Today (not to disrespect those on the other side of the national dateline - when I say today, I mean everyone's today!) I (with full credit to everyone everywhere, of course) would like (this is not a statement of exclusion for things I don't like) to introduce SJW, the language you can share without fear (not that fear is wrong, of course.)
SJW:
o No insert() function: Instead, we have crafted a flawless nomeansno() function o Fully complementary yesmeansno() and maybemeansno() functions o No try:, because every function generates an exception! o exit() has been replaced with aloha(). o Procedure calls have been replaced with the respectful request paradigm, which obey the global mood settings o 100% private internal assumption for all functions; offering data requires guessing if the function will take it or crash (exceptions guaranteed) o Every access from within a function to another function must be embedded in a call to politewrapper() o politewrapper() implements infinite recursion by use of counters instead of ever returning up a level o Every function ends with a sequence of calls to apologize(), cleanup() and washreturnvalue() o All programs will be created equal: all code is treated exactly the same and does exactly the same thing, which is apologize for running.
No, locking people out of a technical community because someone is (or might be) "offended" is not a good thing. It is counter-productive and short-sighted.
A good thing is to encourage people to not think of themselves of fragile little butterflies who will be destroyed for life if someone says a harsh word.
There are now a whole lot of people that need to learn to tell the difference between the speech of people who are passionate about their ideas and people who are actually trying to cause personal harm. It seems that this ability has been lost, somehow. It's not a good thing.
If you actually read TFA and TFD's, there is no plan. What there is, is an outline for a plan. This is about what they should do to prepare a plan -- it's not an actual plan.
Once they have a plan, then they need specially prepared gear, vehicles, etc. They don't have enough hardened / sheltered "stuff" to even have a hope of dealing with a really significant event.
If you don't have solar power stored in a nice dark box inside a Faraday cage, along with (at least) a radio and anything electrical you need to survive*, you won't even have the beginnings of what you'll need to going to do well -- and the government is not, in any way, prepared to help you out at this time. And your neighbors... they aren't going to be happy you're okay, and they are not, either.
* I do... I photograph auroras for fun, and in learning about them... and as I am both a ham and an engineer... it does tend to provoke some paranoia. And as for the neighbors... this is Montana.:)
No. The ice is thickening. Not running into the water. The edges, in fact, are retreating due to shelf collapses (which may well be the normal course of things... we don't have any kind of a baseline si that we can tell.)
That's not really the issue for a border crossing. You're not exposing that attack surface at the border. There is no attack surface at the border, because there is no data being manipulated.
In the general case, don't write it down and don't store on a computer, and don't tell anyone anything about it.
Then you have some security. Until they start smashing your toes with a hammer, of course.
I absolutely guarantee you, if they ask you if you're carrying something, you say you aren't, and they find out you are, you are going to have your plans severely disrupted. Unless "detention" is your idea of a proper result of crossing a national border.
[looks at your user ID] You're not new here... are you fantasizing? That's the only thing I can imagine that would account for your post. Moderation here is broken, has been broken, and likely will continue to be broken. It is incredibly poorly designed, if "designed" is even the appropriate word. There is zero accountability, zero recovery of incorrectly modded posts, and zero incentive to "do it right." Human nature at large being what it is (venal and small-minded), the results are always like this. "I disagree" and "I agree" account for almost all moderation on/. just as they always have.
I suggest a glass of warm milk and a cuddle with a nice soft pillow. Or breasts. Breasts do it for me every time. Slashwhat? Postwho? Eh? Work work work work...
I'll couch my dispute in the form of a net. Gravity tries to take me out; I win. Concrete is un-splattered.
Or in other words, what nature hath wrought, technology may provide an answer for.
In the case of climate change, such answers are all around us: solar power, nuclear power, electric vehicles, carbon sequestration technologies, etc.
Try not to panic. It is both unseemly and uncalled for. We solve problems as they come to face us; that's our nature. We'll solve whatever problems climate change may present us with as well.
Smoking tobacco increases your risk of lung cancer.
You only get a partial for that: It increases some people's risk of having lung cancer. Appears to depends on the individual's genes.
The Earth is round
Nope: The earth is an irregular oblate spheroid.
Most plants produce sugars via photosynthesis
Another partial: Photosynthesis in plants produces glucose (C6H12O6), O2 and H2O. Glucose is a monosaccharide carbohydrate. This is a simple sugar in the chemical sense, but it is not "sugar" in the way most people understand the term, which is as the disaccharide sucrose, C12H22O11. Storage within a plant is generally as polysaccharide amylose or amylopectin -- or in other words, starch.
And while these facts are perhaps somewhat settled, perhaps it would be prudent for you to consider that your description of the facts, and perhaps the understanding of the facts you built those descriptions from, leaves something to be desired. It is possible this has follow-on implications for your descriptions of, and understanding of, climate change.
You should consider that science is essentially a method. The method is, generally speaking, to formulate a hypothesis (e.g. the earth will warm, the seas will flood, etc.) and then devise ways to attempt to show this experimentally so that you can see if your hypothesis has some truth to it. At that point, again generally speaking, you, or others, test further by looking for things that will falsify the hypothesis. Both of these require actual experiments that demonstrate the results, or collection of data where the process has already been shown to be ongoing.
In the case of CO2-driven climate change, which is to say what will actually happen with all the forcings and feedback mechanisms, there is no supporting data in the form of increasing CO2 having caused warming. In the historical record, in every case, rises in CO2 herald climate cooling. This has happened over and over again. So the whole "already ongoing process" thing is out as far as supporting evidence goes. As to the actual experiment, we have not seen actual results, so we are still in the "here is a hypothesis" stage.
In the process of trying to produce models that predict results ahead of time, we have repeatedly failed to hit the mark. This is at the very least, cautionary with regard to the validity of the hypothesis.
That's not to say it is wrong; but it definitely says that the science is not settled, no matter how you meant the term.
I would say it is prudent not to spew things into the atmosphere which do not naturally end up there in like amounts, assuming we want to keep climate change moving along the path it would have done without the presence of a large number of gas- and particulate-producing human endeavors.
But do we? That's actually subject to varied opinion... in the case of climate change in the warming direction along with sea level rise, some places would be less habitable, but others would be more so; some regions would be less well suited for some crops, but others would be more well suited for those same crops. Some land would submerge and lose habitability and real-estate value, but other land would become the bays and inlets and shorelines of the future, and it would increase in habitability, value and utility. People would very, very slowly (over generations) have to move around a little. Which they tend to do anyway. That's the least of all the challenges -- the majority of those displaced by this will be the wealthy who have an interest in the current shoreline -- who are, conveniently enough, also the people who can most afford disruption. The sea would likely warm, and life there would have to adapt, either by following the preferred temperature gradient or by evolving to meet the metabolic challenge.
On the other side of the coin, some low-lying areas that have been populated may have to
No. It isn't. If you get caught intentionally trying to smuggle, it'll go poorly for you. Just don't carry it in the first place. There's no actual need to, so why do it?
Don't store your information on the laptop in the first place. Just use it as an editing and remote-access tool over a secure connection or to a USB stick you don't expose to search procedures.
That's about the best you can do, short of memorizing everything.
Encrypt the laptop, and you could lose it. Just let them search it top to bottom, then when they're done and you're wherever you're going, wipe the hard drive, reinstall your OS, and carry on.
It's really not a great idea to carry information you need to be secure around with you.
When they ask you about jury nullification, I suggest this response:
"Jury nullification? Would you please define what that is?"
Either they define it -- and so inform the entire panel of what it is -- or they will move along, in which case all is good -- or they will ask you, one way or another, if you know / don't know what it is, to which an honest answer something along the lines of:
"I am not certain what you're asking me here."
That should take care of it, without you getting tossed for cause.
As for the ethics of it -- jury nullification is a fundamental duty. Anyone who tries to cast you out for your willingness to undertake it is already acting well outside the bounds of the legal system, and you have absolutely no obligation to participate in that activity for them.
Worst case, you might, not likely but you might, get dragged into chambers to answer the question or hear the explanation. In which case, you know nothing until or unless they tell you.
The legal system is manifestly corrupt. No need for you to help it along.
I don't have any bias against testimony by police officers. I patiently and comfortably sit through any testimony offered, listening carefully. I just don't necessarily believe the police officer. Or anyone else, for that matter. Which is exactly my duty as a juror.
Many times, the problem isn't police officers (sometimes, of course, it is); sometimes it is the systemic violation of personal freedoms strictly according to law. Sometimes it is the violation of fundamental constitutional rights. Sometimes it is a blanket attempt to bias with character assassination. Sometimes it is ex post facto increase in punishment. Sometimes it is warrantless search and/or seizure. Etc. None of which can you trust the system to catch and correct.
What it almost never is, is a process of just and fair treatment for the defendant.
This -- of course -- only applies to the defendants that get into court. Many more are railroaded by the coercive and evil plea-bargain mechanism. There's no helping those people, sad to say.
Judy duty is probably one of the most important things we can do to correct the system. It's the last bulwark of defense against the system's many improper acts.
Okay, and what "horrendously fucked-up" thing is it that "ruined the lives of tens of thousands" the non-violent incarcerated victims of drug charges have done?
Please elaborate. I'm sure we'd all love to learn WTF you are talking about.
yes, you have to be hit with the stupid stick to get on a jury
You have to be hit with the asshole stick to not serve. The jury is the very last line of defense from bad law, bad cops, bad lawyers, and bad judges. Not to mention a corrupt and evil prison system, relegation to permanent bottom economic and social classes, loss of family, friends, possessions, job, credit rating, employability...
The jury is all that's left to us now. The last remaining semblance of justice within the actions of the system has been ashes for years.
When you refuse to serve, you are abandoning your fellow citizens. Both the ones that are victims of criminals, and the ones that are victims of the governement machine.
End the drug war. Free its non-violent victims. That'd be a great start.
As for anyone convicted due to the person's work, or convicted where this person could have been involved, they should be set free immediately and their records cleared of said convictions.
The fact that they didn't go right after this simply tells us just how corrupt the system is. "Justice", my aching ass.
Yes, except for the "more roundness" part. Lots of better editors out there, plus they don't have the downside of being on the other side of a WAN connection.
Too bad Github doesn't find it worthy to improve their markup handling. Markdown is really, really limited, and their mechanism for supporting other markup comes with designed-in inertia that makes it impossible to use for markup-projects. You can't change fonts, the <TT> tag is bedeviled by a visual style that changes its backdrop color, you can't use different fonts, you can't use different font colors, (imagine trying to document examples of font color change and font face changes with those limitations), you can't do image captioning worth a darn, much less embed them sanely in the context of the paragraph that references them...
I understand why they want to limit scripting on site; but fonts??? FFS.
I did one fairly large set of docs in Markdown so as to get familiar with the territory, as it were. It was a huge waste of time. The more I learned, the more limits I ran into. And Github... they were... less than helpful.
I don't mind posting my open source stuff up there, but I won't be putting any more documentation for same on the site in a "you-can-read-here" format unless they step up to the plate and handle custom markup schemes on a per-repo basis.
Works just like our "war against drugs." It's of no earthy use, causes huge harm, is actually the root cause of the entire black market in drugs, but end it? Oh, no. Think of all the money that would stop shifting into the hands of law enforcement, prisons, etc. Our "need" for law enforcement would drop like a stone. It's a non-starter.
Slashdot Mirror
Mellow greetings, special butterflies.
Today (not to disrespect those on the other side of the national dateline - when I say today, I mean everyone's today!) I (with full credit to everyone everywhere, of course) would like (this is not a statement of exclusion for things I don't like) to introduce SJW, the language you can share without fear (not that fear is wrong, of course.)
SJW:
o No insert() function: Instead, we have crafted a flawless nomeansno() function
o Fully complementary yesmeansno() and maybemeansno() functions
o No try:, because every function generates an exception!
o exit() has been replaced with aloha().
o Procedure calls have been replaced with the respectful request paradigm, which obey the global mood settings
o 100% private internal assumption for all functions; offering data requires guessing if the function will take it or crash (exceptions guaranteed)
o Every access from within a function to another function must be embedded in a call to politewrapper()
o politewrapper() implements infinite recursion by use of counters instead of ever returning up a level
o Every function ends with a sequence of calls to apologize(), cleanup() and washreturnvalue()
o All programs will be created equal: all code is treated exactly the same and does exactly the same thing, which is apologize for running.
No, locking people out of a technical community because someone is (or might be) "offended" is not a good thing. It is counter-productive and short-sighted.
A good thing is to encourage people to not think of themselves of fragile little butterflies who will be destroyed for life if someone says a harsh word.
There are now a whole lot of people that need to learn to tell the difference between the speech of people who are passionate about their ideas and people who are actually trying to cause personal harm. It seems that this ability has been lost, somehow. It's not a good thing.
I endorse the above post.
Although, every once in a while, I find it... stimulating... to beat a troll down into the mud, inevitably becoming one myself in the process.
First they came for the aggressors, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not an aggressor.
Then they came for the micro-aggressors, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a micro-aggressor.
Then they came for the nano-aggressors, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a nano-aggressor.
Then they came for me—and I meekly submitted.
Dude. That form is busted. I'm not going to waste my time trying to be hip.
First they came for the BASIC programmers, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a BASIC programmer.
Then they came for the go programmers, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a go programmer.
Then they came for the canines, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a canine.
Then they came for me—and I told them to GTFO my mailing list.
If you actually read TFA and TFD's, there is no plan. What there is, is an outline for a plan. This is about what they should do to prepare a plan -- it's not an actual plan.
Once they have a plan, then they need specially prepared gear, vehicles, etc. They don't have enough hardened / sheltered "stuff" to even have a hope of dealing with a really significant event.
If you don't have solar power stored in a nice dark box inside a Faraday cage, along with (at least) a radio and anything electrical you need to survive*, you won't even have the beginnings of what you'll need to going to do well -- and the government is not, in any way, prepared to help you out at this time. And your neighbors... they aren't going to be happy you're okay, and they are not, either.
* I do... I photograph auroras for fun, and in learning about them... and as I am both a ham and an engineer... it does tend to provoke some paranoia. And as for the neighbors... this is Montana. :)
No. The ice is thickening. Not running into the water. The edges, in fact, are retreating due to shelf collapses (which may well be the normal course of things... we don't have any kind of a baseline si that we can tell.)
That's not really the issue for a border crossing. You're not exposing that attack surface at the border. There is no attack surface at the border, because there is no data being manipulated.
In the general case, don't write it down and don't store on a computer, and don't tell anyone anything about it.
Then you have some security. Until they start smashing your toes with a hammer, of course.
I absolutely guarantee you, if they ask you if you're carrying something, you say you aren't, and they find out you are, you are going to have your plans severely disrupted. Unless "detention" is your idea of a proper result of crossing a national border.
[looks at your user ID] You're not new here... are you fantasizing? That's the only thing I can imagine that would account for your post. Moderation here is broken, has been broken, and likely will continue to be broken. It is incredibly poorly designed, if "designed" is even the appropriate word. There is zero accountability, zero recovery of incorrectly modded posts, and zero incentive to "do it right." Human nature at large being what it is (venal and small-minded), the results are always like this. "I disagree" and "I agree" account for almost all moderation on /. just as they always have.
I suggest a glass of warm milk and a cuddle with a nice soft pillow. Or breasts. Breasts do it for me every time. Slashwhat? Postwho? Eh? Work work work work...
I'll couch my dispute in the form of a net. Gravity tries to take me out; I win. Concrete is un-splattered.
Or in other words, what nature hath wrought, technology may provide an answer for.
In the case of climate change, such answers are all around us: solar power, nuclear power, electric vehicles, carbon sequestration technologies, etc.
Try not to panic. It is both unseemly and uncalled for. We solve problems as they come to face us; that's our nature. We'll solve whatever problems climate change may present us with as well.
You only get a partial for that: It increases some people's risk of having lung cancer. Appears to depends on the individual's genes.
Nope: The earth is an irregular oblate spheroid.
Another partial: Photosynthesis in plants produces glucose (C6H12O6), O2 and H2O. Glucose is a monosaccharide carbohydrate. This is a simple sugar in the chemical sense, but it is not "sugar" in the way most people understand the term, which is as the disaccharide sucrose, C12H22O11. Storage within a plant is generally as polysaccharide amylose or amylopectin -- or in other words, starch.
And while these facts are perhaps somewhat settled, perhaps it would be prudent for you to consider that your description of the facts, and perhaps the understanding of the facts you built those descriptions from, leaves something to be desired. It is possible this has follow-on implications for your descriptions of, and understanding of, climate change.
You should consider that science is essentially a method. The method is, generally speaking, to formulate a hypothesis (e.g. the earth will warm, the seas will flood, etc.) and then devise ways to attempt to show this experimentally so that you can see if your hypothesis has some truth to it. At that point, again generally speaking, you, or others, test further by looking for things that will falsify the hypothesis. Both of these require actual experiments that demonstrate the results, or collection of data where the process has already been shown to be ongoing.
In the case of CO2-driven climate change, which is to say what will actually happen with all the forcings and feedback mechanisms, there is no supporting data in the form of increasing CO2 having caused warming. In the historical record, in every case, rises in CO2 herald climate cooling. This has happened over and over again. So the whole "already ongoing process" thing is out as far as supporting evidence goes. As to the actual experiment, we have not seen actual results, so we are still in the "here is a hypothesis" stage.
In the process of trying to produce models that predict results ahead of time, we have repeatedly failed to hit the mark. This is at the very least, cautionary with regard to the validity of the hypothesis.
That's not to say it is wrong; but it definitely says that the science is not settled, no matter how you meant the term.
I would say it is prudent not to spew things into the atmosphere which do not naturally end up there in like amounts, assuming we want to keep climate change moving along the path it would have done without the presence of a large number of gas- and particulate-producing human endeavors.
But do we? That's actually subject to varied opinion... in the case of climate change in the warming direction along with sea level rise, some places would be less habitable, but others would be more so; some regions would be less well suited for some crops, but others would be more well suited for those same crops. Some land would submerge and lose habitability and real-estate value, but other land would become the bays and inlets and shorelines of the future, and it would increase in habitability, value and utility. People would very, very slowly (over generations) have to move around a little. Which they tend to do anyway. That's the least of all the challenges -- the majority of those displaced by this will be the wealthy who have an interest in the current shoreline -- who are, conveniently enough, also the people who can most afford disruption. The sea would likely warm, and life there would have to adapt, either by following the preferred temperature gradient or by evolving to meet the metabolic challenge.
On the other side of the coin, some low-lying areas that have been populated may have to
That meeting isn't just about the judge. The lawyers can have you dismissed for cause in there, quietly and without fanfare.
No. It isn't. If you get caught intentionally trying to smuggle, it'll go poorly for you. Just don't carry it in the first place. There's no actual need to, so why do it?
Don't store your information on the laptop in the first place. Just use it as an editing and remote-access tool over a secure connection or to a USB stick you don't expose to search procedures.
That's about the best you can do, short of memorizing everything.
Encrypt the laptop, and you could lose it. Just let them search it top to bottom, then when they're done and you're wherever you're going, wipe the hard drive, reinstall your OS, and carry on.
It's really not a great idea to carry information you need to be secure around with you.
I hope so. Perhaps the poster will let us know.
When they ask you about jury nullification, I suggest this response:
"Jury nullification? Would you please define what that is?"
Either they define it -- and so inform the entire panel of what it is -- or they will move along, in which case all is good -- or they will ask you, one way or another, if you know / don't know what it is, to which an honest answer something along the lines of:
"I am not certain what you're asking me here."
That should take care of it, without you getting tossed for cause.
As for the ethics of it -- jury nullification is a fundamental duty. Anyone who tries to cast you out for your willingness to undertake it is already acting well outside the bounds of the legal system, and you have absolutely no obligation to participate in that activity for them.
Worst case, you might, not likely but you might, get dragged into chambers to answer the question or hear the explanation. In which case, you know nothing until or unless they tell you.
The legal system is manifestly corrupt. No need for you to help it along.
I don't have any bias against testimony by police officers. I patiently and comfortably sit through any testimony offered, listening carefully. I just don't necessarily believe the police officer. Or anyone else, for that matter. Which is exactly my duty as a juror.
Many times, the problem isn't police officers (sometimes, of course, it is); sometimes it is the systemic violation of personal freedoms strictly according to law. Sometimes it is the violation of fundamental constitutional rights. Sometimes it is a blanket attempt to bias with character assassination. Sometimes it is ex post facto increase in punishment. Sometimes it is warrantless search and/or seizure. Etc. None of which can you trust the system to catch and correct.
What it almost never is, is a process of just and fair treatment for the defendant.
This -- of course -- only applies to the defendants that get into court. Many more are railroaded by the coercive and evil plea-bargain mechanism. There's no helping those people, sad to say.
Judy duty is probably one of the most important things we can do to correct the system. It's the last bulwark of defense against the system's many improper acts.
Okay, and what "horrendously fucked-up" thing is it that "ruined the lives of tens of thousands" the non-violent incarcerated victims of drug charges have done?
Please elaborate. I'm sure we'd all love to learn WTF you are talking about.
You have to be hit with the asshole stick to not serve. The jury is the very last line of defense from bad law, bad cops, bad lawyers, and bad judges. Not to mention a corrupt and evil prison system, relegation to permanent bottom economic and social classes, loss of family, friends, possessions, job, credit rating, employability...
The jury is all that's left to us now. The last remaining semblance of justice within the actions of the system has been ashes for years.
When you refuse to serve, you are abandoning your fellow citizens. Both the ones that are victims of criminals, and the ones that are victims of the governement machine.
End the drug war. Free its non-violent victims. That'd be a great start.
As for anyone convicted due to the person's work, or convicted where this person could have been involved, they should be set free immediately and their records cleared of said convictions.
The fact that they didn't go right after this simply tells us just how corrupt the system is. "Justice", my aching ass.
Yes, except for the "more roundness" part. Lots of better editors out there, plus they don't have the downside of being on the other side of a WAN connection.
Too bad Github doesn't find it worthy to improve their markup handling. Markdown is really, really limited, and their mechanism for supporting other markup comes with designed-in inertia that makes it impossible to use for markup-projects. You can't change fonts, the <TT> tag is bedeviled by a visual style that changes its backdrop color, you can't use different fonts, you can't use different font colors, (imagine trying to document examples of font color change and font face changes with those limitations), you can't do image captioning worth a darn, much less embed them sanely in the context of the paragraph that references them...
I understand why they want to limit scripting on site; but fonts??? FFS.
I did one fairly large set of docs in Markdown so as to get familiar with the territory, as it were. It was a huge waste of time. The more I learned, the more limits I ran into. And Github... they were... less than helpful.
I don't mind posting my open source stuff up there, but I won't be putting any more documentation for same on the site in a "you-can-read-here" format unless they step up to the plate and handle custom markup schemes on a per-repo basis.
From TFS, the biggest infection vector isn't "Apple", it is simply users who have failed to update.
Clickbait nonsense. Dice. But I repeat myself.
Works just like our "war against drugs." It's of no earthy use, causes huge harm, is actually the root cause of the entire black market in drugs, but end it? Oh, no. Think of all the money that would stop shifting into the hands of law enforcement, prisons, etc. Our "need" for law enforcement would drop like a stone. It's a non-starter.