Expected, could and maybe do not have probabilities assigned. So when you say "with a very low probability," you are putting words in gmustera's mouth. The probability isn't very low. It's likely that this caused the Permian-Triassic extinction event. But I'm sure that you, with your anti-government rhetoric and your bunker in the basement, will survive an extinction event just fine. No doubt you've done the science, and figured out how much stockpiled oxygen you need to stockpile to get through it, and how big your airtight greenhousese need to be to grow the food you won't be able to safely grow outside, and that's why you're not worried.
Remember that uncertainty cuts both ways, Padawan.
About seven times better. Which is great if you don't have a warming problem; not so great if you do. Also, excessive CO2 production in the ocean leads to acidification, which leads to dead zones. And you really, really don't want dead zones.
Methane oxidizes, yielding CO2. You don't even know basic chemistry, and you are making scientific-sounding statements about atmosphere science. Sigh. One of the big problems with society today: idiots are completely sure of themselves, and smart people communicate with equivocation in contexts where equivocation will be understood to correlate with uncertainty. See? I can't even stop myself!
In addition, had the drone hit the airplane, how do we know that it wouldn't have bounced off? Did it weigh more than a frozen turkey? Mid-air collisions between airplanes are really bad, but mid-air collisions between airplanes and turkeys are generally only bad for the turkey, modulo the occasional fluke where you get enough birds in each engine to cause a real problem.
I frequently see other airplanes from my airplane when I travel. Does that mean that there was a risk of a mid-air? No, they're at a different altitude. So "the pilot saw a drone" is evidence of a near-miss only in the realm of directed reasoning. Someone has an agenda, and that's why this is news.
Don't worry. You're a fine mixture of baryons and leptons. Any WIMPs or SIMPs are just along for the ride.
This article is a bit frustrating in that they haven't actually discovered a dark matter particle—they've just come up with a new idea for what it might look like. So it's not even a virtual particle. It's a hypothetical particle. But interesting nevertheless...
You misunderstand. Linus routinely personally insults people he disagrees with. That'll get you shot today, in the wrong neighborhood. I am by no means asserting that people didn't cuss a hundred years ago.
It's that the language used is too harsh. A hundred years ago that kind of language would have gotten you shot. The sense in which our society is gentler is that nobody has gone gunning for Linus yet. Personally, I think that's a good thing, but it's no excuse for him to behave that way. It's totally possible to express disagreement without shrieking.
Srsly? My 19-year-old niece swears like a sailor. I've seen no evidence that Kids These Days swear less than we did. But we're not talking about swearing. We're talking about saying things that would get the shit beaten out of you if you said them to one of your beloved manly men face to face. Torvalds would be a bloody spot on the pavement if he said some of the things he's said to people to some guy in a bar.
So let's not pretend that that kind of behavior is socially acceptable. It's not, and the fact that you'd get the shit beaten out of you for saying it to someone's face is all the evidence you need.
In the wild west you would have got shot for saying the things Torvalds has said. And unfortunately, this is a mouth-only apology. The way he worded it makes it clear he's not serious. More's the pity.
Um. No. My town, pop. 13k, had a really great town manager who retired. I know she was really great because I saw what she did. Replacing her was hard. And that's a small town. City manager is a hard job. Of course, you can get a corrupt city manager who does a bad job, but to do the job well requires a lot of skill and dedication.
Huh. So if you ever appear in a photograph that some ignorant person on the internet considers "a sexy picture," even if you are fully clothed, then you are implicitly consenting to have every private picture of you that anybody can get their hands on illegally distributed for all to see. Failing to see the logic here, sorry.
Since you believe the commenter's utterly inaccurate security assessment, I think the person here guilty of serious stupidity is not Ms. Lawrence, but you.
Sending photos on the Internet over an encrypted, authenticated link to a service provider who claims they will keep your data secure is not in any way like sending them in a postcard. It's true that there are potential security vulnerabilities, but what's going on here is more like putting your valuables in a safe deposit box, but not realizing that the bank has a serious security flaw, and consequently having your valuables stolen because of that flaw.
While it's certainly true that some people are sufficiently expert in security to notice the security flaw and protect themselves against it, the notion that every layperson should be that knowledgable is absurd. There is a reason why we have specialists.
There's no evidence to suggest that the FCC wouldn't have helped the other side if they'd had a strong groundswell of support. The problem is that there really were very few comments against net neutrality, and a huge number for it. So there was no other side that the FCC needed to work with.
You are utterly missing the point. I agree with you that when there are two people arguing two sides of an issue, it is possible (indeed likely) that one is mostly wrong and the other mostly right. But what we are talking about here is a political technique that both sides use in exactly the same way. So if you think it's okay when one side uses it, and bad when the other side uses it, you are indeed blinded by partisanship. I say this as someone who has deep antipathy toward the position the Koch Brothers are pushing.
When we argue nonsense, we can't have discourse. It's like the caucus race in Alice in Wonderland.
814,000 is just over a third of 2.4 million (2,400,000). That's a damned good return rate on a mass spamming. It's kind of pathetic that so many people would support the Koch brothers in their efforts to make sure that internet dissent finally stops screwing with their business model, but I don't see why this is interesting news. As for the petition being sent to the senators, again, how is this news? Every PAC does this. You get people to sign a petition, and you send a letter in each person's name to each of their representatives. Sometimes they send one to the POTUS as well. The summary seems to be implying that there's something dishonest about this; if true, it's dishonest whether it's the Koch brothers or Earth Defense Alliance. I'm personally rooting for Earth Defense Alliance, but let's not get carried away looking for malfeasance in common practice.
You're seriously worried that a drone is going to somehow fly up to 30k feet and hit a jet? Do you know how hard it is to get a non-jet-powered airplane up that high? How hard it would be to get that airplane with a maximum speed of 100mph to collide with a jet moving at ~500mph? When did we Americans turn into such lily-livered cowards? You are jumping at shadows.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, that was my point. The methane doesn't just disappear.
Expected, could and maybe do not have probabilities assigned. So when you say "with a very low probability," you are putting words in gmustera's mouth. The probability isn't very low. It's likely that this caused the Permian-Triassic extinction event. But I'm sure that you, with your anti-government rhetoric and your bunker in the basement, will survive an extinction event just fine. No doubt you've done the science, and figured out how much stockpiled oxygen you need to stockpile to get through it, and how big your airtight greenhousese need to be to grow the food you won't be able to safely grow outside, and that's why you're not worried.
Remember that uncertainty cuts both ways, Padawan.
About seven times better. Which is great if you don't have a warming problem; not so great if you do. Also, excessive CO2 production in the ocean leads to acidification, which leads to dead zones. And you really, really don't want dead zones.
Methane oxidizes, yielding CO2. You don't even know basic chemistry, and you are making scientific-sounding statements about atmosphere science. Sigh. One of the big problems with society today: idiots are completely sure of themselves, and smart people communicate with equivocation in contexts where equivocation will be understood to correlate with uncertainty. See? I can't even stop myself!
In addition, had the drone hit the airplane, how do we know that it wouldn't have bounced off? Did it weigh more than a frozen turkey? Mid-air collisions between airplanes are really bad, but mid-air collisions between airplanes and turkeys are generally only bad for the turkey, modulo the occasional fluke where you get enough birds in each engine to cause a real problem.
I frequently see other airplanes from my airplane when I travel. Does that mean that there was a risk of a mid-air? No, they're at a different altitude. So "the pilot saw a drone" is evidence of a near-miss only in the realm of directed reasoning. Someone has an agenda, and that's why this is news.
Actually in the case of iOS it is substantially better. Application sandboxing makes it a lot harder to get pwned.
Because clicks is money.
Don't worry. You're a fine mixture of baryons and leptons. Any WIMPs or SIMPs are just along for the ride.
This article is a bit frustrating in that they haven't actually discovered a dark matter particle—they've just come up with a new idea for what it might look like. So it's not even a virtual particle. It's a hypothetical particle. But interesting nevertheless...
You are drawing a meaningless distinction.
You misunderstand. Linus routinely personally insults people he disagrees with. That'll get you shot today, in the wrong neighborhood. I am by no means asserting that people didn't cuss a hundred years ago.
Yes, the American frontier was nowhere near as violent as portrayed in Hollywood. But that's a really high bar to squeak under. It was plenty violent.
That's right. You guess. And no, I'm not fantasizing.
I'd rather have a competent town manager who isn't corrupt. Why the Hobson's choice?
It's that the language used is too harsh. A hundred years ago that kind of language would have gotten you shot. The sense in which our society is gentler is that nobody has gone gunning for Linus yet. Personally, I think that's a good thing, but it's no excuse for him to behave that way. It's totally possible to express disagreement without shrieking.
Yup. Those fuckers.
Srsly? My 19-year-old niece swears like a sailor. I've seen no evidence that Kids These Days swear less than we did. But we're not talking about swearing. We're talking about saying things that would get the shit beaten out of you if you said them to one of your beloved manly men face to face. Torvalds would be a bloody spot on the pavement if he said some of the things he's said to people to some guy in a bar.
So let's not pretend that that kind of behavior is socially acceptable. It's not, and the fact that you'd get the shit beaten out of you for saying it to someone's face is all the evidence you need.
In the wild west you would have got shot for saying the things Torvalds has said. And unfortunately, this is a mouth-only apology. The way he worded it makes it clear he's not serious. More's the pity.
Um. No. My town, pop. 13k, had a really great town manager who retired. I know she was really great because I saw what she did. Replacing her was hard. And that's a small town. City manager is a hard job. Of course, you can get a corrupt city manager who does a bad job, but to do the job well requires a lot of skill and dedication.
Huh. So if you ever appear in a photograph that some ignorant person on the internet considers "a sexy picture," even if you are fully clothed, then you are implicitly consenting to have every private picture of you that anybody can get their hands on illegally distributed for all to see. Failing to see the logic here, sorry.
Since you believe the commenter's utterly inaccurate security assessment, I think the person here guilty of serious stupidity is not Ms. Lawrence, but you.
Sending photos on the Internet over an encrypted, authenticated link to a service provider who claims they will keep your data secure is not in any way like sending them in a postcard. It's true that there are potential security vulnerabilities, but what's going on here is more like putting your valuables in a safe deposit box, but not realizing that the bank has a serious security flaw, and consequently having your valuables stolen because of that flaw.
While it's certainly true that some people are sufficiently expert in security to notice the security flaw and protect themselves against it, the notion that every layperson should be that knowledgable is absurd. There is a reason why we have specialists.
There's no evidence to suggest that the FCC wouldn't have helped the other side if they'd had a strong groundswell of support. The problem is that there really were very few comments against net neutrality, and a huge number for it. So there was no other side that the FCC needed to work with.
You are utterly missing the point. I agree with you that when there are two people arguing two sides of an issue, it is possible (indeed likely) that one is mostly wrong and the other mostly right. But what we are talking about here is a political technique that both sides use in exactly the same way. So if you think it's okay when one side uses it, and bad when the other side uses it, you are indeed blinded by partisanship. I say this as someone who has deep antipathy toward the position the Koch Brothers are pushing.
When we argue nonsense, we can't have discourse. It's like the caucus race in Alice in Wonderland.
814,000 is just over a third of 2.4 million (2,400,000). That's a damned good return rate on a mass spamming. It's kind of pathetic that so many people would support the Koch brothers in their efforts to make sure that internet dissent finally stops screwing with their business model, but I don't see why this is interesting news. As for the petition being sent to the senators, again, how is this news? Every PAC does this. You get people to sign a petition, and you send a letter in each person's name to each of their representatives. Sometimes they send one to the POTUS as well. The summary seems to be implying that there's something dishonest about this; if true, it's dishonest whether it's the Koch brothers or Earth Defense Alliance. I'm personally rooting for Earth Defense Alliance, but let's not get carried away looking for malfeasance in common practice.
You're seriously worried that a drone is going to somehow fly up to 30k feet and hit a jet? Do you know how hard it is to get a non-jet-powered airplane up that high? How hard it would be to get that airplane with a maximum speed of 100mph to collide with a jet moving at ~500mph? When did we Americans turn into such lily-livered cowards? You are jumping at shadows.