All the article says is that the British government refuses to fund human space flight. It says nothing about banning British citizens from going up on their own penny (pence?). Maybe what Britain needs is civil human spaceflight to kick things up a bit and make for some good competition for our own burgeoning civil human space flight market here in the 'States.
You're kidding, right? Contractors are treated like shit, never told what's going on, often not given any of the tools (or minor training) to do the work, often not paid on time, no benefits, and low pay. You're basically shunted to do clean-up after another contractor or permanent employee blew up the project, or stuck doing something basic and unexciting. You can forget about building any higher level experience too.
There are currently two choices to who controls the Internet; either the United States, or the United Nations. Contrary to PR, the United Nations is not an "independent, international body." The United States is, for the time being, satisfied with leaving the content of the Internet up to individuals, and only coming into play with technical issues. The U.N. has repeatedly stated its desire to control the Internet for purposes of censorship and crushing dissident speech. Do we really want to move control of the Internet to a body where governments like China and Iran will have a say in what we can and can't say about their human rights abuses and totalitarian regimes? Far better to leave it in the hands of the United States, which at least has a tradition of freedom of speech and open dissent against the government, if not always in practice.
The story name seems to be a bit of a non sequitur designed to instigate FUD. There is no information whatsoever that the Pentagon has decided it might be a good idea to get into a good game of ICBM tossing with, say, France or Germany. Basically, it seems to indicate that the US may use tactical nuclear weapons (these are small nukes, and aren't generally a part of nuclear holocaust scenarios that makes good cheesy sci-fi) on stockpiles of biological, chemical or biological weapons that are under the control of hostile entities, such as Iran, Islamists, or New Jersey. If anything, the use of small nukes in these desolate wastelands can only improve the landscape, and would eliminate dangerous substances that, in the US, would send the EPA and its cronies into an apoplectic fit. If you thought naturally occurring lead sitting in the dirt was a problem, you won't want to tolerate the existence of a WMD sitting around in the open just ready for deployment. We don't want to be hypocritical, do we? So I'm all for cleaning up the environmental disasters waiting to happen in places like North Korea, Syria and Berkeley, California, before we have a real human tragedy on our hands.
What can be done about draining and rebuilding New Orleans in light of the massive flooding, and what can be done to prevent and/or lessen such disasters in the future?
Don't use our money, taken from us by the Feds, to subsidize stupid choices. Maybe before too long, people might decide it's not worth living in a city where you're going to have severe flooding issues on a yearly basis. This also applies well to many other coastal areas.
From the article: 'radically we have moved away from regulation based on professional analysis of scientific data...to regulation controlled by the White House and driven by political considerations.'
Translation: We're upset that political hacks are getting to control others and tell people how to live their lives instead of science hacks.
Scarcity is never a coherent reason for governmental regulation of any product, service or resource. All items on the free market command a certain price that reflects there levels of scarcity. Everything that is used by man is scarce, and priced accordingly. The government did not begin regulation of the airwave because of any spurious special "scarcity" reasoning, but because the government was growing worried that something in development of potential value was not under their control, and was not a money-making machine for them. The free-market system was working quite nicely prior to this, as whoever "homesteaded" a particular sector of the spectrum for the range of their transmission was given legal rights to that part of the spectrum, and anyone who invaded this private, homesteaded property was promptly sued and dealt with. Whenever the government barges its way in, you can bet it won't be anywhere nearly as efficient as the free-market, and will always be for the enlargement of its power and domination. After all, would you be free to say what you wanted if you had to acquire a licence to print a newspaper, a flyer or a blog, and if you said something the government didn't like, they could revoke your licence?
Ooh, maybe now with this shareholder resolution, not only will the Chinese be censored by their government, they won't have jobs either! Of course, those Cisco employees working with China won't have jobs either, I guess. Great work, guys! Let's kill more jobs and pretend that makes people more free!
It's worse than that. When you say and use weather models that are known to be flawed you indicate that there are computations which do say something nontrivial about climate but that somehow don't show an accelerating heating at the surface when you pump CO2 into them.
Actually, what I'm saying is that weather models used to estimate global warming from X number of emissions is flawed in that we have not seen any warming predicted by the model. This has been known since at least 2000, but the UN is still using those models for policy recommendations. This all rolls into the "Hockey Stick" graph, which showed a sharp upward trend in the latter half of the 20th century, but has since been discredited. Among other things, the increase in global temperature was greater between 1900 and 1950 than between 1950 and 2000, and we aren't seeing any actual global warming on any measurable scale. If global warming somehow pops up, then yes, we should study it, but as the only global warming in existence is in made-up spreadsheets, I'm not concerned.
What most people don't understand is that a very small minority in the scientific community believe that one, global warming is a threat, and two, global warming is totally or mostly man-made. You have a small number of unscrupulous scientists who massage data, make up data, and use weather models that are known to be flawed who are able to convince NGOs and the mainstream media that not only is the sky falling, but the scientific community is in total agreement with them. In reality, it's only about 1-2% who are true believers. Rep. Barton has every right to investigate these shady characters, who very well may have been paid by "environmentalist" groups to peddle their party line. There's corruption here, whether it be intellectual dishonesty and pseudo-science, or even scientists being on the take.
While I anticipate this will engender a strong reaction from the/. fringe, this isn't flamebait, and I'm not responsible for any trolling that may occur in response to this post. Let the eco-nuts defend their arguments on fact, not a revived misanthropic mysticism.
Cnet is Posting Nonsensical Fluff as News Again
on
Top 10 Web Fads
·
· Score: 1
Either there must not be many internet fads, or Cnet went trolling for the tiny ones. I've never in my life seen 2, 7 or 8. Maybe it's for the non-tech types, but then again, they don't read cnet. The only real "fad" here is Hampsterdance. The others are minor blips that don't register as fads so much. The Internet is so large, I don't think it's possible anymore to have many real fads that everyone knows about, just niches.
If someone has a wide open WiFi network, how is one supposed to know it's not being kept open as a private public service? If you leave a desirable good out in the open, with no signs of ownership or desire to be kept private, I don't see a problem. If you want to keep your WiFi network private, encrypt it and turn off broadcasting. This is like a radio station or the police arresting you for receiving a clear over the air signal.
The State is the sanctioned use of violence and intimidation. The State is a parasitical organism that lives off of individuals. The State needs you, you don't need the State. If you don't want to have government thugs invading your home and stealing your property, you have recognize the State is an illegitimate criminal enterprise, no different than the mafia or other gangs. The only difference is the State has been able to trick others into believing it has moral authority, something the mafia has been unable to do. Work to end the tyranny of the State.
Those of us in the field, on the ground, so to speak, will decide whether the USPTO is on crack or not for a particular patent. We will ignore stupid patents approved by idiot government officials, and pay attention to the ones that make sense. This way, the industry can progress at an efficient pace, and we will send a message that the government doesn't own us.
Yes, but not working on global climatology. Just because a scientist is an expert on, say, genetics, does not mean they are somehow an expert on anything else.
Slashdot Mirror
All the article says is that the British government refuses to fund human space flight. It says nothing about banning British citizens from going up on their own penny (pence?). Maybe what Britain needs is civil human spaceflight to kick things up a bit and make for some good competition for our own burgeoning civil human space flight market here in the 'States.
Different, yes. Right or useful...no. Ideas that come out of people on crack...different, but also glamorous traink wrecks.
You're kidding, right? Contractors are treated like shit, never told what's going on, often not given any of the tools (or minor training) to do the work, often not paid on time, no benefits, and low pay. You're basically shunted to do clean-up after another contractor or permanent employee blew up the project, or stuck doing something basic and unexciting. You can forget about building any higher level experience too.
There are currently two choices to who controls the Internet; either the United States, or the United Nations. Contrary to PR, the United Nations is not an "independent, international body." The United States is, for the time being, satisfied with leaving the content of the Internet up to individuals, and only coming into play with technical issues. The U.N. has repeatedly stated its desire to control the Internet for purposes of censorship and crushing dissident speech. Do we really want to move control of the Internet to a body where governments like China and Iran will have a say in what we can and can't say about their human rights abuses and totalitarian regimes? Far better to leave it in the hands of the United States, which at least has a tradition of freedom of speech and open dissent against the government, if not always in practice.
The story name seems to be a bit of a non sequitur designed to instigate FUD. There is no information whatsoever that the Pentagon has decided it might be a good idea to get into a good game of ICBM tossing with, say, France or Germany. Basically, it seems to indicate that the US may use tactical nuclear weapons (these are small nukes, and aren't generally a part of nuclear holocaust scenarios that makes good cheesy sci-fi) on stockpiles of biological, chemical or biological weapons that are under the control of hostile entities, such as Iran, Islamists, or New Jersey. If anything, the use of small nukes in these desolate wastelands can only improve the landscape, and would eliminate dangerous substances that, in the US, would send the EPA and its cronies into an apoplectic fit. If you thought naturally occurring lead sitting in the dirt was a problem, you won't want to tolerate the existence of a WMD sitting around in the open just ready for deployment. We don't want to be hypocritical, do we? So I'm all for cleaning up the environmental disasters waiting to happen in places like North Korea, Syria and Berkeley, California, before we have a real human tragedy on our hands.
You can choose to riot in the streets of Redwood City, to down your tools and demand an honest wage for an honest eight-hour day.
You can choose to find an alternate distribution channel, a different business model, a path out of the trap the game industry has set itself.
You can choose to remember WHY we love games--and to ensure that, a generation from now, there are still games worthy of our love.
You can start today.
Atlas Shrugged, baby!
Don't use our money, taken from us by the Feds, to subsidize stupid choices. Maybe before too long, people might decide it's not worth living in a city where you're going to have severe flooding issues on a yearly basis. This also applies well to many other coastal areas.
Source? This isn't going to damage a serial port, is it?
Translation: We're upset that political hacks are getting to control others and tell people how to live their lives instead of science hacks.
Scarcity is never a coherent reason for governmental regulation of any product, service or resource. All items on the free market command a certain price that reflects there levels of scarcity. Everything that is used by man is scarce, and priced accordingly. The government did not begin regulation of the airwave because of any spurious special "scarcity" reasoning, but because the government was growing worried that something in development of potential value was not under their control, and was not a money-making machine for them. The free-market system was working quite nicely prior to this, as whoever "homesteaded" a particular sector of the spectrum for the range of their transmission was given legal rights to that part of the spectrum, and anyone who invaded this private, homesteaded property was promptly sued and dealt with. Whenever the government barges its way in, you can bet it won't be anywhere nearly as efficient as the free-market, and will always be for the enlargement of its power and domination. After all, would you be free to say what you wanted if you had to acquire a licence to print a newspaper, a flyer or a blog, and if you said something the government didn't like, they could revoke your licence?
Ooh, maybe now with this shareholder resolution, not only will the Chinese be censored by their government, they won't have jobs either! Of course, those Cisco employees working with China won't have jobs either, I guess. Great work, guys! Let's kill more jobs and pretend that makes people more free!
See http://www.lewrockwell.com/crispin/crispin20.html. Thanks for the hugs!
The computer inferface to the Stargate at the SGC could run Linux. It's not clear what OS the Stargates themselves run, if any.
I don't listen to Rush, I have no idea what his position is on global warming, and as you're clearly a troll, I'm not going to feed you.
Actually, what I'm saying is that weather models used to estimate global warming from X number of emissions is flawed in that we have not seen any warming predicted by the model. This has been known since at least 2000, but the UN is still using those models for policy recommendations. This all rolls into the "Hockey Stick" graph, which showed a sharp upward trend in the latter half of the 20th century, but has since been discredited. Among other things, the increase in global temperature was greater between 1900 and 1950 than between 1950 and 2000, and we aren't seeing any actual global warming on any measurable scale. If global warming somehow pops up, then yes, we should study it, but as the only global warming in existence is in made-up spreadsheets, I'm not concerned.
While I anticipate this will engender a strong reaction from the /. fringe, this isn't flamebait, and I'm not responsible for any trolling that may occur in response to this post. Let the eco-nuts defend their arguments on fact, not a revived misanthropic mysticism.
Either there must not be many internet fads, or Cnet went trolling for the tiny ones. I've never in my life seen 2, 7 or 8. Maybe it's for the non-tech types, but then again, they don't read cnet. The only real "fad" here is Hampsterdance. The others are minor blips that don't register as fads so much. The Internet is so large, I don't think it's possible anymore to have many real fads that everyone knows about, just niches.
What is that, some version of DOS?
If someone has a wide open WiFi network, how is one supposed to know it's not being kept open as a private public service? If you leave a desirable good out in the open, with no signs of ownership or desire to be kept private, I don't see a problem. If you want to keep your WiFi network private, encrypt it and turn off broadcasting. This is like a radio station or the police arresting you for receiving a clear over the air signal.
If I was a bookie, I'd be taking bets on these guys coming back alive. The Space Shuttle is still a flying death trap.
Hey, I'm single too! Hehehe.
Buy MSFT.
The State is the sanctioned use of violence and intimidation. The State is a parasitical organism that lives off of individuals. The State needs you, you don't need the State. If you don't want to have government thugs invading your home and stealing your property, you have recognize the State is an illegitimate criminal enterprise, no different than the mafia or other gangs. The only difference is the State has been able to trick others into believing it has moral authority, something the mafia has been unable to do. Work to end the tyranny of the State.
Those of us in the field, on the ground, so to speak, will decide whether the USPTO is on crack or not for a particular patent. We will ignore stupid patents approved by idiot government officials, and pay attention to the ones that make sense. This way, the industry can progress at an efficient pace, and we will send a message that the government doesn't own us.
Yes, but not working on global climatology. Just because a scientist is an expert on, say, genetics, does not mean they are somehow an expert on anything else.