But you can get a similar advantage without all the bullshit by simply having the browser in low rights mode and sandboxed, this way they would have to both find a way to escalate the privileges AND get out of the sandbox to do anything
If your browser is separated in a VM, then you can blow away everything at the press of a button. I personally don't like rebuilding my entire computer, but if it's just a browser, then I can write a script that does the whole thing for me.
Japanese commanders treated their soldiers as completely disposable pawns.
If you watch the very excellent world at war series, you will note an interview with one of those japanese commanders where he says that he was overwhelmed with volunteers for suicide missions. Different culture, different times.
On a side note, there will never be a better WWII documentary, because too many of the key players are dead now. The World At War series (26 episodes) has plenty of interviews with people who were actually there -- although recent declassification of soviet materials has changed the story a bit.
"We're paying to much for labor, flood the market with H1-B's so labor will be cheaper."
That's not what they say. Instead they bitch and moan about how hard it is to get qualified employees, and the politicians believe it. The campaign contributions help with the belief part.
Dogs are more vicious then humans, but we humans completely dominate dogs.
We perfected warfare. Dogs hunt in packs, sure, but do they attack other packs of dogs, rape, enslave and pillage? For humans, warfare is an evolutionary strategy. If there was a nasty pack of dogs around, we'd extinguish them. Maybe we'd do it anyway, just for kicks.
Culture is a spontaneous creation that creates power units and also the transmission of information. The contents of culture is less relevant then the fact that culture is created. (Now that we have writing, the contents of culture becomes more important, since there is so much more information that can be used to solve or create problems.)
People constantly trash the government because it is the cool thing to do, but really, what do you know at how well the government operates compared to a fortune 500? Nothing? I used to work for both, and can say firsthand that there is plenty of institutional madness to go around.
that those commercial publishers and traditional academic journals employ a lot of people who still need to feed their families. Converting to free and open source everything, whatever you opinion of it, does have casualties.
I am about as liberal as a person can be, from the point of view of someone who is educated in the best ideas of conservativism, and from that point of view, I gotta say that you have/specifically/ suggested what Hayek correctly articulated as "The Road to Serfdom" -- the thesis of his most famous book. If we are going to prevent economic disappointment, then the will end up in totalitarianism, and also reduced prosperity for everyone. Read the book for the arguments... they are compelling.
and then they don't explain shit about why they think that is the case. Do you care to explain it?
Go find a prof in the field. I'm sure you'll find a life times worth of reading on google scholar. If you want to learn something, there's nothing I can do to stop you.
Conclusion 1: social inequality causes it. WTF? They just said that people with relatively high incomes and insurance still fare worse!
Can you imagine a scenario where groups A and B are affected by X, but A is affected/more/ then B? Black and white thinking is a sure sign of the cognitive bubble.
No. If you go to google's web search and you search for a local business, amoungst all the search results, fairly near the top, it will give you a link to Google Maps showing you where that business is. It won't give you a link to bing maps, openstreetmap, etc.
That's because people like google maps. And they don't like bing maps, etc. Gee.... how do you tell a successful product from wanton abuse of the search system? That's that point. In my opinion, google maps is way better then bing maps, and integration into the search system is part of the search system. I'd expect Bing to do the same -- to add value to their services..
This isn't because google maps is more popular, its because google integrate their own mapping product with their search engine but don't integrate competing products with it. Google *could* provide an API to allow other services to integrate, but they don't.
And you know this because it sounds like a neat argument? Go learn something about what your talking about and get back to me.
An unfair and unbalanced search result is one where Google is modifying search results to assure that it's services are hight on the results list but those of competirors are buried on page 8.
Agreed.
But how do you tell if consumers are getting google searches because that they legitimately don't want to know about the crap on page 8. Mmm??
I'm logged in, in chrome, and a search for "email" shows "yahoo" first, and "gmail" second. I/never/ visit yahoo, and use gmail all the time. Go figure.
I mean, really, there are people out there who *actually believe* that we have sophisticated enough GCMs to accurately model all major natural climactic influences...I mean, they *really* believe that they have got a good bead on all the myriad possible natural influences...can you imagine such hubris?
To paraphrase Steve Schneider, climate science is a systems science. Understanding the climate is like understanding the human body, which is also a system. We know a lot about blood, and dna, and lipids, and antibodies, and neurotransmitters... but you will always be able to find something unknown. But that doesn't take away from the broad brushstrokes of what is known. For example, the inability to reverse engineer the vision system does not imply that we don't know that eyes are involved in vision.
Climate science is on that footing, which is why pretty much every climate scientist/believes/ an AGW. There are mental health professionals who believe in demonic possession as a proportion.
I have only a moderate amount of expertise in the direct matters, but I certainly know enough to recognise the thoroughness of climate scientists in general, and substance to their arguments. What is more telling about the "debate" is the vapidity of the arguments of "critics", and the fact that they keep flogging the same dead horses again and again. Their arguments sometimes have surface validity but rarely more. Even someone like Pat Michaels, certainly one of the most sophisticated critics, has nothing of substance that I have seen. Watch this congressional testimony -- starts about 1:30min in.
I hear you, and I been through that phase. Now I honestly look at the mess of politics and laughter is the only way to take its stomach churning stupidity. I once read about a politician who was cool with the fundamental irrationality of the world, and he laughed a lot too. I guess that's an aspiration of mine.
About 10 years ago I worked out that pretty much everything I knew was wrong. I just heard something I believed from someone else who heard something they believed etc. I thought it was a joke that people believe in the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary, but now I realise that some people really experience the world that way. That is when I stopped knowing and started listening, and really tried to understand different perspectives from their own point of view.
There is stage beyond that, where you just realise stupidity is stupidity. There are many great politicians who really should be doing the job they do, and they are matched by equal numbers of lunatics and egomaniacs. If the crazy could be put in the bag, it would have been done a long time ago.
Any tool you use to deal with a madman, the madman will then learn and use it as a tool to propagate their madness, quite unselfconsciously. That is why movement conservatives are going around talking about arithmetic after Clintons speech at the DNC. Any rhetoric that/could/ successfully be used against AGW denial could equally be used to promote any stupid idea. The truth of things is a little too complex for open debate, which is why there is so little of it -- even in academia -- and why Leo Strauss so favoured the noble lie.
Perhaps one day I'll see the wisdom of not laughing behind someone's back, but people accept the level of reality they are willing to bear, and laughter can cut straight through that. It can drive the deluded into an even deeper delusion, but it may also be the only message a person can hear. If it sounds a little 6th gradish, then consider that an anger response is the greatest predictor (by far) that someone will share something with someone else. Politics really is the way it is for a reason.
To them
AGW is self-evident and the burden of proof should be on the other side to prove that it is not happening.
Also known as the precautionary principle. Formalized in risk analysis. Studied thoroughly by actuaries. And for them, money and their jobs are on the line -- not to be on one side of the argument, but to be *correct*.
Actual data shows that temperatures in the last 20 years have DROPPED, not increased.
You should check into that claim. It is, of course, trivially wrong. At least your using multi-decade trends. Most of your intellectual brethren will only look back far enough to get the statistical trend they want: nothing. But on a 20 year time scale there is a slight warming trend with p
Look into it. Open you mind. If you are wrong about this, you may be wrong about... many things.
He's just reflecting the emotional outburst of the original post.
You will note that there are people who give it but cannot take it. Generally these people have no idea that they are being assholes, and are then shocked when they get even the slightest hit of a suggestion that they aren't perfect.
[Warmist] climatologists are modern day astrologers who can explain every single event ever observed, and ever to be observed with their pet hypothesis.
You honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Student psychologists take note, this is a/perfect/ example of the Dunning Kruger effect. Being too smart for you own good you have no idea how much you don't know, and how much you think you know that is plain wrong. Don't be surprised when intelligent people laugh behind your back.
Remaking human economic infrastructure around a new ecology must be cheaper then using technology to reduce CO2 emissions. (Obviously it is just ideologically preferable.)
Slashdot Mirror
But you can get a similar advantage without all the bullshit by simply having the browser in low rights mode and sandboxed, this way they would have to both find a way to escalate the privileges AND get out of the sandbox to do anything
If your browser is separated in a VM, then you can blow away everything at the press of a button. I personally don't like rebuilding my entire computer, but if it's just a browser, then I can write a script that does the whole thing for me.
Japanese commanders treated their soldiers as completely disposable pawns.
If you watch the very excellent world at war series, you will note an interview with one of those japanese commanders where he says that he was overwhelmed with volunteers for suicide missions. Different culture, different times.
On a side note, there will never be a better WWII documentary, because too many of the key players are dead now. The World At War series (26 episodes) has plenty of interviews with people who were actually there -- although recent declassification of soviet materials has changed the story a bit.
"We're paying to much for labor, flood the market with H1-B's so labor will be cheaper."
That's not what they say. Instead they bitch and moan about how hard it is to get qualified employees, and the politicians believe it. The campaign contributions help with the belief part.
Dogs are more vicious then humans, but we humans completely dominate dogs.
We perfected warfare. Dogs hunt in packs, sure, but do they attack other packs of dogs, rape, enslave and pillage? For humans, warfare is an evolutionary strategy. If there was a nasty pack of dogs around, we'd extinguish them. Maybe we'd do it anyway, just for kicks.
Culture is another, an important one.
Culture is a spontaneous creation that creates power units and also the transmission of information. The contents of culture is less relevant then the fact that culture is created. (Now that we have writing, the contents of culture becomes more important, since there is so much more information that can be used to solve or create problems.)
But they were drowned out by the number of people reproducing.
Alternatively, humans may have perfected warfare. Sounds more plausible, because the world is pretty friggin' big.
People constantly trash the government because it is the cool thing to do, but really, what do you know at how well the government operates compared to a fortune 500? Nothing? I used to work for both, and can say firsthand that there is plenty of institutional madness to go around.
that those commercial publishers and traditional academic journals employ a lot of people who still need to feed their families. Converting to free and open source everything, whatever you opinion of it, does have casualties.
I am about as liberal as a person can be, from the point of view of someone who is educated in the best ideas of conservativism, and from that point of view, I gotta say that you have /specifically/ suggested what Hayek correctly articulated as "The Road to Serfdom" -- the thesis of his most famous book. If we are going to prevent economic disappointment, then the will end up in totalitarianism, and also reduced prosperity for everyone. Read the book for the arguments... they are compelling.
and then they don't explain shit about why they think that is the case. Do you care to explain it?
Go find a prof in the field. I'm sure you'll find a life times worth of reading on google scholar. If you want to learn something, there's nothing I can do to stop you.
Conclusion 1: social inequality causes it. WTF? They just said that people with relatively high incomes and insurance still fare worse!
Can you imagine a scenario where groups A and B are affected by X, but A is affected /more/ then B? Black and white thinking is a sure sign of the cognitive bubble.
Any research that doesn't reach the conclusions you want must be biased. That is the cognitive bubble, right there.
Gmail comes up 5th for me, after a bunch of services that I've never seen before.
No. If you go to google's web search and you search for a local business, amoungst all the search results, fairly near the top, it will give you a link to Google Maps showing you where that business is. It won't give you a link to bing maps, openstreetmap, etc.
That's because people like google maps. And they don't like bing maps, etc. Gee.... how do you tell a successful product from wanton abuse of the search system? That's that point. In my opinion, google maps is way better then bing maps, and integration into the search system is part of the search system. I'd expect Bing to do the same -- to add value to their services..
This isn't because google maps is more popular, its because google integrate their own mapping product with their search engine but don't integrate competing products with it. Google *could* provide an API to allow other services to integrate, but they don't.
And you know this because it sounds like a neat argument? Go learn something about what your talking about and get back to me.
An unfair and unbalanced search result is one where Google is modifying search results to assure that it's services are hight on the results list but those of competirors are buried on page 8.
Agreed.
But how do you tell if consumers are getting google searches because that they legitimately don't want to know about the crap on page 8. Mmm??
I'm logged in, in chrome, and a search for "email" shows "yahoo" first, and "gmail" second. I /never/ visit yahoo, and use gmail all the time. Go figure.
I mean, really, there are people out there who *actually believe* that we have sophisticated enough GCMs to accurately model all major natural climactic influences...I mean, they *really* believe that they have got a good bead on all the myriad possible natural influences...can you imagine such hubris?
To paraphrase Steve Schneider, climate science is a systems science. Understanding the climate is like understanding the human body, which is also a system. We know a lot about blood, and dna, and lipids, and antibodies, and neurotransmitters... but you will always be able to find something unknown. But that doesn't take away from the broad brushstrokes of what is known. For example, the inability to reverse engineer the vision system does not imply that we don't know that eyes are involved in vision.
/believes/ an AGW. There are mental health professionals who believe in demonic possession as a proportion.
Climate science is on that footing, which is why pretty much every climate scientist
I have only a moderate amount of expertise in the direct matters, but I certainly know enough to recognise the thoroughness of climate scientists in general, and substance to their arguments. What is more telling about the "debate" is the vapidity of the arguments of "critics", and the fact that they keep flogging the same dead horses again and again. Their arguments sometimes have surface validity but rarely more. Even someone like Pat Michaels, certainly one of the most sophisticated critics, has nothing of substance that I have seen. Watch this congressional testimony -- starts about 1:30min in.
I hear you, and I been through that phase. Now I honestly look at the mess of politics and laughter is the only way to take its stomach churning stupidity. I once read about a politician who was cool with the fundamental irrationality of the world, and he laughed a lot too. I guess that's an aspiration of mine.
/could/ successfully be used against AGW denial could equally be used to promote any stupid idea. The truth of things is a little too complex for open debate, which is why there is so little of it -- even in academia -- and why Leo Strauss so favoured the noble lie.
About 10 years ago I worked out that pretty much everything I knew was wrong. I just heard something I believed from someone else who heard something they believed etc. I thought it was a joke that people believe in the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary, but now I realise that some people really experience the world that way. That is when I stopped knowing and started listening, and really tried to understand different perspectives from their own point of view.
There is stage beyond that, where you just realise stupidity is stupidity. There are many great politicians who really should be doing the job they do, and they are matched by equal numbers of lunatics and egomaniacs. If the crazy could be put in the bag, it would have been done a long time ago.
Any tool you use to deal with a madman, the madman will then learn and use it as a tool to propagate their madness, quite unselfconsciously. That is why movement conservatives are going around talking about arithmetic after Clintons speech at the DNC. Any rhetoric that
Perhaps one day I'll see the wisdom of not laughing behind someone's back, but people accept the level of reality they are willing to bear, and laughter can cut straight through that. It can drive the deluded into an even deeper delusion, but it may also be the only message a person can hear. If it sounds a little 6th gradish, then consider that an anger response is the greatest predictor (by far) that someone will share something with someone else. Politics really is the way it is for a reason.
To them AGW is self-evident and the burden of proof should be on the other side to prove that it is not happening.
Also known as the precautionary principle. Formalized in risk analysis. Studied thoroughly by actuaries. And for them, money and their jobs are on the line -- not to be on one side of the argument, but to be *correct*.
/lives/ doing it.
And they spend their
But you know better right?
Actual data shows that temperatures in the last 20 years have DROPPED, not increased.
You should check into that claim. It is, of course, trivially wrong. At least your using multi-decade trends. Most of your intellectual brethren will only look back far enough to get the statistical trend they want: nothing. But on a 20 year time scale there is a slight warming trend with p
Look into it. Open you mind. If you are wrong about this, you may be wrong about... many things.
He's just reflecting the emotional outburst of the original post.
You will note that there are people who give it but cannot take it. Generally these people have no idea that they are being assholes, and are then shocked when they get even the slightest hit of a suggestion that they aren't perfect.
Normally I'd say move along, there is nothing to see here, but clearly we have a mimophant, and this whole discussion is about motivated reasoning. So it's all pretty topical.
Yeah, begging the question is now ambiguous. Best use "raising the question" or "loaded question" depending on what you mean.
Or maybe it's because the politicos who are pushing the idea of global warming tend to lie with every fiber of their being
Scientists aren't by and large politicos. The people denying global warming aren't by and large scientists. In about equal proportions.
What were you saying again?
[Warmist] climatologists are modern day astrologers who can explain every single event ever observed, and ever to be observed with their pet hypothesis.
You honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Student psychologists take note, this is a /perfect/ example of the Dunning Kruger effect. Being too smart for you own good you have no idea how much you don't know, and how much you think you know that is plain wrong. Don't be surprised when intelligent people laugh behind your back.
Remaking human economic infrastructure around a new ecology must be cheaper then using technology to reduce CO2 emissions. (Obviously it is just ideologically preferable.)
Face-palm.
You've been reading conservative blogs, or watching "The Great Climate Swindle".
You know they are lying to you, and in turn, you are lying to us.
You can check this for yourself if you have the emotional grits to be wrong.