There's an overwhelming (>95%) scientific consensus on global warming based on hundreds if not thousands of studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change).
In contrast, this was a single, poorly done, study.
That paper should never have made it out, so something must be seriously wrong at that lab. Kudos to them for addressing the problem and not trying to sweep it under the rug.
Really, citing wikipedia = troll mod? If your opinion on global warming is so fragile that you need to mod anyone who disagrees with you, maybe it's time to revisit that opionion...
So you can listen to the one outlier instead of almost every climate scientist on the planet if you want, but that's essentially the same as putting your fingers in your ears.
This! My wife went to Mexico recently so I called them to find out what terrible charges she would incur. It turns out text messages are completely free, phone calls are like 20 cents a minute, and data usage... was either free or similarly cheap, can't remember which.
I'm not saying this isn't ridiculous, but is it really Slashdot-worthy news? AT&T has been screwing its customers over on roaming charges since cell phones were invented, and even extreme cases like this one are a dime a dozen.
Sucks for the OP but it doesn't seem news-worthy to me.
Your kid has a right not to get molested right? The ability to enforce that right goes down significantly if you can't find out about people in your neighborhood who have molested kids in the past (especially given that child molesters have the highest recidivism rate of any major criminal group).
Just because we haven't done a great job of enforcing that right in the past doesn't mean that privacy rights magically trump it.
No one here is crying about "boo hoo Google has to obey some law and spend some money". We all know Google has more than enough money to cover the costs of this decision, and we understand corporations should follow the law.
The issue is that by making up a new "right", and creating a new legal standard without any legislation to smooth the rough edges, the European court effectively just took away rights from others, like the right of parents to find out their neighbor is a child molester. Because they made a ruling, and not a well thought out law, Google will just blindly respond and deny the rest of us important information.
Does it really matter who we vote for, as far as the NSA is concerned? Any "electable" candidate will just let the NSA keep doing what they're doing.
Even if someone like Al Franken got elected president by some miracle (which is not going to happen) he still couldn't do much unless people also elected a whole bunch of Al Frankens/Rand Pauls to Congress. And that just isn't going to happen (there's a reason why those two are such outliers).
Ultimately the only way we'll ever end NSA malfeseanse (or CIA malfeseanse for that matter) is if we can somehow expose what they do. Without that, we'll change politcians but they'll stay the same.
Sony fought *hard* to make Blue-Ray the dominant standard. It was basically "everyone and their brother behind HDTV" vs. "Sony and a couple of their bestest buddies behind Blue-Ray" until Sony spent a ton to get exclusives and woo studios away, all so that they could monopolize the next generation of movies (and not repeat the Betamax experience).
As somone who hates to see companies monopolize technology, the fact that all their efforts were largely wasted makes me very happy:-)
Then work on that problem: make people less gullible (if that's what you think all those proles really are).
Of all the many stupid ideas that have been suggested in this discussion, that has to be the stupidest. Until we can engineer a massive virus that alters the DNA of everyone on the planet (or at least in the USA) good luck changing human nature.
You can't just pick one example and claim it proves a point. If you look across a large sample size of elections, I HIGHLY suspect you will find that the candidate with the most money wins a disproportionate amount of the time.
But if a 3rd party is doing that digitization, the only way it "could have [been] made... in photoshop" is if there was a conspiracy between the sender and the mail scanner. You'd have to be pretty paranoid to be concerned about that.
And? If there's no middle man then ultimately someone (in this case it sounds like the buyer) has total control over the transaction. It doesn't matter what UPS says, if they don't want to release the funds they don't have to.
In a dark market like this the ONLY protection you have against fraud is the other party's reputation.
Sometimes the proper response is to just tell people to sit down, shut the fuck up, and LISTEN to the facts.
And who gets to decide what "the facts" are? You're very language betrays the conceit that you are somehow omniscient, because how else can you know that someone else's knowledge is "ignorance" and your's are "facts".
I too believe the anti-vaccine BS is... well is exactly that, BS. But the moment anyone presents me with real evidence to the contrary I'll happily change my posisition, because I realize that any given human being only has a limited amount of knowledge available to them, and therefore that I must always be open to new knowledge.
Ubuntu *did* (past tense) an amazing amount for the community, and for a long time Ubutunu was justifiably the dominant distribution because they gave people what they wanted (as you more or less said, it was the first distro that was super user-friendly). I do give them props for that.
Then it all went to Shuttleworth's head, and he started thinking he could dictate to the Linux world what we would all use. That's when many Linux users started abandoning Shutttleworth/Canonincal and going to distributions that actually cared: there's a reason why (on many distribution watchlists at least) Mint has surpassed Ubuntu.
Mint listens to their constintuents, and builds their distro around their concerns. Ubuntu does whatever the heck they want and says "take it or leave it".
See Mint's choice of MATE (Gnome2) or Gnome3 vs. Ubuntu's "We're making this new Unity thing that no one wants and we'll force it on our users before its ready".
Did the person you heard that from also tell you that vacinations cause autism? Or that JFK was assasinated by Bigfoot (as part of the global lizard-people/Illuminati coalition)?
Also, why would you think Windows *doesn't* have Microsoft spyware installed?
Slashdot Mirror
There's an overwhelming (>95%) scientific consensus on global warming based on hundreds if not thousands of studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change).
In contrast, this was a single, poorly done, study.
That paper should never have made it out, so something must be seriously wrong at that lab. Kudos to them for addressing the problem and not trying to sweep it under the rug.
Really, citing wikipedia = troll mod? If your opinion on global warming is so fragile that you need to mod anyone who disagrees with you, maybe it's time to revisit that opionion ...
The overwhelming majority of climate scientists (95+%) agree that climate change is both real and man-made:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
So you can listen to the one outlier instead of almost every climate scientist on the planet if you want, but that's essentially the same as putting your fingers in your ears.
This! My wife went to Mexico recently so I called them to find out what terrible charges she would incur. It turns out text messages are completely free, phone calls are like 20 cents a minute, and data usage ... was either free or similarly cheap, can't remember which.
F**k AT&T.
I'm not saying this isn't ridiculous, but is it really Slashdot-worthy news? AT&T has been screwing its customers over on roaming charges since cell phones were invented, and even extreme cases like this one are a dime a dozen.
Sucks for the OP but it doesn't seem news-worthy to me.
>>No, it doesn't. What the heck would I do with that information? Go pre-emptively shoot people I think might be dangerous?
Not take him up on his offer to babysit?
Your kid has a right not to get molested right? The ability to enforce that right goes down significantly if you can't find out about people in your neighborhood who have molested kids in the past (especially given that child molesters have the highest recidivism rate of any major criminal group).
Just because we haven't done a great job of enforcing that right in the past doesn't mean that privacy rights magically trump it.
No one here is crying about "boo hoo Google has to obey some law and spend some money". We all know Google has more than enough money to cover the costs of this decision, and we understand corporations should follow the law.
The issue is that by making up a new "right", and creating a new legal standard without any legislation to smooth the rough edges, the European court effectively just took away rights from others, like the right of parents to find out their neighbor is a child molester. Because they made a ruling, and not a well thought out law, Google will just blindly respond and deny the rest of us important information.
But how do they get "the right context" without knowing what to read?
Sorry, I should have clarified: I meant in a more systematic way, not just a one-shot Snowden deal.
Does it really matter who we vote for, as far as the NSA is concerned? Any "electable" candidate will just let the NSA keep doing what they're doing.
Even if someone like Al Franken got elected president by some miracle (which is not going to happen) he still couldn't do much unless people also elected a whole bunch of Al Frankens/Rand Pauls to Congress. And that just isn't going to happen (there's a reason why those two are such outliers).
Ultimately the only way we'll ever end NSA malfeseanse (or CIA malfeseanse for that matter) is if we can somehow expose what they do. Without that, we'll change politcians but they'll stay the same.
Yes, let's kill everyone who disagrees with us. History has shown that that approach ALWAYS works ...
Sony fought *hard* to make Blue-Ray the dominant standard. It was basically "everyone and their brother behind HDTV" vs. "Sony and a couple of their bestest buddies behind Blue-Ray" until Sony spent a ton to get exclusives and woo studios away, all so that they could monopolize the next generation of movies (and not repeat the Betamax experience).
As somone who hates to see companies monopolize technology, the fact that all their efforts were largely wasted makes me very happy :-)
Then work on that problem: make people less gullible (if that's what you think all those proles really are).
Of all the many stupid ideas that have been suggested in this discussion, that has to be the stupidest. Until we can engineer a massive virus that alters the DNA of everyone on the planet (or at least in the USA) good luck changing human nature.
You can't just pick one example and claim it proves a point. If you look across a large sample size of elections, I HIGHLY suspect you will find that the candidate with the most money wins a disproportionate amount of the time.
... so bascially you're saying that you want to live in a system where our politcians can be legally bribed. I don't think most people agree.
But if a 3rd party is doing that digitization, the only way it "could have [been] made ... in photoshop" is if there was a conspiracy between the sender and the mail scanner. You'd have to be pretty paranoid to be concerned about that.
And? If there's no middle man then ultimately someone (in this case it sounds like the buyer) has total control over the transaction. It doesn't matter what UPS says, if they don't want to release the funds they don't have to.
In a dark market like this the ONLY protection you have against fraud is the other party's reputation.
Sometimes the proper response is to just tell people to sit down, shut the fuck up, and LISTEN to the facts.
And who gets to decide what "the facts" are? You're very language betrays the conceit that you are somehow omniscient, because how else can you know that someone else's knowledge is "ignorance" and your's are "facts".
I too believe the anti-vaccine BS is ... well is exactly that, BS. But the moment anyone presents me with real evidence to the contrary I'll happily change my posisition, because I realize that any given human being only has a limited amount of knowledge available to them, and therefore that I must always be open to new knowledge.
Ummm ... that's disturbing.
So basically they're just throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks? I suppose that's one way to avoid choosing the wrong platform ...
Ubuntu *did* (past tense) an amazing amount for the community, and for a long time Ubutunu was justifiably the dominant distribution because they gave people what they wanted (as you more or less said, it was the first distro that was super user-friendly). I do give them props for that.
Then it all went to Shuttleworth's head, and he started thinking he could dictate to the Linux world what we would all use. That's when many Linux users started abandoning Shutttleworth/Canonincal and going to distributions that actually cared: there's a reason why (on many distribution watchlists at least) Mint has surpassed Ubuntu.
Mint listens to their constintuents, and builds their distro around their concerns. Ubuntu does whatever the heck they want and says "take it or leave it".
See Mint's choice of MATE (Gnome2) or Gnome3 vs. Ubuntu's "We're making this new Unity thing that no one wants and we'll force it on our users before its ready".
Did the person you heard that from also tell you that vacinations cause autism? Or that JFK was assasinated by Bigfoot (as part of the global lizard-people/Illuminati coalition)?
Also, why would you think Windows *doesn't* have Microsoft spyware installed?