"What they don't have is the ability to force Apple to develop a mechanism to render that device useful. I'm okay with that. That's the way it should be."
"This, this order, is not lawful in my opinion."
Here here.
"Well, they're free to do anything with the device they want - just not if they want to use it as evidence."
That is what has been ruled illegally but we didn't actually grant them the authority to do whatever they want with our property in time of peace. Since we are acting outside a constitutional congressional declaration of war this is in fact a time of peace.
"I think the idea (not that I agree, I certainly don't on the full picture, but let's at least be fair!) is that an independent judge decides in a court of law whether or not the FBI belongs in a particular phone or not, and that it makes that decision on the basis of the individualized facts around that phone. And that the decision of the court authorizes only the search of that specific phone."
I'm afraid I do agree. Furthermore, not all things are possible in this world. An independent judge could grant the FBI a warrant to search the backpack of an astronaut on space station but that doesn't mean they'll be able to get up there to execute it. The supreme court has ruled that the people did not grant the government the authority to invade our privacy. We have no obligation to engineer our world to be transparent to government or law enforcement, further we've reserved the right to engineer it to be opaque. To engineer transparency would be to eliminate our ability to speak and act contrary to illegal laws and acts by government which intrude upon the authority that we, The People, who are the leaders of the United States have reserved for ourselves... which these days is the vast majority of laws.
I beg you, do not aid the federal government in it's illegal and unjust civil war against The People. The FBI, NSA, CIA, and DHS ARE the terrorists.
Actually Treason is most easily committed by government. Anyone in government intentionally acting beyond the restricted powers we've allowed them via the Constitution or a supreme court justice ruling in a manner inconsistent with Constitution both in letter and spirit.
The right to invade privacy is not granted in the Constitution, nor are "lawful orders" being made here therefore those attempting to get Apple to unlock the phone are committing treason and Apple would be complicit to Treason if they complied.
Well if Country A taxes wealth and country B does not a company can try to keep most of their wealth in country B but operating in Country A to get at that wealth is going to require using some infrastructure in Country A. Whether the company buys it, leases it, or simply pays for the use of it. In all cases that infrastructure will be in Country A and someone will own it and therefore be taxed for it. Whether or not Country B does the same is irrelevant.
In this case where it is all beginning to get a bit silly is that individual EU member states are taxing when the whole thing should really be a pool.
I assume you realize all information on Facebook is public. It is so easy to access that checking all the content in your "restricted" profile is standard practice for hiring processes these days let alone government.
Just tax everyone based on wealth. Sure, google might just lease everything in the UK but they have to lease it from someone in the UK and that someone has to pay taxes.
If Google is based in the US and making money from people in the UK they should pay the taxes in the US. They should not be paying taxes on the same income in both countries, that is ridiculous.
"If there is a dispute between what you think you owe, and what the government thinks you owe, it's called a lawsuit."
That may be true in France. Here in the US you actually have to appeal to the revenue service and they judge the dispute. This is similar to if you are denied a claim by Social Security for disability. Of course, eventually if it goes far enough up the chain you can eventually appeal to an actual court but you can't go straight away and in the meantime there is nothing you can do for a period of years about them garnishing wages, freezing/seizing assets, or for SS simply not having money to live in the meantime.
"If you can avoid it, you do not owe it. It is legal. It is not fraud, however unjust you may think it is.
If you owe it, try to hide it, and do not pay it, it's called "Tax Evasion". That's against the law, you don't pay back taxes you pay back taxes and go to jail."
In the US where these terms are routinely applied in this manner the difference is in fact what the IRS says it is with individuals who have exploited tax loopholes often categorized as "Tax Evasion" whether in code or not, since most of the code is ambiguous and at the discretion of the auditor. While large corporations tend to be given the benefit of the doubt.
In fact, many things that are perfectly legal for corporations are explicitly outlawed for individuals. For instance, I know of one massive corporation that would silo off portions of it's operation that cost money, incorporate separately, then charge the original company exactly $1 over costs for services each year. Because that business made $1 instead of taking a multi-year loss it would not trigger any kind of review or audit. As an individual you would be hammered in multiple ways for doing this. For starters because you own more than 60% interest, for another because the entire cost center corporation is not actually intended to generate substantial profit and would be declared a "hobby", for another it evades deduction limits.
On the flip side, incorporated entities that are small really get burned with double taxation. You have to pay tax on the corporations income and then turn around and pay again when the corporation pays income to you. This double taxation is the justification for many of the corporate tax write offs that individuals don't get and they make sense or are even too restrictive to avoid double taxation for these small incorporated businesses while allowing billions in dodged taxes for massive public entities.
"Telemetry might provide a means for identification, but how is that significantly different from kind of data that gets sent to advertisers in non-MS web browsers on non-MS operating systems?
I'm not trying to justify it as acceptable behavior"
Okay, so we have found a bit of common ground. You will not see this kind of data sent from typical Linux desktops. You can take measures to prevent it in browsers as well. You can allegedly turn off some kinds of data but not all, according to MS. Your desktop/laptop was really the last potential bastion of privacy, mobile and everything running a mobile OS is completely compromised, and this last bastion is an important battle ground.
There is only one way for a communication to be private. You generates a key, the contact on the other end generates a key and the public side of that key is exchanged. No third party certifies or has access to either key, they must be generated at the client. This is the only manner in which absolutely no trust of other parties is required. If the client device is compromised prior to key generation then the whole thing is just wasted extra cycles. The desktop and private servers are the only place you have left that there is any potential to generate and use a key for internet communications that aren't compromised.
MS is requiring you grant permission to do the same on windows 10, not just for your mobile but for your desktop. They are sending a stream of data back but only they know for certain what that data contains. Nobody can "prove" they are lying, yet. But they have a long standing anti-consumer anti-privacy stance and a long history of lying about these things. They purchased Skype which securely worked in the manner I outlined and completely re-engineered it for the sole purpose of making the system "tappable."
MS Windows is a near monopoly on the desktop and the company has a long track record of bad behavior but believe me you will see commentary opposing this kind of thing no matter what company it comes from. Not too far back a story came to light with Intel sending data back from a modified Linux distribution.
"Indeed, just show them all the evidence that their personal files are being sent to Microsoft. That should shut them up."
Since I didn't make such a claim, I'm not sure why I'd present evidence for it. But since the EULA authorizes them to do so and you are claiming they are not taking advantage of what you agree to in the EULA. I trust that YOU are prepared to provide evidence they aren't exercising the legal rights they are requiring. Otherwise it's like you are just repeating things that others have said with no real substance to back it up.
"and not just the telemetry that MS claims, right"
Begging the question much? My argument was that the telemetry that MS claims is actually harmful data.
Please refer to a dictionary for the meaning of the word unique. Just because the data being sent back does not contain a single data point that can identify you does not mean the composite can not be used to identify you. Just like no single point reviewed in an actual fingerprint uniquely identifies you, the combination of ridges and swirls can do so.
Meta data can be cross referenced. For instance, viewing gps data points I can surmise where x works, lives, and had dinner a few nights. Cross referencing that data with facebook trivially will identify an individual and tell you quite a bit about their life that no government organization has business to know. So nothing but an anonymous stream of gps data points (you know, ACTUAL telemetry data) is not anonymous at all.
Windows 10 most definitely does send information back to MS. You can disable some options but that doesn't eliminate the backdoor or all the data going back.
"The latest IPCC report included predictions about future climate change [www.ipcc.ch] for six different scenarios, ranging from "no further increase in atmospheric CO2" to "ongoing rapid global development, mainly powered by fossil fuels." The different scenarios led to radically different predictions, with the expected temperatures in 2100 differing by more than 3 degrees between the best case and worst case scenarios."
Provides no support for or against this (your conclusion) -
"So please, don't go around spouting nonsense about, "relative to natural processes human contributions to greenhouse gases are a drop in the bucket." It's simply not true. If you don't know what you're talking about, either look up the facts (it would have taken you all of about three minutes), or else remain silent. But don't make things up and then spread disinformation online."
Your argument is a non-sequitor.
But at the end of the day I can't really puzzle it out. As I pointed out it doesn't really matter if human emissions are the source or not. Is it that you are a climate change denier or that you think it is more feasible to get billions of people in the many nations throughout the world to change their behavior in ways that cost more and reduce their quality of life than to engineer solutions to actively sequestor greenhouse gases?
Special ability? I don't recall a plea for authority in my argument so stop attacking the messenger.
Since the bulk of my post was an argument for aggressively engineering active sequestoring technologies did you actually have any content to add to the discussion?
"The problem I have with critiques of climate models like yours is they are non-sequiturs and born from ignorance, they don't make any sense because they are sourced from MSM articles that (for political reasons) aim to convince you that modeling physical phenomena is some kind of scam that scientists are using to make money."
Woah, that is a number of rather fantastic leaps.
First you claim my argument is a non-sequitur. My argument is that the model is not accurate enough to qualify as hard science. My premises are that the sample size of 50 years is not a statistically significant sample of billions of years of behavior. That premise does indeed seem to relate to my conclusion in that demonstrates the evidence supporting the model is not statistically significant. My next premise is that the model proved to be accurate to only a single decimal place meaning there was a 10% chance of having reached an equally correct answer by purely random number generation or guessing. That premise also supports my conclusion. My final premise was that the answer the model predicted, 7, is also statistically the answer most likely to be guessed by random laymen meaning an actual human being making a guess had a far greater than 10% chance of giving a result as accurate as this model. Now, you may attack my premises but the argument present is valid and of correct structure therefore not a non-sequitur.
"Hindcasting is the standard method to test any FEA model, doesn't matter if you are modeling the casting of an engine block or the earth's climate."
Indeed, and in the case of climate what you lack is a sound statistically significant sample of reliable historical data. Your examples of other areas of science where massive variance is still considered an accurate result share this common problem they all lack a statistically significant set of reliable data upon which to base their models. Just because it's the best you can do with what you have to work with and can be better than nothing or even useful for some purposes doesn't mean you start pretending the results of those models or any model in those fields shouldn't be taken with greater skepticism than more exact sciences. Some fields are vast enough that there are both flavors of science within them with certain types of models providing very exact results and other models being best effort so far but you shouldn't exactly go killing your child to prevent a more horrible consequence predicted by one.
Your own argument is a non-sequitor. I have no idea what "MSM articles" refers to. I have not stated any sort of political agenda in this thread although in others I've stated that rather than trying to convince everyone to behave differently climate models indicate it is too late for this to resolve the issue whether humans are the cause or not. So elsewhere I have suggested this should be treated as an engineering problem and we need not only combat the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions (which are natural) for the biggest bang for the buck but we must engineer mass scale sequestering technologies which likely means GMOs. Introducing methane processing GMO gut bacteria in livestock also seems like a reasonable action to me. Why do I suggest taking these actions when I think our climate models lack a high degree of certainty? Because they still remain the best guess we have and the risks of heeding it are low while the consequences of failing to do and it proving to be any level of correct are devastating.
"If you want to critique the models then write a paper explaining why you need "eight nines" to convincingly demonstrate to others that the north pole is melting."
Why would I do that? That is a strawman, I'm arguing you need greater precision to demonstrate the validity of your model before it can be trusted with a reasonable degree of certainty. Climate models aren't needed to show the poles are melting or that the earth is getting warmer.
Demonstrating that the Earth's climate is changing and the poles are meltin
"Oh, I've paid some serious taxes. I've paid more in taxes than many people will earn in their lifetime. But, what's reasonable? Where is that line drawn?
I ask because I don't really know. Buggered if I know. I'm sure there's a reasonable and unreasonable point (fiber is expensive and it's really expensive to maintain it up here) and I'm not quite sure if I'm past the unreasonable point or not. I am not even the most remote. There are people, in my State, who are more remote than I am with *miles* of phone line that may have not been really touched in 50 years except to do repairs. What does unreasonable look like?"
There IS a point where unreasonable does become a thing and it sounds like you are taking about a location where people have moved because they don't want to be connected to the world. Internet has reached the point where it is essentially a utility. If you don't have fast access you don't access to a full compliment of education resources for your children. When you ask questions about the world you just continue not knowing the answers. When politicians rile people up about issues only the uneducated and uninformed could possibly believe people don't have access to information and remain uninformed when they vote for those people. In the modern age there is no excuse for people who might well vote getting their information from blatantly misleading and bias sources like CNN and Fox News.
Like it or not internet is a utility. I agree there is a reasonable line, some parts of Maine and most certain other remote mountain areas are likely unreasonable for any sort of "wired" connection. But fiber isn't more expensive than copper, it's actually less expensive. Copper is a semi-precious metal worth too much to make pennies from and all the copper pulled down can be recycled. Fiber is made from the second most common element in the earths crust. Fiber doesn't suffer from electromagnetic interference so no "noisy" lines and it be put in runs up to 1500 miles whereas copper requests powered junctions on the order of yards. Fiber is much cheaper than copper and much cheaper to maintain. The cost is just putting it in to begin with. And will be the medium for future technologies for the foreseeable future, trying to squeeze something more out of copper a magical dance that has been impressive but is definitely at it's end. So, if it is reasonable to run any sort of utility line out to you, I see no reason it isn't reasonable to run fiber lines. Especially when you and other americans have already paid for it. I'd say so long as there is a place we've already paid them to run fiber to that they haven't run it, then it's more reasonable to run that fiber than for them to pocket the money. And no, it's not just tax cuts on profits from phone bills, the telcos were given over twenty billion dollars in tax credits not just deductions.
There are places where even that isn't reasonable. At that point yes there are sat links, they suck but they work. But there are also designs for tough blimps that are a little closer to earth and efficient enough to float for 6 months at a time. A good sized network of those flying all over the place and they get crazy line of sight.
The models suck, their accuracy level wouldn't pass muster in even a Christian private schools high school science class and that is definitely a low bar. The sample they are drawing on is, and this is stretching it, less than 200 years of any form of record. The ice cores and sedimentary layers they look at make a very bold assumption of consistent deposition and conditions over billions of years which we assume look more or like what we've seen during that 200 year period we've been looking. 200 is not a statistically significant sample out of billions.
There is a strong correlation between increased human activity and increased temperature, unfortunately our entire measured sample period also correlates with increased human activity. This makes arguments attempting to claim the correlation is causation the weakest possible arguments. What we definitely know is that human activity is a drop in the bucket next to the natural release of green house gases into the atmosphere.
Those are some of the biggest problems I see. Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do to improve our sample size relative to the timescales we need to know about. We have no way to gather a sample that doesn't correlate to human activity either, so there is no better evidence to be had here.
What we do know, with a fairly strong degree of certainty is that climate change is happening. The Earth is getting warming, the most probable cause is changes in atmospheric composition, and if it gets too warm our ecosystem is pretty much screwed our weather can and will go crazy (how fast and to what degree are debatable but it will definitely happen) and if unchecked anything ranging from a serious disaster for our quality of life to our extinction is on the reasonable probable list.
Given that information, it doesn't hurt to switch to an electric car but even if everyone goes 100% CO2 neutral tomorrow there is nothing predicating that will stop climate change anymore. We need to drop this holy war on terror engagement in the crusade and conduct in a war on greenhouse gas. This means a hell of a lot more than changing human activity. We need to engineer large scale solutions to sequester these gases immediately. Some ultra blooming CO2 eating algae deployed in the ocean and methane processing gut bacteria spread far and wide will be a good start.
No ladies and gentlemen. The time for being gentle keepers and avoiding tampering with the ecosystem are past. If we want to live we need utilize our human intelligence and engineer some very large scale and intentional changes to the ecosystem because the worst thing that happens is we fuck up and wipe ourselves out and that is what is going to happen if we fail anyway.
"If climate change is a serious problem, and human activity is responsible for it"
It actually doesn't matter if human activity is responsible for it. Human activity may or may not be what has tipped the scale but relative to natural processes human contributions to greenhouse gases are a drop in the bucket. Assuming human activity did indeed tip the scale that doesn't make correcting human activity the most efficient and effective way to solve the problem. From my understanding if we all stopped and went 100% greenhouse gas free tomorrow it is already too late to reverse climate change.
This area IS an utter waste of time. The only thing worth doing now is accepting that climate change is occurring and that it would be bad for us. We now need to focus not on whether human activity contributes to climate change but rather on whether or not we can engineer a solution to the problem. If we are going to try to reduce emissions it would be the far more massive natural sources of greenhouse gases we need to take care of. We could take advantage of massive open space that is the ocean and engineer a rapidly reproducing algae highly optimized to consume carbon and grow massive natural blooms. Something we can gather up, barrel, and sink to the ocean floor. We could engineer gut bacteria that processes methane has some sort of natural advantage spreads rapidly and effectively and possibly begin by intentionally giving our cows e-coli enimas.
We need to start focusing on the solution and not the problem. And no, that solution need not produce some sort of saleable or useful byproduct. If you can have your sequestering technology produce little carbon flakes we can start using in cement so be it but otherwise we just need them to be relatively stable and sinkable in an ocean trench.
"Looks like not merely a good prediction, but an outstandingly accurate prediction."
Outstandingly accurate prediction? That isn't even accurate to a single decimal point over a period of merely 50 years. We are talking about a model of a system that works on geologic timescales, think billions of years. 50 years is hardly a significant sample and accuracy that didn't even extend to a single decimal place would get you laughed out of essentially any branch of real science.
If the time shift on satellites in order had been off this much relativity would have been proven serious flawed. Last I check you need at least eight decimal places and statistically significant sample not to be laughed out of most fields.
Pick a number between 1 and 10... any mentalist can tell you that 7 is the most likely to be picked number. So what you are telling me is that almost all models are based on a model which over a statistically insignificant timeframe, got only one digit right and that digit is the one people would have been statistically most likely to guess without even knowing what they were picking a number for.
Sample size. Which is a major problem for climate science models in general.
Yes the earth is getting warmer, that much is clear enough. But we haven't had anywhere near the kind of time scales to measure to validate model for a climate system that spans billions of years.
Yes, we look at ice cores and sediment layers but we work on assumptions that these things pack on layers and grow in ways that are consistent our predictions of how they developed and our observations during a statistically insignificant period of time.
There is a very strong correlation between global warming and human activity... of course, there is also a very strong correlation between our monitoring sample and human activity.
In the end it doesn't really matter though. We are past the point where "going green" can solve the problem even if human activity is the source. We've set the ball rolling to so speak. At this point you need engineers because we need a massive engineering effort to sequester greenhouse gases on a globally significant scale NOW.
In New Mexico police aren't even allowed to check for proof of insurance just license and registration. And the license and registration places are outsourced so there are dozens and dozens of private companies issuing the things. It's a factory farm for valid U.S. ID being issued to illegal aliens.
Of course driving an old beater is a sure way to get pulled over. Police are far more likely to ticket someone they don't think can afford to fight the ticket. The last thing they want is to have to show up for court. Just another way of punishing the poor and getting them to subsidize the wealthy, those tickets are how much of the local governments get funded so the result is the poorest pay the brunt of the cost.
Here in Texas they like to use these reflector things instead of a proper middle line on many roads. The things come up so 2/3 of them are missing and it is hard to see the lines and tell the lanes apart. I can assure it certainly does nothing to help people even find their way around let alone drive safely.
I want you to stop for a second and imagine a 6 lane road (for a total of 12 lanes with both directions) without any lines. This is a recipe for a nightmare.
Did this all the time. In truth I remember the announcement that carriers were going to remove pulse dialing but maybe there was public backlash against it. I'm not sure when the last time I saw an regular telephone was so I can't say I've tried it.
Hell, there used to be some payphones that combinations of tricks with the operator and the ability to pulse dial allow you to get free calls. It was also a handy trick in situations were you were only allowed one phone call for awhile.
Slashdot Mirror
"What they don't have is the ability to force Apple to develop a mechanism to render that device useful. I'm okay with that. That's the way it should be."
"This, this order, is not lawful in my opinion."
Here here.
"Well, they're free to do anything with the device they want - just not if they want to use it as evidence."
That is what has been ruled illegally but we didn't actually grant them the authority to do whatever they want with our property in time of peace. Since we are acting outside a constitutional congressional declaration of war this is in fact a time of peace.
"I think the idea (not that I agree, I certainly don't on the full picture, but let's at least be fair!) is that an independent judge decides in a court of law whether or not the FBI belongs in a particular phone or not, and that it makes that decision on the basis of the individualized facts around that phone. And that the decision of the court authorizes only the search of that specific phone."
I'm afraid I do agree. Furthermore, not all things are possible in this world. An independent judge could grant the FBI a warrant to search the backpack of an astronaut on space station but that doesn't mean they'll be able to get up there to execute it. The supreme court has ruled that the people did not grant the government the authority to invade our privacy. We have no obligation to engineer our world to be transparent to government or law enforcement, further we've reserved the right to engineer it to be opaque. To engineer transparency would be to eliminate our ability to speak and act contrary to illegal laws and acts by government which intrude upon the authority that we, The People, who are the leaders of the United States have reserved for ourselves... which these days is the vast majority of laws.
I beg you, do not aid the federal government in it's illegal and unjust civil war against The People. The FBI, NSA, CIA, and DHS ARE the terrorists.
Actually Treason is most easily committed by government. Anyone in government intentionally acting beyond the restricted powers we've allowed them via the Constitution or a supreme court justice ruling in a manner inconsistent with Constitution both in letter and spirit.
The right to invade privacy is not granted in the Constitution, nor are "lawful orders" being made here therefore those attempting to get Apple to unlock the phone are committing treason and Apple would be complicit to Treason if they complied.
Well if Country A taxes wealth and country B does not a company can try to keep most of their wealth in country B but operating in Country A to get at that wealth is going to require using some infrastructure in Country A. Whether the company buys it, leases it, or simply pays for the use of it. In all cases that infrastructure will be in Country A and someone will own it and therefore be taxed for it. Whether or not Country B does the same is irrelevant.
In this case where it is all beginning to get a bit silly is that individual EU member states are taxing when the whole thing should really be a pool.
I assume you realize all information on Facebook is public. It is so easy to access that checking all the content in your "restricted" profile is standard practice for hiring processes these days let alone government.
Just tax everyone based on wealth. Sure, google might just lease everything in the UK but they have to lease it from someone in the UK and that someone has to pay taxes.
If Google is based in the US and making money from people in the UK they should pay the taxes in the US. They should not be paying taxes on the same income in both countries, that is ridiculous.
"If there is a dispute between what you think you owe, and what the government thinks you owe, it's called a lawsuit."
That may be true in France. Here in the US you actually have to appeal to the revenue service and they judge the dispute. This is similar to if you are denied a claim by Social Security for disability. Of course, eventually if it goes far enough up the chain you can eventually appeal to an actual court but you can't go straight away and in the meantime there is nothing you can do for a period of years about them garnishing wages, freezing/seizing assets, or for SS simply not having money to live in the meantime.
"If you can avoid it, you do not owe it. It is legal. It is not fraud, however unjust you may think it is.
If you owe it, try to hide it, and do not pay it, it's called "Tax Evasion". That's against the law, you don't pay back taxes you pay back taxes and go to jail."
In the US where these terms are routinely applied in this manner the difference is in fact what the IRS says it is with individuals who have exploited tax loopholes often categorized as "Tax Evasion" whether in code or not, since most of the code is ambiguous and at the discretion of the auditor. While large corporations tend to be given the benefit of the doubt.
In fact, many things that are perfectly legal for corporations are explicitly outlawed for individuals. For instance, I know of one massive corporation that would silo off portions of it's operation that cost money, incorporate separately, then charge the original company exactly $1 over costs for services each year. Because that business made $1 instead of taking a multi-year loss it would not trigger any kind of review or audit. As an individual you would be hammered in multiple ways for doing this. For starters because you own more than 60% interest, for another because the entire cost center corporation is not actually intended to generate substantial profit and would be declared a "hobby", for another it evades deduction limits.
On the flip side, incorporated entities that are small really get burned with double taxation. You have to pay tax on the corporations income and then turn around and pay again when the corporation pays income to you. This double taxation is the justification for many of the corporate tax write offs that individuals don't get and they make sense or are even too restrictive to avoid double taxation for these small incorporated businesses while allowing billions in dodged taxes for massive public entities.
"Telemetry might provide a means for identification, but how is that significantly different from kind of data that gets sent to advertisers in non-MS web browsers on non-MS operating systems?
I'm not trying to justify it as acceptable behavior"
Okay, so we have found a bit of common ground. You will not see this kind of data sent from typical Linux desktops. You can take measures to prevent it in browsers as well. You can allegedly turn off some kinds of data but not all, according to MS. Your desktop/laptop was really the last potential bastion of privacy, mobile and everything running a mobile OS is completely compromised, and this last bastion is an important battle ground.
There is only one way for a communication to be private. You generates a key, the contact on the other end generates a key and the public side of that key is exchanged. No third party certifies or has access to either key, they must be generated at the client. This is the only manner in which absolutely no trust of other parties is required. If the client device is compromised prior to key generation then the whole thing is just wasted extra cycles. The desktop and private servers are the only place you have left that there is any potential to generate and use a key for internet communications that aren't compromised.
MS is requiring you grant permission to do the same on windows 10, not just for your mobile but for your desktop. They are sending a stream of data back but only they know for certain what that data contains. Nobody can "prove" they are lying, yet. But they have a long standing anti-consumer anti-privacy stance and a long history of lying about these things. They purchased Skype which securely worked in the manner I outlined and completely re-engineered it for the sole purpose of making the system "tappable."
MS Windows is a near monopoly on the desktop and the company has a long track record of bad behavior but believe me you will see commentary opposing this kind of thing no matter what company it comes from. Not too far back a story came to light with Intel sending data back from a modified Linux distribution.
"Indeed, just show them all the evidence that their personal files are being sent to Microsoft. That should shut them up."
Since I didn't make such a claim, I'm not sure why I'd present evidence for it. But since the EULA authorizes them to do so and you are claiming they are not taking advantage of what you agree to in the EULA. I trust that YOU are prepared to provide evidence they aren't exercising the legal rights they are requiring. Otherwise it's like you are just repeating things that others have said with no real substance to back it up.
"and not just the telemetry that MS claims, right"
Begging the question much? My argument was that the telemetry that MS claims is actually harmful data.
Please refer to a dictionary for the meaning of the word unique. Just because the data being sent back does not contain a single data point that can identify you does not mean the composite can not be used to identify you. Just like no single point reviewed in an actual fingerprint uniquely identifies you, the combination of ridges and swirls can do so.
Meta data can be cross referenced. For instance, viewing gps data points I can surmise where x works, lives, and had dinner a few nights. Cross referencing that data with facebook trivially will identify an individual and tell you quite a bit about their life that no government organization has business to know. So nothing but an anonymous stream of gps data points (you know, ACTUAL telemetry data) is not anonymous at all.
There is nothing anonymous about meta-data it compiles into a very unique and identifiable fingerprint. Can we all cut the crap please.
Windows 10 most definitely does send information back to MS. You can disable some options but that doesn't eliminate the backdoor or all the data going back.
This (your premise)-
"The latest IPCC report included predictions about future climate change [www.ipcc.ch] for six different scenarios, ranging from "no further increase in atmospheric CO2" to "ongoing rapid global development, mainly powered by fossil fuels." The different scenarios led to radically different predictions, with the expected temperatures in 2100 differing by more than 3 degrees between the best case and worst case scenarios."
Provides no support for or against this (your conclusion) -
"So please, don't go around spouting nonsense about, "relative to natural processes human contributions to greenhouse gases are a drop in the bucket." It's simply not true. If you don't know what you're talking about, either look up the facts (it would have taken you all of about three minutes), or else remain silent. But don't make things up and then spread disinformation online."
Your argument is a non-sequitor.
But at the end of the day I can't really puzzle it out. As I pointed out it doesn't really matter if human emissions are the source or not. Is it that you are a climate change denier or that you think it is more feasible to get billions of people in the many nations throughout the world to change their behavior in ways that cost more and reduce their quality of life than to engineer solutions to actively sequestor greenhouse gases?
Special ability? I don't recall a plea for authority in my argument so stop attacking the messenger.
Since the bulk of my post was an argument for aggressively engineering active sequestoring technologies did you actually have any content to add to the discussion?
"The problem I have with critiques of climate models like yours is they are non-sequiturs and born from ignorance, they don't make any sense because they are sourced from MSM articles that (for political reasons) aim to convince you that modeling physical phenomena is some kind of scam that scientists are using to make money."
Woah, that is a number of rather fantastic leaps.
First you claim my argument is a non-sequitur. My argument is that the model is not accurate enough to qualify as hard science. My premises are that the sample size of 50 years is not a statistically significant sample of billions of years of behavior. That premise does indeed seem to relate to my conclusion in that demonstrates the evidence supporting the model is not statistically significant. My next premise is that the model proved to be accurate to only a single decimal place meaning there was a 10% chance of having reached an equally correct answer by purely random number generation or guessing. That premise also supports my conclusion. My final premise was that the answer the model predicted, 7, is also statistically the answer most likely to be guessed by random laymen meaning an actual human being making a guess had a far greater than 10% chance of giving a result as accurate as this model. Now, you may attack my premises but the argument present is valid and of correct structure therefore not a non-sequitur.
"Hindcasting is the standard method to test any FEA model, doesn't matter if you are modeling the casting of an engine block or the earth's climate."
Indeed, and in the case of climate what you lack is a sound statistically significant sample of reliable historical data. Your examples of other areas of science where massive variance is still considered an accurate result share this common problem they all lack a statistically significant set of reliable data upon which to base their models. Just because it's the best you can do with what you have to work with and can be better than nothing or even useful for some purposes doesn't mean you start pretending the results of those models or any model in those fields shouldn't be taken with greater skepticism than more exact sciences. Some fields are vast enough that there are both flavors of science within them with certain types of models providing very exact results and other models being best effort so far but you shouldn't exactly go killing your child to prevent a more horrible consequence predicted by one.
Your own argument is a non-sequitor. I have no idea what "MSM articles" refers to. I have not stated any sort of political agenda in this thread although in others I've stated that rather than trying to convince everyone to behave differently climate models indicate it is too late for this to resolve the issue whether humans are the cause or not. So elsewhere I have suggested this should be treated as an engineering problem and we need not only combat the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions (which are natural) for the biggest bang for the buck but we must engineer mass scale sequestering technologies which likely means GMOs. Introducing methane processing GMO gut bacteria in livestock also seems like a reasonable action to me. Why do I suggest taking these actions when I think our climate models lack a high degree of certainty? Because they still remain the best guess we have and the risks of heeding it are low while the consequences of failing to do and it proving to be any level of correct are devastating.
"If you want to critique the models then write a paper explaining why you need "eight nines" to convincingly demonstrate to others that the north pole is melting."
Why would I do that? That is a strawman, I'm arguing you need greater precision to demonstrate the validity of your model before it can be trusted with a reasonable degree of certainty. Climate models aren't needed to show the poles are melting or that the earth is getting warmer.
Demonstrating that the Earth's climate is changing and the poles are meltin
"Oh, I've paid some serious taxes. I've paid more in taxes than many people will earn in their lifetime. But, what's reasonable? Where is that line drawn?
I ask because I don't really know. Buggered if I know. I'm sure there's a reasonable and unreasonable point (fiber is expensive and it's really expensive to maintain it up here) and I'm not quite sure if I'm past the unreasonable point or not. I am not even the most remote. There are people, in my State, who are more remote than I am with *miles* of phone line that may have not been really touched in 50 years except to do repairs. What does unreasonable look like?"
There IS a point where unreasonable does become a thing and it sounds like you are taking about a location where people have moved because they don't want to be connected to the world. Internet has reached the point where it is essentially a utility. If you don't have fast access you don't access to a full compliment of education resources for your children. When you ask questions about the world you just continue not knowing the answers. When politicians rile people up about issues only the uneducated and uninformed could possibly believe people don't have access to information and remain uninformed when they vote for those people. In the modern age there is no excuse for people who might well vote getting their information from blatantly misleading and bias sources like CNN and Fox News.
Like it or not internet is a utility. I agree there is a reasonable line, some parts of Maine and most certain other remote mountain areas are likely unreasonable for any sort of "wired" connection. But fiber isn't more expensive than copper, it's actually less expensive. Copper is a semi-precious metal worth too much to make pennies from and all the copper pulled down can be recycled. Fiber is made from the second most common element in the earths crust. Fiber doesn't suffer from electromagnetic interference so no "noisy" lines and it be put in runs up to 1500 miles whereas copper requests powered junctions on the order of yards. Fiber is much cheaper than copper and much cheaper to maintain. The cost is just putting it in to begin with. And will be the medium for future technologies for the foreseeable future, trying to squeeze something more out of copper a magical dance that has been impressive but is definitely at it's end. So, if it is reasonable to run any sort of utility line out to you, I see no reason it isn't reasonable to run fiber lines. Especially when you and other americans have already paid for it. I'd say so long as there is a place we've already paid them to run fiber to that they haven't run it, then it's more reasonable to run that fiber than for them to pocket the money. And no, it's not just tax cuts on profits from phone bills, the telcos were given over twenty billion dollars in tax credits not just deductions.
There are places where even that isn't reasonable. At that point yes there are sat links, they suck but they work. But there are also designs for tough blimps that are a little closer to earth and efficient enough to float for 6 months at a time. A good sized network of those flying all over the place and they get crazy line of sight.
The models suck, their accuracy level wouldn't pass muster in even a Christian private schools high school science class and that is definitely a low bar. The sample they are drawing on is, and this is stretching it, less than 200 years of any form of record. The ice cores and sedimentary layers they look at make a very bold assumption of consistent deposition and conditions over billions of years which we assume look more or like what we've seen during that 200 year period we've been looking. 200 is not a statistically significant sample out of billions.
There is a strong correlation between increased human activity and increased temperature, unfortunately our entire measured sample period also correlates with increased human activity. This makes arguments attempting to claim the correlation is causation the weakest possible arguments. What we definitely know is that human activity is a drop in the bucket next to the natural release of green house gases into the atmosphere.
Those are some of the biggest problems I see. Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do to improve our sample size relative to the timescales we need to know about. We have no way to gather a sample that doesn't correlate to human activity either, so there is no better evidence to be had here.
What we do know, with a fairly strong degree of certainty is that climate change is happening. The Earth is getting warming, the most probable cause is changes in atmospheric composition, and if it gets too warm our ecosystem is pretty much screwed our weather can and will go crazy (how fast and to what degree are debatable but it will definitely happen) and if unchecked anything ranging from a serious disaster for our quality of life to our extinction is on the reasonable probable list.
Given that information, it doesn't hurt to switch to an electric car but even if everyone goes 100% CO2 neutral tomorrow there is nothing predicating that will stop climate change anymore. We need to drop this holy war on terror engagement in the crusade and conduct in a war on greenhouse gas. This means a hell of a lot more than changing human activity. We need to engineer large scale solutions to sequester these gases immediately. Some ultra blooming CO2 eating algae deployed in the ocean and methane processing gut bacteria spread far and wide will be a good start.
No ladies and gentlemen. The time for being gentle keepers and avoiding tampering with the ecosystem are past. If we want to live we need utilize our human intelligence and engineer some very large scale and intentional changes to the ecosystem because the worst thing that happens is we fuck up and wipe ourselves out and that is what is going to happen if we fail anyway.
"If climate change is a serious problem, and human activity is responsible for it"
It actually doesn't matter if human activity is responsible for it. Human activity may or may not be what has tipped the scale but relative to natural processes human contributions to greenhouse gases are a drop in the bucket. Assuming human activity did indeed tip the scale that doesn't make correcting human activity the most efficient and effective way to solve the problem. From my understanding if we all stopped and went 100% greenhouse gas free tomorrow it is already too late to reverse climate change.
This area IS an utter waste of time. The only thing worth doing now is accepting that climate change is occurring and that it would be bad for us. We now need to focus not on whether human activity contributes to climate change but rather on whether or not we can engineer a solution to the problem. If we are going to try to reduce emissions it would be the far more massive natural sources of greenhouse gases we need to take care of. We could take advantage of massive open space that is the ocean and engineer a rapidly reproducing algae highly optimized to consume carbon and grow massive natural blooms. Something we can gather up, barrel, and sink to the ocean floor. We could engineer gut bacteria that processes methane has some sort of natural advantage spreads rapidly and effectively and possibly begin by intentionally giving our cows e-coli enimas.
We need to start focusing on the solution and not the problem. And no, that solution need not produce some sort of saleable or useful byproduct. If you can have your sequestering technology produce little carbon flakes we can start using in cement so be it but otherwise we just need them to be relatively stable and sinkable in an ocean trench.
Affordable and perfectly lifelike sex slaves and immortality. Once we get those two crossed off the list I'm good with ending the pursuit of science.
"Looks like not merely a good prediction, but an outstandingly accurate prediction."
Outstandingly accurate prediction? That isn't even accurate to a single decimal point over a period of merely 50 years. We are talking about a model of a system that works on geologic timescales, think billions of years. 50 years is hardly a significant sample and accuracy that didn't even extend to a single decimal place would get you laughed out of essentially any branch of real science.
If the time shift on satellites in order had been off this much relativity would have been proven serious flawed. Last I check you need at least eight decimal places and statistically significant sample not to be laughed out of most fields.
Pick a number between 1 and 10... any mentalist can tell you that 7 is the most likely to be picked number. So what you are telling me is that almost all models are based on a model which over a statistically insignificant timeframe, got only one digit right and that digit is the one people would have been statistically most likely to guess without even knowing what they were picking a number for.
Sample size. Which is a major problem for climate science models in general.
Yes the earth is getting warmer, that much is clear enough. But we haven't had anywhere near the kind of time scales to measure to validate model for a climate system that spans billions of years.
Yes, we look at ice cores and sediment layers but we work on assumptions that these things pack on layers and grow in ways that are consistent our predictions of how they developed and our observations during a statistically insignificant period of time.
There is a very strong correlation between global warming and human activity... of course, there is also a very strong correlation between our monitoring sample and human activity.
In the end it doesn't really matter though. We are past the point where "going green" can solve the problem even if human activity is the source. We've set the ball rolling to so speak. At this point you need engineers because we need a massive engineering effort to sequester greenhouse gases on a globally significant scale NOW.
In New Mexico police aren't even allowed to check for proof of insurance just license and registration. And the license and registration places are outsourced so there are dozens and dozens of private companies issuing the things. It's a factory farm for valid U.S. ID being issued to illegal aliens.
Of course driving an old beater is a sure way to get pulled over. Police are far more likely to ticket someone they don't think can afford to fight the ticket. The last thing they want is to have to show up for court. Just another way of punishing the poor and getting them to subsidize the wealthy, those tickets are how much of the local governments get funded so the result is the poorest pay the brunt of the cost.
Here in Texas they like to use these reflector things instead of a proper middle line on many roads. The things come up so 2/3 of them are missing and it is hard to see the lines and tell the lanes apart. I can assure it certainly does nothing to help people even find their way around let alone drive safely.
I want you to stop for a second and imagine a 6 lane road (for a total of 12 lanes with both directions) without any lines. This is a recipe for a nightmare.
Did this all the time. In truth I remember the announcement that carriers were going to remove pulse dialing but maybe there was public backlash against it. I'm not sure when the last time I saw an regular telephone was so I can't say I've tried it.
Hell, there used to be some payphones that combinations of tricks with the operator and the ability to pulse dial allow you to get free calls. It was also a handy trick in situations were you were only allowed one phone call for awhile.