>>the AGW side wants non-peer-reviewed science to be counted on their side
>No they don't. The best response to this meme I've read to this is here:
Umm, brotha.... The summary clearly states that "grey research" is wanted to be included in the IPCC's reports. Does something about that not mean what it's supposed to?
I don't know(nor do I care) who Phil Jones is, so no trap for me, sorry. I don't care about the people or the goddamn politics; just the facts, ma'am. You're making assumptions about me(including what I'd actually rely on) that aren't going to help your position. I'm a hardcore skeptic and there's not enough real data/science on either side of the debate to even start a debate, much less to proclaim someone a winner.
I agree that calling them any "iers" or "ists" is not doing any justice to the debate BUT that doesn't mean that sensationalism(on both sides) and alarmism(probably also on both sides) isn't happening.
Regardless of which side of this debate you are on, you must realize that 10 years doesn't mean anything in this debate AND if we're all honest with ourselves, the past 200 years barely scratch the surface. Both camps will claim(when it is convenient for them) that the longer trends are what is important. Hell, we just recently learned of a 60 year cycle in the climate*** and yet we're still bringing up 10 years as if it means something. Knowing there's a cycle that lasts 60 years should mean we should be looking at the past 2,000 years before we open our mouths...
I personally am skeptical of both sides. I can see how AGW would be plausible but I can also see that some of what the so-called deniers are claiming is also factually true and being glossed over.
***That climate cycle just shifted to its cool pattern in the past year so I'm even more skeptical of the claims of "global warming is causing this bad snow", though it *could* hold some truth..I just think they're declaring a winner before the race has even begun.
AND to top it off, the AGW side wants non-peer-reviewed science to be counted on their side but if it's not peer-reviewed and it says the opposite then it's considered garbage. Double standards are not the way to go here if they want to be believed.
I converted one of my old laptops to have a touchpad and quickly realized that what one needs is modifier keys on the keyboard to determine whether you're moving the mouse or actually clicking on something. I used a program like AutoIt/Autohotkeys(I was using XP at the time) and it worked fine. Problem solved for me. Of course without some form of external button that can be made into a modifier key, the iPad will be fucked in that regard.
SSLStrip watches for https connections and redirects them as well. He even went into great detail why and how it works: http is the thorn in the side of https.
Why not? Use of the internet isn't a right, it's a privilege. Most people seem to forget that it wasn't that long ago before you either had to be a college student or have a LOT of money to even use the internet at all. I don't feel that the mere fact that someone can come up with $30/month is reason enough to let someone use it.
Actually he's come up with an idea that's about 6 years behind my own thoughts, including the drivers license analogy. The deal is that while there might not be any deaths from not knowing how to use your computer and/or the internet, there are the tons of idiots who click on every fucking email they get, they join every "OMG, Obama is gonna ban kittenz!!!" or "get your Dislike Button here by spamming your friends for us" group on Facebook(that inevitably is revealed to be created by spammers or malware writers), download software they should know better than to even look at...AND THEN after their computer becomes infected it comes delivering spam on all the innocent networks, including my own.
There's no need to ban people "arbitrarily" because right now there's plenty of evidence to prove that most of the people using the internet right now have no clue how badly they're fucking up the experience for the rest of us and there's nothing wrong with the idea of requiring people to prove they have some idea as to what they're doing when online because of this. It doesn't have to be revoked for arbitrary reasons either, we can settle for something as simple as banning people for allowing their machines to become spambots for more than a day and their license could be restored the moment they proved their system was clear of malware via an online scan ala Trendmicro or the like.
And there's an economic factor that goes far beyond spam: tech support. I used to run a tech support company for a cable internet operation and I cannot begin to count the number of times that the user expected us to deal with THEIR virus problems with a "you mean *I* have to pay to have this fixed?!?!? I have an internet connection that I'm paying for and can't use and YOU are supposed to help me get online", or they wanted us to setup their wireless router, or gobs of other issues that could be cured if they'd take a goddamn weekend workshop on responsible computer and internet usage, for example "the point of demarcation for an ISP is the CPE(customer premise equipment) modem, not their router, not their firewall."
Even crazier is that Craig Mundie HAS to know that 99.9999% of the users infected with malware are Windows users so it's not like he's saying that those of us who use Linux, BSD, OS/X, etc. are at fault as some of us might come to expect from a Microsoft employee.
He was about 5 or 6 that *I* know of and his mom may have noticed something long before that but we didn't have a lot of contact with him back then so I can't say for certain. And yes, it is just anecdotal but since there's a much, much stronger correlation of autism in children who live in humid environments than vaccines, I'm not really gonna be persuaded to the other viewpoint without some incredibly compelling and verified evidence.
As I've posted at least twice in this discussion: I have a friend whose son *never* received a single vaccination but has been diagnosed firmly within the autistic spectrum.
A close friend of mine has a son who NEVER has had vaccines yet he's placed quite firmly in the middle of the autism spectrum. Vaccines aren't the cause, sorry.
Don't even give it a second thought. I've got a friend who didn't give her kid any vaccines and yet he's still placed on the autistic spectrum. Anyone who thinks it's due to the vaccines is, quite simply, wrong.
Really? So how much are you willing to pay for an old Startac? I should have at least 2 of them in my basement somewhere. I'm always willin' to help a brotha out..;)
I remember locking *out* my rear brakes on an old car with a V6 I had so that only the front brakes worked, then revved the engine and let out on the clutch and the rear tires broke tread and "burnt rubber" while I never budged forward an inch. So yep, you are most definitely correct.
Slashdot Mirror
>>the AGW side wants non-peer-reviewed science to be counted on their side >No they don't. The best response to this meme I've read to this is here: Umm, brotha.... The summary clearly states that "grey research" is wanted to be included in the IPCC's reports. Does something about that not mean what it's supposed to?
I don't know(nor do I care) who Phil Jones is, so no trap for me, sorry. I don't care about the people or the goddamn politics; just the facts, ma'am. You're making assumptions about me(including what I'd actually rely on) that aren't going to help your position. I'm a hardcore skeptic and there's not enough real data/science on either side of the debate to even start a debate, much less to proclaim someone a winner.
I agree that calling them any "iers" or "ists" is not doing any justice to the debate BUT that doesn't mean that sensationalism(on both sides) and alarmism(probably also on both sides) isn't happening.
Regardless of which side of this debate you are on, you must realize that 10 years doesn't mean anything in this debate AND if we're all honest with ourselves, the past 200 years barely scratch the surface. Both camps will claim(when it is convenient for them) that the longer trends are what is important. Hell, we just recently learned of a 60 year cycle in the climate*** and yet we're still bringing up 10 years as if it means something. Knowing there's a cycle that lasts 60 years should mean we should be looking at the past 2,000 years before we open our mouths...
I personally am skeptical of both sides. I can see how AGW would be plausible but I can also see that some of what the so-called deniers are claiming is also factually true and being glossed over.
***That climate cycle just shifted to its cool pattern in the past year so I'm even more skeptical of the claims of "global warming is causing this bad snow", though it *could* hold some truth..I just think they're declaring a winner before the race has even begun.
AND to top it off, the AGW side wants non-peer-reviewed science to be counted on their side but if it's not peer-reviewed and it says the opposite then it's considered garbage. Double standards are not the way to go here if they want to be believed.
Just realized.. I meant "touchscreen", not touchpad. (not enough caffeine I guess)
I converted one of my old laptops to have a touchpad and quickly realized that what one needs is modifier keys on the keyboard to determine whether you're moving the mouse or actually clicking on something. I used a program like AutoIt/Autohotkeys(I was using XP at the time) and it worked fine. Problem solved for me. Of course without some form of external button that can be made into a modifier key, the iPad will be fucked in that regard.
No, I simply need to start considering glasses, I swore I had read ssl.
SSLStrip watches for https connections and redirects them as well. He even went into great detail why and how it works: http is the thorn in the side of https.
I think I need to introduce you to SSLStrip and Moxie Marlinspike.. http://www.thoughtcrime.org/software/sslstrip/
Unencrypted sensitive data isn't even necessary.
Note, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_van_speaker_scam is the correct URL, that extra "/" at the end seems to make wikipedia sad.
Marshall Sylvar the hypnotist used to say "No Risks. No Goodies." It seems to fit most everywhere in life.
Stop using these arbitrary units of measure. Just tell me how many station wagons of backup tapes this is..
Well played, sir.
Why not? Use of the internet isn't a right, it's a privilege. Most people seem to forget that it wasn't that long ago before you either had to be a college student or have a LOT of money to even use the internet at all. I don't feel that the mere fact that someone can come up with $30/month is reason enough to let someone use it.
Actually he's come up with an idea that's about 6 years behind my own thoughts, including the drivers license analogy. The deal is that while there might not be any deaths from not knowing how to use your computer and/or the internet, there are the tons of idiots who click on every fucking email they get, they join every "OMG, Obama is gonna ban kittenz!!!" or "get your Dislike Button here by spamming your friends for us" group on Facebook(that inevitably is revealed to be created by spammers or malware writers), download software they should know better than to even look at...AND THEN after their computer becomes infected it comes delivering spam on all the innocent networks, including my own. There's no need to ban people "arbitrarily" because right now there's plenty of evidence to prove that most of the people using the internet right now have no clue how badly they're fucking up the experience for the rest of us and there's nothing wrong with the idea of requiring people to prove they have some idea as to what they're doing when online because of this. It doesn't have to be revoked for arbitrary reasons either, we can settle for something as simple as banning people for allowing their machines to become spambots for more than a day and their license could be restored the moment they proved their system was clear of malware via an online scan ala Trendmicro or the like. And there's an economic factor that goes far beyond spam: tech support. I used to run a tech support company for a cable internet operation and I cannot begin to count the number of times that the user expected us to deal with THEIR virus problems with a "you mean *I* have to pay to have this fixed?!?!? I have an internet connection that I'm paying for and can't use and YOU are supposed to help me get online", or they wanted us to setup their wireless router, or gobs of other issues that could be cured if they'd take a goddamn weekend workshop on responsible computer and internet usage, for example "the point of demarcation for an ISP is the CPE(customer premise equipment) modem, not their router, not their firewall." Even crazier is that Craig Mundie HAS to know that 99.9999% of the users infected with malware are Windows users so it's not like he's saying that those of us who use Linux, BSD, OS/X, etc. are at fault as some of us might come to expect from a Microsoft employee.
He was about 5 or 6 that *I* know of and his mom may have noticed something long before that but we didn't have a lot of contact with him back then so I can't say for certain. And yes, it is just anecdotal but since there's a much, much stronger correlation of autism in children who live in humid environments than vaccines, I'm not really gonna be persuaded to the other viewpoint without some incredibly compelling and verified evidence.
In the context of this particular thread of this discussion, yes it is entirely relevant. Thank you.
As I've posted at least twice in this discussion: I have a friend whose son *never* received a single vaccination but has been diagnosed firmly within the autistic spectrum.
A close friend of mine has a son who NEVER has had vaccines yet he's placed quite firmly in the middle of the autism spectrum. Vaccines aren't the cause, sorry.
Don't even give it a second thought. I've got a friend who didn't give her kid any vaccines and yet he's still placed on the autistic spectrum. Anyone who thinks it's due to the vaccines is, quite simply, wrong.
Really? So how much are you willing to pay for an old Startac? I should have at least 2 of them in my basement somewhere. I'm always willin' to help a brotha out..;)
The phone for everyone! http://www.pomegranatephone.com/
If the tires didn't break traction, the engine would die. Did I really have to point that part out?
I remember locking *out* my rear brakes on an old car with a V6 I had so that only the front brakes worked, then revved the engine and let out on the clutch and the rear tires broke tread and "burnt rubber" while I never budged forward an inch. So yep, you are most definitely correct.
I guess that they hadn't thought of signal strength meters, homing tones, etc.?