non-binding agreement to do something that cannot be directly accomplished in the first place. Anyone can say "we're going to limit warming to 2C" when they know they can't actually do that directly and there is no downside to making such a promise. You're right, nobody will give a shit if the projected increase is 2C or 3.5C. What happens is what happens, and your projections won't change that. All that you accomplish by changing the projected increase to 3.5C is give support to those who say that the numbers are all made up anyway. If they won't "give a shit" when you say the projected rise is 2C, then changing the projection to 3.5C to try to make them "give a shit" only proves you're using numbers to scare people.
Trump pulling the US out of a non-binding, undoable accord was a signal that it didn't mean anything, and being non-binding and unaccomplishable is why it doesn't mean anything. The entire accord was virtue signalling at it's finest, and someone finally said "the emperor has no clothes."
Slashdot Mirror
If it is the place you work, it is not your email.
Yes, it is my email. The fact I don't run the server doesn't make it not my email.
So I would not care what happens with it.
I know you don't care what happens with it. I care, and I need to care, because that is how I get communications from other departments on campus, including human resources and payroll and purchasing.
That does not even mean that they use Gmail.
I'm sorry, but just because the email doesn't end in gmail.com doesn't mean they haven't outsourced the service to gmail and all email doesn't go through gmail servers.
And the governement agency that has a google account: tell them to run their own servers (Oh, wait. That is how POTUS got power).
Ok, TDS is your shtick and everything is Trump's fault. I can't tell anyone what server they have to run.
Yes, still not your email, so not your problem. It is the agencies problem.
Your naivete is really cute. Someday you'll move out of your parent's basement and get a job in the real world and learn better. When purchasing says they need documentation that something I ordered was received before it will be paid, in the immediate sense it is not my problem. In the long run, when the vendor I want to buy something from again tells me he won't deal with me because he never got paid for the last order, it becomes my problem. Or when the vendor starts tacking on late fees and my boss wants to know why he's wasting money on late fees, it's even more my problem.
So no, the point stands. Just telling someone that they can run their own servers deoesn't mean they can, even if they know how to, and it doesn't solve the gmail confidential mail problem.
What's to prevent you from accessing Gmail via an IMAP client?
An interesting question. Here's the result of an experiment.
First, sending "confidential" email is not the default, at least not for any of my accounts. For my main one, I had to ask to be switched to the new gmail. Once I did that, the compose window added a lock icon to turn on sending confidential email. This added a large notice in the compose window telling me that I was sending such an email, and that this would be enabled until Aug. 27. However, the second time I logged in today I had to re-enable the secure email.
I sent another of my gmail accounts that I normally access via IMAP a secure message, and I had earlier sent one to a non-gmail address.
In both cases, through IMAP to gmail and IMAP to non-gmail, I was shown an email that told me that "I" had sent "me" "an email via Gmail confidential mode". It showed me the subject, and gave me a link to open the email. I.e., access to the email itself is NOT provided via IMAP, only via a web browser.
The two destinations differ from this point. My non-gmail recipient was shown a page that told me I had gotten a confidential email and I must click on another link that would send me (at the same address) a verification email. If someone had hacked my email and was reading this confidential email, then he's also get the confirmation email. No security there.
The gmail destination demands that I log into my gmail account to read the confidential email.
When I go directly to my gmail inbox by logging in and selecting the confidential email, I am shown the same message as what I see in my IMAP inboxes. (I'm told I have received such a message and given a link to read it.) Clicking the link in this last test opens a new window and then displays the message. When I try to print the message, the printout shows "printing is not allowed by the sender", even if I have blocked javascript using noscript.
It is pretty clear that Google stores the notification message in your gmail inbox, and sends the same notification to non-gmail email servers. The only way to access the email is via the special link to a different, web-only server.
I did not try setting the "SMS verification" option for the confidential email. I'm guessing that gmail would ask me for a text-able phone number and gladly tie that to the email address of the recipient. I'm not going to do that just to test this system.
I totally agree that the best way to cut costs is to fire people and I agree that take-home pay should be at least doubled to account for the savings.
I don't know who you are agreeing with, but if you are pretending that it's me, you're being really dishonest here. I said neither thing.
The article talks about convenience.
Yes. And I pointed to the convenience of not having to pay several people or manage them.
No one mentioned downsizing.
I did.
These things have to be registered, deregistered, replaced if damaged, or by way of failure.
So do ID and other access cards. so this is a wash. Same for both.
Why are we entitled to more than them? Answer that simple question
I didn't say we were. I said it was hypocritical to tell one group that what they are doing is bad and evil while you tell another group that it ok for them to continue. Period.
You show your obvious entitlement mentality when you talk of reverting to 1990 levels.
I don't really give a damn what year you use for defining baseline. Being a hypocrite isn't in the year you choose, it's in having two different messages.
You plan is to grandfather in our high levels of pollution
The fact you think I have "a plan" proves you either didn't bother reading what I actually wrote, or your reading comprehension skills are seriously failing you.
Yeah, because the rice-grain implant is like, totally free and stuff.
Who said it was? I said they save the cost of employees. That's a much larger cost than a couple of dollars for an RFID thing. Getting rid of just one employee at $100k cost (remember benefits and taxes before you complain that he's only paid $50k) would pay for 5000 RFID things at $20 each. And that's a one-time cost, where the employee is recurring.
"A student has an Echo and adds the Canvas Skill to their Alexa account.
A choice made by the student. A poor choice, but still his choice. It is essentially no different than a student posting his grade reports on the building bulletin board.
They aren't student accounts for the SLU Dots. Students can run their own Dot and make stupid choices, but SLU hasn't made that choice for them.
Weasel words. The input is parsed and transcribed. Who needs a recording?
Lie words. I have a Dot. Using the Alexa app, I can listen to the recording of every time Alexa has woken up and thought she was asked something. I don't know what "Alexa Business" does, but Alexa certainly does make and keep recordings.
Or is there some new definition of "recording" where "a digitized copy of audio that can be played back later" does not count as a "recording"?
Or Apple.
Electricity and heating in buildings make up nearly 70 percent of the city's climate pollution,...
I doubt that Trump Tower uses coal heat.
Interestingly enough, that is one reason why places outsource their email to gmail -- so they can meet records retention policies for themselves.
You are on /. You will have the technical lnowlwdge to have your own domain and can find a cheap provider for your email, including your own server.
I have had my own domains for decades, and run a couple of my own mail servers. Do'h.
But the place I work has outsourced email to ... Google, as has a government agency I volunteer with. They're going to be sending email to gmail accounts. Both are based on requirements for archiving email, and neither are going away.
Luxury towers are inhabited by people who have the means to spend the money to consume more energy. This means central air and the money to pay the corresponding electric bill.
I was struck by the fact that buildings do not emit CO2 -- unless they have gas appliances or fireplaces, and these building wouldn't. So the issue is apparently the use of electricity.
Now, electricity is what makes automobiles "zero emission". Why doesn't it make buildings the same?
All these things seem like manual intervention.
I'd guess an automated process run amok myself. Why would someone manually change the field of expertise of someone they're trying to sell the services of, and likewise the pricing, etc.? Written quickly based on perceived patterns in input data, tested on a few other inputs, then turned loose. Kind of like the crappy javascript "email validation" code written by crappy programmers who based their tests on what their and their bosses email addresses look like, which fail miserably when validating a huge number of quite legal and valid email addresses in real life. The standards are pretty clear on what characters can appear in the local part of an email address, yet their validation excludes lots of them.
I'd be curious if you are in any way related to the company.
Remember what curiosity did to the cat. But no, I am not involved with either company in any way. I've just seen lots of empirically-derived programs from even professional programmers fail in lots of magical and mystical ways, and don't assume it's malicious, just stupid.
It is an imaginary 3D box.
The point is that it is not 2D, whether or not it is a physical object or just a region of space with a defined extent.
otherwise they'd know that you could not rely on it to make a call any better than a human umpire could make, not even close in fact.
With appropriately placed high-frame-rate cameras (two) and a simple modification to player uniforms, it would be almost trivial to build an efficient, accurate strike/ball detecting system. The question is very simple: "did, at any time, the ball (spherical white object) pass through the 3-dimensional space defined by planes parallel to the ground at two marked spots on a batter and the five-sided polygon on the ground?"
Using the same overhead camera the detection of "strike by failed swing" could also be detected. "Did the bat pass the point where it counts as a swing?"
A human eye can be trained to do both measurements, but over the course of a many hour game the human will tire and become less accurate. He will also be susceptible to psychological games such as catchers pulling the glove back inside the strike zone after catching something that should be a ball.
People, could we please stop thinking that 'AI' solves everything?
This has nothing to do with AI, just as it has nothing to do with robots.
Machines are great at determining play-field collisions in 2d. That's, pretty much, what a strike box is.
It is a 3D box. The top and bottom are based on the batter's dimensions. The horizontal dimensions are the five sides of home plate. Just because the TV shows a 2D rectangle doesn't mean it's a fact.
And your password is supergravis.
While it certainly was a bad way of generating new passwords for the users they needed to transition to the new systems, it isn't as earth shattering as it is being made out to be.
While we could guess that Gravis Zero's password is "supergravis", we'd have to know what the email address he uses as his username is.
And we have to get to his account before he changes the password. The only people who knew the system changed and there is a default password problem are those who were migrated -- a limited set of people. (Three million SuperProf users, but no mention of how many Tutor Page tutors there were.) Until, of course, some of them ran to the media to let everyone know that their new SuperProf accounts were guessable. Lisa the Clarinetist ran to the media complaining about a whole bunch of things unrelated to this security issue. One of those awful things that SuperProf did? They sent her a text at a number she used for contacts with students without her permission! The cads!
SuperProf has resolved the problem, however, so let the storm reach hurricane force and sweep through the media for another week.
If the default passwords are so easily guessable, what other security weaknesses does SuperProf have? Can someone break into their servers, and get the SSN and bank account numbers of their tutors and students?
It's much, much worse. I just logged in using the default password for my Swahili tutor and I was able to break into their servers and enter the launch codes for not just the North Korean nuclear missiles, but Iran, India, Pakistan, and Tuvalu's missiles as well. You've all got about ten minutes before the world ends in a glowing fireball. Those sirens you are hearing aren't a cop or ambulance going by, they're the "kiss your ass goodbye" warning.
I see this more as a convenience to the employee.
And more of convenience to the employer than of distrust. They already "trust but verify" by having key card access to places. What they save is the cost of most of the employees who have to do the "verify" part, and training/supervision/management of them.
For example say you want to buy your groceries in cash, well there's four self-checkout lanes (electronic only), two card-only registries and one cash registry. Which always has a line.
Grocery stores have a vested interest in making checking out easy. If there is one lane that "always has a line" then they'll be looking at how to solve that problem. Most likely there will be NO "electronic only" or "card only" lanes, just as there are no such "only" lanes at any of the groceries I shop at now.
Then you start selling period cards only electronically.
This would be a huge benefit to society as a whole. If many women could not get their "period card" except "electronically", then there'd be fewer unwanted pregnancies. I expect, though, it would just become another embarrassing errand for the boyfriend to do. "Honey, can you run out to the store and pick me up some tampons and a period card?"
then make the "perk" level the new normal and the rest effectively penalized.
You don' t need an "app" for this to happen. The local Safeway has about 90% of the items on the shelf with yellow shelf tags "club price". Those club prices are still much higher than the other major store in town, and I have to imagine that Safeway stays in business by predating on carless college students.
I wish you were right since that would mean that Trump pulling out was a thoughtful and morally weighted decision because he intelligently concluded that the Paris agreement didn't go far enough and was vapor due to being non-binding.
I am right, even if the reason he made the decision didn't include "didn't go far enough". "Didn't go far enough" is so vague as to be as useless as the accord itself. Would more draconian promises without any binding effects be any better, even though it would be "going further" than the existing accord?
since even a non-binding agreement is better than none at all, since it means that the world is at least acknowledging the problem.
There is that one small upside, but the larger downside is that it means "the world" also assumes that it has done something significant when it has done nothing. Well, lots of diplomats got a nice vacation in Paris and got to eat a lot of expensive French food and stay in nice hotels, and a lot of them got to brag about how much good they did for the health of the planet, but I don't consider that to be significant accomplishment.
Unfortunately those were not his motivations. His reasons where that he claimed it
I'm sorry, but you're confusing what he said about the accord with why he actually pulled us out. What he claimed it would do is not necessarily the reason he pulled us out. He's also right, in that DOING what the non-binding accord calls for would hurt US industry and the economy. But since there was no requirement to DO, the accord meant nothing, and pulling out was a sign that virtue signalling is not a reasonable approach to solving a technological problem.
We have been told to stop, but that's quite different from actually stopping.
Of course that's true.
It is still hypocritical to argue that third world nations should be allowed to do something that you claim is a world-destroying, life-threatening mistake, and you are telling the first world nations to stop.
You want to cut CO2, cut it from the people who make the most, not the people who make the least.
Also of course. But telling third world nations they can continue on the upward path while demanding others slide backwards is hypocritical. Either everyone has to refrain from destroying the planet or nobody has to.
And, I'll point out, third world countries that are already low CO2 emitters have to cut much less, in absolute terms, than any first world country. "Revert to 1990 levels" is a lot of CO2 for large countries, but not much for the third world.
I get it though, we like to stay on top as long as we can, and stopping other countries from catching up is a good way to do it.
I get it. You hate the planet, so you'd rather that the third world "catch up" to the emissions of the first world ones.
Why swap places?
Because that's what draconian limits on first world economies and no limits on third world ones would result in. It's a result, not a specific goal.
Are you really going to tell a Chinese person he can't buy a car because it will increase China's CO2 and be bad for the environment, all while America drives the most inefficient fleet of cars.
Are you not going to tell a Chinese person that his action is going to cause harm to the planet just because someone someplace else hasn't listened to you? Spite much?
Why are we surprised when they don't listen to us or take us seriously.
We aren't, because we've had a series of leaders who do stupid things like sign on to useless, meaningless, virtue-signalling protocols that promised the moon but could achieve nothing but creating more hot air. The only people who are surprised are those who were deluded into thinking that such diplomatic solutions were going to accomplish technological goals.
There's an Internet meme for this. Anytime someone proposes laws or rules that they claim would stop spam, a common response is a stock form with checkbox items explaining why it won't work. One of those items is "you are proposing a sociological solution to a technical problem."
"stop burning fossil fuels", when before it was going to take eliminating CO2 emissions.
It's the same thing.
Hardly. CO2 comes from more things than just burning fossil fuels. To eliminate CO2 emissions requires stopping all sources, not just one. Reducing is not eliminating.
The difference is like saying you want to eliminate automobiles from the city streets, and then passing a ban on Fords. You've reduced the number of automobiles temporarily, but you have not eliminated them. There might still be an overall increase as more people move into the city with their non-Ford cars, and Ford owners switch to other makes to get around your ridiculous ban.
Way to elevate the conversation.
It was a minor comment as part of the major point: eliminating CO2 emissions requires all life on the planet to cease. I jokingly made that result a part of a crackpot philosophical system, but the main point remains, and I allowed you an easy way to ignore it by doing so. My bad.
It is caused by the heat trapped by the CO2 that comes from converting C and O to CO2.
What???
Neither a climate scientist nor a chemist are you? C is the symbol for carbon. O is the symbol for oxygen. Carbon, or the carbon in carbon containing compounds, can combine with oxygen from oxygen containing compounds to create carbon dioxide. This carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, which means that it traps heat coming from the sun from escaping back into space after it reaches the earth. This is called "anthropogenic global warming", or AGW for short, when the CO2 comes from a human activity.
It is NOT the heat released from the oxidation of carbon -- I'm sorry, for the non-chemist, that means converting C and O into CO2 and/or CO -- that causes AGW. The planet is not heating up because of the heat released from your campfire. It is the trapping of the heat from the solar input by the CO2 after being generated and released into the atmosphere.
How do we know that it isn't the heat from the combustion that causes AGW? Because the heat that comes out of the fire had to come from somewhere, and that was from the heat used in creating the compounds in the firewood and the free oxygen. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. The chemical process of burning firewood is taking place in a closed system. A very large closed system, but still closed -- the Earth. The heat that leads to AGW is coming from outside that system. Radiation from the sun.
This is all basic science. It took many sentences to explain to you in full what I said in one last time, but it is still pretty basic science.
Animals are not a carbon sequestering method. We take carbon and oxygen and emit it as CO2.
That carbon came from eating plants which got it from the atmosphere. That atmospheric carbon ends up sequestered (for a time) in the animal.
And then it is emitted again as CO2. Yes, indeed, humans emit CO2. Where the carbon came from isn't relevant to that.
Now, you appear to be making an argument related to sequestered carbon. Humans aren't emitting CO2 because they are just releasing sequestered carbon. That's what it looks like you are saying. Well, burning fossil fuels is also releasing sequestered carbon. If one source of CO2 is NOT "emission" because it is just releasing sequestered C, and the other source IS "emission" even though it is also just releasing sequestered C, then there is a problem in definitions somewhere.
Now, climate scientists have come up with some convoluted means of "proving" which CO2 molecules came from "natural sources" and which from "anthropogenic" ones (which to any chemist reading the methods looks like gobble-de-gook), but they have not tried to claim that "anthropogenic CO2" behaves differently than other CO2 with respect to heat trappi
No. I mean no further warming once we stop burning fossil fuels.
Then you were clarifying something that said exactly what it meant. Since you felt a need to clarify, I assumed it must mean something other than the obvious. But now it refers to "stop burning fossil fuels", when before it was going to take eliminating CO2 emissions.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but the quote I gave was from the literature: (Holden et al. 2018).
Your link was to a blog at wordpress. The "about me" for the blog author started by saying the author is not a climate scientist. Citing a blog from a non-climate scientist because he agrees with the near-consensus is at odds with the standard practice of insulting and dismissing non-client scientists as "they're not a climate scientist and thus can have no informed opinion about anything to do with climate science" when they have an opposing viewpoint. I didn't say you specifically do that, but that's the standard response when any non-climate scientist tries to point to flaws in the data or how it is interpreted.
Right. That was my point when I said "Warming will not stop at the end of the century unless emissions cease,"
"The end of the century" has nothing to do with it. There is no magic to Dec. 31, 2200. If "emissions cease" then either the warming will stop or it won't. It won't, because ceasing emissions will not change the input or output of the heat flow process. The greenhouse will still be a greenhouse.
You've gone well deep into crazy land with that one.
Well, it's nice that you notice. I'm echoing some of the crazier concepts that some climate change zealots pronounce. You know, like "Gaia is getting Her revenge on those who ravage her." The point was that unless all animal life is gone, there's going to be CO2 emissions. It's like that song ... "every breath you take, every move you make ..."
That's not sequestered carbon emitted by the animals. It has no effect on atmospheric CO2.
Animals are not a carbon sequestering method. We take carbon and oxygen and emit it as CO2.
AGW will stop when we stop burning fossil fuels.
AGW is not caused by the heat released when we burn fossil fuels. It is caused by the heat trapped by the CO2 that comes from converting C and O to CO2. That CO2 does not magically disappear at the end of the century, so warming caused by trapped heat will continue -- until the CO2 is actually reduced. Just stopping the use of fossil fuels doesn't remove CO2, and it doesn't stop all CO2 emission. (And this is ignoring other greenhouse gasses like methane, which will come bubbling up from the frigid ocean bottoms once the methane hydrates warm up and release it. Have you ever seen "burning ice"? I have. A chunk of methane hydrate looks just like ice, but you can light it on fire. You don't need to burn it to have a greenhouse gas, even.)
In the Paris climate agreement nations (except Trump's USA of course) have agreed to limit it to 2C.
I'll do even better. I'll agree to limit it to 1.01C. Problem solved. Now we can move on to homelessness and solve that.
Since that is a non-binding agreement and nobody will give a shit, the projected increase is probably going to be 3.5C.
It was a non-binding agreement to do something that cannot be directly accomplished in the first place. Anyone can say "we're going to limit warming to 2C" when they know they can't actually do that directly and there is no downside to making such a promise. You're right, nobody will give a shit if the projected increase is 2C or 3.5C. What happens is what happens, and your projections won't change that. All that you accomplish by changing the projected increase to 3.5C is give support to those who say that the numbers are all made up anyway. If they won't "give a shit" when you say the projected rise is 2C, then changing the projection to 3.5C to try to make them "give a shit" only proves you're using numbers to scare people.
Trump pulling the US out of a non-binding, undoable accord was a signal that it didn't mean anything, and being non-binding and unaccomplishable is why it doesn't mean anything. The entire accord was virtue signalling at it's finest, and someone finally said "the emperor has no clothes."