Federal Prosecutor Oritz said Aaron's suicide won't change how she handles cases
Of course it won't, these people are complete sociopaths - if she gave two shits about the people whose lives she wrecks, she wouldn't be wrecking them in the first place.
So publishing personally-identifying data for 114,000 people is in the security interests of society?
I realize email addresses loosely qualify as 'personal data', but come on, they were fucking email addresses. Trumping it up to the more scary sounding "personally identifying data" makes you sound a bit like these sociopathic prosecutors.
What part of "Do not access things you are not authorized to access" do these people not understand?
Here are some non-computer analogies to help people like you (who know nothing about computers) understand:
- You notice the boss left his car door open by mistake, and you inform him so he can close it
- You notice the security at your business has accidentally forgotten to lock the doors at closing time, and you notify them so they can lock it
- You notice your neighbor accidentally left his door open when he went out, so you let him know
In this case, what they should have actually done is thanked him and offered to pay him something, since this kind of security work is actually expensive if you hire someone to do it.
Look, I know it's popular with kids today to be all cynical about space with "ooh, space, never gonna happen", but the sad reality is that when you look at the facts, you are so way off it's ridiculous... cynicism is no substitute for reason. Your homework for today: Do some research into the relative costs that would be involved with such a trip, and then compare it the amount of money sloshing around out there and getting spent on many other things. Your ignorance is totally f-cking astounding. Spoiler: The Mars One project current estimate is $6 billion.. even assuming they have cost overruns by a multiple of five, they still won't even approach a small fraction of the money spent on just one other space project, the ISS. Do the research, you are talking out of your ass.
“These days, there seems to be nowhere left to explore. Victims of their very success, the explorers now, pretty much, stay home. Maybe it's a little early- maybe the time is not quite yet- but those other worlds, promising untold opportunities, beckon. Just now, there a great many mattters that are pressing in on us that compete for the money it takes to send people to other worlds. Should we solve those problems first, or are they a reason for going? Our planet and our solar system are surrounded by a New World ocean: the depths of space. It is no more impassable than the last.” - Carl Sagan
This just reveals a lack of imagination. Yes we've been delayed so far in getting to space, but robots are going to pave the way for an exponential explosion of humans in space. We'll soon be able to do things like send teams of robots in advance to do automated construction of infrastructure (eg. build housing, build automated greenhouses, build solar mini-stations, and this is just with technology that we'll see within the next 15 to 30 years), that will make it easier and cheaper to send large numbers of people to Mars. We're just warming up, the days of humans in space are about to begin.
living in cramped conditions with the same group of people for two years risking death every day
Living in cramped conditions with the same group of people for lengthy periods of time risking death, that also roughly describes Columbus's early voyages. The full duration of the first voyage was seven months. Not that far off from estimates for a Mars voyage.
I'm increasingly having trouble remembering why it seemed like a space mission would be so much cooler with a person onboard
I would think this should be more obvious, but it's "cooler" for the people onboard. Do you think it would have been a whole lot cooler if the Spanish had just sent robots to the New World?
Humans are going to colonize space, and it's not for your personal entertainment, but because people with a spirit of exploration want to see what's out there and want to set foot on and colonize new worlds. The early settlers didn't migrate to the New World for the purposes of entertaining those back home. Public Space Programs may be entertaining, but they're not primarily entertainment programs (likewise for projects like Elon Musk's).
Of course, projects like Hubble wouldn't be any better with 'a guy in it'. But is there advantage to acquiring the know-how to have humans in space? Absolutely. If you can't see why it's "cool" to get humans to Mars, then rather just go back to playing video games or whatever entertains you, because there's not much else in this universe that is going to fire your imagination.
That humans are going to colonize space is by now a matter of 'when and how', not 'if'. I think it's time we got our butts over to Mars, and it's time we thought about how to get our butts over to the nearest stars and look for habitable new worlds to colonize. Time's wasting, and I want to retire someday (if we cure aging then this may be reasonable even at well below light speeds) on one of the planets around Tau Ceti, or something similar.
It was less that two years ago that they said that the reason warming is lower than forecasts is because of pollution
Stop right there, what are you talking about: Warming has not been lower than forecast (what stinking place did you pull that from?) - Actually, one of the biggest recent meta-studies to come out on climate science showed that warming over the last 20 years has been very close to the average consensus forecasts over the last 20 years.
By drawing on observations to better understand the behavior of climate models, Bond and her colleagues concluded that atmospheric soot particles 100 nanometers or so in diameter are absorbing enough solar energy to warm the atmosphere with about 1.1 watts per square meter—twice as large a driver of warming as most researchers had estimated. That makes it the second largest humanmade contributor to global warming behind the dominant driver: carbon dioxide. "If we did everything we could to reduce these emissions," said co-author Piers Forster of the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom in a statement, "we could buy ourselves up to half a degree (Celsius) less warming—or a couple of decades of respite."
Unfortunately that oversimplified cartoon is also a great example of why we don't generally let cartoonists determine public policy. How do you define "better": Is a "better world" one in which poor people have less to eat, and poor people have less access to the benefits of technologies like lighting and refrigeration? Is that "better"?
See, the core of the problem is that the competing energy technologies that you just described as "better" (as if that's simply a given) are actually still literally prohibitively expensive, because technologies like solar just aren't that advanced yet. We're talking more expensive by a factor of 4 or 5 over coal.
So what happens in reality is that we must have either a trade-off between affordability of energy and the negative effects of pollution, or we must sacrifice some of the benefits in exchange for cleaner air.
There is no unilateral "better", it's a trade-off. When we impose cleaner technologies on rich countries, the main effect is the difference, say, between some middle class person perhaps being able to afford fewer luxuries at home, in exchange for cleaner air. For the poor people in rich countries, the difference is being pushed deeper into poverty.
For many people in developing countries, forcing cleaner but far more expensive technologies literally is "make or break" in the sense that it pushes thousands or even millions more people below the breadline. Where on coal these poor people might be able to afford basic lighting and refrigeration, on more expensive technologies the compromise is that they're reduced to having, say, no lighting or refrigeration. Food spoils more, and so they go hungry more, and food becomes more expensive to produce, because energy is required across the distribution chain.
So in real life it's not a case of just 'creating a better world for nothing'. Poorer people may well (and rightfully) object that they would prefer to be able to afford to eat and have the basics in life, for example.
I'm not a climate skeptic, I think we are warming the climate, and there are negative consequences. But the mature discussion is not the over-simplistic view, it's rather a discussion firstly of how and where to draw the line in terms of what the "compromise points" are - i.e. how much of X do we sacrifice for Y - as well as how to do that in a moral manner.
Admittedly, Zontar just generally called anyone good at chess a "defective person". That's pretty fucking shitty. (I was never much good at chess myself, but I know some excellent chess players and none of them are "defective" in any way, on the contrary, they happen to be highly successful, well-rounded people.)
Some of the confusion comes from the fact that we don't really have free markets for many things, instead we have protectionist markets. Example, the taxi cab "licensing" system in many cities (where the politicians are bought off by the bigger cartels to implement a system that benefits them at the expense of competition). The average man on the street doesn't understand the subtleties but does understand he's being ripped off, and that's "gouging".
The honest manufacturers are not raising prices... Then start selling them for $2.00 a round to the local morons that are panic buying and make yourself a nice profit
Hypocrisy at its finest - when it's done to you it's "dishonest", when you do it to someone else it's just making a nice profit from "morons". What a beautiful example of holding two conflicting values with no cognitive dissonance whatsoever.
FTR, I am for the most part not against doing this. But at least I'm consistent.
It works, just look at the "GravityLight" which has raised $373,430 at time of writing. Do the math on that thing, I think it just-just borders on being a scam.
Hey moron, the slashdot submitter called it a base, not the ex-CIA agent. The ex-CIA agent, if you read the fucking article, wrote: “I haven’t the faintest clue what it might be — but it’s extensive, the structures are pretty big and funny-looking, and it went up in what I’d call an incredible hurry,”
Just to add to the above, a coder behaving like a primate trying to assert an alpha position, this is also normally a huge 'red flag' in other areas - the intellectual dishonesty and the lack of respect will manifest in other ways. I predict he will do other 'ugly' things, like take credit for the work of others, fail to give credit to others when its due, and engage in backstabbing and manipulative office politics.
Slashdot Mirror
Federal Prosecutor Oritz said Aaron's suicide won't change how she handles cases
Of course it won't, these people are complete sociopaths - if she gave two shits about the people whose lives she wrecks, she wouldn't be wrecking them in the first place.
So publishing personally-identifying data for 114,000 people is in the security interests of society?
I realize email addresses loosely qualify as 'personal data', but come on, they were fucking email addresses. Trumping it up to the more scary sounding "personally identifying data" makes you sound a bit like these sociopathic prosecutors.
What part of "Do not access things you are not authorized to access" do these people not understand?
Here are some non-computer analogies to help people like you (who know nothing about computers) understand:
- You notice the boss left his car door open by mistake, and you inform him so he can close it
- You notice the security at your business has accidentally forgotten to lock the doors at closing time, and you notify them so they can lock it
- You notice your neighbor accidentally left his door open when he went out, so you let him know
In this case, what they should have actually done is thanked him and offered to pay him something, since this kind of security work is actually expensive if you hire someone to do it.
Look, I know it's popular with kids today to be all cynical about space with "ooh, space, never gonna happen", but the sad reality is that when you look at the facts, you are so way off it's ridiculous ... cynicism is no substitute for reason. Your homework for today: Do some research into the relative costs that would be involved with such a trip, and then compare it the amount of money sloshing around out there and getting spent on many other things. Your ignorance is totally f-cking astounding. Spoiler: The Mars One project current estimate is $6 billion .. even assuming they have cost overruns by a multiple of five, they still won't even approach a small fraction of the money spent on just one other space project, the ISS. Do the research, you are talking out of your ass.
Great. They can do it with their own money then.
The Mars One project is intended to be funded by private money, so you sound a bit ignorant about what's happening in the field.
“These days, there seems to be nowhere left to explore. Victims of their very success, the explorers now, pretty much, stay home. Maybe it's a little early- maybe the time is not quite yet- but those other worlds, promising untold opportunities, beckon. Just now, there a great many mattters that are pressing in on us that compete for the money it takes to send people to other worlds. Should we solve those problems first, or are they a reason for going? Our planet and our solar system are surrounded by a New World ocean: the depths of space. It is no more impassable than the last.” - Carl Sagan
Why send humans when you can just send robots
This just reveals a lack of imagination. Yes we've been delayed so far in getting to space, but robots are going to pave the way for an exponential explosion of humans in space. We'll soon be able to do things like send teams of robots in advance to do automated construction of infrastructure (eg. build housing, build automated greenhouses, build solar mini-stations, and this is just with technology that we'll see within the next 15 to 30 years), that will make it easier and cheaper to send large numbers of people to Mars. We're just warming up, the days of humans in space are about to begin.
living in cramped conditions with the same group of people for two years risking death every day
Living in cramped conditions with the same group of people for lengthy periods of time risking death, that also roughly describes Columbus's early voyages. The full duration of the first voyage was seven months. Not that far off from estimates for a Mars voyage.
Just because "somebody" gets to have an experience doesn't mean I do
If you want to experience this, why not apply as a volunteer for the Mars One project?
I'm increasingly having trouble remembering why it seemed like a space mission would be so much cooler with a person onboard
I would think this should be more obvious, but it's "cooler" for the people onboard. Do you think it would have been a whole lot cooler if the Spanish had just sent robots to the New World?
Humans are going to colonize space, and it's not for your personal entertainment, but because people with a spirit of exploration want to see what's out there and want to set foot on and colonize new worlds. The early settlers didn't migrate to the New World for the purposes of entertaining those back home. Public Space Programs may be entertaining, but they're not primarily entertainment programs (likewise for projects like Elon Musk's).
Of course, projects like Hubble wouldn't be any better with 'a guy in it'. But is there advantage to acquiring the know-how to have humans in space? Absolutely. If you can't see why it's "cool" to get humans to Mars, then rather just go back to playing video games or whatever entertains you, because there's not much else in this universe that is going to fire your imagination.
That humans are going to colonize space is by now a matter of 'when and how', not 'if'. I think it's time we got our butts over to Mars, and it's time we thought about how to get our butts over to the nearest stars and look for habitable new worlds to colonize. Time's wasting, and I want to retire someday (if we cure aging then this may be reasonable even at well below light speeds) on one of the planets around Tau Ceti, or something similar.
It was less that two years ago that they said that the reason warming is lower than forecasts is because of pollution
Stop right there, what are you talking about: Warming has not been lower than forecast (what stinking place did you pull that from?) - Actually, one of the biggest recent meta-studies to come out on climate science showed that warming over the last 20 years has been very close to the average consensus forecasts over the last 20 years.
The article indirectly touches on that:
By drawing on observations to better understand the behavior of climate models, Bond and her colleagues concluded that atmospheric soot particles 100 nanometers or so in diameter are absorbing enough solar energy to warm the atmosphere with about 1.1 watts per square meter—twice as large a driver of warming as most researchers had estimated. That makes it the second largest humanmade contributor to global warming behind the dominant driver: carbon dioxide. "If we did everything we could to reduce these emissions," said co-author Piers Forster of the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom in a statement, "we could buy ourselves up to half a degree (Celsius) less warming—or a couple of decades of respite."
Unfortunately that oversimplified cartoon is also a great example of why we don't generally let cartoonists determine public policy. How do you define "better": Is a "better world" one in which poor people have less to eat, and poor people have less access to the benefits of technologies like lighting and refrigeration? Is that "better"?
See, the core of the problem is that the competing energy technologies that you just described as "better" (as if that's simply a given) are actually still literally prohibitively expensive, because technologies like solar just aren't that advanced yet. We're talking more expensive by a factor of 4 or 5 over coal.
So what happens in reality is that we must have either a trade-off between affordability of energy and the negative effects of pollution, or we must sacrifice some of the benefits in exchange for cleaner air.
There is no unilateral "better", it's a trade-off. When we impose cleaner technologies on rich countries, the main effect is the difference, say, between some middle class person perhaps being able to afford fewer luxuries at home, in exchange for cleaner air. For the poor people in rich countries, the difference is being pushed deeper into poverty.
For many people in developing countries, forcing cleaner but far more expensive technologies literally is "make or break" in the sense that it pushes thousands or even millions more people below the breadline. Where on coal these poor people might be able to afford basic lighting and refrigeration, on more expensive technologies the compromise is that they're reduced to having, say, no lighting or refrigeration. Food spoils more, and so they go hungry more, and food becomes more expensive to produce, because energy is required across the distribution chain.
So in real life it's not a case of just 'creating a better world for nothing'. Poorer people may well (and rightfully) object that they would prefer to be able to afford to eat and have the basics in life, for example.
I'm not a climate skeptic, I think we are warming the climate, and there are negative consequences. But the mature discussion is not the over-simplistic view, it's rather a discussion firstly of how and where to draw the line in terms of what the "compromise points" are - i.e. how much of X do we sacrifice for Y - as well as how to do that in a moral manner.
Admittedly, Zontar just generally called anyone good at chess a "defective person". That's pretty fucking shitty. (I was never much good at chess myself, but I know some excellent chess players and none of them are "defective" in any way, on the contrary, they happen to be highly successful, well-rounded people.)
Some of the confusion comes from the fact that we don't really have free markets for many things, instead we have protectionist markets. Example, the taxi cab "licensing" system in many cities (where the politicians are bought off by the bigger cartels to implement a system that benefits them at the expense of competition). The average man on the street doesn't understand the subtleties but does understand he's being ripped off, and that's "gouging".
The honest manufacturers are not raising prices ... Then start selling them for $2.00 a round to the local morons that are panic buying and make yourself a nice profit
Hypocrisy at its finest - when it's done to you it's "dishonest", when you do it to someone else it's just making a nice profit from "morons". What a beautiful example of holding two conflicting values with no cognitive dissonance whatsoever.
FTR, I am for the most part not against doing this. But at least I'm consistent.
I've seen much worse things in production code.
I think your point will go unnoticed by most of the people you are targeting
Which let me guess, also just happen to be the group with whom you primarily disagree. Oh the layers of meta-referential irony.
I for one consistently subject my views to strict rational analysis, using reason.
I think there is a world market for maybe 5 telepresence robots.
It works, just look at the "GravityLight" which has raised $373,430 at time of writing. Do the math on that thing, I think it just-just borders on being a scam.
What has that got to do with the article? Or did you just spot an opportunity to try come off as knowledgeable about cycling?
Hey moron, the slashdot submitter called it a base, not the ex-CIA agent. The ex-CIA agent, if you read the fucking article, wrote: “I haven’t the faintest clue what it might be — but it’s extensive, the structures are pretty big and funny-looking, and it went up in what I’d call an incredible hurry,”
The problem is it's in Chinese.
Just to add to the above, a coder behaving like a primate trying to assert an alpha position, this is also normally a huge 'red flag' in other areas - the intellectual dishonesty and the lack of respect will manifest in other ways. I predict he will do other 'ugly' things, like take credit for the work of others, fail to give credit to others when its due, and engage in backstabbing and manipulative office politics.