Error in logic detected. You're assuming it's equivalently easy to prevent attacks as perpetuate them. Day to day life as a programmer should show you that's not true.
1. Boot to safe mode 2. Purge all autoruns. 3. Reboot to normal mode.
Cleaning a windows PC without malware tools is usually really easy, except in the case of rootkits. This approach has the side effect of removing crap-ware installed by manufacturers.
I'd lean towards turning the evidence in to the state attourney general, your (state) congressperson, or the FBI, all of whom are able to persue corruption at the local level with some impugnity. Putting it on the internet shames the police without actually any chance of prosecution.
Oh yes, because this will cause an uptick in paint prices, for sure. Conventionally, houses are painted in their entirety every 10 years. In the united states there are approximately 100 million houses. Every month about 1 million whole houses are painted. If the entirety of Manhattan painted their roofs in a month, that would be less than a percent of that number. Moreover, there are a large number of paint brands, making individual company speculation a challange.
I have no problem wiht cynicism, it's good, it's healthy. I have a problem with stupid cynicism. Your conspiracy theory is just plain weak. No politician is ever ever ever allowed to use their notability to share useful ideas, right?
We're getting there, already actually. Google is pretty close to the kind of semantic information retrieval seen, and watson is a good demonstartion of more direct question/answer functionality. And speech recognition is nearly dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
Let me say the following unambiguously, "Chinese" and "Indians" working in the US tech sector are majority citizen and citizen track immigrants. They're skilled, intelligent Americans. Because many were born in another country does not mean they're not American. They pay American rent, participate in local economies. And in spite of the oversaturation of the market you claim exists, software development has had, through this entire recession, a 5% unemployment rate(i.e. typical of a growth market).
As a software "white guy" I get paid far more than say, an artist or historian who has bachelor's degree and the same number of years experience, and I enjoy software work. I can't help but feel your attitude arises more from bigotry than any honest assessment of the economics of software engineering. Here's what will stop that from happening: when India and China's economies catch up the U.S. in overall standard of living, the best Chinese and Indian engineers will stay there. No other market force is going to change that. We should enjoy the brain-drain while we have it.
More importantly, if prohibition and the war on drugs are any sign, this will create a high value pet black market, which makes for-profit breeding operations more, not less, likely to be abusive. Law of unintended consequeneces.
Yep, I agree, Capcom just managed the same for me. Like EA and ubisoft, they've demonstrated that they don't want a penny of mine for the rest of forever.
God no. Visual basic is a very syntax sensitive language with huge libraries. It is like the anti-beginner language. Even microsoft's other major.NET offering(C#) is better.
My reccomendation is python, with a lean towards using graphics libraries like vpython. Being able to go mysphere=sphere() is glorioiusly simple and have it show up in 3d is grand.
Python has the following features that are great for learning: interactive debugger- type your program line by and and see what each line does. english-like syntax(except elif). As much as possible, python is designed to be written as it would be read out loud. eg: for item in array: print item at the language level, absolutely no machine restrictions. Integers can get as big as your ram, no pointer math,
Yes, I'm sure high-tech labratories working on possibly-classified-definetly-trade-secret technologies would allow all sorts of cameras to do that with.
This does nothing but muddy the waters further as to what a top level domain is for. The original purpose was to help distinguish the class of site one was dealing with. Branding was already a clear part of the domain. The second part.
This will make web browsers less useful too. As it stands now, if you type apple in your browser bar, it uses a search engine and locates the cloest match to that idea. This would make it ambiguous with a TLD and make it impossible for your browser to easily tell when to search.
My intuition tells me they're missing something. I've always felt that mutation rates among stressed organisms would be a lot higher than among healthy sucessful organisms. Again, intuitively, not scientifically, from a "selfish gene" perspective, an organism that generated more mutations in its offspring when it wasn't doing well would be more likely to have ANY of its genes passed on to future generations, while an organism doing well would mutate less.
From a simpler perspective: more viruses, more bacteria, more cell damage all make mutations of some kind more likely as well. Mutations are copy-errors, and a cell under stress would be less able to error-correct its genes.
None of this has a hypothesis I'd be willing to put out, but I think studying first world humans misses some possible independent variables.
Actually the point made by that blog post is pretty well refuted in its first comment. The data streams the author was using do not agree with the hindcast of the predictions in question. Using such data isn't going to invalidate a hypothesis like that. Far more detail than that is in this link. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
Essentially, the refutation there is from cherry picking, and doesn't really mean anything at all. I've taken a splash of meteorology classes myself, and believe me when I say labratory experimentation IS a major part of underlying theories in climatology, On the grander scale, models and simulations do get invalidated, improved upon, and tested. It's not ex nihil here.
If you pull up meteorlogical prediction software, you'll get different interchangable modeling algorithms, because different ones have had better historical success making predictions about particular kinds of weather than others. They're never 100% accurate, but there's a reason why it used to be you could get the same accuracy in 1 day forcasts that we now get with 5 day forcasts.
I never claimed current theories are gospel. The claim I'll make is that they make more accurate predictions than anyone else about temperatures, sea levels, and ice cover. The rub of it is, people who don't like global warming theories never give very useful null hypotheses.
common ones: temperatures are stable: quite certainly not consistant with what we see on a year to year or century to century basis temperatures are proportional to solar output: works year to year, falls apart decade to decade natural cycles(always seems to be unspecified): doesn't provide any useful mechanism for making a prediction, going back to my original request for one from you.
As a side note, can you please respond further on my journal? I can't stand this javascript-induced monster of a thread anymore.
When did I call you crazy? I think you're wrong. I think you're not making a logical argument. I think you're trying to equivocate analogy with fact. In general, I believe these to be points that can be resolved by cogent argument. It's a relatively simple point I'm driving for here, where do you get your evidence of your correctness? How do you validate that you're right? Climatologists have gone through (at this point) excessively many iterations of this. If you can cite specific hypotheses that have been invalidated in climate change theories that would be a huge step towards making a meaningful conversation happens.
Can't we hold ourselves to a high standard of debate than cheap shots at those we disagree with?
You've dodged making an actual hypothesis. That's sad, I really wanted to have a projection that represented a concrete, numerical perception of what you think is happening.
Your analogy on the other hand is tremendously flawed. On several fronts. 1. Within the context of your analogy oceans would operate like traditional capacitors, they hold heat volume, with no varriance in their capacity based on the suns intensity. If we're pretending the sun is an AC current, the oceans would operate like resistors, diminishing the importance of this cycle at all. A fluctuating capacitor would be an entirely different component. 2. Assumption of an AC current for your model would depend on "effective charge" becoming negative, otherwise the rules become very different and operate a lot more like a DC circuit. 3. The sound of the speaker is powered by a seperate source from the signal, usually a battery or a wall socket. The only (non-trivial) source of energy in the earth's atmospheric temperature is the sun. 4. Most importantly, at no point have I seen any science indicating the behavior of our atmosphere shares any part of a scientific model of a circuit. Realize what you've done here, you've simultaneously dismissed out of hand the models based on evidence and refinement built by climatologists, and substitued your own based on intuition and electical engineering. This is not how a model is built. At the very best you have a framework for an alternate hypothesis of climatology. But you haven't even gone as far as making a testible prediction. You have simply claimed your model is right and moved on.
I don't mind that you disagree with me, and disagree with what I believe to be the most correct science regarding the relationship of carbon dioxide and global average temperature is, but the manner your present your arguments in I take serious issue with. You don't offer alternatives explanations for existing data, you don't offer a hypothesis that seperates your idea from what global climate change theory projects. What's something that the science claims that's wrong, what's your alternate claim. Something numeric and falsible is all I ask.
You have actively been suspected of wrongdoing. The reasons why you might be suspected have been presented to an impartial(at least in theory, this part could always use work) judge. That judge, upon reviewing those reasons has determined that you should be investigated for possibly committing a crime. At this point you are not convicted, but data like this could be used to show whether you have done something or not. Then you get a day in court, to defned against this evidence.
If actual evidence points to wrongdoing, you aren't in a position to claim that the data was irrelevant spying or a fishing expedition by corrupt police. A warrant means you're already under suspicion for a specific crime.
It's not letting your rights slip away to allow the subpoena of evidence as part of due process.
Warrantless wiretapping: yes that's bad Detaining prisoners without habeus corpus: downright treasonous Torturing anyone: inhuman Collecting evidence with a warrant: part of a sane society that supports the rule of law
I think in general, if you're concerned about warranted seizures of your information, you've got a lot else to worry about in the near future. I'm not sure I see the problem.
You missed the second part. You can tell them to delete your location information, and they'd be compelled by law to do so. That would definetly be different.
Slashdot Mirror
As a poster suggested above, these were overnight loans that were almost immediately repaid.
Error in logic detected. You're assuming it's equivalently easy to prevent attacks as perpetuate them. Day to day life as a programmer should show you that's not true.
Like all of them, ever. Not posting as AC because I'm not currently in jail.
1. Boot to safe mode
2. Purge all autoruns.
3. Reboot to normal mode.
Cleaning a windows PC without malware tools is usually really easy, except in the case of rootkits. This approach has the side effect of removing crap-ware installed by manufacturers.
I'd lean towards turning the evidence in to the state attourney general, your (state) congressperson, or the FBI, all of whom are able to persue corruption at the local level with some impugnity. Putting it on the internet shames the police without actually any chance of prosecution.
Oh yes, because this will cause an uptick in paint prices, for sure. Conventionally, houses are painted in their entirety every 10 years. In the united states there are approximately 100 million houses. Every month about 1 million whole houses are painted. If the entirety of Manhattan painted their roofs in a month, that would be less than a percent of that number. Moreover, there are a large number of paint brands, making individual company speculation a challange.
I have no problem wiht cynicism, it's good, it's healthy. I have a problem with stupid cynicism. Your conspiracy theory is just plain weak. No politician is ever ever ever allowed to use their notability to share useful ideas, right?
Lawerenceville plasma physics too. You should see their progress with dense plasma focus.
We're getting there, already actually. Google is pretty close to the kind of semantic information retrieval seen, and watson is a good demonstartion of more direct question/answer functionality. And speech recognition is nearly dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
Let me say the following unambiguously, "Chinese" and "Indians" working in the US tech sector are majority citizen and citizen track immigrants. They're skilled, intelligent Americans. Because many were born in another country does not mean they're not American. They pay American rent, participate in local economies. And in spite of the oversaturation of the market you claim exists, software development has had, through this entire recession, a 5% unemployment rate(i.e. typical of a growth market).
As a software "white guy" I get paid far more than say, an artist or historian who has bachelor's degree and the same number of years experience, and I enjoy software work. I can't help but feel your attitude arises more from bigotry than any honest assessment of the economics of software engineering. Here's what will stop that from happening: when India and China's economies catch up the U.S. in overall standard of living, the best Chinese and Indian engineers will stay there. No other market force is going to change that. We should enjoy the brain-drain while we have it.
Actually, threatening any legal action against anyone is grounds for an IP ban from all wikimedia projects. It's one of the few cross-project rules.
This is Manhattan we're talking about, I would expect the price to be something more in line with local prices, like a googol.
More importantly, if prohibition and the war on drugs are any sign, this will create a high value pet black market, which makes for-profit breeding operations more, not less, likely to be abusive. Law of unintended consequeneces.
Yep, I agree, Capcom just managed the same for me. Like EA and ubisoft, they've demonstrated that they don't want a penny of mine for the rest of forever.
God no. Visual basic is a very syntax sensitive language with huge libraries. It is like the anti-beginner language. Even microsoft's other major .NET offering(C#) is better.
My reccomendation is python, with a lean towards using graphics libraries like vpython. Being able to go mysphere=sphere() is glorioiusly simple and have it show up in 3d is grand.
Python has the following features that are great for learning:
interactive debugger- type your program line by and and see what each line does.
english-like syntax(except elif). As much as possible, python is designed to be written as it would be read out loud. eg: for item in array: print item
at the language level, absolutely no machine restrictions. Integers can get as big as your ram, no pointer math,
It's almost certainly the best choice.
Yes, I'm sure high-tech labratories working on possibly-classified-definetly-trade-secret technologies would allow all sorts of cameras to do that with.
How much IS a soul going for these days, anyways?
How can you prove who you are when you're anonymous? Well, I guess there's always a public key.
Use a public key, you dorks.
This does nothing but muddy the waters further as to what a top level domain is for. The original purpose was to help distinguish the class of site one was dealing with. Branding was already a clear part of the domain. The second part.
This will make web browsers less useful too. As it stands now, if you type apple in your browser bar, it uses a search engine and locates the cloest match to that idea. This would make it ambiguous with a TLD and make it impossible for your browser to easily tell when to search.
My intuition tells me they're missing something. I've always felt that mutation rates among stressed organisms would be a lot higher than among healthy sucessful organisms. Again, intuitively, not scientifically, from a "selfish gene" perspective, an organism that generated more mutations in its offspring when it wasn't doing well would be more likely to have ANY of its genes passed on to future generations, while an organism doing well would mutate less.
From a simpler perspective: more viruses, more bacteria, more cell damage all make mutations of some kind more likely as well. Mutations are copy-errors, and a cell under stress would be less able to error-correct its genes.
None of this has a hypothesis I'd be willing to put out, but I think studying first world humans misses some possible independent variables.
Actually the point made by that blog post is pretty well refuted in its first comment. The data streams the author was using do not agree with the hindcast of the predictions in question. Using such data isn't going to invalidate a hypothesis like that. Far more detail than that is in this link. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
Essentially, the refutation there is from cherry picking, and doesn't really mean anything at all. I've taken a splash of meteorology classes myself, and believe me when I say labratory experimentation IS a major part of underlying theories in climatology, On the grander scale, models and simulations do get invalidated, improved upon, and tested. It's not ex nihil here.
If you pull up meteorlogical prediction software, you'll get different interchangable modeling algorithms, because different ones have had better historical success making predictions about particular kinds of weather than others. They're never 100% accurate, but there's a reason why it used to be you could get the same accuracy in 1 day forcasts that we now get with 5 day forcasts.
I never claimed current theories are gospel. The claim I'll make is that they make more accurate predictions than anyone else about temperatures, sea levels, and ice cover. The rub of it is, people who don't like global warming theories never give very useful null hypotheses.
common ones:
temperatures are stable: quite certainly not consistant with what we see on a year to year or century to century basis
temperatures are proportional to solar output: works year to year, falls apart decade to decade
natural cycles(always seems to be unspecified): doesn't provide any useful mechanism for making a prediction, going back to my original request for one from you.
As a side note, can you please respond further on my journal? I can't stand this javascript-induced monster of a thread anymore.
When did I call you crazy? I think you're wrong. I think you're not making a logical argument. I think you're trying to equivocate analogy with fact. In general, I believe these to be points that can be resolved by cogent argument. It's a relatively simple point I'm driving for here, where do you get your evidence of your correctness? How do you validate that you're right? Climatologists have gone through (at this point) excessively many iterations of this. If you can cite specific hypotheses that have been invalidated in climate change theories that would be a huge step towards making a meaningful conversation happens.
Can't we hold ourselves to a high standard of debate than cheap shots at those we disagree with?
You've dodged making an actual hypothesis. That's sad, I really wanted to have a projection that represented a concrete, numerical perception of what you think is happening.
Your analogy on the other hand is tremendously flawed. On several fronts.
1. Within the context of your analogy oceans would operate like traditional capacitors, they hold heat volume, with no varriance in their capacity based on the suns intensity. If we're pretending the sun is an AC current, the oceans would operate like resistors, diminishing the importance of this cycle at all. A fluctuating capacitor would be an entirely different component.
2. Assumption of an AC current for your model would depend on "effective charge" becoming negative, otherwise the rules become very different and operate a lot more like a DC circuit.
3. The sound of the speaker is powered by a seperate source from the signal, usually a battery or a wall socket. The only (non-trivial) source of energy in the earth's atmospheric temperature is the sun.
4. Most importantly, at no point have I seen any science indicating the behavior of our atmosphere shares any part of a scientific model of a circuit. Realize what you've done here, you've simultaneously dismissed out of hand the models based on evidence and refinement built by climatologists, and substitued your own based on intuition and electical engineering. This is not how a model is built. At the very best you have a framework for an alternate hypothesis of climatology. But you haven't even gone as far as making a testible prediction. You have simply claimed your model is right and moved on.
I don't mind that you disagree with me, and disagree with what I believe to be the most correct science regarding the relationship of carbon dioxide and global average temperature is, but the manner your present your arguments in I take serious issue with. You don't offer alternatives explanations for existing data, you don't offer a hypothesis that seperates your idea from what global climate change theory projects. What's something that the science claims that's wrong, what's your alternate claim. Something numeric and falsible is all I ask.
What?
Here is what a warrant is.
You have actively been suspected of wrongdoing. The reasons why you might be suspected have been presented to an impartial(at least in theory, this part could always use work) judge. That judge, upon reviewing those reasons has determined that you should be investigated for possibly committing a crime. At this point you are not convicted, but data like this could be used to show whether you have done something or not. Then you get a day in court, to defned against this evidence.
If actual evidence points to wrongdoing, you aren't in a position to claim that the data was irrelevant spying or a fishing expedition by corrupt police. A warrant means you're already under suspicion for a specific crime.
It's not letting your rights slip away to allow the subpoena of evidence as part of due process.
Warrantless wiretapping: yes that's bad
Detaining prisoners without habeus corpus: downright treasonous
Torturing anyone: inhuman
Collecting evidence with a warrant: part of a sane society that supports the rule of law
I think in general, if you're concerned about warranted seizures of your information, you've got a lot else to worry about in the near future. I'm not sure I see the problem.
You missed the second part. You can tell them to delete your location information, and they'd be compelled by law to do so. That would definetly be different.