What I find interesting is the potential for "Linux Phishing" or "Linux Greifing" that this creates. There are already plenty of problems with various viruses loading directly through the browser in Windows, can you imagine what would happen if a "religious Linux fanatic" were to take this, alter it to use a known but unpatched IE vulnerability to auto-install and reboot people's machines into Linux? What would happen if a "religious Microsoft fanatic" did the same thing to try and make Linux look bad?
This is precisely what I did when I received my Acer laptop from Newegg. Since the warranty was a manufacturer warranty, and not a seller one, I knew that I would have to rely on Acer for service. Not knowing how their service was, and not wanting to take a chance at the type of issue the OP is having, as soon as I unpackaged it I flipped it over, popped out the stock hard drive and popped in a blank one of my own. I then loaded up the OS of my choice and went on my merry way.
As it happened the laptop keyboard developed a fault that required it's replacement. Before even calling for service I replaced the original hard drive, just in case I needed to send the laptop back to Acer for service. Fortunately, the keyboard is a user-replaceable item, and they were able to just send me a new one. But had I needed to return it, Acer would have been none the wiser. Not only is the hard drive easily accessible, but there is no "warranty sticker" across the hard drive slot that would indicate to them that I had even touched it.
Unless you are buying a "direct from the manufacturer" laptop (such as a Dell or Lenovo) and are planning on replacing the stock OS, I always recommend replacing the hard drive and carefully storing the original. This way you will NEVER run into the issue the submitter did.
I use Ask.com myself. The search results are just as good, and the additional search tools like the page preview and optional search terms bar make my searching much more efficient. Oh, and it has a much cleaner and more attractive interface than Google's.
Except that you are completely and totally missing the point.
Nobody (and I mean NOBODY) is claiming that Western society is free of injustice and evil. We have our problems and we know it. However, unlike the societies that Islam is in total control of, Western Society generally abhors and works to eliminate those problems. Wife beating (or any form of domestic abuse) is one of these problems.
We here in the west find spousal abuse of be vile and disgusting, and work to eliminate it. Islam, on the other hand, actually ESPOUSES wife beating when one's wife is "Disobedient". IE: she doesn't act like the slave she is. See The Quran, Sura 4, verses 17-34, specifically verse 34:
004.034 YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all). PICKTHAL: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great. SHAKIR: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.
Contrast this to Christianity, where men are instructed to treat their wives with respect and kindness:
Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
Ephesians 5:28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
Colossians 3:19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.
There are more, but the point is, that the contrast between Islam and the other great religions of the world could not be more stark. Western society, which is generally based around the Judeo-Christian ethos also stands in contrast to Islam.
Are we in the West perfect? Hell no! Does this mean that we should not then condemn the abject barbarism of a backwards and genocidal religion like Islam? Hell no.
Ah, but see, they are. Those commentators that are Liberal, Say so. Those that are Conservative say so. This is what creates the fairness and the balance. Honesty about who they are and what they believe. You just don't get this with the other big new organizations. If you can't see that, then you are obviously a closed-minded ideologue and I'm not going to waste any more time with you.
1. The SurfaceStations folk rely on suggestion and implication, not on actual measurement: to what extent does an A/C 10 feet away actually influence temperature measurements? They don't say. They haven't shown that there are actual problems with the recorded temperatures.
Last time I checked, it's NASA's job to make sure that the surface stations are recording temperature accurately. It's rather obvious that a measurement station located in a small area that will get consistently higher temperatures than the surrounding environment is going to be inaccurate. There is no reason to not attempt to get away from artificial heat sources as much as possible, and to defend questionable measurement techniques such as this smacks of ideological motivations.
2. They then retreat to a generic argument of "Well, something could be wrong with the temperature record, therefore we should just disregard it as unreliable".
It's not a "generic argument" it's a very real concern, and if there is a real concern about the accuracy and veracity of a data set, particularly a data set with implications as serious as this one, then it is a scientists duty to excise data that very well may have been compromised. This is standard scientific prodecure. You don't use data you know to be bad, or that there is a strong possibility of being bad. Period.
3. Siting problems are generally worse in urban areas, which they have so far focused mostly on. They have only found a relatively small fraction of "potential" siting problems among the stations surveyed; the overall fraction and influence of "potential" problems should be even lower once they look at the rural stations.
Yes, Siting problems are worse in urban areas, which makes one wonder why they would be sited in urban areas at all. the Urban Heat Island phoenomena alone should be enough to drive any and all sites out of urban areas, let alone away from obvious manmade heat sources such as incinerators, asphalt tarmacks, and air conditioning heat exhausts. Again, it comes down to poor methodology throwing the data into doubt.
Oh, and I love how you claim "a relatively small fraction of 'potential' siting problems".
From the article and the blog: "About 80% of the temperature stations that have been visited and photographed have serious quality problems." In what universe is 80% a SMALL FRACTION? Oops! Caught you in a lie! Try again.
4. There are already plenty of statistical procedures in place to detect and correct (if possible) or discard (if not possible) anomalous temperatures, such as jump discontinuity detection, renorming urbanized sites against local rural sites, etc.
Really? Then why were the results from the cited stations INCLUDED in the data used? And why the need for the correction this whole/. article is about? The point is, IF there are any statistical procedures in place, they aren't being used properly or AT ALL. Of course, since the procedures aren't being performed in an open manner, we really have no idea, do we?
5. Two independent satellite records agree with the surface temperature record during the late 20th century/21st century period of warming. So too do other less direct measures, within their respective errors, such as borehole temperatures, temperature reconstructions from glacier melt rates, species redistribution patterns, etc.
Satellites: Citation Needed
Bore Hole measurements: Due to lack of citation I can only assume that you are speaking about the Taylor Dome borehole data cited in the NAS panel report of 2006. There have been serious doubts about that data, including doubts from Steve McIntyre: "So what we have here: we have a National Research Council panel chairman making statements at a national press conference which rely on an unpublished borehole analysis
You may not realize it, but your question comes off as rather snarky. However, I will assume that you did not mean it that way and that it was asked honestly.
I frankly do not know if Fox News claims absolute moral authority or not, or whether they are deserving of it or not. However, my comment was not directed at Fox News, but at the other news agencies who DO claim absolute moral authority and clearly have no right to do so, vis-a-vis their clear bias and frequent misreporting. (See the Dan "Memogate" Rather comment above.)
In my personal opinion, no news agency can claim absolute moral authority or a complete lack of bias. We are humans, and as a wise man once said, "We all view the world through the lens of ourselves." In other words, we all have biases. When that bias becomes an issue is when we attempt to hide that bias behind a mask of "Impartial journalistic integrity", or worse, use said Integrity mask as a lever to move a specific political or social agenda forward.
Again, we all have biases, we all have opinions. But when news reporters aren't honest with their viewers about biases they may have, they lose credibility. This is what most of mainstream "journalism" has done, but Fox News does not. This is why Fox News is trouncing the traditional media in the ratings. They are honest and up-front about their biases, and people can adjust the way they take in the news from Fox accordingly. Like their tag line says "We Report, You Decide."
There's already doubts about the accuracy of our current measurements. Many of the temperature and precipitation reading stations are located in urban areas on rooftops, where localized heating and the "urban heat island" phenomena have been show to skew the results to the high end. Several ave been found to have been placed near the HEAT EXHAUST of building air-conditioning systems. Due to this, many are questioning the veracity and accuracy of even the raw data, let alone the methodology employed in processing the data.
Except that they go MUCH MUCH further than simply pointing out bias or agendas, which exist just as much if not more at other news agencies.
Honestly, how many here who readily bash Fox News (or "Faux News" as some gleefully exclaim) would then hold up Dan "Memogate" Rather, Keith Olbermann or the Daily Kos as pillars of "unbiased" journalism? I'd say quite a few.
I guess that when every news agency available leans to the left, whether slightly or strongly, having one that is centrist or slightly right-leaning is such a shock that some leftists have to scream about "bias" and "agenda".
Fox news doesn't have any more of an agenda than any other news agency. If anything, they have less of one. Yes, they do have a more centrist or slightly right bent than others, but those personalities on Fox that are "right wing" always say so right up front. Fox doesn't put on airs about objectivity when they are editorializing about a given issue. On the other hand, the other alphabet soup news agencies steadfastly proclaim their absolute lack of bias, when anyone with eyes to see can see the obvious liberal bias.
Maybe that's why Fox News is absolutely STOMPING the other news agencies in the open market. Not because they are necessarily better, but because people are more willing to trust someone who admits their general leanings UP FRONT, rather than someone who claims an absolute moral authority they clearly have no right to.
The first kids to have an NES in their homes growing up are now starting to become parents.
Not to nitpick, but the kids that had NES systems are already parents. We had an NES when I was in high school, and a SNES when I was just out of HS and my little brother and sister were still in HS and Elementary respectively. Now I'm 35, with 2 kids, my brother is 30 (no kids yet) and my sister is 25. The video game generation is all grown up now.
Because every single business model that relies on man's charitable nature has failed in the long run.
Yeah, because that whole "Open Source" thing really didn't pan out too well did it? Sure glad we never relied on people's charitable code donations to something like a Linux kernel or thousands of Free (libre) and free (beer) applications. Goodness knows that would have NEVER worked out!
You see, it's not a matter of who was President and who was in Congress, it's a matter of who sponsred and pushed for tax reductions and fiscal restraint.
In the 80's, Ronald Reagan and the GOP Minority pushed for overall tax reductions and reductions in spending. Reagan was able to successfully use the Presidential Bully Pulpit to push through some tax reform and reduction, leading to an economic boom in the mid to late eighties. Unfortunately, the spending reductions he wanted were largely not implemented, as Congress controls the purse strings in the Federal Government. Because spending was still so high in the early nineties when Bush Sr. (a fiscally liberal republican) came to office, the economy took a downturn when we fought the first Iraq war and he broke a campaign promise by raising taxes.
After Bush was voted out in the early nineties and Clinton was voted in during the post Iraq-war years, the economy slowly recovered. However, Clinton and the Democrat controlled congress enacted the single largest tax increase in American history shortly after the beginning of his term, further slowing economic improvement. This (along with Clinton's failed intervention in Somalia) caused a major turnover in the makeup of Congress in the 1994 elections, resulting in a Republican Congress and a Democrat President. The GOP in Congress immediately set about reversing and eliminating all the tax and spending increases set in place by Bush Sr., Clinton and the Dems. Clinton was beginning to be embroiled in scandal already at this point, and so was too politically weak to oppose the GOP. The tax reductions passed, and within 2 years the economy was booming. At about the same time the Dot Com bubble was happening, and this only served to accelerate the economy even more.
Oddly, despite his public opposition to the tax and spending reductions, Clinton still got the credit for a booming economy he had basically nothing to do with. By the time the economy was really rolling along, Clinton was so embroiled in scandal that he had taken to bombing "terrorists" (read, aspirin factories) in Africa to try and take some of the public scrutiny off himself. He was basically signing anything that came across his desk, as he was hardly involved at all in the political process.
The slump at the end of the nineties and into the early 2000's was caused by the Dot-Com bubble bursting, and the recovery since then has been largely the result of GWB's and the GOP's economic policies. However, there are many who think that both GWB and the GOP have largely abandoned their conservative economic roots in favor of liberal style big-government spending. This is what cost the GOP the 2006 elections, and has seriously slowed our economic recovery since then. While overall we are doing well, we could have been much further ahead had GWB and the GOP acted more Reagan-esqe, and less Clinton-esqe in their fiscal policy.
So credit belongs to those who push for economic reform. Reagan rightly deserves the credit for the 80's, Bush Sr., Clinton and the Dems deserve the credit for the slump in the early nineties, and the GOP deserves the credit for the boom in the mid to late nineties.
"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I would never argue that. However, your post implied that somehow, having non-lethals available is automatically going to make an otherwise good cop abuse them. That's just a ridiculous statement on the face of it. Having non-lethals gives the police an opportunity to subdue someone without having to resort to shooting them. One doesn't toss out a perfectly good technology just because a few bad apples will find a way to abuse it.
This kind of technology doesn't give the police any more power than they already have. All it does is allow them to arrest an otherwise violent person with minimal force and minimal chance of innocent bystanders being hurt. This works much better than shooting at a crook who is shooting at them, and having a stray bullet kill a kid. (which does happen, and all too often.)
Oh, and I never said that cops in the US are good while cops in other countries are bad. That's a WHOLESALE lie about what I said and anyone actually read what I wrote would see that. Shame on you for poor reading comprehension.
Because a goodly chunk of/. readers also spend large amounts of time over in the nut houses of the Daily Kos and the DU. They spend so much time drinking the Kool-Aid over there, that they can't help but spew insanity and vitriol when they get here. Particularly when it's a technology designed to help Law Enforcement.
Well you are welcome any time. Just release your twisted fantasies about all police being corrupt and/or evil and/or stupid and join the rest of us in reality where most police in democratic societies are good people just trying to do their jobs. It's not hard, let go of your hate.
your post implies that only a laser can permanently blind
Actually, the only reason I brought up lasers was because the OP of this thread talked about a UV laser weapon blinding people, and compared it both qualitatively and quantitatively with the LED lights. My entire first post was a response to the OP. Please re-read for comprehension.
As you can see by Deskpoet's response to me, he's obviously another candidate for Fever-swamp radical of the year. If you read through his next response to you, you can see he's another far-leftist loony who honestly thinks that the police are there to "keep him down".
Put more succinctly, he's a nut. A Loon. A moron. A crackpot. Someone not in full control of his faculties. Just ignore his insane ravings and he'll go away.
To Deskpoet:
Just for the record, I am half white, half Cherokee (raised by my adoptive family of mixed Italian and German descent). I live an un-gated, mixed-race neighborhood of Whites, Blacks and Asians. My wife is of Irish and Ukranian descent and we have two special-needs (Autism) children. And you and your BS racebaiting can suck my dick. Now fuck off and go back to the fever-swamp you crawled out of.
Now that we have THAT out of the way, does anyone ELSE wanna play the bullshit racecard on me?
I love the cognitive dissonance in your argument...
The first is not going to fire on a crowd except in self-defense, to do otherwise would be crazy, it would also be a bit difficult to go around and give everyone a bashing.
On one hand, The police all around the world everywhere are going to be so humane that they would NEVER EVER fire into a crowd or relentlessly beat members of that crowd, because firing into it would be 'crazy' and it would be just too much trouble to beat up EVERYBODY in the crowd...
The second is getting impatient and gets out an LED bazooka, and decides to put the brightness up a bit because it's a bright day, oh and they aren't sure if everyone had their eyes open the first time, so they fire it a few times just to be sure.
On the other hand, All police forces everywhere are so amateurish, so untrained and ignorant that they will automatically behave in the most irresponsible and dangerous manner possible when given a non-lethal alternative weapon.
Come on. You can't be so off-kilter as to actually believe such nonsense? You're just trolling, right? Right?...
Ok, just for you I will spell it out:
Some Police forces in the world are highly-trained and responsible members of free and democratic societies. For example, those in the US, Britain, Australia, Canada, France, Israel, Etc. These are the most likely recipients of this technology, and also the LEAST likely to abuse it or use it improperly due to citizen oversight via the democratic process.
Yes, it's not perfect, and yes there will be accidents. But there is no more percentage chance of accidents with a non-lethal weapon vs a lethal weapon. There is, however, MUCH less chance of DEATH if there are accidents with a NON-lethal weapon, vs a lethal weapon such as a gun. This is good for both citizens AND the Police, as a Non-lethal turned on it's owner is much less dangerous, and it is nigh-on impossible to intentionally kill someone with a non-lethal if it is used properly (which the aforementioned Police will undoubtedly spend many many many hours training to do.)
Now, SOME Police forces are NOT highly trained, and are NOT members of a Free and Democratic society. Some of them are jackbooted thugs who work for ruthless dictators such as Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmedinejiad (sp), Fidel Castro, Etc. These guys will do pretty much anything and everything they want to a crowd, regardless of the outcome, because there IS NO citizen oversight. Not only are these guys not likely to get Non-lethal weaponry, they don't want it. They'd much rather just shoot into the crowd and kill as many as they can. It's much easier to control the populace when they fear you. Of course, if they don't have guns, they will still gladly take the time to beat the living daylights out of you, as they think it's FUN. So they really can't be trusted at all, regardless of the weapons they wield.
See how it works now? Some police are good, some are bad, and you can generally tell which are which by the societies they live in. Painting ALL Police as lazy, ignorant, thuggish monsters who are just the arm of THE MAN trying to "keep you down" just smacks of fever-swamp loonyness and a generally crackpot outlook on life.
Oh, and let's not get into the differences between THE SUN, a gigantic nuclear blast-furnace bright enough to light up the entire damn SOLARSYSTEM and be seen from BILLIONS of miles away, and an LED light about the size of a pea that runs off a AA battery. Just like the "pointing a laser at your eye" argument the OP made, it's an apples and oranges comparison that is neither germane nor logical.
There really should be a down-mod for "stupid, illogical thinking" I think it would apply well to your post.
I'm sorry, but I have to call BS on this one. While I realize that it's oh so fashionable amongst the intelligentsia so make all sorts of wild accusations against the United States as the very incarnation of Cthulu, it just rings hollow here.
At wavelengths which the cornea and the lens can focus well, the coherence and low divergence of laser light means that it can be focused by the eye into an extremely small spot on the retina, resulting in localized burning and permanent damage in seconds or even less time.
(emphasis mine)
The reason lasers can blind is due to the nature of the laser itself, being a highly coherent and concentrated beam of light, which the cornea can further concentrate to dangerous levels. LED's, while very bright, are of a highly INcoherent and diffuse nature. Now, there may be some TEMPORARY blindness caused by the overall light intensity, also known as Flash Blindness ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_blindness ) but nothing permanently damaging. Also, as someone else mentioned above, there is a range-finder on the thing designed to adjust the intensity based on the range of the target.
So what we have here is a non-lethal weapon designed to harmlessly incapacitate an individual, allowing law enforcement to take them into custody without exchanging gunfire or risking serious injury or loss of life. Frankly, that sounds like three things to me:
a) A good overall idea b) Something the UN would really go for (why kill when you can humanely capture?) c) NOT something that an Eeeevil entity would do, unlike the way the US is commonly characterized on/. and other places. (Maybe the US isn't so evil after all?)
Remember, calm logical thinking is your friend, knee-jerk reactions are not.
Actually, while incredibly insecure, it is kinda cool to be able to slap in any program path in that malformed string and open any program.
For example, try this one if you have EVE installed on your PC: (You will have to copy-paste it as the Slashdot filter prevents the links from working.)
Heh, I was going to post that link, but you beat me to it.
Personally, I suggest a new slogan:
"OLPC, Bringing Internet Porn to horny third world pubescent boys!"
They could include a complimentary subscription to playboy online and a safer sex care pack!
In all seriousness, Come on. Did anyone REALLY think that these things would be used for only "educational" purposes? Hell, I'll bet good money that the majority of them hardly EVER end up used for education. Unless you consider learning new sexual techniques "education".
Slashdot Mirror
What I find interesting is the potential for "Linux Phishing" or "Linux Greifing" that this creates. There are already plenty of problems with various viruses loading directly through the browser in Windows, can you imagine what would happen if a "religious Linux fanatic" were to take this, alter it to use a known but unpatched IE vulnerability to auto-install and reboot people's machines into Linux? What would happen if a "religious Microsoft fanatic" did the same thing to try and make Linux look bad?
I've got a baaaad feeling about this...
This is precisely what I did when I received my Acer laptop from Newegg. Since the warranty was a manufacturer warranty, and not a seller one, I knew that I would have to rely on Acer for service. Not knowing how their service was, and not wanting to take a chance at the type of issue the OP is having, as soon as I unpackaged it I flipped it over, popped out the stock hard drive and popped in a blank one of my own. I then loaded up the OS of my choice and went on my merry way.
As it happened the laptop keyboard developed a fault that required it's replacement. Before even calling for service I replaced the original hard drive, just in case I needed to send the laptop back to Acer for service. Fortunately, the keyboard is a user-replaceable item, and they were able to just send me a new one. But had I needed to return it, Acer would have been none the wiser. Not only is the hard drive easily accessible, but there is no "warranty sticker" across the hard drive slot that would indicate to them that I had even touched it.
Unless you are buying a "direct from the manufacturer" laptop (such as a Dell or Lenovo) and are planning on replacing the stock OS, I always recommend replacing the hard drive and carefully storing the original. This way you will NEVER run into the issue the submitter did.
Headlines in 5 years: Google Execs charged with child endangerment because "ads now display nothing but porn"
I use Ask.com myself. The search results are just as good, and the additional search tools like the page preview and optional search terms bar make my searching much more efficient. Oh, and it has a much cleaner and more attractive interface than Google's.
Nobody (and I mean NOBODY) is claiming that Western society is free of injustice and evil. We have our problems and we know it. However, unlike the societies that Islam is in total control of, Western Society generally abhors and works to eliminate those problems. Wife beating (or any form of domestic abuse) is one of these problems.
We here in the west find spousal abuse of be vile and disgusting, and work to eliminate it. Islam, on the other hand, actually ESPOUSES wife beating when one's wife is "Disobedient". IE: she doesn't act like the slave she is. See The Quran, Sura 4, verses 17-34, specifically verse 34:
Contrast this to Christianity, where men are instructed to treat their wives with respect and kindness:
There are more, but the point is, that the contrast between Islam and the other great religions of the world could not be more stark. Western society, which is generally based around the Judeo-Christian ethos also stands in contrast to Islam.
Are we in the West perfect? Hell no! Does this mean that we should not then condemn the abject barbarism of a backwards and genocidal religion like Islam? Hell no.
Ah, but see, they are. Those commentators that are Liberal, Say so. Those that are Conservative say so. This is what creates the fairness and the balance. Honesty about who they are and what they believe. You just don't get this with the other big new organizations. If you can't see that, then you are obviously a closed-minded ideologue and I'm not going to waste any more time with you.
Last time I checked, it's NASA's job to make sure that the surface stations are recording temperature accurately. It's rather obvious that a measurement station located in a small area that will get consistently higher temperatures than the surrounding environment is going to be inaccurate. There is no reason to not attempt to get away from artificial heat sources as much as possible, and to defend questionable measurement techniques such as this smacks of ideological motivations.
It's not a "generic argument" it's a very real concern, and if there is a real concern about the accuracy and veracity of a data set, particularly a data set with implications as serious as this one, then it is a scientists duty to excise data that very well may have been compromised. This is standard scientific prodecure. You don't use data you know to be bad, or that there is a strong possibility of being bad. Period.
Yes, Siting problems are worse in urban areas, which makes one wonder why they would be sited in urban areas at all. the Urban Heat Island phoenomena alone should be enough to drive any and all sites out of urban areas, let alone away from obvious manmade heat sources such as incinerators, asphalt tarmacks, and air conditioning heat exhausts. Again, it comes down to poor methodology throwing the data into doubt.
Oh, and I love how you claim "a relatively small fraction of 'potential' siting problems".
From the article and the blog: "About 80% of the temperature stations that have been visited and photographed have serious quality problems." In what universe is 80% a SMALL FRACTION? Oops! Caught you in a lie! Try again.
Really? Then why were the results from the cited stations INCLUDED in the data used? And why the need for the correction this whole /. article is about? The point is, IF there are any statistical procedures in place, they aren't being used properly or AT ALL. Of course, since the procedures aren't being performed in an open manner, we really have no idea, do we?
Satellites: Citation Needed
Bore Hole measurements: Due to lack of citation I can only assume that you are speaking about the Taylor Dome borehole data cited in the NAS panel report of 2006. There have been serious doubts about that data, including doubts from Steve McIntyre: "So what we have here: we have a National Research Council panel chairman making statements at a national press conference which rely on an unpublished borehole analysis
You may not realize it, but your question comes off as rather snarky. However, I will assume that you did not mean it that way and that it was asked honestly.
I frankly do not know if Fox News claims absolute moral authority or not, or whether they are deserving of it or not. However, my comment was not directed at Fox News, but at the other news agencies who DO claim absolute moral authority and clearly have no right to do so, vis-a-vis their clear bias and frequent misreporting. (See the Dan "Memogate" Rather comment above.)
In my personal opinion, no news agency can claim absolute moral authority or a complete lack of bias. We are humans, and as a wise man once said, "We all view the world through the lens of ourselves." In other words, we all have biases. When that bias becomes an issue is when we attempt to hide that bias behind a mask of "Impartial journalistic integrity", or worse, use said Integrity mask as a lever to move a specific political or social agenda forward.
Again, we all have biases, we all have opinions. But when news reporters aren't honest with their viewers about biases they may have, they lose credibility. This is what most of mainstream "journalism" has done, but Fox News does not. This is why Fox News is trouncing the traditional media in the ratings. They are honest and up-front about their biases, and people can adjust the way they take in the news from Fox accordingly. Like their tag line says "We Report, You Decide."
There's already doubts about the accuracy of our current measurements. Many of the temperature and precipitation reading stations are located in urban areas on rooftops, where localized heating and the "urban heat island" phenomena have been show to skew the results to the high end. Several ave been found to have been placed near the HEAT EXHAUST of building air-conditioning systems. Due to this, many are questioning the veracity and accuracy of even the raw data, let alone the methodology employed in processing the data.
Citation on temperature station problems>: http://newsbusters.org/node/13282
More information here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1927#more-1927
Except that they go MUCH MUCH further than simply pointing out bias or agendas, which exist just as much if not more at other news agencies.
Honestly, how many here who readily bash Fox News (or "Faux News" as some gleefully exclaim) would then hold up Dan "Memogate" Rather, Keith Olbermann or the Daily Kos as pillars of "unbiased" journalism? I'd say quite a few.
I guess that when every news agency available leans to the left, whether slightly or strongly, having one that is centrist or slightly right-leaning is such a shock that some leftists have to scream about "bias" and "agenda".
Fox news doesn't have any more of an agenda than any other news agency. If anything, they have less of one. Yes, they do have a more centrist or slightly right bent than others, but those personalities on Fox that are "right wing" always say so right up front. Fox doesn't put on airs about objectivity when they are editorializing about a given issue. On the other hand, the other alphabet soup news agencies steadfastly proclaim their absolute lack of bias, when anyone with eyes to see can see the obvious liberal bias.
Maybe that's why Fox News is absolutely STOMPING the other news agencies in the open market. Not because they are necessarily better, but because people are more willing to trust someone who admits their general leanings UP FRONT, rather than someone who claims an absolute moral authority they clearly have no right to.
Really? My wife loves her G-Torrent. Although personally, I prefer my P-torrent, but I guess that's just how marriage goes.
"Hang the Code, and hang the rules! They're more like guidelines anyway..."
Oh wait. We're talking about robots, not pirates. Dang.
Oh great. Then we end up having to rely on some emo farmer kid that wears baggy shirts, an old hermit and some hippy religion involving a "force".
Not to nitpick, but the kids that had NES systems are already parents. We had an NES when I was in high school, and a SNES when I was just out of HS and my little brother and sister were still in HS and Elementary respectively. Now I'm 35, with 2 kids, my brother is 30 (no kids yet) and my sister is 25. The video game generation is all grown up now.
Yeah, because that whole "Open Source" thing really didn't pan out too well did it? Sure glad we never relied on people's charitable code donations to something like a Linux kernel or thousands of Free (libre) and free (beer) applications. Goodness knows that would have NEVER worked out!
/sarcasm
Um... No.
You see, it's not a matter of who was President and who was in Congress, it's a matter of who sponsred and pushed for tax reductions and fiscal restraint.
In the 80's, Ronald Reagan and the GOP Minority pushed for overall tax reductions and reductions in spending. Reagan was able to successfully use the Presidential Bully Pulpit to push through some tax reform and reduction, leading to an economic boom in the mid to late eighties. Unfortunately, the spending reductions he wanted were largely not implemented, as Congress controls the purse strings in the Federal Government. Because spending was still so high in the early nineties when Bush Sr. (a fiscally liberal republican) came to office, the economy took a downturn when we fought the first Iraq war and he broke a campaign promise by raising taxes.
After Bush was voted out in the early nineties and Clinton was voted in during the post Iraq-war years, the economy slowly recovered. However, Clinton and the Democrat controlled congress enacted the single largest tax increase in American history shortly after the beginning of his term, further slowing economic improvement. This (along with Clinton's failed intervention in Somalia) caused a major turnover in the makeup of Congress in the 1994 elections, resulting in a Republican Congress and a Democrat President. The GOP in Congress immediately set about reversing and eliminating all the tax and spending increases set in place by Bush Sr., Clinton and the Dems. Clinton was beginning to be embroiled in scandal already at this point, and so was too politically weak to oppose the GOP. The tax reductions passed, and within 2 years the economy was booming. At about the same time the Dot Com bubble was happening, and this only served to accelerate the economy even more.
Oddly, despite his public opposition to the tax and spending reductions, Clinton still got the credit for a booming economy he had basically nothing to do with. By the time the economy was really rolling along, Clinton was so embroiled in scandal that he had taken to bombing "terrorists" (read, aspirin factories) in Africa to try and take some of the public scrutiny off himself. He was basically signing anything that came across his desk, as he was hardly involved at all in the political process.
The slump at the end of the nineties and into the early 2000's was caused by the Dot-Com bubble bursting, and the recovery since then has been largely the result of GWB's and the GOP's economic policies. However, there are many who think that both GWB and the GOP have largely abandoned their conservative economic roots in favor of liberal style big-government spending. This is what cost the GOP the 2006 elections, and has seriously slowed our economic recovery since then. While overall we are doing well, we could have been much further ahead had GWB and the GOP acted more Reagan-esqe, and less Clinton-esqe in their fiscal policy.
So credit belongs to those who push for economic reform. Reagan rightly deserves the credit for the 80's, Bush Sr., Clinton and the Dems deserve the credit for the slump in the early nineties, and the GOP deserves the credit for the boom in the mid to late nineties.
Well of course,
"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I would never argue that. However, your post implied that somehow, having non-lethals available is automatically going to make an otherwise good cop abuse them. That's just a ridiculous statement on the face of it. Having non-lethals gives the police an opportunity to subdue someone without having to resort to shooting them. One doesn't toss out a perfectly good technology just because a few bad apples will find a way to abuse it.
This kind of technology doesn't give the police any more power than they already have. All it does is allow them to arrest an otherwise violent person with minimal force and minimal chance of innocent bystanders being hurt. This works much better than shooting at a crook who is shooting at them, and having a stray bullet kill a kid. (which does happen, and all too often.)
Oh, and I never said that cops in the US are good while cops in other countries are bad. That's a WHOLESALE lie about what I said and anyone actually read what I wrote would see that. Shame on you for poor reading comprehension.
Because a goodly chunk of /. readers also spend large amounts of time over in the nut houses of the Daily Kos and the DU. They spend so much time drinking the Kool-Aid over there, that they can't help but spew insanity and vitriol when they get here. Particularly when it's a technology designed to help Law Enforcement.
Well you are welcome any time. Just release your twisted fantasies about all police being corrupt and/or evil and/or stupid and join the rest of us in reality where most police in democratic societies are good people just trying to do their jobs. It's not hard, let go of your hate.
Actually, the only reason I brought up lasers was because the OP of this thread talked about a UV laser weapon blinding people, and compared it both qualitatively and quantitatively with the LED lights. My entire first post was a response to the OP. Please re-read for comprehension.
Neoprofin, Don't even bother.
As you can see by Deskpoet's response to me, he's obviously another candidate for Fever-swamp radical of the year. If you read through his next response to you, you can see he's another far-leftist loony who honestly thinks that the police are there to "keep him down".
Put more succinctly, he's a nut. A Loon. A moron. A crackpot. Someone not in full control of his faculties. Just ignore his insane ravings and he'll go away.
To Deskpoet:
Just for the record, I am half white, half Cherokee (raised by my adoptive family of mixed Italian and German descent). I live an un-gated, mixed-race neighborhood of Whites, Blacks and Asians. My wife is of Irish and Ukranian descent and we have two special-needs (Autism) children. And you and your BS racebaiting can suck my dick. Now fuck off and go back to the fever-swamp you crawled out of.
Now that we have THAT out of the way, does anyone ELSE wanna play the bullshit racecard on me?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
On one hand, The police all around the world everywhere are going to be so humane that they would NEVER EVER fire into a crowd or relentlessly beat members of that crowd, because firing into it would be 'crazy' and it would be just too much trouble to beat up EVERYBODY in the crowd...
On the other hand, All police forces everywhere are so amateurish, so untrained and ignorant that they will automatically behave in the most irresponsible and dangerous manner possible when given a non-lethal alternative weapon.
Come on. You can't be so off-kilter as to actually believe such nonsense? You're just trolling, right? Right?...
Ok, just for you I will spell it out:
Some Police forces in the world are highly-trained and responsible members of free and democratic societies. For example, those in the US, Britain, Australia, Canada, France, Israel, Etc. These are the most likely recipients of this technology, and also the LEAST likely to abuse it or use it improperly due to citizen oversight via the democratic process.
Yes, it's not perfect, and yes there will be accidents. But there is no more percentage chance of accidents with a non-lethal weapon vs a lethal weapon. There is, however, MUCH less chance of DEATH if there are accidents with a NON-lethal weapon, vs a lethal weapon such as a gun. This is good for both citizens AND the Police, as a Non-lethal turned on it's owner is much less dangerous, and it is nigh-on impossible to intentionally kill someone with a non-lethal if it is used properly (which the aforementioned Police will undoubtedly spend many many many hours training to do.)
Now, SOME Police forces are NOT highly trained, and are NOT members of a Free and Democratic society. Some of them are jackbooted thugs who work for ruthless dictators such as Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmedinejiad (sp), Fidel Castro, Etc. These guys will do pretty much anything and everything they want to a crowd, regardless of the outcome, because there IS NO citizen oversight. Not only are these guys not likely to get Non-lethal weaponry, they don't want it. They'd much rather just shoot into the crowd and kill as many as they can. It's much easier to control the populace when they fear you. Of course, if they don't have guns, they will still gladly take the time to beat the living daylights out of you, as they think it's FUN. So they really can't be trusted at all, regardless of the weapons they wield.
See how it works now? Some police are good, some are bad, and you can generally tell which are which by the societies they live in. Painting ALL Police as lazy, ignorant, thuggish monsters who are just the arm of THE MAN trying to "keep you down" just smacks of fever-swamp loonyness and a generally crackpot outlook on life.
Oh, and let's not get into the differences between THE SUN, a gigantic nuclear blast-furnace bright enough to light up the entire damn SOLARSYSTEM and be seen from BILLIONS of miles away, and an LED light about the size of a pea that runs off a AA battery. Just like the "pointing a laser at your eye" argument the OP made, it's an apples and oranges comparison that is neither germane nor logical.
There really should be a down-mod for "stupid, illogical thinking" I think it would apply well to your post.
I'm sorry, but a quote like that just makes me think of Dr. Evil from the Austin Powers movies.
Bill Gates: *with pinky curved up to lip* Gentlemen, we will have Windows Vista installed on ONE BEEELLIIION computers by the end of the year!
Steve Ballmer: *wearing an eyepatch due to a ricocheting chair leg accident* But Sir, that's.. that's just...
Bill Gates: Eeevil? *camera zooms in while dramatic music plays*
I'm sorry, but I have to call BS on this one. While I realize that it's oh so fashionable amongst the intelligentsia so make all sorts of wild accusations against the United States as the very incarnation of Cthulu, it just rings hollow here.
First of all, what causes people to go blind while looking at Lasers? well, let's check Wikipedia shall we? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasers#Laser_safety
the money quote is here:
(emphasis mine)
The reason lasers can blind is due to the nature of the laser itself, being a highly coherent and concentrated beam of light, which the cornea can further concentrate to dangerous levels. LED's, while very bright, are of a highly INcoherent and diffuse nature. Now, there may be some TEMPORARY blindness caused by the overall light intensity, also known as Flash Blindness ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_blindness ) but nothing permanently damaging. Also, as someone else mentioned above, there is a range-finder on the thing designed to adjust the intensity based on the range of the target.
So what we have here is a non-lethal weapon designed to harmlessly incapacitate an individual, allowing law enforcement to take them into custody without exchanging gunfire or risking serious injury or loss of life. Frankly, that sounds like three things to me:
a) A good overall idea
b) Something the UN would really go for (why kill when you can humanely capture?)
c) NOT something that an Eeeevil entity would do, unlike the way the US is commonly characterized on
Remember, calm logical thinking is your friend, knee-jerk reactions are not.
Actually, while incredibly insecure, it is kinda cool to be able to slap in any program path in that malformed string and open any program.
d ".exe../../../../../../../../Program Files/CCP/EVE/eve.exe " - " blah.bat
For example, try this one if you have EVE installed on your PC: (You will have to copy-paste it as the Slashdot filter prevents the links from working.)
snews:%00%00../../../../../../windows/system32/cm
Heh, I was going to post that link, but you beat me to it.
Personally, I suggest a new slogan:
"OLPC, Bringing Internet Porn to horny third world pubescent boys!"
They could include a complimentary subscription to playboy online and a safer sex care pack!
In all seriousness, Come on. Did anyone REALLY think that these things would be used for only "educational" purposes? Hell, I'll bet good money that the majority of them hardly EVER end up used for education. Unless you consider learning new sexual techniques "education".