But from reading this summary it would seem that a blue whale would be the most intelligent thing ever. But it's not and that's because things like the proteins that make up our neurons, the spacing of the synapses, the quality of the electric shielding (white matter), etc are also important to defining our brain functions above that of an animal with comparable brain size.
How do you know? If a blue whale had, say, IQ of 200, how would it show? It wouldn't, of course; a blue whale is stuck on water without manipulatory organs (hands), and most likely without culture. For all we know it could be a towering giant of intellect; but we'd still have the upper hand, because we stand on the shoulders of giants, so each generation reaches a little higher, while a whale can only reach so high.
If evolution only favored big complex beings like ourselves, all the millions of other life forms which inhabit the earth, totaling a far greater mass than us, wouldn't be around.
We aren't in competition with most bacteria (or viruses), so it doesn't really make sense to say that evolution favours one over other.
The bacteria and viruses of today are more evolved than us, having been doing it for far longer.
The bacteria and viruses of today have exactly as long evolutionary history than us.
And the concept of "more evolved" doesn't really make sense. "Better adapted" does, as does "more complex", but "more evolved" doesn't mean anything because, all together now, "evolution doesn't have a goal, so there's no way to say which entity is more and which less evolved".
99% of people want 1 advanced feature in their word processor. Thing is, they all want a different advanced feature which the other 98% will consider unnecessary.
99% of people are perfectly okay with either MS Office or OpenOffice as-is, and have been for years. However, you have to sell the new version somehow, so features keep getting added, and in the case of MS Office, the file format keeps getting changed to make old versions incompatible and thus force sales.
And, frankly, I'd be surprised if more than 1% of users needed anything more advanced than adjustable indentation and tabs and upper and page header and footer, since that's all that it takes to make standardized business documents easily and conveniently.
A traffick light that actually shows you how long until green or red light? That's useful, since it lets you know if you should step on it or roll at walking pace. The only problem is that it's less visible from far, but of course it could be combined with colored light...
I think I favor less enforcement, and less laws overall. Most of the driving rules, in terms of real safety, are overly cautious "Best Practice" guidelines at best.
Funny; every time I've been in danger on the road, it's been because some moron has decided to treat the traffick laws as mere suggestions. I wish for more enforcement and stricker penalties, please.
Speed limits are just ridiculous, in general. People are going to drive the speed they feel safe, regardless of what the stupid sign says. That speed is usually 10-15 MPH higher than the sign.
Here in Finland, we didn't get speed limits outside of cities until 1973, and the system wasn't complete until 1978. The year 1973 1100 people died in accidents, in the year 1978 600. The evidence seems to disagree with you here.
Yearly safety inspections? I can see emissions checks every few years, or a safety check after 5 or so. However, regular safety inspection really is beyond the pale of what the state really needs to do.
The thousand-kilogram mass of metal hurtling down the street at whatever speed you happen to feel safe at isn't a danger to just you, it's also a danger to me. If the brakes fail, steering locks up and the fuel tank ruptures and catches fire while you're going at 80+ mph on a public street, it's very much everyone's problem.
State is doing it's legitimate job here, protecting me from being endangered by your car's lack of maintenance.
Stop signs? Please. Much of the time simply slowing down and treating it like a yeild is appropriate. Much of the time when that isn't true, it works just the same if you plan to do that, and end up having to stop anyway. The only REAL danger at those intersections are people who... weren't paying attention anyway.
Again, the danger are the people who treat traffick laws as mere suggestions, ignore the stop/yield sign and simply force their way into traffick. Having to do a full stop lessens the temptation to do that. Assuming, of course, that the rule is actually enforced.
Simply? Sure. Except that no-one knows how to calculate the amount of energy going in and energy going out, right?
The energy going in is the amount of energy Earth gets from the Sun. The total energy going out is the total amount radiated by Earth. Both are easy to verify by satellite imaging.
The temperature of the atmosphere surrounding 100 metres around my house is also simply a function of energy going in and energy going out, right? How come the environment scientists are unable to predict this simple thing more than 10 minutes in advance?
Because that energy has hundreds of sources and sinks which all interact with each other in chaotic ways, and can be transferred through conduction, convection (to the point where all that air could easily be replaced during those 10 minutes) and radiation, while Earth as a whole has only one significant source (Sun) and one sink (outer space) and can only transfer energy through radiation.
I already explained this to the grandparent, and it's not exactly hard to figure out with a moment of thought.
Also, from the description of it (work's independent thought filter is active) I believe that if the general public can't tell that it is satirical, then we as a species have bigger problems going on. "Fake Stephen Conroy"? Seems pretty obvious to me.
To be fair, half the time when I hear someone's political opinions I'm not sure if they're supposed to be parody or not. The same is true of religious views (yes, this includes atheists, google "Rational Response Squad" and "TheAmazingAtheist"), and all too often on their scientific views (or rather, their understanding of some phenomenom or the scientific method itself) too.
You can never be sure if some site is supposed to be a joke or not.
If you want that to be effective, we need a loser-pays system for civil lawsuits. That is, whoever loses the lawsuit is liable for both their own legal expenses and those of the victor of the suit, in addition to any damages awarded. If you don't have this, then you have average individual Americans up against a well-funded army of corporate lawyers with nothing to equalize the odds.
And if you have it, that average individual American taking on an army by himself will also get to pay their bills if he loses. Not exactly equalizing, I'd say...
Actual equalization would be if the state paid all legal expences (as that would remove the main advantage organizations have over individuals), but that would quickly lead to a deluge of lawsuits from greedy assholes suing for every reason imaginable, and would be socialism besides.
No, the only reason why such a legitimate case of self-defense would ever be prosecuted has nothing to do with ethics or morality or good legal precedent. It's because the government wishes to have a monopoly on the use of force.
True. That is the purpose of having a government in the first place. You also gave a good example why: because otherwise my right to life, property and whatever can be revoked whenever someone, anyone, thinks that I don't deserve them.
In a society where the government didn't insist on having a monopoly on the use of force, the VPA wouldn't bother sending DMCA takedown notices, they'd simply send some thugs to loot Mr. Freedman's house - since his alleged violation of copyright had, in VPA's opinion, deprived him of the legal right to protection of property - and shoot him if he resisted - since that resistance had, again in VPA's opinion, deprived him of the legal right of protection of life. Furthermore, I - working as a voting processor - would forcibly stop you from voting, since in my opinion, expressing such utterly stupid views online have deprived you of the legal right to vote.
I've never quite understood this attitude of some people that "criminals" shouldn't get the protection of law. Don't you understand the obvious abuses, or do you simply figure that there's enough people behind you that you would be invulnerable? Or did you read too much Batman and watch too many Western movies as a kid? Or is this simply a modern-day version of a bloodthirsty mob cheering while people - sorry, "criminals" - were fed to lions in the Colosseum?
Please, Slashdot, can we have a way to filter out stories by submitter? I don't think I've ever seen a story from "I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property" that doesn't irritate me with its smug sanctimony and total irrelevance. Personally, I don't believe in imaginary news.
If they did, I'm sure somebody would still get pissed at call it deceptive news reporting. It's a free market, and Slashdot can filter its stories anyway they like. Your whining is a total non-story.
And personally, I've never seen a post saying "it's a free market" that didn't come down to defending some corporation from - usually well deserved - criticism. But then again, economical freedoms are more important than freedom of speech to right-wingers...
Left libertarian or libertarian socialist. Or, to be very very bold: "Someone who believes that society exists to help and support rather than control its members."
Yeah, I know, it's a shocking thought that one might have individual views rather than simply chosing what party line to parrot. Maybe I should start an "Individualist" party - our line: "I'm unique - just like everyone else ";).
Anything consenting adults do would be legal. No one would be protected by the government from the consequences of their poor decision-making. The state would only use its law-enforcement powers to curtail activities that use force, fraud, or the threat of force to coerce others. Such an implementation would lead to the average person having both more freedom and more security than they have now.
No, he wouldn't. Just as there are people stronger and more charismatic than me - the would-be warlords - there are people smarter or just plain luckier than me. Those people would be able to amass more resources than me, and then use those resources against me. For example, a businessman who owns both a factory and a bank would be able to talk me into getting a loan, fire me from the factory, then use my sudden inability to pay as a means of blackmail. No fraud, no force, just someone smarter than me outthinking me.
Libertarianism focuses on physical force and coercion by threat of violence; however, it fails to consider coercion through economic means. However, in real life more people are constrained by economics than by physical force, which is why Libertarian Party fails to get significant support. Rather than examine their ideology and try to fix these problems, the typical libertarian when confronted launches into a rant about "sheeple who suck on public teats not knowing their own best", or something to that effect, which of course doesn't win them any converts either.
Or, as one snide comment once summed it: "Libertarians are anarchists who want police protection from their slaves."
Religion is only deceptive towards their congregation if you take it as given that God does not exist. If we're wrong and God does, in fact, exist, then you are the one who is lying to everyone who reads your post.
The concepts of deception and lying imply intentionality. As long as you actually believe what you're saying, you're not lying. You might be a moron for believing such inane crap (that goes to atheists and theists both, in a typical religious debate), but you're a honest moron.
Not every class needs to be useful all the time. Make it worth the party's time to drag around a character who's a dead weight in certain situations by making him very useful in others.
This idea isn't even limited to traditional combat classes. How about a class that can raise the drop rate? They might be next to useless in combat but people will still want to have one in the party because it's the fastest way to get some decent gear.
If you are useless in combat, and the game is all about combat, you're basically going to diddle your thumbs. It's not much fun playing a useless character, since your actions don't matter. So yeah, every character does need to be useful in every situation, because otherwise the situations they're not useful in are quitea drag for their players.
And this instantly gives rise to a crazy Judo class that's all about moving enemies where you want, in each other's way or to a pile for fireballing:).
Using such "strategic" classes would require a better interface, thought; something that would allow you to say "I'll run along this path and throw every enemy that comes to range towards this spot".
And there are people with the ideological opposition to anything human, that we bipedal oxygen breathers are a blight on the earth that is must be stopped.
Ah yes, the lunatic fringe of the environmentalists. I'm uncertain they'd be willing to accept the collateral damage caused by an asteroid big enough to kill us, thought.
The funny thing is that having us disappear would, at this point, be just as disastrous to the nature than our continued predations of it. Not only do whole ecosystems live off our garbage and in our cities, not to mention all the domesticated species that would be endangered if not outright extinguished, but there's also the little matter of safely disposing of spent nuclear fuel and such.
It's not bloody obvious to me that the weather is out of whack. Warm summer, cold winter...some summers are warmer, some winters are colder. How is this out of whack?
Here in Finland, having snow that stays through the winter is the exception rather than rule nowadays. The climate has become noticeably warmer during my lifetime.
There's a big difference between a science that is hotly debated because there's no actual proof (only evidence that can point many directions) and there being an actual asteroid on a collision course for earth. If the evidence of the asteroid wasn't based on observation of an asteroid but assumptions drawn from a small timeframe of data that suggests an asteroid is likely on a collision course with earth, then you'd have people hotly debating it like global warming.
This my surprise you, but... you'll never have more than probabilities. Sure, you can observe the asteroid, and calculate its orbit, and since space is big and Earth is small there's always a chance that it won't hit. You won't know for certain until a few weeks before the impact, at which point it's much too late to try deflect an asteroid of significant size.
The problem is there are scientists and worse, politicians asking us to have FAITH in them that what they're saying is true. No offense to them, but faith is not something I put in either of those people. Politicians don't deserve it and scientists shouldn't need it.
Scientists need it for the simple reason that it's impossible for anyone to re-execute every experiment and analyze every theory for possible mistakes.
Maybe if meteorologists could predict the LOCAL weather more than 30 minutes in advance without blowing it 75% of the time then we might lend more credence to people who presume to predict global climate decades in advance.
Weather is a chaotic system, which means that tiny differences in the original conditions can cause huge differences in the final outcome (the famous "butterfly effect"). Since there's limit to how much detail any given forecast can take into account, there's also a limit on how accurate they can be. On the other hand, global temperature is simply a function of the amount of energy going in and energy going out.
Since Earth is surrounded by vacuum, the only way energy can enter or leave is through radiation. The majority of energy entering Earth comes from the Sun, most of it in the form of visible light due to Sun's temperature. On the other hand, a far larger proportion of energy leaving Earth is in the form of infrared radiation, due to Earth's lower temperature. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, by which we mean that it absorbs infrared radiation; the more there is it in the atmosphere, the more opaque it becomes to IR. Consequently, it becomes harder for energy to leave Earth, while energy entering Earth is not affected; the result is that Earth heats up, which increases IR radiation to the point where the fraction that gets away once again matches Sun's input.
The details of how global weather patterns change - which areas get hotter, which colder, which drier, which wetter - are uncertain, but the overall effect is simple thermodynamics.
No, they don't count either. They're made to resemble money, but what they are is counterfeit slugs. The USA quit minting money in the 1960s.
Really? I've handled some US dollars every now and then, yet I could swear they were newer than that. I even got them from a bank, which you'd think would be expert at detecting such forgery.
Seriously, are you on drugs or something? Your claims are improbable, to put it kindly. And the claim that all money has been counterfeit for nearly fifty years is outright paranoid, or do you have some evidence?
If your friend shoots one of my family members and then goes and hides in your house, I'm not picking a fight with you when I come to drag him out. If you decide to get in my way, that's your problem.
If you try to force your way into my house without my permission, and it comes down to a fight, you are indeed the one who'll get blamed for it on court, while I'll be treated as having acted in self-defence.
And save your though-guy posturing for real life, where it might actually intimidate someone. In the Internet it simply makes you seem silly and compensating for some perceived weakness.
By the same logic, Germany and Japan still exist today so I guess the US lost in WW2, also. Good thinking!
Well, if WW2 had ended with Nazi party still in control of areas of Germany and Hitler at the helm, then yes, that assertion would had been quit reasonable. At the most it would had been a stalemate.
It's called Nazi Germany for the very purpose of distinguishing it from the Germany of today.
Frankly, the US could probably roll over the Canadian military tomorrow, just as quickly, while suffering not many more casualties. I guess Canada is primitive too, huh?
It's military technology must be, to be unable to mount an effective defence.
However, I very much doubt you could "roll over" anyone at the moment; even your current involvements are stretching your resources, and another war might very well be the straw that broke the camel's back.
You're confusing American dominance for Iraqi incompetence, and then assessing their entire nation based on your misunderstanding. That's just silly.
On the contrary, I'm assuming that Iraqis were competent at using what military hardware they had, and drawing the conclusion that they must not have had much to use.
So then how do you explain Spain implementing the EU Copyright Directive? It's not much bigger than Canada. Or how the Czech Republic and Finland have also implemented portions of it.
Dunno about the rest of them, but Finnish politicians have been searching for someone to bend the country over for ever since the Soviet Union fell. That's why they implement anything that Brussels, Washington and Moscow care to demand, the more harmful to the country the better, since that lets them show what good team players they are while making the ordinary citizens suffer the consequences.
we get that infuriating "you wouldn't steal a car" "commercial"...
If a legally bought car forced me to watch "you wouldn't steal a movie" ad whenever I wanted to drive it, and a stolen car wouldn't... I'd be tempted. I would be very tempted indeed.
No it isn't you insensitive clod I make my living from those films thank you very much.
So by downloading a ripped copy instead of going to a theater, I'm not only getting a superior disinfected version, but also make it less likely of reading malpunctuated "insensitive clod" posts from you in the future? Win-win!
This happens because there is a conflict of interests. If everybody life is in danger by an external cause, everybody will be frightened equally. When a true danger exists, and it is of everybody -real- interest, a very good coordination, something to be remembered for centuries, will exist.
Except that it doesn't threaten everybody equally. For example, if the asteroid will hit Earth in two decades, a sixty-year old politician will be far less threatened than a twenty-something. And even discounting that, there's still plenty of incentives to defect, to use less of my resources and count on the rest of you to pick up the slack. Everyone will do this, and as the result, the effort will fail.
And this is all assuming that there even is a coordinated effort. Remember, there are people with ideological opposition to central coordination (government). Now look at the number of conspiracy theories that abound around global warming, despite it being pretty bloody obvious at this point that the weather is out of whack. Do you really think that these people would go ahead with the deflection effort, and the economic sacrifices that requires? No, they'd accuse astronomers of falsifying data, right up until the fiery mountain fell.
No, if we as a species ever come across a crisis that requires us all to co-operate to survive, we're as good as dead.
I would also force a redo password selection every 30 days for admin account as it is very important that it stays in rotation, in case someone has been able to figure it out.
So the admin either picks easy to remember and thus likely weak passwords, or writes them down somewhere. Bad idea.
Besides, if someone figurs out the admin password, they're going to do whatever nefarious schemes they were planning instantly. It doesn't matter if you change the password again later; the spambot/rootkit/whatever has already been installed.
If you're referring to Afghanistan, the US didn't pick that fight.
Yes, it did. Not that the Taliban didn't have it coming, but the USA was still the attacker.
The pathetic thing here is that Taliban, Al-Qaida and bin Laden are all still alive and at large, so it could be argued that the US actually lost, failing to meet its goals for the invasion.
If you're referring to Iraq, they are/were quite a few steps out of the stone age.
They do seem to be quite primitive, actually, considering how quickly their defense collapsed, and how few casualties the attacker suffered.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you know? If a blue whale had, say, IQ of 200, how would it show? It wouldn't, of course; a blue whale is stuck on water without manipulatory organs (hands), and most likely without culture. For all we know it could be a towering giant of intellect; but we'd still have the upper hand, because we stand on the shoulders of giants, so each generation reaches a little higher, while a whale can only reach so high.
We aren't in competition with most bacteria (or viruses), so it doesn't really make sense to say that evolution favours one over other.
The bacteria and viruses of today have exactly as long evolutionary history than us.
And the concept of "more evolved" doesn't really make sense. "Better adapted" does, as does "more complex", but "more evolved" doesn't mean anything because, all together now, "evolution doesn't have a goal, so there's no way to say which entity is more and which less evolved".
99% of people are perfectly okay with either MS Office or OpenOffice as-is, and have been for years. However, you have to sell the new version somehow, so features keep getting added, and in the case of MS Office, the file format keeps getting changed to make old versions incompatible and thus force sales.
And, frankly, I'd be surprised if more than 1% of users needed anything more advanced than adjustable indentation and tabs and upper and page header and footer, since that's all that it takes to make standardized business documents easily and conveniently.
A traffick light that actually shows you how long until green or red light? That's useful, since it lets you know if you should step on it or roll at walking pace. The only problem is that it's less visible from far, but of course it could be combined with colored light...
Funny; every time I've been in danger on the road, it's been because some moron has decided to treat the traffick laws as mere suggestions. I wish for more enforcement and stricker penalties, please.
Here in Finland, we didn't get speed limits outside of cities until 1973, and the system wasn't complete until 1978. The year 1973 1100 people died in accidents, in the year 1978 600. The evidence seems to disagree with you here.
The thousand-kilogram mass of metal hurtling down the street at whatever speed you happen to feel safe at isn't a danger to just you, it's also a danger to me. If the brakes fail, steering locks up and the fuel tank ruptures and catches fire while you're going at 80+ mph on a public street, it's very much everyone's problem.
State is doing it's legitimate job here, protecting me from being endangered by your car's lack of maintenance.
Again, the danger are the people who treat traffick laws as mere suggestions, ignore the stop/yield sign and simply force their way into traffick. Having to do a full stop lessens the temptation to do that. Assuming, of course, that the rule is actually enforced.
The energy going in is the amount of energy Earth gets from the Sun. The total energy going out is the total amount radiated by Earth. Both are easy to verify by satellite imaging.
Because that energy has hundreds of sources and sinks which all interact with each other in chaotic ways, and can be transferred through conduction, convection (to the point where all that air could easily be replaced during those 10 minutes) and radiation, while Earth as a whole has only one significant source (Sun) and one sink (outer space) and can only transfer energy through radiation.
I already explained this to the grandparent, and it's not exactly hard to figure out with a moment of thought.
Are you saying they're Fair Game? Nice role models you have there.
To be fair, half the time when I hear someone's political opinions I'm not sure if they're supposed to be parody or not. The same is true of religious views (yes, this includes atheists, google "Rational Response Squad" and "TheAmazingAtheist"), and all too often on their scientific views (or rather, their understanding of some phenomenom or the scientific method itself) too.
You can never be sure if some site is supposed to be a joke or not.
And if you have it, that average individual American taking on an army by himself will also get to pay their bills if he loses. Not exactly equalizing, I'd say...
Actual equalization would be if the state paid all legal expences (as that would remove the main advantage organizations have over individuals), but that would quickly lead to a deluge of lawsuits from greedy assholes suing for every reason imaginable, and would be socialism besides.
True. That is the purpose of having a government in the first place. You also gave a good example why: because otherwise my right to life, property and whatever can be revoked whenever someone, anyone, thinks that I don't deserve them.
In a society where the government didn't insist on having a monopoly on the use of force, the VPA wouldn't bother sending DMCA takedown notices, they'd simply send some thugs to loot Mr. Freedman's house - since his alleged violation of copyright had, in VPA's opinion, deprived him of the legal right to protection of property - and shoot him if he resisted - since that resistance had, again in VPA's opinion, deprived him of the legal right of protection of life. Furthermore, I - working as a voting processor - would forcibly stop you from voting, since in my opinion, expressing such utterly stupid views online have deprived you of the legal right to vote.
I've never quite understood this attitude of some people that "criminals" shouldn't get the protection of law. Don't you understand the obvious abuses, or do you simply figure that there's enough people behind you that you would be invulnerable? Or did you read too much Batman and watch too many Western movies as a kid? Or is this simply a modern-day version of a bloodthirsty mob cheering while people - sorry, "criminals" - were fed to lions in the Colosseum?
If they did, I'm sure somebody would still get pissed at call it deceptive news reporting. It's a free market, and Slashdot can filter its stories anyway they like. Your whining is a total non-story.
And personally, I've never seen a post saying "it's a free market" that didn't come down to defending some corporation from - usually well deserved - criticism. But then again, economical freedoms are more important than freedom of speech to right-wingers...
Left libertarian or libertarian socialist. Or, to be very very bold: "Someone who believes that society exists to help and support rather than control its members."
Yeah, I know, it's a shocking thought that one might have individual views rather than simply chosing what party line to parrot. Maybe I should start an "Individualist" party - our line: "I'm unique - just like everyone else " ;).
No, he wouldn't. Just as there are people stronger and more charismatic than me - the would-be warlords - there are people smarter or just plain luckier than me. Those people would be able to amass more resources than me, and then use those resources against me. For example, a businessman who owns both a factory and a bank would be able to talk me into getting a loan, fire me from the factory, then use my sudden inability to pay as a means of blackmail. No fraud, no force, just someone smarter than me outthinking me.
Libertarianism focuses on physical force and coercion by threat of violence; however, it fails to consider coercion through economic means. However, in real life more people are constrained by economics than by physical force, which is why Libertarian Party fails to get significant support. Rather than examine their ideology and try to fix these problems, the typical libertarian when confronted launches into a rant about "sheeple who suck on public teats not knowing their own best", or something to that effect, which of course doesn't win them any converts either.
Or, as one snide comment once summed it: "Libertarians are anarchists who want police protection from their slaves."
The concepts of deception and lying imply intentionality. As long as you actually believe what you're saying, you're not lying. You might be a moron for believing such inane crap (that goes to atheists and theists both, in a typical religious debate), but you're a honest moron.
If you are useless in combat, and the game is all about combat, you're basically going to diddle your thumbs. It's not much fun playing a useless character, since your actions don't matter. So yeah, every character does need to be useful in every situation, because otherwise the situations they're not useful in are quitea drag for their players.
And this instantly gives rise to a crazy Judo class that's all about moving enemies where you want, in each other's way or to a pile for fireballing :).
Using such "strategic" classes would require a better interface, thought; something that would allow you to say "I'll run along this path and throw every enemy that comes to range towards this spot".
Ah yes, the lunatic fringe of the environmentalists. I'm uncertain they'd be willing to accept the collateral damage caused by an asteroid big enough to kill us, thought.
The funny thing is that having us disappear would, at this point, be just as disastrous to the nature than our continued predations of it. Not only do whole ecosystems live off our garbage and in our cities, not to mention all the domesticated species that would be endangered if not outright extinguished, but there's also the little matter of safely disposing of spent nuclear fuel and such.
Here in Finland, having snow that stays through the winter is the exception rather than rule nowadays. The climate has become noticeably warmer during my lifetime.
This my surprise you, but... you'll never have more than probabilities. Sure, you can observe the asteroid, and calculate its orbit, and since space is big and Earth is small there's always a chance that it won't hit. You won't know for certain until a few weeks before the impact, at which point it's much too late to try deflect an asteroid of significant size.
Scientists need it for the simple reason that it's impossible for anyone to re-execute every experiment and analyze every theory for possible mistakes.
Weather is a chaotic system, which means that tiny differences in the original conditions can cause huge differences in the final outcome (the famous "butterfly effect"). Since there's limit to how much detail any given forecast can take into account, there's also a limit on how accurate they can be. On the other hand, global temperature is simply a function of the amount of energy going in and energy going out.
Since Earth is surrounded by vacuum, the only way energy can enter or leave is through radiation. The majority of energy entering Earth comes from the Sun, most of it in the form of visible light due to Sun's temperature. On the other hand, a far larger proportion of energy leaving Earth is in the form of infrared radiation, due to Earth's lower temperature. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, by which we mean that it absorbs infrared radiation; the more there is it in the atmosphere, the more opaque it becomes to IR. Consequently, it becomes harder for energy to leave Earth, while energy entering Earth is not affected; the result is that Earth heats up, which increases IR radiation to the point where the fraction that gets away once again matches Sun's input.
The details of how global weather patterns change - which areas get hotter, which colder, which drier, which wetter - are uncertain, but the overall effect is simple thermodynamics.
Really? I've handled some US dollars every now and then, yet I could swear they were newer than that. I even got them from a bank, which you'd think would be expert at detecting such forgery.
Seriously, are you on drugs or something? Your claims are improbable, to put it kindly. And the claim that all money has been counterfeit for nearly fifty years is outright paranoid, or do you have some evidence?
If you try to force your way into my house without my permission, and it comes down to a fight, you are indeed the one who'll get blamed for it on court, while I'll be treated as having acted in self-defence.
And save your though-guy posturing for real life, where it might actually intimidate someone. In the Internet it simply makes you seem silly and compensating for some perceived weakness.
Well, if WW2 had ended with Nazi party still in control of areas of Germany and Hitler at the helm, then yes, that assertion would had been quit reasonable. At the most it would had been a stalemate.
It's called Nazi Germany for the very purpose of distinguishing it from the Germany of today.
It's military technology must be, to be unable to mount an effective defence.
However, I very much doubt you could "roll over" anyone at the moment; even your current involvements are stretching your resources, and another war might very well be the straw that broke the camel's back.
On the contrary, I'm assuming that Iraqis were competent at using what military hardware they had, and drawing the conclusion that they must not have had much to use.
Dunno about the rest of them, but Finnish politicians have been searching for someone to bend the country over for ever since the Soviet Union fell. That's why they implement anything that Brussels, Washington and Moscow care to demand, the more harmful to the country the better, since that lets them show what good team players they are while making the ordinary citizens suffer the consequences.
If a legally bought car forced me to watch "you wouldn't steal a movie" ad whenever I wanted to drive it, and a stolen car wouldn't... I'd be tempted. I would be very tempted indeed.
So by downloading a ripped copy instead of going to a theater, I'm not only getting a superior disinfected version, but also make it less likely of reading malpunctuated "insensitive clod" posts from you in the future? Win-win!
Except that it doesn't threaten everybody equally. For example, if the asteroid will hit Earth in two decades, a sixty-year old politician will be far less threatened than a twenty-something. And even discounting that, there's still plenty of incentives to defect, to use less of my resources and count on the rest of you to pick up the slack. Everyone will do this, and as the result, the effort will fail.
And this is all assuming that there even is a coordinated effort. Remember, there are people with ideological opposition to central coordination (government). Now look at the number of conspiracy theories that abound around global warming, despite it being pretty bloody obvious at this point that the weather is out of whack. Do you really think that these people would go ahead with the deflection effort, and the economic sacrifices that requires? No, they'd accuse astronomers of falsifying data, right up until the fiery mountain fell.
No, if we as a species ever come across a crisis that requires us all to co-operate to survive, we're as good as dead.
So the admin either picks easy to remember and thus likely weak passwords, or writes them down somewhere. Bad idea.
Besides, if someone figurs out the admin password, they're going to do whatever nefarious schemes they were planning instantly. It doesn't matter if you change the password again later; the spambot/rootkit/whatever has already been installed.
Yes, it did. Not that the Taliban didn't have it coming, but the USA was still the attacker.
The pathetic thing here is that Taliban, Al-Qaida and bin Laden are all still alive and at large, so it could be argued that the US actually lost, failing to meet its goals for the invasion.
They do seem to be quite primitive, actually, considering how quickly their defense collapsed, and how few casualties the attacker suffered.