Clouds are not water vapor. They are formed of droplets of water (or sometimes ice) suspended in the air. As an example, fog is just a cloud at ground level. Clouds do, of course, reflect light, but don't act as a greenhouse gas. The various ways water vapor affects temperature are many and complex; so complex, in fact, that none of the computer models even pretend to take it into account because the formulas would take far too long to solve. Which, BTW, is one reason the computer models are unable to predict what's going on with any pretense of accuracy.
We know CO2 soaks up heat and we know there's a lot of CO2 being released.
We also know that water vapor soaks up 25 times as much heat as CO2, and that there's a lot more of it, especially over the oceans. Of course, the Global Warming Industry doesn't mention this, because it would make people wonder how much effect CO2 really has, except over cold deserts.
Yes and no. It's a classic misspelling going back to Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary, if not further. Somehow, it seems more appropriate to avoid spelling that word correctly.
I see. Is there any reason, then, when you copy/paste your comments into your browser (after the story goes live) that you can't look to see if anything's been marked as misspelled? For that matter, what ever happened to poorfraeding your posts yourself and correcting any speeling misteaks?
Start using a modern browser instead of one from the Second Millennium. Third Millennium browsers have built in spelling checkers and would have caught that for you.
The one that got my goat was that other guy whose name I forget, who linked in a site that was basically just a link farm for search engine spam.
The problem was that people didn't like having to go to Roland's blog to find the links to the articles. They felt that not linking to them directly was abusive. (Considering how few Slashdotters RTFM, this is a bit odd, but there it is.) Note that Roland's more recent articles do link directly; given time, he learned.
Maybe nobody's complaining because unlike Roland, he's linking directly to the articles themselves rather than to his own site. People didn't so much complain about Roland posting so many articles as they did about the way he was using Slashdot to up the hit count on his own site.
ICBW, but I think you misunderstand. The pension plans were negotiated back when car companies were raking in cash hand over fist, and expected to keep on doing so. Now, they have big pensions to pay and decreasing income, making it harder for them to retool and become more profitable again. However, unlike TELLUS, they're honoring their contracts without being forced by a court, bringing them close to bankruptcy. (Even if they file for Chapter 7 and get reorganized, they may still have to pay the pensions at the current rate. IANAL and have no idea how much flexibility they'd have in those circumstances.)
If Steve Ballmer wanted to be seen as a hero, he'd have the default hosts file for Windows Vista include a line setting goatse.cx to 127.0.0.0. That would be real news for nerds!
(And I don't really care about Biden because VP is a "nothing" job
I rather think that either President Johnson would disagree with you here. They'd be joined by Teddy Roosevelt, Gerald Ford, Harry Truman and several others. Yes, most of the time the VP is the fifth wheel on the cart of government, but once in a while it really matters.
Exactly. Let's say you're a student, living in a dorm and using the school's broadband. All traffic in or out goes through the institution's LAN. If somebody in the school's admin wanted to run a MiTM attack for some reason, they'd control all access you had to the Outside World and could spoof the replies from the various notaries to make them fit the fake cert. Or, for that matter, let's say that the LAN goes out over a T1. Somebody at the other end of the pipe could do the same thing. Once the requests go out over different paths, however, it's much, much harder for any one person to control the responses.
books that literally changed the way that the world thought
If you want to use a book that quite literally changed the way the world thought, it's going to be very hard to find a more appropriate one than the Bible. It's probably had more effect on more people's lives than any other ten books you can name.
Q: But what if an attacker takes over all paths to the destination?
A: Unless the attacker is the service providing your connection (This may not be your ISP; if you're using DSL it might be your telco, or a big DSL provider. If you're on dial-up, your ISP might be leasing the PoP from some other national or local company, such as UUNet.) such control is almost impossible, and at best, highly unlikely. There would have to be at least one choke point, or possibly a choice among a very small number of them, for this to work. Even then, the MITM would have to control them all to be able to take over all paths to the destination. If there's even one path they don't control, the attempt fails.
What many scientists look for in remote planets is chemical imbalance, from an energetic point of view.
To expand a little, a better sign of life is an atmosphere that's not statically stable. Our own oxy-nitrogen mix wouldn't stay the way it is without life; there are too many processes that would take the oxygen out. The only thing keeping it in the balance it is is the fact that plants are generating more oxygen at the same rate it's used up, both by animals and by inorganic routes. Any species capable of analyzing our atmosphere could tell that the Earth supports life, even if it weren't life as they know it.
though it certainly wouldn't be impossible for one package manager to read both.deb and.rpm files.
I've long been thinking the same thing. Actually, all it needs is the ability to call on whatever package installer (rpm or apt) is native to the distro, as well as to alien to translate as needed. Call it "install," let's say, so that the user can just type:
install package.foo
and everything gets done correctly. I'd also like to see it able to recognize programs that need to be configured, made and put into place and know the correct sequence of shell commands (and what to do in case of error) without any user input. Once you have that, Aunt Millie and/or Uncle Elmer will be able to install software on their own Linux boxes without calling you over to spend a few minutes typing and an hour or so eating brownies, chocolate chip cookies or pizza.
Come to think of it, that might be going a tad too far.
They haven't had any injunctions against them or any court orders to stop... so why would they quit?
Not only don't they have any reason to quit, they have two very good reasons to keep right on going with what they're doing. First, of course, the RIAA is still paying them to investigate and they don't want to lose that income. Second, they haven't been charged, yet, let alone convicted, so in the eyes of the Law, they're still considered innocent of any wrong-doing. Stopping now could easily be construed (and probably would be) as an admission of wrong doing and be very damaging in court.
My current company has an IT so big that we spend all of our time fighting with each other. It takes months to create new user accounts, months to get simple servers built, 2 weeks to schedule a reboot, etc.
Let me guess: your company's productivity is suffering so much because people can't get their work done that profits are down. If I were you, I'd be expecting layoffs, but not in the IT department. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to find IT expanding because management doesn't understand that IT bloat is the problem not the solution.
But I don't seriously think they have an official definition of "expert".
Again, IANAL, but I think you're right. AIUI, it all comes down to showing the court that the witness knows enough about the subject in question that their opinion is worth listening to. In your case, the prosecution came up with a definition and you showed that it fit you. Getting back to what started this whole mess, I doubt that a random detective, or police officer would qualify as an expert on telling real photographs from CGI, especially if they never had time to examine them closely.
Possibly the best way to handle this is use one of IE's many security holes to patch the bug: create a website that checks to see if you're using IE. If you are, and you don't already have this plugin, use ActiveX to install it. After all, we all know that a large percentage of the people who use IE will always click OK when asked if they want their browser to install something; that's how a lot of malware gets installed.
Face it, there are a lot of idiots in IT management who only know the names of the vendors, and don't even understand what the technologies do.
There are also a lot of clueless fuggheads in HR. If you write a job description that says, "It would be nice if the candidate knew.NET and Java," these ID10Ts will put down, "Mist have.NET and Java," and you'll never see some very qualified applicants who'd be more than willing to learn what you need and grow into the position, you only get people who already know the technologies and are looking to learn something new that you're not offering.
I know you're joking, but I really did know a woman once (not in the Biblical sense) who claimed that she'd tried becoming a streetwalker and failed at it. I never asked why, although I sometimes wondered. She wasn't a raving beauty, but she wasn't what you'd call "bad looking," either.
And unless someone does chime in, which might be dificult because as I understand it, the rules of a court can change from state to state as well as to the federal level. We could technically have 51 different sets of rules which is likely why an attorney needs to be license and accredited by the bar of each state he practices in.
How true! I'd imagine, however, that the basic principles are the same, but exactly what's allowed and how you have to do things are what varies. As far as your getting qualified as an expert, it sounds like the prosecutor was careless in his definition because he hadn't bothered to find out your qualifications. I wouldn't be surprised if he were trying to exclude you and then was stuck with what he said. (This is the same thing that happened, BTW, when President Clinton was able to say he hadn't had sex because the other side had defined it so narrowly, in an attempt to trap him.)
You're arguing common sense, and I'm talking about the Rules of Evidence. IANAL, but AIUI, courts have very strict rules about what a non-expert can testify to and what constitutes an expert. These rules have been worked out over centuries of experience and have been found to be the best way to produce a fair and honest trial.
What matters is perception, if a juror can tell if something is fake, then he will believe it is fake and if it appears real, they will believe it is real just as he believes noon to be when the sun is at it's highest point in the sky
Yes, and it's up to the jury to decide for themselves it it's a fake, unless there's somebody who is qualified to examine the images in question and render an opinion. It's not up to J. Random Detective to tell them that it's real because he thinks it is.
But it wouldn't work that way on a detective if the opinion was the reasoning for actions he took.
He can testify that at the time he thought they were real; he can't say that the are real or otherwise make any assertions of that nature. Most likely, he'd be instructed to say that he thought that they might be real and arrested the defendant so that they could be examined and a proper determination made. That way he doesn't leave any openings for a claim that he testified that they were real.
Thank you for that story about your own court experiences. It was very interesting and enlightening. Yes, you can express opinions on some things in court without being an expert, but AIUI, it's mostly about people's character, abilities and so on, not questions of the type we're discussing here. Alas, neither of us is a lawyer and none of the lawyers reading Slashdot see fit to comment, so maybe we'll just have to let it go at that.
Slashdot Mirror
Clouds are not water vapor. They are formed of droplets of water (or sometimes ice) suspended in the air. As an example, fog is just a cloud at ground level. Clouds do, of course, reflect light, but don't act as a greenhouse gas. The various ways water vapor affects temperature are many and complex; so complex, in fact, that none of the computer models even pretend to take it into account because the formulas would take far too long to solve. Which, BTW, is one reason the computer models are unable to predict what's going on with any pretense of accuracy.
We also know that water vapor soaks up 25 times as much heat as CO2, and that there's a lot more of it, especially over the oceans. Of course, the Global Warming Industry doesn't mention this, because it would make people wonder how much effect CO2 really has, except over cold deserts.
Yes and no. It's a classic misspelling going back to Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary, if not further. Somehow, it seems more appropriate to avoid spelling that word correctly.
I see. Is there any reason, then, when you copy/paste your comments into your browser (after the story goes live) that you can't look to see if anything's been marked as misspelled? For that matter, what ever happened to poorfraeding your posts yourself and correcting any speeling misteaks?
Start using a modern browser instead of one from the Second Millennium. Third Millennium browsers have built in spelling checkers and would have caught that for you.
The problem was that people didn't like having to go to Roland's blog to find the links to the articles. They felt that not linking to them directly was abusive. (Considering how few Slashdotters RTFM, this is a bit odd, but there it is.) Note that Roland's more recent articles do link directly; given time, he learned.
There was one thing TFA didn't make clear to me: what does this tell us about man-in-the-moon marigolds?
Maybe nobody's complaining because unlike Roland, he's linking directly to the articles themselves rather than to his own site. People didn't so much complain about Roland posting so many articles as they did about the way he was using Slashdot to up the hit count on his own site.
ICBW, but I think you misunderstand. The pension plans were negotiated back when car companies were raking in cash hand over fist, and expected to keep on doing so. Now, they have big pensions to pay and decreasing income, making it harder for them to retool and become more profitable again. However, unlike TELLUS, they're honoring their contracts without being forced by a court, bringing them close to bankruptcy. (Even if they file for Chapter 7 and get reorganized, they may still have to pay the pensions at the current rate. IANAL and have no idea how much flexibility they'd have in those circumstances.)
If Steve Ballmer wanted to be seen as a hero, he'd have the default hosts file for Windows Vista include a line setting goatse.cx to 127.0.0.0. That would be real news for nerds!
I rather think that either President Johnson would disagree with you here. They'd be joined by Teddy Roosevelt, Gerald Ford, Harry Truman and several others. Yes, most of the time the VP is the fifth wheel on the cart of government, but once in a while it really matters.
Exactly. Let's say you're a student, living in a dorm and using the school's broadband. All traffic in or out goes through the institution's LAN. If somebody in the school's admin wanted to run a MiTM attack for some reason, they'd control all access you had to the Outside World and could spoof the replies from the various notaries to make them fit the fake cert. Or, for that matter, let's say that the LAN goes out over a T1. Somebody at the other end of the pipe could do the same thing. Once the requests go out over different paths, however, it's much, much harder for any one person to control the responses.
If you want to use a book that quite literally changed the way the world thought, it's going to be very hard to find a more appropriate one than the Bible. It's probably had more effect on more people's lives than any other ten books you can name.
A: Unless the attacker is the service providing your connection (This may not be your ISP; if you're using DSL it might be your telco, or a big DSL provider. If you're on dial-up, your ISP might be leasing the PoP from some other national or local company, such as UUNet.) such control is almost impossible, and at best, highly unlikely. There would have to be at least one choke point, or possibly a choice among a very small number of them, for this to work. Even then, the MITM would have to control them all to be able to take over all paths to the destination. If there's even one path they don't control, the attempt fails.
To expand a little, a better sign of life is an atmosphere that's not statically stable. Our own oxy-nitrogen mix wouldn't stay the way it is without life; there are too many processes that would take the oxygen out. The only thing keeping it in the balance it is is the fact that plants are generating more oxygen at the same rate it's used up, both by animals and by inorganic routes. Any species capable of analyzing our atmosphere could tell that the Earth supports life, even if it weren't life as they know it.
I've long been thinking the same thing. Actually, all it needs is the ability to call on whatever package installer (rpm or apt) is native to the distro, as well as to alien to translate as needed. Call it "install," let's say, so that the user can just type:
install package.foo
and everything gets done correctly. I'd also like to see it able to recognize programs that need to be configured, made and put into place and know the correct sequence of shell commands (and what to do in case of error) without any user input. Once you have that, Aunt Millie and/or Uncle Elmer will be able to install software on their own Linux boxes without calling you over to spend a few minutes typing and an hour or so eating brownies, chocolate chip cookies or pizza.
Come to think of it, that might be going a tad too far.
Not only don't they have any reason to quit, they have two very good reasons to keep right on going with what they're doing. First, of course, the RIAA is still paying them to investigate and they don't want to lose that income. Second, they haven't been charged, yet, let alone convicted, so in the eyes of the Law, they're still considered innocent of any wrong-doing. Stopping now could easily be construed (and probably would be) as an admission of wrong doing and be very damaging in court.
Let me guess: your company's productivity is suffering so much because people can't get their work done that profits are down. If I were you, I'd be expecting layoffs, but not in the IT department. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to find IT expanding because management doesn't understand that IT bloat is the problem not the solution.
Again, IANAL, but I think you're right. AIUI, it all comes down to showing the court that the witness knows enough about the subject in question that their opinion is worth listening to. In your case, the prosecution came up with a definition and you showed that it fit you. Getting back to what started this whole mess, I doubt that a random detective, or police officer would qualify as an expert on telling real photographs from CGI, especially if they never had time to examine them closely.
Possibly the best way to handle this is use one of IE's many security holes to patch the bug: create a website that checks to see if you're using IE. If you are, and you don't already have this plugin, use ActiveX to install it. After all, we all know that a large percentage of the people who use IE will always click OK when asked if they want their browser to install something; that's how a lot of malware gets installed.
There are also a lot of clueless fuggheads in HR. If you write a job description that says, "It would be nice if the candidate knew .NET and Java," these ID10Ts will put down, "Mist have .NET and Java," and you'll never see some very qualified applicants who'd be more than willing to learn what you need and grow into the position, you only get people who already know the technologies and are looking to learn something new that you're not offering.
I know you're joking, but I really did know a woman once (not in the Biblical sense) who claimed that she'd tried becoming a streetwalker and failed at it. I never asked why, although I sometimes wondered. She wasn't a raving beauty, but she wasn't what you'd call "bad looking," either.
How true! I'd imagine, however, that the basic principles are the same, but exactly what's allowed and how you have to do things are what varies. As far as your getting qualified as an expert, it sounds like the prosecutor was careless in his definition because he hadn't bothered to find out your qualifications. I wouldn't be surprised if he were trying to exclude you and then was stuck with what he said. (This is the same thing that happened, BTW, when President Clinton was able to say he hadn't had sex because the other side had defined it so narrowly, in an attempt to trap him.)
You're arguing common sense, and I'm talking about the Rules of Evidence. IANAL, but AIUI, courts have very strict rules about what a non-expert can testify to and what constitutes an expert. These rules have been worked out over centuries of experience and have been found to be the best way to produce a fair and honest trial.
Yes, and it's up to the jury to decide for themselves it it's a fake, unless there's somebody who is qualified to examine the images in question and render an opinion. It's not up to J. Random Detective to tell them that it's real because he thinks it is.
But it wouldn't work that way on a detective if the opinion was the reasoning for actions he took.
He can testify that at the time he thought they were real; he can't say that the are real or otherwise make any assertions of that nature. Most likely, he'd be instructed to say that he thought that they might be real and arrested the defendant so that they could be examined and a proper determination made. That way he doesn't leave any openings for a claim that he testified that they were real.
Thank you for that story about your own court experiences. It was very interesting and enlightening. Yes, you can express opinions on some things in court without being an expert, but AIUI, it's mostly about people's character, abilities and so on, not questions of the type we're discussing here. Alas, neither of us is a lawyer and none of the lawyers reading Slashdot see fit to comment, so maybe we'll just have to let it go at that.