Conveniently, they left out the effective radiated power (ERP) needed to get microwave radiation in the 30-300GHz range to a receiving point at the distance mentioned in the article of 13km.
At the end of the day Trump is too incompetent to start a major war. Or do anything else too drastic. He is vain and intellectually lazy, so the lobbyists will keep him under control.
But the big thing he WILL do is roll back Obamacare. The thing that poor whites rely on if they get ill. He'll cut taxes to the rich and services to the poor like nobody else.
He'll make noises about Mexicans but do nothing. He will make noises about China but is unlikely to do anything.
But if you rely on government services too bad, so sad.
In a democracy the people get the government that they deserve.
I read all of that and I pretty much pulled out the end summary of "He'll make noise but do nothing."
I agree. He will run his mouth and have wonderful ideas, but they won't be possible because he isn't the "last word". He's the "first word".
If Obamacare gets rolled back, insurance companies will raise their rates again, for "readjusting their systems". Whatever excuse they can find to hike rates, they use. They all use a wonderful system called Lexis Nexis to find contextually irrelevant data to determine "risk", so with that logic, why would they not raise rates just because they have a chance to? Brief: I have been rear-ended by drivers following too closely (tailgating is a nice way to put it) on rainy days and have been in three accidents which weren't my fault. The officer says so, my vehicle cameras say so, and the State says so. Lexis Nexis helps the insurance companies find that it happened (at all) to raise my "risk" and hike rates even though I have not been the cause of a single accident. Just throwing that in there to make insurance logic clear.
Anyhow, the thing that will be the biggest issue with him is having him accept pre-readers, proofwriters, etc, and maintain control of his mouth while acting as the POTUS. It's okay to make comments about nuking idiots when you're talking at the water cooler; not when you're making a speech and decide to deviate from the scrolling words. I'm not saying it will happen, but his behavior patterns say it will and if not, he can be pushed to do it.
I'm going to start a company that analyzes risk potential through temperature, humidity, hardware internals, charging equipment and, of course, batteries... Every single battery in existence. Everything tested will go through a battery (heh) of abuse and destructive real-world scenarios.
I'll form a government-like entity (like the BBB) that all manufacturers will have to put my company's "safe" logo on in order to prevent.01% of their lost sales per year. I'll charge $7,800 per analysis and $7,900 for "certification with with allowance of logo usage" per each test of every relevant component/device/whatever can have a logo put on it.
I will start the company, "BS (Betterment of Standards) Testing, Inc."and will support consumers in their frivolous 'show me da money' attempts for a small cut. Every possibly method will be used to cause a harmful situation and be filmed before a live studio audience*.
What can possibly go wrong? Ah, shit, my Nexus 6 is starting to burn my leg and will only delay the company startup time! First lawsuit starts now!
If this were a real post, all concepts, names, free money practices, and ideas would be concealed to protect the guilty. All copyrights are null and NUL. Shit, my Nexus 6 is really burning my leg. Nullify this disclaimer.
<font size="-10">* Only final filming will be performed, and live the audiences are limited to 2 persons or less. Whether they are paid audiences are not is at the discretion of BS Testing, Inc. Indication of paid or not will be in low resolution fine print, sideways on a high-res display for absolute guarantee of 100% truthful and legally-presentable reactions from audience members.</font>
But it wasn't even she who was using it... it was her precious, precious child! Think what could have happened!
You mean she is just trying to get bandwagon sympathy to start another bandwagon of "witch hunting" to get whatever money she can out of Samsung, thinking they are vulnerable and will bow to her right now?
You are correct, in my opinion (and from experience). I'm a male white, 36 year old IT dude and have been at it since 14 years of age, legally allowed to work.:)
The only addition (thought bubbles, I guess) to add to your awesome explanation of reality are that: 1. If you want stuff fast (timeline-wise) and/or want something to release as a "competitive product", offshore it. Downside is that it costs more in the long run to fix problems / accept returns or replacements / and maintain your company's image of overall quality. 2. If you want extremely well-thought-out products (programs, engineering, manufacturing, etc), go U.S. The downside is that it will take a lot of up-front cash and time to come to a decent release, which will then cost more to cover the aforementioned costs. 3. If U.S. thinkers come up with a plan to offshore, it won't be perfect. Downside is that the errors can be fixed, but there will be fallout. The fixes ruin the purchaser's image of the provider, which can't be undone without the cost of "undo" operations exceeding the cost of a quality item/etc's up-front cost and time (see #2).
Start good, try to stay good, but don't expect that your good will get you rich quick. The negative view of that is basically derived from the fact that starting good doesn't always allow you to stay good (cost/volume), the staying good won't kill you (cost/volume), and money comes in slowly. It's not the wonderful fallacy of the "American Dream" we received after WWI and WWII. I believe that's why companies tend to wall off and keep outside communications limited; the offshore or onshore-but-inexperienced-crap the communications and support for customers. The ones who are taking in the most money tend to become more greedy as they feel successful and also bias their view of how people feel about them GREATLY in the incorrect direction. Problem with that? Fine. Then lather, rinse, repeat.
From my viewpoint, Trump n Clinton are the same. Crazy AND Crooked.
No kiddin'.
Up until the early 80s, I believe it was still POSSIBLE to have a relatively straight-headed, balanced, and "for the country" person in office. Today, money drives everything. EVERY-THING. It's impossible. I look at it as you vote for the "reality TV guy" and get screwed, or for the "first female in office" and get screwed. No pun intended.
There is no reason to have a computer connected to the internet 24/7, use a gateway, allow internet access only when needed.
No reason except that most computers are used especially for accessing the internet. Maybe it's web, maybe it's usenet, maybe it's irc, maybe it's some client-server apps like Office364 or google for work. Most people I know use their computer mainly for accessing stuff on the internet. Sure, we also do things like write programs, or maybe edit a local document. Internet use is so common now days that not having your computer connected seems silly.
There's a function called "Sleep" on all new computer hardware. Need the 'net, push a key on the keyboard, a mouse button, or the power button. Wait 5-10 second and go. Unless people can't wait 5-10 seconds. Wait, I just 360'ed. No pun intended. I swear.
Damnit. "The 3 new iPhone users, Management, and ordered to have them by the owner (owner is management)" = "The 4 new iPhone users, Management, and ordered to have them by the owner (owner is management)". Mistype while mentally tallying.
Having said that, I find it odd to read things like this, when my daily work position involves walking around buildings of employees to work on workstation and server issues (that's just the start of it, but it gets the point across).
When I traverse the areas of one of the buildings and see peoples' phones, I sort of come to a logically obvious conclusion. There are 4 employees with "current-ish" iPhones. There are 6 with old iPhones (two of the six have cracked displays). 3 employees have flip-phones with pay-as-you-go card plan thingy-whatever-you-call-thems. 4 Have newer-model Android phones, and 2 have older-model ones.
Here's the catch: The areas the employees come from is a generally, um... how to word this.. not low-income areas, but people who don't know how to manage their money or have other issue that prevent them from having month-to-month stability areas.
Second catch: The 3 new iPhone users, Management, and ordered to have them by the owner (owner is management). The 4 with newer-model Androids: developers, me, and a department manager. All of us don't fall into the 'unstable or low income' categories. The last 2 with older-model Androids are not unstable, but making ends meet.
Just thought I'd throw that in. Not to mention that a phone being shipped doesn't mean that it's shipped to an owner or user.;) Pre-holiday subliminal biasing is disgusting, but effective. Just a thought (because if I were a phone manufacturer, that's what I'd do). Gotta get those things out there to meet demand! Even though we don't know what the demand will be yet. iPhone = 1, Android = 100s of manufacturers.
> A scientist...leading to a conclusion that there is nothing going on to be alarmed about
Which one of these is describing AGW?
Again, in the reply you replied to, I didn't say that.
If I had to throw a stick, I'd say it would land near funded alarming information to encourage the purchase of alternative products and energy.
I could be irresponsible and crudely intelligent and deliver a line to others like "Show me the data where stock holders and executives of oil corporations have their hands dipped into the stock of alternative energy companies," but that would be crass and completely illogical. More logic - if you have massive amounts of stock in oil companies and a few.....hundred thousand.. shares of car manufacturers, why would you NOT use the blaming of global warming on oil/cars (let alone other uses of your fuel and their burners' manufacturing companies' products) trigger action to set up alternative identities, shell companies, middlemen, etc to profit no matter what happens? Really? Come on. These people are self-centered and want to win every battle, like every human male (and lots of females!); there is no way they are just resting and not taking advantage of future prospects. If I'm the first one to think of that idea.... well, there is no "if" on that. It's impossible. I'm just an intelligent person in the middle class who doesn't focus on my company stock holdings all day long. There is no way in hell I just thought of that. It's being done and has been done. I'm NOT challenging anyone to find proof of that because, if they could, they already would have. Someone will accidentally screw the handling of a single page document or "get bugged" and caught at some point. But I don't have proof, so I'm just full of it, right?
I'm not being an ass to you, just leaving the words for thought (and, heh, mostly non-thought by others).
Science is never settled. It's always open to re-evaluation upon presentation of new evidence.
You don't seem to understand what "settled" means. "Settled" doesn't mean that new evidence is rejected; it means we've reached the point where the burden of proof is clearly on one side of a question.
If you invent a perpetual motion machine, a physicist isn't obliged to consider your position carefully. He just says, "That violates conservation of energy." and he's done. This is useful, and indeed necessary feature of the way science works; otherwise scientists would spend all their time re-litigating well-established results because some crackpot had a brainstorm.
Nonetheless it is possible to mount a credible attack on settled science. Retroviruses turned the whole "central dogma of molecular biology" on its head. Yes, they actually called it that. And there are serious attempts at overturning conservation of momentum using quantum theory. An attack on a well-established theory has to be narrow in its specific claims and impeccably supported. If it succeeds, then the burden of proof is subsequently altered.
We've reached the point where it's unreasonable to demand scientists spend their disproving your beliefs about what is happening to climate and why. It doesn't mean you can't attack the theory of anthropogenic climate change, you just do it from a point where the burden of proof is on you.
The burden of proof is on those who aren't funded, because there's nothing to be gained from the outcome if the answer isn't "yes, it's happening and it's accelerating." You're biased, so there's no reason to even talk to you about re-analysis. If you were proven wrong, you would fight tooth and nail until you had no option but to say, "But I'm still right" and fade into the background, so as not to be noticed admitting defeat. I'm NOT saying you would be. I'm saying that's how you fight an argument - like every other Human. There's nothing bad in that; the only bad that comes from it is biased output. Collective biased output combined with uneducated reading of "proof" only grows the biased culture, if you will. The only thing that can happen to prove you wrong is impossible. We're in a warming trend (actually overdue, given the rock and ice records). If it warms because of Humans, you're right. If it warms without Human impact, you're right. Either way, you're right. Reality is a bit different than a biased opinion that leaves you with a feeling of superiority and "everyone agrees with me". That's embellished far too much - everyone and superiority are black-and-white feelings and positions. The reality is that you're like other Humans - you have many biases, but the ones that are relevant in my point in this comment are anchoring bias, confirmation bias, attentional bias, the "cheerleader effect", you definitely have the "bias blind spot", clustering illusion bias, continued influence effect, conservatism effect (you're male; that's almost forced; hell, I have that one but I make efforts to overcome it to remain scientific), expectation bias.... Ok I'm going to stop there. I'm sick of wasting my time because you're not even reading.
Oh there is NO evidence against the theory ? Then until that changes - the science is settled, and that's the meaning of the word in this context.
The "new evidence" is not "new". It's "old". There are thousands of videos, television shows, documentaries, heck go out in your back yard or to the nearest area of the most exposed rock and hack into it a bit. The evidence of global warming and cooling is already there. It happened long before Humans existed. It occured as Humans came into the picture. There are blips upward and downward based on things like meteor impacts and volcanic eruptions, but they are difficult to present as part of the big picture because the rock record doesn't collect natural data from a 100 year time frame and leave it at the same proportional thickness and "straightness", if you will. The more time passes, the more the rocks compress and the blips (like the World War 2, 4 year climate change period) become less visible. You can see it now, but 10,000 years from now, you're pushing it. Add another 0 to the end of that number and it's almost undetectable but it IS still detectable. Expensive equipment has to be used to analyze it and no one wants to pay for that because there's no net gain from a final statement of "things are progressing normally".
People with money only put it in to something they get a return from, unless they are attempting to educate the world. Now, think about it, who will be taken seriously? The oil companies funneling funds into information that is alarming where they have an interest in the "new products" that will be designed to overcome it, or the scientist with a Masters and Ph.D who says "the average processes found to occur since 3,000,000,000 years ago and today are leading to a conclusion that there is nothing going on to be alarmed about. Who is going to pay that scientist? If there isn't money, there isn't data to counterbalance data from other sources that are paid for and even encouraged. The common statement of the person who has memorized phrases and numbers (God, "Show me the peer-reviewed data" is the least realistic and educated I have read yet) as a final point in a sentence to think through everything again is absurd. Peer-reviewed data is EXCELLENT and should always be a factor. When you have money being funneled in to a biased idea with the outcome expected to support the hypothesis, and money being funneled in to another entity with the same hypothesis, ummm... Gee.. I wonder if the data will show as "scientifically absolutely true"...? Of course it will. There's money on the line and every Human being is concerned about themselves first, sometimes their offspring next, and the rest is a haze. You only have one side fighting a point with loads of money as encouragement. The other side looks at the data with all they have and shows that there's a trend of compression in ice and rock data over time, so logically, of course, you see more "change" and more of a delta from now to a short period backward. You see huge events from the past in compressed matter, but not the tiny ones. By tiny, I mean less than a century.
It's not "settled". It's "incomplete". The ones who say it's "settled" are akin to a parent saying, "...because I said so."
You can go live in a wooden hut and live by candlelight eating sprouts and nuts, but don't force the rest of us to give up everything we've worked so hard for. I will eat my steak, my burgers, I will have my ground beef, and I will drink two pints of milk everyday, and you can go eat a dick. No, we can't give up beef and milk, unless we all want to be low-T homosexuals like you.
Then you're not looking for a solution. You're looking for self-satisfaction. That's one of the deepest problems when it comes to this matter, as a whole.
A company I work for has been using Linux in the server environment for, well, before I worked here (+15 years?)...
It's always been a shouting match game in conversations about switching desktops from one to the other. We've held on to Windows for compatibility and, more importantly here, familiarity reasons. None of the company employees (sans IT) know what a Linux distro OS looks like, let alone how to use it.
I was actually shocked when we had a short meeting about this today - we're forced to in the next two years "upgrade" to Windows 10, or start the process of documenting usage procedures, converting in-house software to Linux-compatible (no WINE), making procedures of all employees' unique or shared daily work make sense in an environment they are not familiar with, accounting for third-party software that is Windows-only, and ironing out the bugs of printing (we have some pretty custom stuff, albeit simple).
The meeting lasted less than half an hour and the decision was made to migrate. The third party software and unique printing, uh, debacles will be worked out by virtualizing the Windows OS completely, using snapshots at different points during the day and having the central FS shares be the same as they were. Company policy is to NOT use Windows for any purpose involving Internet activity; the software we use that is Windows-only is internal to us; only uses the 'net to upgrade between versions. We already had LibreOffice in place and people are familiar with it and using it every day. There will be a dedicated, non-internet gateway machine in each department for things that involve HAVING to use MS Office for some reason. Sharing sales presentations will be a snap - from a virtualized instance of Windows 7 until it's necessary for "on-board" or other reasons to use Windows 10 (showing another company that we use the same, etc etc etc).
I can't believe the meeting was as short as it was. We've been preparing but just NOT doing it. That has been irritating me for a while now. Better to slowly transition than quickly. But wait, it will be a slow transition because we have a couple of years left! I don't "do that" when it comes to bashing MS just to do it, but this gives me a chance to NOT bash, but thank them in an offhanded way for nicely making the decision for us. You want to force us to be in your control without options, well, now you lose control. Before it was tolerated.
After addressing this with people on./ and also technical minds with 30+ years of experience from a couple of companies I work with indirectly, I have come to this:
If the great minds discuss the details of a solution on the Internet in order to form a collective end, the information used to and the end solution are visible by the designers/exploiters of said attacks. This can lead to 'ways around it' or new methods which haven't been addressed yet because the current attack modes are still working (duh, I know).
If we(people/companies/government) keep discussions secret, and don't allow the attackers to have ANY way of having knowledge of the solution, we are violating the free knowledge concepts that we love today. It also introduces a few things that we hate and talk about today -
* government being in control without the release of information
* government control of companies to secretly place (let's call it 'code' for now) into the architecture of their products that solves 'the problems' but also introducing other things that we fear today; external methods of activating 'spy' modes or other controls that we do not approve of. Use the word 'privacy' to summarize the possibilities
* a company finding a solution and not releasing the information to the public or other companies, thereby introducing an effecting 'monopoly' of problem control. This can't be undone by government because it effectively removes the solution, and spreads the information through themselves to companies by forcing sharing, which can be gained by others as a method of working around it/etc. See next item for the predictable outcome of this
* individuals within companies spreading the 'code' or methods to external nefarious entities in exchange for 'a little money'
In summary, all I have come up with is control of the operating systems through open source methods. Example: Users run Linux or Windows; doesn't matter. Every machine is forced to have an open-source solution installed on it to circumvent the attack processes with a 'wrapper' around it to prevent the removal/termination of it by malware (effectively, malware with a good and open-source process; Yayware?). This software, whether it's introduced into the IP stack as a driver or external intercepting software, it becomes another form of spam control, at least if the last part (external software) is used.
That's my idea, but it has several flaws, too. First one is force - who's going to accept force, and if people are willing to accept it, will it be from OS vendors/maintained through update sources, or will it be an external piece of 'Yayware' that many will use but those with a lack of knowledge/experience in computer use (the majority) will bother to accept it or even "know what this weird thingy is about; 'I only use my computer to look at my family's photos, print, and the the weather from the icon thing on the desktop my son put there to take me to the forecast'"? That sort of thing. I'm sure most if not all of you have witnessed that and bitten your fingernails to step aside from those 'slow computers' loaded with bloatware, possibly malware, who knows what else, because it's 'not your place' to fix that machine up without breaking functionality for the end user....... Yeah.
This doesn't address the issue of foreign products being uncontrolled. Solution - we won't allow your product to be sold in [our Country] unless the source is released and can be reviewed within [our Country] and all devices with this firmware will be overwritten using the source reviewed and compiled within [our Country]. *thumb down with a fart noise* - yeah, like that's gonna happen, for so many reasons that are obvious.
If we can work through the previously-mentioned ignorance part, through education and awareness, we might have a leg to stand on. I don't think I need to say what the chances of that happening are. *thumb down with a BIG fart noise*
Happier people buy higher-end smartphones. It's obvious that this is complete BS because the aforementioned or article-mentioned points can be debunked AND proven. Is this is statistical push by Samsung to subconsciously quell those in fear and get their name back out there as a "Happy" product? I thought that "Happy Happy xyz" crap only worked in Japan.
Speaking as an admin, the number of mac users that request elegant peripherals is not trivial. Magic mouse? if one guy on the floor got one, youre dropping $80 a piece to make sure all your mac users get one. wireless headphones? sure hes the only guy in the office with Beats by Dre but pad your budget because everyone will want them at $300. add up all the magic trackpads magic keyboards and magic fuzzy accessories the average user wants and it starts to rival what you paid to buy and image a Dell. and if things ever get too hairy for a dell, your restore process is entirely automated in windows or linux. restoring a mac is nothing short of corporate witchcraft.
and remember, your fanboi doesnt want a used magic tracpad...he wants a new one.
But but but... You don't have to waste money supporting them! Psh.
I don't know if it's just me, but I feel like I've seen this construction a lot more in recent weeks, and it really bugs me.
That's usually an indication that it's working in someone's favor. It gets more attention because people don't understand the fallacy of its logic; lack of understanding leads to more use/support of it to try to prove to others that they know what they don't.
I don't know why that condition exists. When I don't know something, I say, "I don't know."
Slashdot Mirror
Conveniently, they left out the effective radiated power (ERP) needed to get microwave radiation in the 30-300GHz range to a receiving point at the distance mentioned in the article of 13km.
At the end of the day Trump is too incompetent to start a major war. Or do anything else too drastic. He is vain and intellectually lazy, so the lobbyists will keep him under control.
But the big thing he WILL do is roll back Obamacare. The thing that poor whites rely on if they get ill. He'll cut taxes to the rich and services to the poor like nobody else.
He'll make noises about Mexicans but do nothing. He will make noises about China but is unlikely to do anything.
But if you rely on government services too bad, so sad.
In a democracy the people get the government that they deserve.
I read all of that and I pretty much pulled out the end summary of "He'll make noise but do nothing."
I agree. He will run his mouth and have wonderful ideas, but they won't be possible because he isn't the "last word". He's the "first word".
If Obamacare gets rolled back, insurance companies will raise their rates again, for "readjusting their systems". Whatever excuse they can find to hike rates, they use. They all use a wonderful system called Lexis Nexis to find contextually irrelevant data to determine "risk", so with that logic, why would they not raise rates just because they have a chance to? Brief: I have been rear-ended by drivers following too closely (tailgating is a nice way to put it) on rainy days and have been in three accidents which weren't my fault. The officer says so, my vehicle cameras say so, and the State says so. Lexis Nexis helps the insurance companies find that it happened (at all) to raise my "risk" and hike rates even though I have not been the cause of a single accident. Just throwing that in there to make insurance logic clear.
Anyhow, the thing that will be the biggest issue with him is having him accept pre-readers, proofwriters, etc, and maintain control of his mouth while acting as the POTUS. It's okay to make comments about nuking idiots when you're talking at the water cooler; not when you're making a speech and decide to deviate from the scrolling words. I'm not saying it will happen, but his behavior patterns say it will and if not, he can be pushed to do it.
I'm not saying I didn't vote for him, BTW!!!
I'm going to start a company that analyzes risk potential through temperature, humidity, hardware internals, charging equipment and, of course, batteries... Every single battery in existence. Everything tested will go through a battery (heh) of abuse and destructive real-world scenarios.
I'll form a government-like entity (like the BBB) that all manufacturers will have to put my company's "safe" logo on in order to prevent .01% of their lost sales per year. I'll charge $7,800 per analysis and $7,900 for "certification with with allowance of logo usage" per each test of every relevant component/device/whatever can have a logo put on it.
I will start the company, "BS (Betterment of Standards) Testing, Inc."and will support consumers in their frivolous 'show me da money' attempts for a small cut. Every possibly method will be used to cause a harmful situation and be filmed before a live studio audience*.
What can possibly go wrong? Ah, shit, my Nexus 6 is starting to burn my leg and will only delay the company startup time! First lawsuit starts now!
If this were a real post, all concepts, names, free money practices, and ideas would be concealed to protect the guilty. All copyrights are null and NUL. Shit, my Nexus 6 is really burning my leg. Nullify this disclaimer.
<font size="-10">* Only final filming will be performed, and live the audiences are limited to 2 persons or less. Whether they are paid audiences are not is at the discretion of BS Testing, Inc. Indication of paid or not will be in low resolution fine print, sideways on a high-res display for absolute guarantee of 100% truthful and legally-presentable reactions from audience members.</font>
</humor>
But it wasn't even she who was using it ... it was her precious, precious child! Think what could have happened!
You mean she is just trying to get bandwagon sympathy to start another bandwagon of "witch hunting" to get whatever money she can out of Samsung, thinking they are vulnerable and will bow to her right now?
Wait, was that too soon or too obvious? ;)
You are correct, in my opinion (and from experience). I'm a male white, 36 year old IT dude and have been at it since 14 years of age, legally allowed to work. :)
The only addition (thought bubbles, I guess) to add to your awesome explanation of reality are that:
1. If you want stuff fast (timeline-wise) and/or want something to release as a "competitive product", offshore it. Downside is that it costs more in the long run to fix problems / accept returns or replacements / and maintain your company's image of overall quality.
2. If you want extremely well-thought-out products (programs, engineering, manufacturing, etc), go U.S. The downside is that it will take a lot of up-front cash and time to come to a decent release, which will then cost more to cover the aforementioned costs.
3. If U.S. thinkers come up with a plan to offshore, it won't be perfect. Downside is that the errors can be fixed, but there will be fallout. The fixes ruin the purchaser's image of the provider, which can't be undone without the cost of "undo" operations exceeding the cost of a quality item/etc's up-front cost and time (see #2).
Start good, try to stay good, but don't expect that your good will get you rich quick. The negative view of that is basically derived from the fact that starting good doesn't always allow you to stay good (cost/volume), the staying good won't kill you (cost/volume), and money comes in slowly. It's not the wonderful fallacy of the "American Dream" we received after WWI and WWII. I believe that's why companies tend to wall off and keep outside communications limited; the offshore or onshore-but-inexperienced-crap the communications and support for customers. The ones who are taking in the most money tend to become more greedy as they feel successful and also bias their view of how people feel about them GREATLY in the incorrect direction. Problem with that? Fine. Then lather, rinse, repeat.
But which one is which?
From my viewpoint, Trump n Clinton are the same. Crazy AND Crooked.
No kiddin'.
Up until the early 80s, I believe it was still POSSIBLE to have a relatively straight-headed, balanced, and "for the country" person in office. Today, money drives everything. EVERY-THING. It's impossible. I look at it as you vote for the "reality TV guy" and get screwed, or for the "first female in office" and get screwed. No pun intended.
Busted. What is it?
There is no reason to have a computer connected to the internet 24/7, use a gateway, allow internet access only when needed.
No reason except that most computers are used especially for accessing the internet. Maybe it's web, maybe it's usenet, maybe it's irc, maybe it's some client-server apps like Office364 or google for work. Most people I know use their computer mainly for accessing stuff on the internet. Sure, we also do things like write programs, or maybe edit a local document. Internet use is so common now days that not having your computer connected seems silly.
There's a function called "Sleep" on all new computer hardware. Need the 'net, push a key on the keyboard, a mouse button, or the power button. Wait 5-10 second and go. Unless people can't wait 5-10 seconds. Wait, I just 360'ed. No pun intended. I swear.
What in the heck are you talking about? That made almost no sense.
"And don't bother looking for BlackBerry and Microsoft Windows phones in the mix."
Lol, there's a Windows phone?? I'm pretty sure that's just an urban myth.
Since I'd read and heard they existed, I have yet to see one.... for sale or in someone's hands.
Damnit. "The 3 new iPhone users, Management, and ordered to have them by the owner (owner is management)" = "The 4 new iPhone users, Management, and ordered to have them by the owner (owner is management)". Mistype while mentally tallying.
I'm NOT an iPhone fan; I prefer Android.
Having said that, I find it odd to read things like this, when my daily work position involves walking around buildings of employees to work on workstation and server issues (that's just the start of it, but it gets the point across).
When I traverse the areas of one of the buildings and see peoples' phones, I sort of come to a logically obvious conclusion. There are 4 employees with "current-ish" iPhones. There are 6 with old iPhones (two of the six have cracked displays). 3 employees have flip-phones with pay-as-you-go card plan thingy-whatever-you-call-thems. 4 Have newer-model Android phones, and 2 have older-model ones.
Here's the catch: The areas the employees come from is a generally, um... how to word this.. not low-income areas, but people who don't know how to manage their money or have other issue that prevent them from having month-to-month stability areas.
Second catch: The 3 new iPhone users, Management, and ordered to have them by the owner (owner is management). The 4 with newer-model Androids: developers, me, and a department manager. All of us don't fall into the 'unstable or low income' categories. The last 2 with older-model Androids are not unstable, but making ends meet.
Just thought I'd throw that in. Not to mention that a phone being shipped doesn't mean that it's shipped to an owner or user. ;) Pre-holiday subliminal biasing is disgusting, but effective. Just a thought (because if I were a phone manufacturer, that's what I'd do). Gotta get those things out there to meet demand! Even though we don't know what the demand will be yet. iPhone = 1, Android = 100s of manufacturers.
You lined up;
> Oil companies funding alarming information
against
> A scientist...leading to a conclusion that there is nothing going on to be alarmed about
Which one of these is describing AGW?
Again, in the reply you replied to, I didn't say that.
If I had to throw a stick, I'd say it would land near funded alarming information to encourage the purchase of alternative products and energy.
I could be irresponsible and crudely intelligent and deliver a line to others like "Show me the data where stock holders and executives of oil corporations have their hands dipped into the stock of alternative energy companies," but that would be crass and completely illogical. More logic - if you have massive amounts of stock in oil companies and a few .....hundred thousand.. shares of car manufacturers, why would you NOT use the blaming of global warming on oil/cars (let alone other uses of your fuel and their burners' manufacturing companies' products) trigger action to set up alternative identities, shell companies, middlemen, etc to profit no matter what happens? Really? Come on. These people are self-centered and want to win every battle, like every human male (and lots of females!); there is no way they are just resting and not taking advantage of future prospects. If I'm the first one to think of that idea.... well, there is no "if" on that. It's impossible. I'm just an intelligent person in the middle class who doesn't focus on my company stock holdings all day long. There is no way in hell I just thought of that. It's being done and has been done. I'm NOT challenging anyone to find proof of that because, if they could, they already would have. Someone will accidentally screw the handling of a single page document or "get bugged" and caught at some point. But I don't have proof, so I'm just full of it, right?
I'm not being an ass to you, just leaving the words for thought (and, heh, mostly non-thought by others).
Did I say AGW? Assumptions...
Science is never settled. It's always open to re-evaluation upon presentation of new evidence.
You don't seem to understand what "settled" means. "Settled" doesn't mean that new evidence is rejected; it means we've reached the point where the burden of proof is clearly on one side of a question.
If you invent a perpetual motion machine, a physicist isn't obliged to consider your position carefully. He just says, "That violates conservation of energy." and he's done. This is useful, and indeed necessary feature of the way science works; otherwise scientists would spend all their time re-litigating well-established results because some crackpot had a brainstorm.
Nonetheless it is possible to mount a credible attack on settled science. Retroviruses turned the whole "central dogma of molecular biology" on its head. Yes, they actually called it that. And there are serious attempts at overturning conservation of momentum using quantum theory. An attack on a well-established theory has to be narrow in its specific claims and impeccably supported. If it succeeds, then the burden of proof is subsequently altered.
We've reached the point where it's unreasonable to demand scientists spend their disproving your beliefs about what is happening to climate and why. It doesn't mean you can't attack the theory of anthropogenic climate change, you just do it from a point where the burden of proof is on you.
The burden of proof is on those who aren't funded, because there's nothing to be gained from the outcome if the answer isn't "yes, it's happening and it's accelerating." You're biased, so there's no reason to even talk to you about re-analysis. If you were proven wrong, you would fight tooth and nail until you had no option but to say, "But I'm still right" and fade into the background, so as not to be noticed admitting defeat. I'm NOT saying you would be. I'm saying that's how you fight an argument - like every other Human. There's nothing bad in that; the only bad that comes from it is biased output. Collective biased output combined with uneducated reading of "proof" only grows the biased culture, if you will. The only thing that can happen to prove you wrong is impossible. We're in a warming trend (actually overdue, given the rock and ice records). If it warms because of Humans, you're right. If it warms without Human impact, you're right. Either way, you're right. Reality is a bit different than a biased opinion that leaves you with a feeling of superiority and "everyone agrees with me". That's embellished far too much - everyone and superiority are black-and-white feelings and positions. The reality is that you're like other Humans - you have many biases, but the ones that are relevant in my point in this comment are anchoring bias, confirmation bias, attentional bias, the "cheerleader effect", you definitely have the "bias blind spot", clustering illusion bias, continued influence effect, conservatism effect (you're male; that's almost forced; hell, I have that one but I make efforts to overcome it to remain scientific), expectation bias.... Ok I'm going to stop there. I'm sick of wasting my time because you're not even reading.
This is all overshadowed by hyperbolic discounting. Good luck getting rid of that.
Then present some new evidence.
Oh there is NO evidence against the theory ? Then until that changes - the science is settled, and that's the meaning of the word in this context.
The "new evidence" is not "new". It's "old". There are thousands of videos, television shows, documentaries, heck go out in your back yard or to the nearest area of the most exposed rock and hack into it a bit. The evidence of global warming and cooling is already there. It happened long before Humans existed. It occured as Humans came into the picture. There are blips upward and downward based on things like meteor impacts and volcanic eruptions, but they are difficult to present as part of the big picture because the rock record doesn't collect natural data from a 100 year time frame and leave it at the same proportional thickness and "straightness", if you will. The more time passes, the more the rocks compress and the blips (like the World War 2, 4 year climate change period) become less visible. You can see it now, but 10,000 years from now, you're pushing it. Add another 0 to the end of that number and it's almost undetectable but it IS still detectable. Expensive equipment has to be used to analyze it and no one wants to pay for that because there's no net gain from a final statement of "things are progressing normally".
People with money only put it in to something they get a return from, unless they are attempting to educate the world. Now, think about it, who will be taken seriously? The oil companies funneling funds into information that is alarming where they have an interest in the "new products" that will be designed to overcome it, or the scientist with a Masters and Ph.D who says "the average processes found to occur since 3,000,000,000 years ago and today are leading to a conclusion that there is nothing going on to be alarmed about. Who is going to pay that scientist? If there isn't money, there isn't data to counterbalance data from other sources that are paid for and even encouraged. The common statement of the person who has memorized phrases and numbers (God, "Show me the peer-reviewed data" is the least realistic and educated I have read yet) as a final point in a sentence to think through everything again is absurd. Peer-reviewed data is EXCELLENT and should always be a factor. When you have money being funneled in to a biased idea with the outcome expected to support the hypothesis, and money being funneled in to another entity with the same hypothesis, ummm... Gee.. I wonder if the data will show as "scientifically absolutely true"...? Of course it will. There's money on the line and every Human being is concerned about themselves first, sometimes their offspring next, and the rest is a haze. You only have one side fighting a point with loads of money as encouragement. The other side looks at the data with all they have and shows that there's a trend of compression in ice and rock data over time, so logically, of course, you see more "change" and more of a delta from now to a short period backward. You see huge events from the past in compressed matter, but not the tiny ones. By tiny, I mean less than a century.
It's not "settled". It's "incomplete". The ones who say it's "settled" are akin to a parent saying, "...because I said so."
You can go live in a wooden hut and live by candlelight eating sprouts and nuts, but don't force the rest of us to give up everything we've worked so hard for. I will eat my steak, my burgers, I will have my ground beef, and I will drink two pints of milk everyday, and you can go eat a dick. No, we can't give up beef and milk, unless we all want to be low-T homosexuals like you.
Then you're not looking for a solution. You're looking for self-satisfaction. That's one of the deepest problems when it comes to this matter, as a whole.
Thank you! Correction: 4 years! Plenty of time for testing. I must have been thinking of some other Microsoft product/class of it expiration in 2018.
A company I work for has been using Linux in the server environment for, well, before I worked here (+15 years?)... It's always been a shouting match game in conversations about switching desktops from one to the other. We've held on to Windows for compatibility and, more importantly here, familiarity reasons. None of the company employees (sans IT) know what a Linux distro OS looks like, let alone how to use it. I was actually shocked when we had a short meeting about this today - we're forced to in the next two years "upgrade" to Windows 10, or start the process of documenting usage procedures, converting in-house software to Linux-compatible (no WINE), making procedures of all employees' unique or shared daily work make sense in an environment they are not familiar with, accounting for third-party software that is Windows-only, and ironing out the bugs of printing (we have some pretty custom stuff, albeit simple). The meeting lasted less than half an hour and the decision was made to migrate. The third party software and unique printing, uh, debacles will be worked out by virtualizing the Windows OS completely, using snapshots at different points during the day and having the central FS shares be the same as they were. Company policy is to NOT use Windows for any purpose involving Internet activity; the software we use that is Windows-only is internal to us; only uses the 'net to upgrade between versions. We already had LibreOffice in place and people are familiar with it and using it every day. There will be a dedicated, non-internet gateway machine in each department for things that involve HAVING to use MS Office for some reason. Sharing sales presentations will be a snap - from a virtualized instance of Windows 7 until it's necessary for "on-board" or other reasons to use Windows 10 (showing another company that we use the same, etc etc etc). I can't believe the meeting was as short as it was. We've been preparing but just NOT doing it. That has been irritating me for a while now. Better to slowly transition than quickly. But wait, it will be a slow transition because we have a couple of years left! I don't "do that" when it comes to bashing MS just to do it, but this gives me a chance to NOT bash, but thank them in an offhanded way for nicely making the decision for us. You want to force us to be in your control without options, well, now you lose control. Before it was tolerated.
After addressing this with people on ./ and also technical minds with 30+ years of experience from a couple of companies I work with indirectly, I have come to this:
If the great minds discuss the details of a solution on the Internet in order to form a collective end, the information used to and the end solution are visible by the designers/exploiters of said attacks. This can lead to 'ways around it' or new methods which haven't been addressed yet because the current attack modes are still working (duh, I know).
If we(people/companies/government) keep discussions secret, and don't allow the attackers to have ANY way of having knowledge of the solution, we are violating the free knowledge concepts that we love today. It also introduces a few things that we hate and talk about today -
In summary, all I have come up with is control of the operating systems through open source methods. Example: Users run Linux or Windows; doesn't matter. Every machine is forced to have an open-source solution installed on it to circumvent the attack processes with a 'wrapper' around it to prevent the removal/termination of it by malware (effectively, malware with a good and open-source process; Yayware?). This software, whether it's introduced into the IP stack as a driver or external intercepting software, it becomes another form of spam control, at least if the last part (external software) is used.
That's my idea, but it has several flaws, too. First one is force - who's going to accept force, and if people are willing to accept it, will it be from OS vendors/maintained through update sources, or will it be an external piece of 'Yayware' that many will use but those with a lack of knowledge/experience in computer use (the majority) will bother to accept it or even "know what this weird thingy is about; 'I only use my computer to look at my family's photos, print, and the the weather from the icon thing on the desktop my son put there to take me to the forecast'"? That sort of thing. I'm sure most if not all of you have witnessed that and bitten your fingernails to step aside from those 'slow computers' loaded with bloatware, possibly malware, who knows what else, because it's 'not your place' to fix that machine up without breaking functionality for the end user....... Yeah.
This doesn't address the issue of foreign products being uncontrolled. Solution - we won't allow your product to be sold in [our Country] unless the source is released and can be reviewed within [our Country] and all devices with this firmware will be overwritten using the source reviewed and compiled within [our Country]. *thumb down with a fart noise* - yeah, like that's gonna happen, for so many reasons that are obvious.
If we can work through the previously-mentioned ignorance part, through education and awareness, we might have a leg to stand on. I don't think I need to say what the chances of that happening are. *thumb down with a BIG fart noise*
Happier people buy higher-end smartphones. It's obvious that this is complete BS because the aforementioned or article-mentioned points can be debunked AND proven. Is this is statistical push by Samsung to subconsciously quell those in fear and get their name back out there as a "Happy" product? I thought that "Happy Happy xyz" crap only worked in Japan.
Place on the phase diagram of water where the cooling towers operate.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
In the green!!!!!!
Dude, I'm so sorry. I couldn't control my fingers. These things just happen.
And what else do you think is coming out of those cooling towers... hint: evaporated water.
If high schoolers start coming out of cooling towers, there is a serious problem involving mutation most likely occurring.
Speaking as an admin, the number of mac users that request elegant peripherals is not trivial. Magic mouse? if one guy on the floor got one, youre dropping $80 a piece to make sure all your mac users get one. wireless headphones? sure hes the only guy in the office with Beats by Dre but pad your budget because everyone will want them at $300. add up all the magic trackpads magic keyboards and magic fuzzy accessories the average user wants and it starts to rival what you paid to buy and image a Dell. and if things ever get too hairy for a dell, your restore process is entirely automated in windows or linux. restoring a mac is nothing short of corporate witchcraft.
and remember, your fanboi doesnt want a used magic tracpad...he wants a new one.
But but but... You don't have to waste money supporting them! Psh.
I don't know if it's just me, but I feel like I've seen this construction a lot more in recent weeks, and it really bugs me.
That's usually an indication that it's working in someone's favor. It gets more attention because people don't understand the fallacy of its logic; lack of understanding leads to more use/support of it to try to prove to others that they know what they don't.
I don't know why that condition exists. When I don't know something, I say, "I don't know."