Now glaciologists are left trying to figure out how not understate the importance of the extent glacial ice melt, while at the same time correcting the error.
How about you just be honest in the first place? If you are right about climate change, you don't need to exaggerate your claims. They should speak for themselves.
Had they made the announcement earlier, the same thing would have happened to whoever owned the stock then (mostly the same people). Stock prices take the future into account. Even if they had said "there's a possibility that we'll stop making PCs," it would have gone down nearly as much, and then the rest of the difference as soon as it was official.
That being said, if the decision makers were selling all of their stock while knowing this (and the public not knowing it), then that's a different story. I didn't see anything pointing to this in either of the articles that I briefly skimmed.
I made this comment on the youtube video about a week ago, but perhaps I'll get better responses on/. .
What happens when the MITM is on the website's end of things? The notaries will all get the same information. The CA system is able to work around this (mainly by telling you that the certificate isn't valid). How does a notary system know when all of the notaries are being lied to?
1.) "slightly more?" Are you looking at projections for the coming years, based on his economic policies? Why do you think they were so set on raising the debt limit? 2.) Guess what-- the economy runs in cycles. Bush had to deal with the effects of the dot-com burst and 9/11. Do you really think it's fair to say he inherited "economic booms?" 3.) Obama is running up a huge unrecoverable deficit that we *can not pay for.* We can't afford it even if we tax the rich into the ground. The economy was bad during a lot of the Bush years, but you can't place all the blame on him. 9/11. Dot-com. Credit issues caused by policies created in the '90s. You can't tell me that none of those had a major effect. All of those things had *huge* negative effects on the economy during the Bush years, yet none of those 3 things were his doing. And I'm sure you'll find that a good portions of "teatards" (you're quite mature) do *not* support many of Bush's economic policies.
Seriously? That takes into account 1 or 2 years of Obama's presidency. It's a fact that his policies will create many more trillions of dollars of debt in the coming years (even by him. Why do you think they want to raise the debt limit so much?)
The whole point of the entire case is that he did *not* just talk about religion as it had to do with European History (note that I mentioned him attacking mormons in my previous comment. They had nothing to do with European History). He attacked the validity of religions directly. He didn't just say "the king used his church to control the masses." He said "that religion is nonsense" and "that belief is ridiculous." He spent time in class attempting to disprove certain religions. This was often times not related to European History *at all.* Not even a "modern day example of what happened in Europe back then." Just simply attacking religion for the sake of attacking religion.
1.) He's a European History teacher (he also teaches/taught Art History). 2.) He actually does attack specific religions. Most often Catholics, but also Mormons and other groups that have *nothing* to do with European History.
Wrong. Very little of what the teacher says about religion has to do with creationism. He bashes a lot of religions, often times with ZERO connection to European History (the course). You're acting like he said "well, there isn't evidence to support creationism." That isn't it at all. He flat out says that specific religions are bogus.
I was in Dr. Corbett's class 10 years ago. He attacked religion quite often. It wasn't always on topic (European History), and he often didn't connect it to anything else (or at best he made a very vague connection). He just randomly started talking about how X religion is horribly wrong because it believes or does thing Y.
Read about the case. The teacher was completely out of line. He wasn't just teaching different viewpoints--he flat out claims that specific religions are nonsense.
That isn't what happened. He wasn't teaching evolution. This teacher pointed at specific religions and stated how they are nonsense. It often times had nothing to do with the course (European History)
I was a student of his. I know you have no reason to believe me, but he regularly bashed specific religions. And not just with facts of history. He would just use words like "nonsense" and "cult" with nothing to back it up. Even ones that had nothing to do with European History.
They probably have enough witnesses. If they need another, I'd gladly testify that this teacher regularly went off-topic to bash religion (I had him in 2001-2002). A good portion of the bashing was in the realm of european history, but not all of it. He was also very polar modern politics (he's extremely liberal, though he hilariously claimed to be conservative from time to time). Every day he'd take newspaper clippings and read them to the class. Nearly all of them with the purpose of bashing Bush or other conservatives, and, of course, religion (leading up to the Salt Lake Olympics he would make jokes about mormons quite often).
Why would you think that? The guy who posted above me seems to believe that their only cost is wired bandwidth, and that $10/month should cover unlimited data. No, I don't work for AT&T, or any telco.
Their profit margins aren't as big as you think. They may overcharge for texting, but so what? They aren't making some ridiculous amount of money off of everyone like Apple does. If they cut their prices in half (the minimum cut it seems the masses believe is fair), they would go out of business. AT&T's net profit margin (as a company) is generally around 10 to 15% (I don't know what it specifically is for wireless, but it isn't 300%, as the OP seems to believe). They aren't screwing you over as much as you want to believe. Nor are the oil companies. Look at Exxon's profit margins.
Calling is not just data. It does not use the same system (note that often times you can make calls but don't have a data connection) (text messages also do not go through the data connection. You can often text even when you don't have a data connection).
I guarantee you that it costs carriers much more than $10/month/subscriber to transfer their data. There is a very expensive infrastructure involved, using a lot of electricity. Wired bandwidth is the least of their worries as far as cost goes.
Except the order does matter here, as Samsung wasn't trying to block iDevices "because they were so good that's the only way they could compete." They did it to show how immature Apple was being.
I know this isn't what your question is, and I respect your reasons (even though I don't understand them), but I think you'll find that most admins are going in the other direction. Email is something that should just work. When you host it yourself, you have to worry about a ton of factors... spam, incoming, outgoing, forwarding, being sure your mail isn't getting filtered by recipients' services (which requires a surprising amount of work from the default installations of most self-host services, though the spf entry in your dns is recommended regardless of what you use). I've moved all of my sites to google apps email. It's so so so much easier. Plus you get the awesome gmail interface, and you don't have to worry about your configuration.
Slashdot Mirror
Now glaciologists are left trying to figure out how not understate the importance of the extent glacial ice melt, while at the same time correcting the error.
How about you just be honest in the first place? If you are right about climate change, you don't need to exaggerate your claims. They should speak for themselves.
Had they made the announcement earlier, the same thing would have happened to whoever owned the stock then (mostly the same people). Stock prices take the future into account. Even if they had said "there's a possibility that we'll stop making PCs," it would have gone down nearly as much, and then the rest of the difference as soon as it was official.
That being said, if the decision makers were selling all of their stock while knowing this (and the public not knowing it), then that's a different story. I didn't see anything pointing to this in either of the articles that I briefly skimmed.
You do realize that things aren't free just because *you* don't pay for them, right?
No, what I'm thinking is when the intercept point is in a place such that *all* connections to the website go through the MITM.
I made this comment on the youtube video about a week ago, but perhaps I'll get better responses on /. .
What happens when the MITM is on the website's end of things? The notaries will all get the same information. The CA system is able to work around this (mainly by telling you that the certificate isn't valid). How does a notary system know when all of the notaries are being lied to?
"Not necessarily . . . " Let me stop you there.
1.) "slightly more?" Are you looking at projections for the coming years, based on his economic policies? Why do you think they were so set on raising the debt limit?
2.) Guess what-- the economy runs in cycles. Bush had to deal with the effects of the dot-com burst and 9/11. Do you really think it's fair to say he inherited "economic booms?"
3.) Obama is running up a huge unrecoverable deficit that we *can not pay for.* We can't afford it even if we tax the rich into the ground. The economy was bad during a lot of the Bush years, but you can't place all the blame on him. 9/11. Dot-com. Credit issues caused by policies created in the '90s. You can't tell me that none of those had a major effect. All of those things had *huge* negative effects on the economy during the Bush years, yet none of those 3 things were his doing. And I'm sure you'll find that a good portions of "teatards" (you're quite mature) do *not* support many of Bush's economic policies.
Seriously? That takes into account 1 or 2 years of Obama's presidency. It's a fact that his policies will create many more trillions of dollars of debt in the coming years (even by him. Why do you think they want to raise the debt limit so much?)
* Our modern deficit was built by Reagan and the Bushes.
Have you bothered to look at what Obama has done during his short time in office? It dwarfs what Reagan and the Bushes did.
"It often times had nothing to do with the course (European History)"
Take, for example, all the times he bashed Mormonism.
The whole point of the entire case is that he did *not* just talk about religion as it had to do with European History (note that I mentioned him attacking mormons in my previous comment. They had nothing to do with European History). He attacked the validity of religions directly. He didn't just say "the king used his church to control the masses." He said "that religion is nonsense" and "that belief is ridiculous." He spent time in class attempting to disprove certain religions. This was often times not related to European History *at all.* Not even a "modern day example of what happened in Europe back then." Just simply attacking religion for the sake of attacking religion.
1.) He's a European History teacher (he also teaches/taught Art History).
2.) He actually does attack specific religions. Most often Catholics, but also Mormons and other groups that have *nothing* to do with European History.
Source: I took his class 10 years ago.
Wrong. Very little of what the teacher says about religion has to do with creationism. He bashes a lot of religions, often times with ZERO connection to European History (the course). You're acting like he said "well, there isn't evidence to support creationism." That isn't it at all. He flat out says that specific religions are bogus.
Source: Me. I took his class 10 years ago.
I was in Dr. Corbett's class 10 years ago. He attacked religion quite often. It wasn't always on topic (European History), and he often didn't connect it to anything else (or at best he made a very vague connection). He just randomly started talking about how X religion is horribly wrong because it believes or does thing Y.
Read about the case. The teacher was completely out of line. He wasn't just teaching different viewpoints--he flat out claims that specific religions are nonsense.
Source: Me. I took his course 10 years ago.
That isn't what happened. He wasn't teaching evolution. This teacher pointed at specific religions and stated how they are nonsense. It often times had nothing to do with the course (European History)
Source: Me. I took his class 10 years ago.
I was a student of his. I know you have no reason to believe me, but he regularly bashed specific religions. And not just with facts of history. He would just use words like "nonsense" and "cult" with nothing to back it up. Even ones that had nothing to do with European History.
They probably have enough witnesses. If they need another, I'd gladly testify that this teacher regularly went off-topic to bash religion (I had him in 2001-2002). A good portion of the bashing was in the realm of european history, but not all of it. He was also very polar modern politics (he's extremely liberal, though he hilariously claimed to be conservative from time to time). Every day he'd take newspaper clippings and read them to the class. Nearly all of them with the purpose of bashing Bush or other conservatives, and, of course, religion (leading up to the Salt Lake Olympics he would make jokes about mormons quite often).
How much do you think it costs to run those towers?
Why would you think that? The guy who posted above me seems to believe that their only cost is wired bandwidth, and that $10/month should cover unlimited data. No, I don't work for AT&T, or any telco.
Their profit margins aren't as big as you think. They may overcharge for texting, but so what? They aren't making some ridiculous amount of money off of everyone like Apple does. If they cut their prices in half (the minimum cut it seems the masses believe is fair), they would go out of business. AT&T's net profit margin (as a company) is generally around 10 to 15% (I don't know what it specifically is for wireless, but it isn't 300%, as the OP seems to believe). They aren't screwing you over as much as you want to believe. Nor are the oil companies. Look at Exxon's profit margins.
Calling is not just data. It does not use the same system (note that often times you can make calls but don't have a data connection) (text messages also do not go through the data connection. You can often text even when you don't have a data connection).
I guarantee you that it costs carriers much more than $10/month/subscriber to transfer their data. There is a very expensive infrastructure involved, using a lot of electricity. Wired bandwidth is the least of their worries as far as cost goes.
Except the order does matter here, as Samsung wasn't trying to block iDevices "because they were so good that's the only way they could compete." They did it to show how immature Apple was being.
Nothing is stopping you from buying Apple stock. I know a lot of people who own shares of aapl who aren't anywhere near the "top 1%"
You do know that that was in response to what Apple did, right?
I know this isn't what your question is, and I respect your reasons (even though I don't understand them), but I think you'll find that most admins are going in the other direction. Email is something that should just work. When you host it yourself, you have to worry about a ton of factors... spam, incoming, outgoing, forwarding, being sure your mail isn't getting filtered by recipients' services (which requires a surprising amount of work from the default installations of most self-host services, though the spf entry in your dns is recommended regardless of what you use). I've moved all of my sites to google apps email. It's so so so much easier. Plus you get the awesome gmail interface, and you don't have to worry about your configuration.