Its this new technology called an 'insulating mug'. It costs about $5 at Walmart and is dishwasher safe. You pour the coffee in and it stays warm while you drink it.
"In order to help protect customers, the default install of Internet Explorer will completely block the installation of ActiveX controls that are not signed, and it will suggest that you do not install any unsigned programs that you might try to download. Of course, just because a piece of software is signed (or you have the MD5 hashes for it) doesn't mean it isn't nasty; it just provides some evidence you can use to make a trust decision about the software (in logical terms, it is a necessary but not sufficient condition for trusting software)."
That would mean that every piece of software not signed would be bad. The logical definition of necessary is not "provides some evidence", but is a strict conditional. In other words software can be trusted only if it is signed. This is obviously false, there are clearly ways one can trust a piece of software without requiring a digital signature.
Well I don't know what article you are referring to, but just because those complaining makes up a minority doesn't mean the majority approve. Most likely they are a minority as well. The majority (or at least plurality) probably don't care.
What the sponors have to consider is whether or not the ads would piss off more potential customers than they would gain from the ad. They are not trying to make the viewing public happy, they are trying to do what is best for their company.
Actually many people would protest should they air hardcore porn. They would then boycott the sponsors, which would be why the sponsors would have such a problem with it. So no, he got it right. Sponsors are cautious because pissed off viewers would hurt business.
The flaws in your post which you admitted you knew about. You haven't been paying much attention, have you.
"Nothing I stated was untrue. The response implied a line of argument that I never intended to make. Knocking over a strawman... so hard! So impressive!"
You want to claim that those were strawmen? That you never argued those things? Fine, I'll post the actual quotes.
[Sunburned penguins and melting permafrost] probably happened before, but they aren't happening all the time.
Here is where you confuse events happening before with changes happening before. Unless you wish to claim you were arguing a strawman and were not replying to my actual claim which said changes happen all the time (as opposed to certain events happening all the time).
...which hasn't happened before in recorded history
Here is where you foolishly rely on "recorded history", which as I pointed out is not a very good comparison.
There is an awful lot going on right now (sunburned penguins...
And here is where you reference sunburned penguins in a discussion on global warming and climate changes. I suppose you could claim you never meant for the penguins to have anything to do with global warming, but in that case that section of your post was way off topic.
Sorry, no strawmen. You actually made each and every one of the arguments I refuted.
"
No. It doesn't."
You are mocking a satirical blog title? Are you some sort of idiot who...
"5,200 years ago would be just slightly before 1st dynasty egypt, not pre-historic cave men in giant mammoth land."
You have any archeological evidence for this odd claim? Most sources put the 1st Egyption dynasty at around 3000 BC, meaning you are off by a few thousand years. Thats a bit more than "just slightly before".
Regardless, human beings and animals lived places other than Egypt back then. Europe was still in the Mesolithic Age, some of the more advanced societies were still in the Neolithic.
"I don't think the the wording is bad at all ; a volcano can alter the climate suddenly, a tidal wave can as well. If you associate alteration of the climate with human or mammoth intervention that's your interpretation and not the author's fault."
Whether or not it is technically correct is irrelevant, the connotation to the phrase "was altered" is that some outside force effected the environment. A volcano or a tidal wave are forces within the environment.
"Last time I went through the published articles, I only read disagreement as to what extent the effect was."
First of all, that is disagreement. Second, no there are scientists out there who argue that it is possible global warming (as popularly described) will not happen.
"The only people who were disagreeing were not real scientists (pseudo-scientists) that work for corporate concerns (think smoking is not addictive or bad for you, lots of tobaco scientists made these claims, or pharma scientists, etc.)"
Oh, I get it. When the facts disagree with you, launch the ad hominems. Yeah, thats an effective argument.
"That's also a straw man argument, since no one is making that claiming."
Actually some do make that claim, and that was an implication in the origional/. story that I was responding too. So no, its not a strawman.
""Well, a meteor strike could wipe out life on Earth, so let's not worry about dioxyn, PCBs, air pollution, or greenhouse gas emissions. And what's with those whiners in Bhopal, India? So what if Union Carbide killed thousands. Earthquakes kill thousands of people, so why should Union Carbide have to be concerned with safety?" That's Republican logic (to use an oxymoron) for you."
If something was happening all the time it wouldn't be considered a change, now would it?
Recorded history (or more accurately the recent portion of recorded history during which we cared about this stuff) is a very short amount of time. Basically we are seeing weather patterns that are different from anything we have seen in the past few decades (such as more hurricanes) and blaming that on global warming. But if we look back just a little further, we see that these changes are perfectly normal.
BTW, sunburned penguins are as a result of ozone depletion. You may want to get your eco-disasters straight.
I wasn't avoiding that point, I just wasn't disputing it. But having one accurate quote does not make up for the other flaws of his post, which I pointed out.
You do realize that small changes in the Earth's temperature (and that is all we have experienced so far, small changes) are completely normal and happen all the time.
Watching after school specials does not make you an expert in global warming.
"scares people like you even more than the idea that you might have to give up your gas guzzling SUV in order to stop billions of people from dying"
Actually I don't drive an SUV but thanks for the ad hominem, it demonstrates very nicely your lack of an ability to engineer a logical argument.
"Does that mean that all climate change is beyond our control and that we shouldn't worry about our climate, as you so cynically imply?"
No, that was not what I was "cynically implying". I was stating that weather conditions change naturally all the time and sudden and unusual shifts in weather patterns are nothing new.
"That answers your question of "by 'who'?": it "was altered by increased solar output"."
In other words natural causes.
"So, as summers get hotter and the polar ice caps are melting"
You realize neither of those are happening, at least not beyond what happens normally. Antartica has actually gotten colder in recent years.
"Oh, but I forget, the Bush administration only takes action if it aligns with the short-term financial interests of their donors, not if it aligns with the long-term interests of the American economy or the American people."
Ok, ok, we get your point. You don't have a clue how to contruct a logical argument. You can lay off the ad hominems now.
"
President George W. Bush disagrees with this. Therefore more study is needed."
Scientists disagree, genius.
That really was a poor quote to use, as it is just a rather random statement attached to the end of an article that had nothing to do with the article's content. Nowhere is any evidence of climate change mentioned, unless you consider that a few conditions today are similar to what they were thousands of years ago evidence of "major climate change" being "underway". In that case you have a pretty weak case.
"The climate was altered suddenly some 5,200 years ago with severe impacts."
It "was altered"? By who? The cavemen? Or was it the vast civilization of the woolly mammoth whose massive industrialized society spewed greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere?
I know the idea that our environment is a static entity that will only be changed should someone like the evil corporations or the Bush administration do something to it is a commonly accepted idea, but that is just scientifically inaccurate.
"Congress doesn't just refer to FEDERAL congress but any any form of government congress including state ones. Also the word congress is gernerally meant to mean "body of government"."
No, actually it does only refer to Congress, the federal legislative body. Its this thing called "Federalism", a concept employed by the founding fathers when they created the nation in which both the states and the federal government share power. The Bill of Rights were written to limit the powers of the federal government, not the states.
"Otherwise states and cities could pass all the anti-free speech and expression laws they wanted."
They could without violating the 1st Amendment, yes. But they couldn't without violating the 14th, as the Supreme Court has stated that free speech is a basic human right.
No minors do not have the same rights as adults, and they never were meant to have the same rights as adults.
That being said, if you were to actually read the Constitution, you would see that a law like this does not even come close to violating the First Amendment. See for yourself:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is a proposed law from a state legislature, not Congress. You may be able to make an argument that it is in violation of the 14th if you can establish that playing video games is a basic human right. In that case, you had better hope the judge is a/.er.
"Millions upon millions of kids are playing these so-called evil ultra violent video games with no negative effects whatsoever. It's only an extremely small handful of them that are influenced or imitate the acts they're playing in the games."
Millions upon millions of people smoke cigarattes, yet only a relatively small number are currently dying of lung cancer. That doesn't mean tobacco has no effect on a person's health.
Hmm, so you are saying Microsoft Office and Microsoft Internet Explorer only runs on Windows? Then what were those programs I was running the other day on that Mac in the computer lab...
And by "free systems", name one other than Linux that is commonly used as a desktop OS.
But if they can locate and take action against those engaging in the illegal behavior (and by all accounts I've heard, that includes these guys) while leaving the legitimate uses of the service alone, more power to them. I always here people critizing various industries like the MPAA and RIAA for trying to destroy P2P technology which does have legitimate uses, but practices like this leave the legit uses alone.
"If the kids are being taught concepts and not arithmetic, wouldn't the problems and scenarios be designed to make the arithmetic trivial anyway?"
Its still very possible to make a mistake, even when the arithmetic is trivial. Don't tell me you have never forgotten a minus sign or confused a one with a seven. And besides, do you really want to reduce all assignments to only those problems that make for trivial computations? That can cut out some classes of problems that can provide interesting results.
Here is another possibility. Instead of making all calculations in assignments trivial, make the assignments such that students are required to not just show an answer they could have gotten from plugging something into a calculator, but also show knowledge of the concepts. Require them to show their work. Make questions that are based on the concepts being taught, not just calculations.
Believe it or not, many high school students have already learned some basic mathematics. They don't need to spend their afternoons just doing busy work arithmetic.
Teaching the kids the concepts and giving them a tool to help them apply those concepts can help their education, not hinder it.
Slashdot Mirror
Its this new technology called an 'insulating mug'. It costs about $5 at Walmart and is dishwasher safe. You pour the coffee in and it stays warm while you drink it.
So what, MD5s are worthless?
That would mean that every piece of software not signed would be bad. The logical definition of necessary is not "provides some evidence", but is a strict conditional. In other words software can be trusted only if it is signed. This is obviously false, there are clearly ways one can trust a piece of software without requiring a digital signature.
What the sponors have to consider is whether or not the ads would piss off more potential customers than they would gain from the ad. They are not trying to make the viewing public happy, they are trying to do what is best for their company.
Actually many people would protest should they air hardcore porn. They would then boycott the sponsors, which would be why the sponsors would have such a problem with it. So no, he got it right. Sponsors are cautious because pissed off viewers would hurt business.
The flaws in your post which you admitted you knew about. You haven't been paying much attention, have you.
"Nothing I stated was untrue. The response implied a line of argument that I never intended to make. Knocking over a strawman... so hard! So impressive!"
You want to claim that those were strawmen? That you never argued those things? Fine, I'll post the actual quotes.
Here is where you confuse events happening before with changes happening before. Unless you wish to claim you were arguing a strawman and were not replying to my actual claim which said changes happen all the time (as opposed to certain events happening all the time).
Here is where you foolishly rely on "recorded history", which as I pointed out is not a very good comparison.
And here is where you reference sunburned penguins in a discussion on global warming and climate changes. I suppose you could claim you never meant for the penguins to have anything to do with global warming, but in that case that section of your post was way off topic.
Sorry, no strawmen. You actually made each and every one of the arguments I refuted.
" No. It doesn't."
You are mocking a satirical blog title? Are you some sort of idiot who...
Oh yeah, I forgot who I was talking to.
So you knew the flaws of your reasoning before you posted? Thats... strange.
Still, much of human kind was still in the stone age, and the Bronze age was just beginning in more developed parts of the world.
The second part of my post stands as written before.
You have any archeological evidence for this odd claim? Most sources put the 1st Egyption dynasty at around 3000 BC, meaning you are off by a few thousand years. Thats a bit more than "just slightly before".
Regardless, human beings and animals lived places other than Egypt back then. Europe was still in the Mesolithic Age, some of the more advanced societies were still in the Neolithic.
"I don't think the the wording is bad at all ; a volcano can alter the climate suddenly, a tidal wave can as well. If you associate alteration of the climate with human or mammoth intervention that's your interpretation and not the author's fault."
Whether or not it is technically correct is irrelevant, the connotation to the phrase "was altered" is that some outside force effected the environment. A volcano or a tidal wave are forces within the environment.
First of all, that is disagreement. Second, no there are scientists out there who argue that it is possible global warming (as popularly described) will not happen.
"The only people who were disagreeing were not real scientists (pseudo-scientists) that work for corporate concerns (think smoking is not addictive or bad for you, lots of tobaco scientists made these claims, or pharma scientists, etc.)"
Oh, I get it. When the facts disagree with you, launch the ad hominems. Yeah, thats an effective argument.
Actually some do make that claim, and that was an implication in the origional /. story that I was responding too. So no, its not a strawman.
""Well, a meteor strike could wipe out life on Earth, so let's not worry about dioxyn, PCBs, air pollution, or greenhouse gas emissions. And what's with those whiners in Bhopal, India? So what if Union Carbide killed thousands. Earthquakes kill thousands of people, so why should Union Carbide have to be concerned with safety?" That's Republican logic (to use an oxymoron) for you."
That, on the other hand, is.
Recorded history (or more accurately the recent portion of recorded history during which we cared about this stuff) is a very short amount of time. Basically we are seeing weather patterns that are different from anything we have seen in the past few decades (such as more hurricanes) and blaming that on global warming. But if we look back just a little further, we see that these changes are perfectly normal.
BTW, sunburned penguins are as a result of ozone depletion. You may want to get your eco-disasters straight.
Actually the majority of scientists will say we don't know near enough about global climate to accurately know what is going to happen to it.
I wasn't avoiding that point, I just wasn't disputing it. But having one accurate quote does not make up for the other flaws of his post, which I pointed out.
Watching after school specials does not make you an expert in global warming.
Actually I don't drive an SUV but thanks for the ad hominem, it demonstrates very nicely your lack of an ability to engineer a logical argument.
"Does that mean that all climate change is beyond our control and that we shouldn't worry about our climate, as you so cynically imply?"
No, that was not what I was "cynically implying". I was stating that weather conditions change naturally all the time and sudden and unusual shifts in weather patterns are nothing new.
"That answers your question of "by 'who'?": it "was altered by increased solar output"."
In other words natural causes.
"So, as summers get hotter and the polar ice caps are melting"
You realize neither of those are happening, at least not beyond what happens normally. Antartica has actually gotten colder in recent years.
"Oh, but I forget, the Bush administration only takes action if it aligns with the short-term financial interests of their donors, not if it aligns with the long-term interests of the American economy or the American people."
Ok, ok, we get your point. You don't have a clue how to contruct a logical argument. You can lay off the ad hominems now.
Scientists disagree, genius.
That really was a poor quote to use, as it is just a rather random statement attached to the end of an article that had nothing to do with the article's content. Nowhere is any evidence of climate change mentioned, unless you consider that a few conditions today are similar to what they were thousands of years ago evidence of "major climate change" being "underway". In that case you have a pretty weak case.
It "was altered"? By who? The cavemen? Or was it the vast civilization of the woolly mammoth whose massive industrialized society spewed greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere?
I know the idea that our environment is a static entity that will only be changed should someone like the evil corporations or the Bush administration do something to it is a commonly accepted idea, but that is just scientifically inaccurate.
No, actually it does only refer to Congress, the federal legislative body. Its this thing called "Federalism", a concept employed by the founding fathers when they created the nation in which both the states and the federal government share power. The Bill of Rights were written to limit the powers of the federal government, not the states.
"Otherwise states and cities could pass all the anti-free speech and expression laws they wanted."
They could without violating the 1st Amendment, yes. But they couldn't without violating the 14th, as the Supreme Court has stated that free speech is a basic human right.
That being said, if you were to actually read the Constitution, you would see that a law like this does not even come close to violating the First Amendment. See for yourself:
This is a proposed law from a state legislature, not Congress. You may be able to make an argument that it is in violation of the 14th if you can establish that playing video games is a basic human right. In that case, you had better hope the judge is a /.er.
"Millions upon millions of kids are playing these so-called evil ultra violent video games with no negative effects whatsoever. It's only an extremely small handful of them that are influenced or imitate the acts they're playing in the games."
Millions upon millions of people smoke cigarattes, yet only a relatively small number are currently dying of lung cancer. That doesn't mean tobacco has no effect on a person's health.
And by "free systems", name one other than Linux that is commonly used as a desktop OS.
I take it Mr. Seigo is not a supporter of the "Open Source brings choices for the consumer" argument.
But if they can locate and take action against those engaging in the illegal behavior (and by all accounts I've heard, that includes these guys) while leaving the legitimate uses of the service alone, more power to them. I always here people critizing various industries like the MPAA and RIAA for trying to destroy P2P technology which does have legitimate uses, but practices like this leave the legit uses alone.
Its still very possible to make a mistake, even when the arithmetic is trivial. Don't tell me you have never forgotten a minus sign or confused a one with a seven. And besides, do you really want to reduce all assignments to only those problems that make for trivial computations? That can cut out some classes of problems that can provide interesting results.
Here is another possibility. Instead of making all calculations in assignments trivial, make the assignments such that students are required to not just show an answer they could have gotten from plugging something into a calculator, but also show knowledge of the concepts. Require them to show their work. Make questions that are based on the concepts being taught, not just calculations.
Teaching the kids the concepts and giving them a tool to help them apply those concepts can help their education, not hinder it.