The US has a habit of setting bad precedents these days and that is especially true of drone assassinations. Now every country will want a drone fleet, and we have given them all the excuses they need to employ them to "kill terrorists". Of course, like us, they will be the ones who decide what a terrorist is. UK courts just decided that journalists should not be considered terrorists, indicating that we are in a world of hurt when that question even comes up.
How can the US complain when other countries deploy drones to "kill terrorists"? It can be done much cheaper than our drone program, and with much less high-end technology. You just need a video camera on an RCA big enough to carry an explosive payload. What goes around comes around. But then again, I am sure that is the whole point. The US wants instability, or we wouldn't be forcing regime change all over the place. I can't imagine that the government hasn't figured out that regime change leads to conflict, civil war and refugee crises. In fact, it happens every time.
Agreed. The US is no longer occupying the moral high ground. We only attack countries that can't defend themselves, and then when someone tries to strike back with a terrorist attack we act shocked. Personally, I believe that the US is trying to instigate more terror attacks in order to justify our obscene military budget and aggression around the world. It's job security for the military-congressional-defense contractor complex. They should at least be honest and change the name from the "defense dept." to either the "offense dept." or the "war dept.". We aren't defending anything, but we sure are attacking lots of things.
Our government says that virtually no civilians are killed by drones, and we know from as far back as Vietnam that the military lies when it comes to casualties and deaths. If they want to make it sound like the war is going well, they boost the number of enemy killed. If they want to make the drone program sound precise, they lie about the civilian casualties. That's their business model.
The US now prefers killing poor people in 3rd world countries with robots. Not very brave or noble. Not very good for our standing in the world. Not good for poor people in 3rd world countries.
In fact, it isn't good for anyone but defense contractors.
What makes you think that other countries want to nuke the US? Please explain. I have heard nothing about this from any source. What would they gain by nuking the US, destroying the world economy, and spreading radiation around the globe? Please, I would love to hear your explanation about how we need to modernize our nuclear arsenal to prevent this from happening. Obama is saying he wants to spend a trillion dollars to revamp our nukes, and you apparently agree. Silly. Just plain silly. No one is going to nuke us, even if we didn't have any nukes. Spending that kind of money that way is pure boondoggle, and you know it. It is a massive government handout to GE and their buddies in the nuke business.
It is so funny you think that the US is about to be attacked, and that it is only because we have nuclear weapons that we haven't been, and won't be. It is hard to understand how people can be that silly. MAD was from a very different time that I lived through in the 50s and 60s, and as far as I can tell, Russia and China aren't about to nuke us now, and wouldn't nuke us if we retired all our nuclear weapons. But it's a free country so you can spew all the nonsense you like. I'm sure you think you sound tough, but you really just sound silly. I realize/. is full of conservatives, but this is ridiculous.
Please, don't be fawning about the US nuclear weapons and how we take care of them, and pretend that we would be attacked if we didn't have them. Pure nonsense.
I am sure you know all this, but you are hoping that no one else knows or is paying attention. They will never be used because they are not needed, and can't be used. They are not stopping Russia or China from attacking us because Russia and China have no intention of attacking us. This kind of utter nonsense has to stop. I thought we were supposed to be smarter than that here at/. No country is about to attack the US, and it has nothing to do with the fact that we have nukes. Stop the idiocy.
Like most weapons systems that will never be used, this is another example of the US taxpayer getting shafted by defense contractors. Fallout limited? That is pure nonsense. Face it folks, we keep getting fleeced by the government and their buddies in the "defense" industry. This is another in a long string of wasteful expenditures for hardware that will sit unused until we have to pay to dismantle them 50 years from now. Stop acting like weapons are cool. They aren't. That money could be spent on fixing our busted infrastructure if you push your representatives to stop wasting so much money on weapons and war.
are greatly exaggerated. And Windows 10 will not do nearly as well as it should based on the price (free). Windows 7 will remain above 40% market share of desktop PCs throughout the year.
You have it pretty much backwards, but you are entitled to you opinion, right or wrong. Big government can be benevolent or fascist depending on who is in charge. When money and greed are all that motivate the people pulling the strings, only bad things come of it.
I don't know where you are coming from. Peer review is what it is. You can say a paper is bogus just off the cuff, but the expert reviewers disagree with you, and they may know as much or more about it than you do. Let me guess, they are all in cahoots to prevent innocent oil and gas companies from making any money.
You hate government , I get it, you are very conservative. But you aren't worried about corporate control? Our government is bought and paid for by corporations, who are pulling the strings, capturing the regulatory agencies, and owning all of the media. Funny that you complain about the controlled government, rather than the people in corporations who control them.
We have no pressure to publish. That occurs at some Universities with professors, but at many research labs the pressure is from within, and a desire to stay in the discussion going on in the literature. It does help in the long run with additional NIH funding to get good papers published, but I have never noticed a tight correlation between getting a good paper published and then getting a new grant. Sometimes it is years before something you publish gets noticed by lots of other scientists.
You say Hansen cooked the books. Is that reported in the scientific literature or only at places like WUWT?
PS, I will join a class action lawsuit if one is initiated. I didn't agree to any W10 EULA, and almost had it installed on one of my computers. I spent a couple hours trying to fix the problems with Windows Update that the forced upgrade caused until I found GWX Control Panel.
From my perspective as a long time computer builder/seller, and Windows user since version 1, I think that the Windows as a service is not going to please a lot of people unless MS is much more upfront about how they are going to make money from the OS (e.g., the extent of tracking, adware on the startmenu, telemetry uses beyond fixing issues, etc.). They also need to add an opt-out option to the Windows 10 icon because now you need to know enough about Windows to delete a specific update (KB3035583) to get rid of it and "opt-out". This is extremely user unfriendly by any standards.
On top of that, the forced updates are causing problems, and that needs to be ended. Just today an update broke Microsoft's own email program Outlook with an update KB3114409. It happened to me today when I trusted MS and ran the updates manually. This "patch" forced Outlook into safe mode until the specific update was uninstalled. So this update would have been forced on people with Windows 10 until MS pulled it. See here.
Windows is another experiment (Windows as a service with forced updates) and users are acting as guinea pigs. I can't afford to do that with my work computers.
So go right ahead and use it if you want, but I will not. Many things would have to change, from the Metrofied start menu to the terrible 2D look that is so uncustomizable compared with Windows 7 to the forced updates. Apps are crap and I don't want or need them on my PC. PC Settings is a downgrade from Control Panel. I could go on and on, and if you again respond by trying to defend MS I'll just post my much longer, more detailed list of complaints for everyone to see.
I would love to hear your take on Exxon scientists warning the company that carbon emissions would cause climate problems in the 1970s, and then covering it up for decades. If anyone has been dishonest in this debate it has been the oil and gas companies. Manufactured doubt is part of their business plan, just like the tobacco companies did for years, and just like gun manufacturers are doing now by making sure that gun deaths are not recorded and analyzed. I am a scientist and I don't believe for a second that Hansen is being intentionally dishonest like the corporations are. He doesn't have billions of dollars at stake.
Maybe you are also going to places like this for your information
Even though there is little chance that any recouped Medicare money would go to the NIH, I will humor you. How would you stop Medicare fraud? And while you are at it, how about tax fraud which probably far exceeds Medicare fraud?
The budget is redone every year, except that the Republicans in Congress keep blocking it. What makes you think that any money saved by stopping fraud would go to the NIH under the current political climate where Republicans don't want to fund social programs or biomedical research?
First off, science has always worked by adjusting models. Climate science is all computer modeling, so it is highly subject to this. You seem to be going to sources of information that are not scientific. I go straight to PubMed when I want to find out what is known or not known.
So while I respect your right to your opinion, I think you may not be looking at the actual science, but rather at the opinions of non-scientists.
I have used Windows since the first version for scientific manuscript and figure content production. I have about $20K worth of Windows software ranging from Adobe Creative Suite to ImagePro Plus from Media Cybernetics. I also use Office 2010 for manuscript production because most publishers require it.
Yes I am very upset with a company I have supported for years. With Windows 8 it became apparent that they think desktops are going away. We have been in the so-called post-PC era for over a decade now, and there is no sign yet that desktops are going away because they are what people use to do work.
I don't want an "OS as a service" that is designed for phones, and with ads and an app store. I also greatly dislike the loss of control over updates and the flat 2D look that was meant for mobile devices. So yes, I am very upset with a company that I have supported with my business for decades.
Linux Mint is sounding better all the time, since I can run Windows programs in a virtual box. If that is where MS wants to drive its longtime customers, so be it.
MS is never going to make major inroads into the phone market, but they will lose more of their huge desktop customer base. They are about to lose me and I have been using their products since MS DOS.
Slashdot Mirror
The US has a habit of setting bad precedents these days and that is especially true of drone assassinations. Now every country will want a drone fleet, and we have given them all the excuses they need to employ them to "kill terrorists". Of course, like us, they will be the ones who decide what a terrorist is. UK courts just decided that journalists should not be considered terrorists, indicating that we are in a world of hurt when that question even comes up.
http://www.theguardian.com/com...
How can the US complain when other countries deploy drones to "kill terrorists"? It can be done much cheaper than our drone program, and with much less high-end technology. You just need a video camera on an RCA big enough to carry an explosive payload. What goes around comes around. But then again, I am sure that is the whole point. The US wants instability, or we wouldn't be forcing regime change all over the place. I can't imagine that the government hasn't figured out that regime change leads to conflict, civil war and refugee crises. In fact, it happens every time.
Agreed. The US is no longer occupying the moral high ground. We only attack countries that can't defend themselves, and then when someone tries to strike back with a terrorist attack we act shocked. Personally, I believe that the US is trying to instigate more terror attacks in order to justify our obscene military budget and aggression around the world. It's job security for the military-congressional-defense contractor complex. They should at least be honest and change the name from the "defense dept." to either the "offense dept." or the "war dept.". We aren't defending anything, but we sure are attacking lots of things.
The pilots would possibly be endangered. I knew someone here would complain that I used the term robot. UAVs are remote controlled robots.
In my opinion, and that of many others, killing people overseas when there is no declared war is a war crime. A very, very serious war crime.
https://theintercept.com/drone...
You can Google this too.
https://theintercept.com/drone...
Our government says that virtually no civilians are killed by drones, and we know from as far back as Vietnam that the military lies when it comes to casualties and deaths. If they want to make it sound like the war is going well, they boost the number of enemy killed. If they want to make the drone program sound precise, they lie about the civilian casualties. That's their business model.
There are many articles about the poor ratio of intended targets vs. "collateral damage" or civilian deaths.
http://mic.com/articles/16949/...
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/...
But you know that because you can Google too.
The US now prefers killing poor people in 3rd world countries with robots. Not very brave or noble. Not very good for our standing in the world. Not good for poor people in 3rd world countries.
In fact, it isn't good for anyone but defense contractors.
What makes you think that other countries want to nuke the US? Please explain. I have heard nothing about this from any source. What would they gain by nuking the US, destroying the world economy, and spreading radiation around the globe? Please, I would love to hear your explanation about how we need to modernize our nuclear arsenal to prevent this from happening. Obama is saying he wants to spend a trillion dollars to revamp our nukes, and you apparently agree. Silly. Just plain silly. No one is going to nuke us, even if we didn't have any nukes. Spending that kind of money that way is pure boondoggle, and you know it. It is a massive government handout to GE and their buddies in the nuke business.
It is so funny you think that the US is about to be attacked, and that it is only because we have nuclear weapons that we haven't been, and won't be. It is hard to understand how people can be that silly. MAD was from a very different time that I lived through in the 50s and 60s, and as far as I can tell, Russia and China aren't about to nuke us now, and wouldn't nuke us if we retired all our nuclear weapons. But it's a free country so you can spew all the nonsense you like. I'm sure you think you sound tough, but you really just sound silly. I realize /. is full of conservatives, but this is ridiculous.
Please, don't be fawning about the US nuclear weapons and how we take care of them, and pretend that we would be attacked if we didn't have them. Pure nonsense.
The nuke guys were all caught cheating on tests.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
We have lost nukes and sent them accidentally across the country, and had all sorts of problems that show we don't "maintain them well"..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.npr.org/templates/s...
http://www.businessinsider.com...
I am sure you know all this, but you are hoping that no one else knows or is paying attention. They will never be used because they are not needed, and can't be used. They are not stopping Russia or China from attacking us because Russia and China have no intention of attacking us. This kind of utter nonsense has to stop. I thought we were supposed to be smarter than that here at /. No country is about to attack the US, and it has nothing to do with the fact that we have nukes. Stop the idiocy.
Like most weapons systems that will never be used, this is another example of the US taxpayer getting shafted by defense contractors. Fallout limited? That is pure nonsense. Face it folks, we keep getting fleeced by the government and their buddies in the "defense" industry. This is another in a long string of wasteful expenditures for hardware that will sit unused until we have to pay to dismantle them 50 years from now. Stop acting like weapons are cool. They aren't. That money could be spent on fixing our busted infrastructure if you push your representatives to stop wasting so much money on weapons and war.
So free for the vast majority of Windows users.
are greatly exaggerated. And Windows 10 will not do nearly as well as it should based on the price (free). Windows 7 will remain above 40% market share of desktop PCs throughout the year.
Your nemesis on the front page:
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
You have it pretty much backwards, but you are entitled to you opinion, right or wrong. Big government can be benevolent or fascist depending on who is in charge. When money and greed are all that motivate the people pulling the strings, only bad things come of it.
I don't know where you are coming from. Peer review is what it is. You can say a paper is bogus just off the cuff, but the expert reviewers disagree with you, and they may know as much or more about it than you do. Let me guess, they are all in cahoots to prevent innocent oil and gas companies from making any money.
You hate government , I get it, you are very conservative. But you aren't worried about corporate control? Our government is bought and paid for by corporations, who are pulling the strings, capturing the regulatory agencies, and owning all of the media. Funny that you complain about the controlled government, rather than the people in corporations who control them.
We have no pressure to publish. That occurs at some Universities with professors, but at many research labs the pressure is from within, and a desire to stay in the discussion going on in the literature. It does help in the long run with additional NIH funding to get good papers published, but I have never noticed a tight correlation between getting a good paper published and then getting a new grant. Sometimes it is years before something you publish gets noticed by lots of other scientists.
You say Hansen cooked the books. Is that reported in the scientific literature or only at places like WUWT?
Even Wikipedia tells it like it is on WUWT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So point me to the primary literature that claims Hansen cooked the books as you say. Otherwise I won't accept your claims as valid.
Funny you say that after what happened with Windows 8.
PS, I will join a class action lawsuit if one is initiated. I didn't agree to any W10 EULA, and almost had it installed on one of my computers. I spent a couple hours trying to fix the problems with Windows Update that the forced upgrade caused until I found GWX Control Panel.
http://microsoftclassactionlaw...
From my perspective as a long time computer builder/seller, and Windows user since version 1, I think that the Windows as a service is not going to please a lot of people unless MS is much more upfront about how they are going to make money from the OS (e.g., the extent of tracking, adware on the startmenu, telemetry uses beyond fixing issues, etc.). They also need to add an opt-out option to the Windows 10 icon because now you need to know enough about Windows to delete a specific update (KB3035583) to get rid of it and "opt-out". This is extremely user unfriendly by any standards.
On top of that, the forced updates are causing problems, and that needs to be ended. Just today an update broke Microsoft's own email program Outlook with an update KB3114409. It happened to me today when I trusted MS and ran the updates manually. This "patch" forced Outlook into safe mode until the specific update was uninstalled. So this update would have been forced on people with Windows 10 until MS pulled it. See here.
http://www.infoworld.com/artic...
Windows is another experiment (Windows as a service with forced updates) and users are acting as guinea pigs. I can't afford to do that with my work computers.
So go right ahead and use it if you want, but I will not. Many things would have to change, from the Metrofied start menu to the terrible 2D look that is so uncustomizable compared with Windows 7 to the forced updates. Apps are crap and I don't want or need them on my PC. PC Settings is a downgrade from Control Panel. I could go on and on, and if you again respond by trying to defend MS I'll just post my much longer, more detailed list of complaints for everyone to see.
I would love to hear your take on Exxon scientists warning the company that carbon emissions would cause climate problems in the 1970s, and then covering it up for decades. If anyone has been dishonest in this debate it has been the oil and gas companies. Manufactured doubt is part of their business plan, just like the tobacco companies did for years, and just like gun manufacturers are doing now by making sure that gun deaths are not recorded and analyzed. I am a scientist and I don't believe for a second that Hansen is being intentionally dishonest like the corporations are. He doesn't have billions of dollars at stake.
Maybe you are also going to places like this for your information
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
It's all part of the manufactured doubt campaign. I get it.
Even though there is little chance that any recouped Medicare money would go to the NIH, I will humor you. How would you stop Medicare fraud? And while you are at it, how about tax fraud which probably far exceeds Medicare fraud?
The budget is redone every year, except that the Republicans in Congress keep blocking it. What makes you think that any money saved by stopping fraud would go to the NIH under the current political climate where Republicans don't want to fund social programs or biomedical research?
First off, science has always worked by adjusting models. Climate science is all computer modeling, so it is highly subject to this. You seem to be going to sources of information that are not scientific. I go straight to PubMed when I want to find out what is known or not known.
So while I respect your right to your opinion, I think you may not be looking at the actual science, but rather at the opinions of non-scientists.
I have used Windows since the first version for scientific manuscript and figure content production. I have about $20K worth of Windows software ranging from Adobe Creative Suite to ImagePro Plus from Media Cybernetics. I also use Office 2010 for manuscript production because most publishers require it.
Yes I am very upset with a company I have supported for years. With Windows 8 it became apparent that they think desktops are going away. We have been in the so-called post-PC era for over a decade now, and there is no sign yet that desktops are going away because they are what people use to do work.
I don't want an "OS as a service" that is designed for phones, and with ads and an app store. I also greatly dislike the loss of control over updates and the flat 2D look that was meant for mobile devices. So yes, I am very upset with a company that I have supported with my business for decades.
Linux Mint is sounding better all the time, since I can run Windows programs in a virtual box. If that is where MS wants to drive its longtime customers, so be it.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
MS is never going to make major inroads into the phone market, but they will lose more of their huge desktop customer base. They are about to lose me and I have been using their products since MS DOS.
OK, I agree with some of Dyson's ideas, but how do you see people like Hansen as being a problem? I don't get it.