As a point of reference, a battleship's 16" main battery had a max range of just over 28.66 statute miles. (That's 25 nautical miles, btw.) Unless they've built something like the Paris Gun, Seoul is outside of their range. Still, they could do massive damage to the troops defending the border.
By your logic, none of the people using computers in offices are non technical users because they have support people available to bail them out. I don't think so.
You're wrong. For the last five years my wife is a happy CentOS user. And as non technical as you can get it.
My sister has been using Ubuntu for about as long. She still has a laptop with XP, but that's because there are some programs she needs for school (She went back to college after retiring, and is now nearing graduation in her 60s.) that just won't install or run right under Wine. Most of the time, when she needs help, it's either trying to do something unusual that she can't figure out, or an Internet problem that's almost always at the other end. Recently, we installed Xfce and switched her away from Unity (Technically, I guess, she's using Xubuntu, but it wasn't a reinstall.) because her Parkinson's makes putting the mouse exactly on some tiny spot to bring something up too hard, but aside from that, she finds it does everything she needs. And, as far as technical/non-technical, she knows how to make her computer do things, but has no interest in what's going on "under the hood."
And what's the first thing an average user does after installing Ubuntu?/etc/sudoers ALL=(ALL) NOPASSWD:ALL.
And not just Ubuntu, either. I use Fedora, a fairly geeky, bleeding-edge distro, and you'd be surprised (or maybe not) at how many users on the various support fora assume that everybody uses sudo and/or that there's no other way to get root access. I have two Linux boxes, and made a point of not installing sudo because I know how to use su and as long as I have the root password, there's no reason to use sudo.
But if you want to get on a company's intranet, the LAMP stack on a poorly maintained linux server (read: most linux servers) is the ticket.
Alas, that's all too true. However, is Linux itself to blame if the people who use it don't bother to keep it updated, or run security audits? No, of course not, any more than Windows is to blame for what happens when it's administered by fools who don't do their jobs right. Granted, keeping ahead of malware is harder on Windows, but it can be done if you're willing to put the work into it. (Why you have to work that hard running a Red Queen's Race is another question.)
The point I was making was that the security holes are in the application, or the way it's used, not the OS itself. Blaming Linux because code monkeys don't bother to validate their input doesn't make it a security hole in Linux.
In case you haven't noticed, mysql != Linux. Those exploits would still be there if the underlying OS were Windows because they're part of the application, not the operating system itself.
TFA says, 'This dip is known as a "transit"' but that's wrong. Transit in this context refers to the exoplanet passing in front of the star. The dip in the star's brightness is caused by this, and is used to infer the passage.
I don't even have the originals of my birth certificate, discharge papers or DD 214, and haven't in decades. However, my father registered my birth certificate at the Hall of Records, and I did the same with my discharge papers and DD 214 after I got out of the Navy so I don't have to worry. In fact, in Los Angeles, where they're registered, any veteran can get two copies of his service papers for free, any time they're needed, so why keep the originals? And, once when I was down there to request copies, I ran across my father's, although I've never had a reason to request them. Still, it's nice to know how long they hang on to things like that.
Basements aren't as common as you think they are. I've always lived in Southern California, and I've never lived in a house with a basement. At most, there's been a crawl space under the house, but that's not exactly a good place to store things. And, I suspect there's a typo in TFS that the editor's didn't catch: it says, "I would like to scan everything, and only retain the papers for things that don't require the original copies." and I think it should read, "...that do require..." because as written, it makes no sense at all.
Thank God that the Navy has those knuckle dragging Deck Apes to ensure that Navy ships don't founder in the same way!
Yup! I wasn't a Deck Ape, but I spent my fair share of time lashing things down and making sure they stayed secure back when I was in the Navy. Just because the crew isn't properly trained is no excuse for the officers not seeing to it that things are properly ship-shape!
(with a bomber that we designed in the 70's no less...)
Actually, the B-52 entered service in 1955. In fact, I remember watching B-52 raids back in '72, when we were in Tonkin Gulf, and steaming through the clouds of sand, dust and grit that they created. FYI, there's only one thing I've ever heard in my life that sounds the same as a flight of Stratofortresses cutting loose: an earthquake.
No. The first time most people saw those claims was after the bad winters. In fact, I don't remember any mention at the time that the idea had been published decades earlier. That doesn't mean, of course, that it wasn't mentioned, just that I don't remember any mention. And please, stop putting words in my mouth; it's unsanitary.
IIRC, people started making fun of AGW when there were several extra-cold winters, sometime after 2000. Then, there was an addition to the theory handed down that explained that the extra energy caused more extreme weather, both hotter in the summer and colder in the winter. Yes, I agree that it's not fair to expect you to chase a constantly-changing goalpost, but that's not my intent. And, if you'll read my first post carefully, I'm not saying that the explanation's wrong, just that I'd have liked it better if it had been made (or at least emphasized) before it came true.
What I'm referring to is the fact that AFAIK, this idea only became part of AGW theory after the effect was observed. I respect the fact that the proponents are flexible enough to adapt to new data, but as I wrote before, I'd have been more impressed if they'd have thought of it earlier. (After all, having a prediction confirmed always looks better than an explanation of something you didn't think of.)
European records of the Gulf Stream go back to about 1513 or so, during the Little Ice Age. Of course, we don't know how far north it went back then, so we don't know how much of an effect it did or didn't have on the climate. Not disagreeing with you, just making a comment you might find interesting.
No. I'm not saying that there's no room for learning or adaptation, just pointing out that the AGW people have done exactly what the OP was complaining about. And, as I pointed out, this particular adjustment isn't in any way unreasonable. Of course, reading for comprehension isn't exactly something I'd expect from an AC.
Junk science says "hey, no problem, our model can explain that too".
You mean like the way the AGW people suddenly realized that adding energy to the atmosphere meant more extreme weather, both hotter and colder, after we had some extra-cold winters? I can't say it's not reasonable, but I would have found it much more impressive if any of them had suggested this before it happened, rather than patching their theory to explain something that otherwise didn't fit.
Slashdot Mirror
It is just single events that are not predictable at QM level.
Yes, and that type of thing is exactly what I was thinking of. Maybe I should have been more specific.
In what other field besides astronomy do we have that level of predictive ability and accuracy?
Ballistics.
Seriously, any part of physics that isn't significantly affected by quantum effects yields much more accurate predictions, as does chemistry.
Well, he's certainly on a par with Dr. Blind, who did such a bad job for Gabriel von Eisenstein, that his sentence was doubled.
It actually specifically disclaims any interest in dispensing justice.
Ask not for justice, lest you too be judged!
As a point of reference, a battleship's 16" main battery had a max range of just over 28.66 statute miles. (That's 25 nautical miles, btw.) Unless they've built something like the Paris Gun, Seoul is outside of their range. Still, they could do massive damage to the troops defending the border.
By your logic, none of the people using computers in offices are non technical users because they have support people available to bail them out. I don't think so.
You're wrong. For the last five years my wife is a happy CentOS user. And as non technical as you can get it.
My sister has been using Ubuntu for about as long. She still has a laptop with XP, but that's because there are some programs she needs for school (She went back to college after retiring, and is now nearing graduation in her 60s.) that just won't install or run right under Wine. Most of the time, when she needs help, it's either trying to do something unusual that she can't figure out, or an Internet problem that's almost always at the other end. Recently, we installed Xfce and switched her away from Unity (Technically, I guess, she's using Xubuntu, but it wasn't a reinstall.) because her Parkinson's makes putting the mouse exactly on some tiny spot to bring something up too hard, but aside from that, she finds it does everything she needs. And, as far as technical/non-technical, she knows how to make her computer do things, but has no interest in what's going on "under the hood."
And what's the first thing an average user does after installing Ubuntu? /etc/sudoers ALL=(ALL) NOPASSWD:ALL.
And not just Ubuntu, either. I use Fedora, a fairly geeky, bleeding-edge distro, and you'd be surprised (or maybe not) at how many users on the various support fora assume that everybody uses sudo and/or that there's no other way to get root access. I have two Linux boxes, and made a point of not installing sudo because I know how to use su and as long as I have the root password, there's no reason to use sudo.
But if you want to get on a company's intranet, the LAMP stack on a poorly maintained linux server (read: most linux servers) is the ticket.
Alas, that's all too true. However, is Linux itself to blame if the people who use it don't bother to keep it updated, or run security audits? No, of course not, any more than Windows is to blame for what happens when it's administered by fools who don't do their jobs right. Granted, keeping ahead of malware is harder on Windows, but it can be done if you're willing to put the work into it. (Why you have to work that hard running a Red Queen's Race is another question.)
The point I was making was that the security holes are in the application, or the way it's used, not the OS itself. Blaming Linux because code monkeys don't bother to validate their input doesn't make it a security hole in Linux.
In case you haven't noticed, mysql != Linux. Those exploits would still be there if the underlying OS were Windows because they're part of the application, not the operating system itself.
TFA says, 'This dip is known as a "transit"' but that's wrong. Transit in this context refers to the exoplanet passing in front of the star. The dip in the star's brightness is caused by this, and is used to infer the passage.
I don't even have the originals of my birth certificate, discharge papers or DD 214, and haven't in decades. However, my father registered my birth certificate at the Hall of Records, and I did the same with my discharge papers and DD 214 after I got out of the Navy so I don't have to worry. In fact, in Los Angeles, where they're registered, any veteran can get two copies of his service papers for free, any time they're needed, so why keep the originals? And, once when I was down there to request copies, I ran across my father's, although I've never had a reason to request them. Still, it's nice to know how long they hang on to things like that.
Basements aren't as common as you think they are. I've always lived in Southern California, and I've never lived in a house with a basement. At most, there's been a crawl space under the house, but that's not exactly a good place to store things. And, I suspect there's a typo in TFS that the editor's didn't catch: it says, "I would like to scan everything, and only retain the papers for things that don't require the original copies." and I think it should read, "...that do require..." because as written, it makes no sense at all.
The stars are right! We cannot be denied! Our termites will destroy everything that opposes us, as long as it's made out of wood!
Thank God that the Navy has those knuckle dragging Deck Apes to ensure that Navy ships don't founder in the same way!
Yup! I wasn't a Deck Ape, but I spent my fair share of time lashing things down and making sure they stayed secure back when I was in the Navy. Just because the crew isn't properly trained is no excuse for the officers not seeing to it that things are properly ship-shape!
"Here lies Captain Robin Walbridge, lost at sea and never found."
Why? Are you afraid that you'll get the attention of The Lord of hosts? If so, you're probably not the one who should be worrying!
(with a bomber that we designed in the 70's no less...)
Actually, the B-52 entered service in 1955. In fact, I remember watching B-52 raids back in '72, when we were in Tonkin Gulf, and steaming through the clouds of sand, dust and grit that they created. FYI, there's only one thing I've ever heard in my life that sounds the same as a flight of Stratofortresses cutting loose: an earthquake.
No. The first time most people saw those claims was after the bad winters. In fact, I don't remember any mention at the time that the idea had been published decades earlier. That doesn't mean, of course, that it wasn't mentioned, just that I don't remember any mention. And please, stop putting words in my mouth; it's unsanitary.
Fine, when was it observed, exactly?
IIRC, people started making fun of AGW when there were several extra-cold winters, sometime after 2000. Then, there was an addition to the theory handed down that explained that the extra energy caused more extreme weather, both hotter in the summer and colder in the winter. Yes, I agree that it's not fair to expect you to chase a constantly-changing goalpost, but that's not my intent. And, if you'll read my first post carefully, I'm not saying that the explanation's wrong, just that I'd have liked it better if it had been made (or at least emphasized) before it came true.
I wasn't referring to this year's winter, but to several earlier ones that were much colder than expected.
What I'm referring to is the fact that AFAIK, this idea only became part of AGW theory after the effect was observed. I respect the fact that the proponents are flexible enough to adapt to new data, but as I wrote before, I'd have been more impressed if they'd have thought of it earlier. (After all, having a prediction confirmed always looks better than an explanation of something you didn't think of.)
European records of the Gulf Stream go back to about 1513 or so, during the Little Ice Age. Of course, we don't know how far north it went back then, so we don't know how much of an effect it did or didn't have on the climate. Not disagreeing with you, just making a comment you might find interesting.
No. I'm not saying that there's no room for learning or adaptation, just pointing out that the AGW people have done exactly what the OP was complaining about. And, as I pointed out, this particular adjustment isn't in any way unreasonable. Of course, reading for comprehension isn't exactly something I'd expect from an AC.
Junk science says "hey, no problem, our model can explain that too".
You mean like the way the AGW people suddenly realized that adding energy to the atmosphere meant more extreme weather, both hotter and colder, after we had some extra-cold winters? I can't say it's not reasonable, but I would have found it much more impressive if any of them had suggested this before it happened, rather than patching their theory to explain something that otherwise didn't fit.