Most of the scientists who believe that man is strongly responsible for global climate change have nothing to do with any meteorology.
Most atmospheric scientists are quite concerned about global warming (in fact you have to pay a lot tet one to say it isn't happening). A large majority of atmospheric scientists believe that anthropogenic carbon is a factor in global warming
The US is not the only detractor, Canada and Australia both have major issues with it and fact that it will do little more than punish larger, countries with fewer general pollution problems.
While there are apparently a lot of scientists for sale in the US, in Australia, there is only a single University employed atmospheric scientist who argues against the view that human activity is a major factor in global warming. Even he is not of course stupid enough to argue that global warming is occuring (that simply a matter of getting the measurements and doing the stats). The people who have major issues with reducing greenhouse gas emissions are not scientist silly, they are economists and politicians. That is to say they, like you, lack the education to understand the problem.
Well no,. radiation is affected by C02, that's what makes it a greenhouse gas. In fact CO2 scatters incoming solar radiation, which is why it acts as an insulator.
Lets hope if they do decide to bring them back, they decide also to make it illegal to hunt. Otherwise you mine (sic) as well just be making them to eat.
OK, despite what you might read on/., thems was NOT good eatin' (think marsupial dog). They were a preditor, and preditors are vermin, right?! Well no, we might not think so, but the C19th European settler was not so enlightened.
From the article, The Tasmanian tiger was Australia's largest carnivorous marsupial before it was hunted into extinction, mostly by farmers who thought it was a threat to livestock.
before we ruin all the other planets in space
we should focus on earth right now.
we are focusing on earth right now and we're doing a great job of ruining it!i really don't see what you're worried about, we'll be experts by the time we get to those other planets.
Don't use Australia as an example of free speech. They just re-elected John Howard, their racist prime minister.
Well no actually, the fact that people in politics can make racist utterances probably reflects that there is a level of free speech in Australian political life. You (and I) just happen to disagree, but that's the whole point of free speech, surely. Besides which, it is unclear just how racist Howard actually is, he would run down his grandmother and reverse over her again if he saw a vote in it. Remember, apart from the pandering to the racist element, this election also saw the most shame faced pork barreling, or more accurately vote buying, in Australian electoral history. Research shows lots of new babies in a number of marginal seats... OK we'll give all parents with 1st babies born since July $2,500 if we are elected. Well my baby was born in January, so he didn't get my vote!
Australia is probably a bad example, because unlike the US, there is no explicit constitutional right to free speech. The High Court has discovered an implied right to discuss matters political, in the very fact that the Constitution sets up an representative democracy. And although there is perhaps a presumption in its favour, there certainly is no overarching right to free speech in Australian law.
When colombian drug dealers killed DEA agent, Kiki Camarena, the DEA broke down every suspected drug dealer's door with or without evidence of any crimes. The DEA fucked them up really good. Since that time, DEA agents have led charmed lives. In many cases DEA agents are in peril, but only live because the Druggies know better than to touch a DEA agent for the repercussions. In the same light, it is clear to me and should be to everyone else that a serious strike against ALL possible/suspected terrorist organizations will send a similar message.
You are making the same mistake here that many foreign policy analysts are making. Your thinking is too western and suffers from the fact that it is too rational. The would-be recipient of your message, sadly, is any thing but.
The DEA case is not really appropriate, because I assume, the drug dealers don't actually want to get shot dead by US law enforcement agencies...
Now cleart the US must retaliate, and hard. And I agree it really doesn't matter if the scapegoat is the guilty party or not, so long as it is one of the usual suspects. This is necessary, if for no other reason, to discourage states, indigenous terrorists and other (semi-)rational entities. Unfortunately a side effect of this is that it will actually encourge more Islamiscists to become suicide-bombers. You have been paying attention to what is happening in Israel/Palestine? You see your 'message' looses something in the translation, 'don't touch us or you'll get hurt,' becomes 'we are offering you a glorious death.'
The real solution (insofar as there is one) is likely to be far more difficult to arrive at. However, if you don't know your enemy, you not likely to find it.
The Macquarie, on the other hand prefers 'organise,'meaning that any Australian who writes 'optimise'... will appear... to be educationally challenged.
I presume you meant to write any Australian who writes 'optimize' will appear challenged, since you said that organise was preferred.
No, but what is wrong is the fetishistic notion that privatisation good per se. We are just emerging from the damage inflicted by ideologists who believed the mere fact of private ownership to be a social good.
When you have private ownership in the context of competition, consumers can vote with their wallets if the goods and services they are receiving are not up to expectation. When you have government in the context of democracy, citizens can simply vote if the ruling party fails to deliver. By placing public goods which form natural monopolies, into private hands, consumers have been put in the position of citizens in states where they have no vote. Here in Australia many of the privatisations carried out (by both sides of politics!) have accomplished both these economic and policial ills.
After centuries of struggle against absolutist government (which some might want to date back to 1215, or more realistically 1649), not only had the common law world established democracy, but by the early 1980s (at least in Australia) an effective body of Administrative Law, by which citizens could challenge the previously inviolable decisions of state bureaucracies. No sooner had this been accomplished, but governments started to 'outsource' (an 80s abomination meaning to contract out) bureaucratic functions, putting the decisions once again beyond the challenge of ordinary citizens, as they are beyond the choice of ordinary consumers.
Quite apart from resurgent neo-fascist parties, what we've been left with is poor service (eg . compare the Post Office with hopeless Post Shops of today), queues, higher prices, queues, inefficiency and queues. Did I mention fees to join queues? To think that we used to laugh at the Soviet Union because they had to queue for everything, and that the ideologists assured us this was from a want of market mechanisms! It's enough to make one change one's sig!!
It's not entirely clear to me what good it does the holder.
Nor is it entirely clear whether this is within the legislative power of the Commonwealth. Would seem to lie outside s51(xviii). Does this mean there is some sort of international agreement about creating these kinds of patents everywhere?!
... to point out firstly, that far from the original insightful poster's contention that a Corporation would not be "above the law" if it comitted some "serious Wrong things like killing people," the very essence of a corporation is the protection it affords the people behind the corporation, from the legal ramnifications of the wrongs a corporation commits.
Secondly that in looking for ways that corporations are "above the law" it is inapproriate to concentrate on acts of violence, (which is what I understood serious Wrong things to mean). Rather we need to look at the serious Wrong things which corporations do economically and politically.
if they were doing seriously Wrong things like killing people
By 'they' I presume you mean Corporations in general, (M$ is an 'it' after all) not 'they' the directors and shareholders of M$.
In fact the whole point behind incorporation is limited liability, so that the owners behind Corporations can indeed get away when the Corporation kills people. As it happens Corporations are not the kind of persons to lurk around in dark alleys, or subway stations, so it's unlikely they would be in a situation to do 'seriously Wrong things.'
The real question is whether Corporations, the creatures of democratic states, can any longer be tamed by those state and put to the use for general public wellbeing (as was their original intention), or whether democracy is itself obsolete.
... but someone's grocery ist is not really of historical value.
I beg your pardon, but when I was doing research on the dietary habits in Early Modern France, someone's grocery list would have been of extreme historical value! Luckily we do have some petitions for aid written to city authorities in which the petitioners detail the household consumption of bread wine etc...
... if the public were properly informed about laws such as the DMCA, as it could create enough uproar about violating citizen's rights that governments would need to think twice before implementing DMCA-like laws.
The negative feed-back loop here is that it is precisely the Media based MegaCorps, whose brief it is to inform the public, who have the most to gain by these kinds of laws. Funny that they should prefer to keep the public in an uproar about 'Law & Order' rather than IP law, isn't it?
Perhaps I was being too negative before, after all the Net does provide us with a new opportunity to engage in meaningful 'communicative action,' as projects such as OpenLaw and the present one demonstrate. Clearly this is not to the liking of MegaCorp(TM), (witness the 'channel' metaphor in which a certain OS in cooperation with certain Media Corps tried to clothe the Web). We must beware (if there is anything we can do about it) that the digital legislation now being lobbied for, does not have the effect of limiting our communication. This is the major concern, for instance, of legislation such as the Australian censorship laws -- making ISPs liable for any offensive material which may reside on their servers, may, in the long run, make hosting USENET news an impossibility in.au (I hope not!). Remember too, the senior Murdoch exec, who, only half jokingly, described the Australian government as "a wholly owned subsidiary of News Inc."
...there are people (citizens) who have opinions in technical matters. It's not just the corporations running the tech industry.
When you are up against organised cartels like that of Disney, Sony, MGM, Paramount, Fox, Universal, Warner, not to mention the host of other MegaCorps who have interests in usurious IP legislation, individuals (ie. natural persons) will not be heard. Face it the 'citizen' and democracy are redundant, only the MegaCorp and what is being marketed as "free trade" (as if they would tolerate a market that really was free!) matter anymore. Resistance is futile!
My, I'm in a negative mood tonight... Umm, best of luck guys! It will be an uphill battle.
I am pretty confident that the German secret service does not snoop on Boeing headquarters to make sure that Airbus (a company co-funded by the German and several other European governments) gets hold of the latest deal.
If you base your confidence on the lack of media stories about this, then you can be just as confident that the NSA does not actually exploit the backdoors it has in M$ software to spy on German military operations, can't you?
I'd like to see the claims by Deustch Telekom and Sigmen.
The way I read the article, it is not a claim by Telekom or Siemens, but by German security authorities.
Nach Erkenntnissen deutscher Sicherheitsbehörden verfügt der amerikanische Spionagedienst NSA über alle einschlägigen Quellcodes der US-Firma und kann so selbst verschlüsselte Daten lesen.
Now my German isn't as good as it could be (so please any German speakers correct me if I've got this wrong!), but I would translate this as:
German security services have discovered that the American spy service NSA has access to all relevant source code of the US Company and is able to read even encrypted files.
Of course, you are unlikely ever to see the basis of the claims that any national 'security' service makes.
Why not go read Guido's tutorial... you can learn Python in a couple of hours.
Or if you're really impatient try Instant Python and learn it in 10 minutes!;)
When I initially looked at it I thought, wow this is the language I'm looking for, nice clean syntax, object oriented... then the idea of significant whitespace, and the wacky way of adressing/splicing arrays, (and goodness knows what other kind of surprises) kind of turned me off.
I've never gotten into using it, but it looks like it would be similar to Perl in functionality, only much prettier... probably an ideal teaching language (if it weren't for the significant whitespace and whacky array splicing). OK, I'll admit, the significant indentation is probably a way of enforcing both good layout, and modularity (you would not want to be down 8+ deep loops and try to see which indent belonged to whom.) But those arrays?!
And the reason given by Scientology why they don't tell you this for ages, is that your mind would explode and you'd go mad, if you
heard about this before you were ready.
I wish someone had told me that before I read it!
"No you don't!"
Huh? Who said that?!
Slashdot Mirror
Most atmospheric scientists are quite concerned about global warming (in fact you have to pay a lot tet one to say it isn't happening). A large majority of atmospheric scientists believe that anthropogenic carbon is a factor in global warming
The US is not the only detractor, Canada and Australia both have major issues with it and fact that it will do little more than punish larger, countries with fewer general pollution problems.
While there are apparently a lot of scientists for sale in the US, in Australia, there is only a single University employed atmospheric scientist who argues against the view that human activity is a major factor in global warming. Even he is not of course stupid enough to argue that global warming is occuring (that simply a matter of getting the measurements and doing the stats). The people who have major issues with reducing greenhouse gas emissions are not scientist silly, they are economists and politicians. That is to say they, like you, lack the education to understand the problem.
Well no,. radiation is affected by C02, that's what makes it a greenhouse gas. In fact CO2 scatters incoming solar radiation, which is why it acts as an insulator.
Great, thanks.
Could you cite a case to support the argument that parody actually is protected ... it was my impression that the opposite was the case.
yes, but the point here is that if the copyright holder grants you permission, there is no breach of copyright in the first place ...
Not until I've finished checking every last line of code in the compiler source ... and in the source of the one I use to compile that ... and ... :o
OK, despite what you might read on /., thems was NOT good eatin' (think marsupial dog). They were a preditor, and preditors are vermin, right?! Well no, we might not think so, but the C19th European settler was not so enlightened.
From the article,
The Tasmanian tiger was Australia's largest carnivorous marsupial before it was hunted into extinction, mostly by farmers who thought it was a threat to livestock.
we should focus on earth right now.
we are focusing on earth right now and we're doing a great job of ruining it!i really don't see what you're worried about, we'll be experts by the time we get to those other planets.
Well no actually, the fact that people in politics can make racist utterances probably reflects that there is a level of free speech in Australian political life. You (and I) just happen to disagree, but that's the whole point of free speech, surely. Besides which, it is unclear just how racist Howard actually is, he would run down his grandmother and reverse over her again if he saw a vote in it. Remember, apart from the pandering to the racist element, this election also saw the most shame faced pork barreling, or more accurately vote buying, in Australian electoral history. Research shows lots of new babies in a number of marginal seats ... OK we'll give all parents with 1st babies born since July $2,500 if we are elected. Well my baby was born in January, so he didn't get my vote!
Australia is probably a bad example, because unlike the US, there is no explicit constitutional right to free speech. The High Court has discovered an implied right to discuss matters political, in the very fact that the Constitution sets up an representative democracy. And although there is perhaps a presumption in its favour, there certainly is no overarching right to free speech in Australian law.
You are making the same mistake here that many foreign policy analysts are making. Your thinking is too western and suffers from the fact that it is too rational. The would-be recipient of your message, sadly, is any thing but.
The DEA case is not really appropriate, because I assume, the drug dealers don't actually want to get shot dead by US law enforcement agencies ...
Now cleart the US must retaliate, and hard. And I agree it really doesn't matter if the scapegoat is the guilty party or not, so long as it is one of the usual suspects. This is necessary, if for no other reason, to discourage states, indigenous terrorists and other (semi-)rational entities. Unfortunately a side effect of this is that it will actually encourge more Islamiscists to become suicide-bombers. You have been paying attention to what is happening in Israel/Palestine? You see your 'message' looses something in the translation, 'don't touch us or you'll get hurt,' becomes 'we are offering you a glorious death.'
The real solution (insofar as there is one) is likely to be far more difficult to arrive at. However, if you don't know your enemy, you not likely to find it.
here here!
I presume you meant to write any Australian who writes 'optimize' will appear challenged, since you said that organise was preferred.
No, but what is wrong is the fetishistic notion that privatisation good per se. We are just emerging from the damage inflicted by ideologists who believed the mere fact of private ownership to be a social good.
When you have private ownership in the context of competition, consumers can vote with their wallets if the goods and services they are receiving are not up to expectation. When you have government in the context of democracy, citizens can simply vote if the ruling party fails to deliver. By placing public goods which form natural monopolies, into private hands, consumers have been put in the position of citizens in states where they have no vote. Here in Australia many of the privatisations carried out (by both sides of politics!) have accomplished both these economic and policial ills.
After centuries of struggle against absolutist government (which some might want to date back to 1215, or more realistically 1649), not only had the common law world established democracy, but by the early 1980s (at least in Australia) an effective body of Administrative Law, by which citizens could challenge the previously inviolable decisions of state bureaucracies. No sooner had this been accomplished, but governments started to 'outsource' (an 80s abomination meaning to contract out) bureaucratic functions, putting the decisions once again beyond the challenge of ordinary citizens, as they are beyond the choice of ordinary consumers.
Quite apart from resurgent neo-fascist parties, what we've been left with is poor service (eg . compare the Post Office with hopeless Post Shops of today), queues, higher prices, queues, inefficiency and queues. Did I mention fees to join queues? To think that we used to laugh at the Soviet Union because they had to queue for everything, and that the ideologists assured us this was from a want of market mechanisms! It's enough to make one change one's sig!!
Nor is it entirely clear whether this is within the legislative power of the Commonwealth. Would seem to lie outside s51(xviii). Does this mean there is some sort of international agreement about creating these kinds of patents everywhere?!
... to point out firstly, that far from the original insightful poster's contention that a Corporation would not be "above the law" if it comitted some "serious Wrong things like killing people," the very essence of a corporation is the protection it affords the people behind the corporation, from the legal ramnifications of the wrongs a corporation commits.
Secondly that in looking for ways that corporations are "above the law" it is inapproriate to concentrate on acts of violence, (which is what I understood serious Wrong things to mean). Rather we need to look at the serious Wrong things which corporations do economically and politically.
By 'they' I presume you mean Corporations in general, (M$ is an 'it' after all) not 'they' the directors and shareholders of M$.
In fact the whole point behind incorporation is limited liability, so that the owners behind Corporations can indeed get away when the Corporation kills people. As it happens Corporations are not the kind of persons to lurk around in dark alleys, or subway stations, so it's unlikely they would be in a situation to do 'seriously Wrong things.'
The real question is whether Corporations, the creatures of democratic states, can any longer be tamed by those state and put to the use for general public wellbeing (as was their original intention), or whether democracy is itself obsolete.
I beg your pardon, but when I was doing research on the dietary habits in Early Modern France, someone's grocery list would have been of extreme historical value! Luckily we do have some petitions for aid written to city authorities in which the petitioners detail the household consumption of bread wine etc ...
OK, Oz may be weird, but God bless our tribunals and courts for protecting us from the excesses of our legislatures!
The negative feed-back loop here is that it is precisely the Media based MegaCorps, whose brief it is to inform the public, who have the most to gain by these kinds of laws. Funny that they should prefer to keep the public in an uproar about 'Law & Order' rather than IP law, isn't it?
Perhaps I was being too negative before, after all the Net does provide us with a new opportunity to engage in meaningful 'communicative action,' as projects such as OpenLaw and the present one demonstrate. Clearly this is not to the liking of MegaCorp(TM), (witness the 'channel' metaphor in which a certain OS in cooperation with certain Media Corps tried to clothe the Web). We must beware (if there is anything we can do about it) that the digital legislation now being lobbied for, does not have the effect of limiting our communication. This is the major concern, for instance, of legislation such as the Australian censorship laws -- making ISPs liable for any offensive material which may reside on their servers, may, in the long run, make hosting USENET news an impossibility in .au (I hope not!). Remember too, the senior Murdoch exec, who, only half jokingly, described the Australian government as "a wholly owned subsidiary of News Inc."
I'm so sorry, that should be http://www.mpaa.org/about/.
When you are up against organised cartels like that of Disney, Sony, MGM, Paramount, Fox, Universal, Warner, not to mention the host of other MegaCorps who have interests in usurious IP legislation, individuals (ie. natural persons) will not be heard. Face it the 'citizen' and democracy are redundant, only the MegaCorp and what is being marketed as "free trade" (as if they would tolerate a market that really was free!) matter anymore. Resistance is futile!
My, I'm in a negative mood tonight ... Umm, best of luck guys! It will be an uphill battle.
If you base your confidence on the lack of media stories about this, then you can be just as confident that the NSA does not actually exploit the backdoors it has in M$ software to spy on German military operations, can't you?
The way I read the article, it is not a claim by Telekom or Siemens, but by German security authorities.
Nach Erkenntnissen deutscher Sicherheitsbehörden verfügt der amerikanische Spionagedienst NSA über alle einschlägigen Quellcodes der US-Firma und kann so selbst verschlüsselte Daten lesen.
Now my German isn't as good as it could be (so please any German speakers correct me if I've got this wrong!), but I would translate this as: German security services have discovered that the American spy service NSA has access to all relevant source code of the US Company and is able to read even encrypted files.
Of course, you are unlikely ever to see the basis of the claims that any national 'security' service makes.
Or if you're really impatient try Instant Python and learn it in 10 minutes! ;)
When I initially looked at it I thought, wow this is the language I'm looking for, nice clean syntax, object oriented ... then the idea of significant whitespace, and the wacky way of adressing/splicing arrays, (and goodness knows what other kind of surprises) kind of turned me off.
I've never gotten into using it, but it looks like it would be similar to Perl in functionality, only much prettier ... probably an ideal teaching language (if it weren't for the significant whitespace and whacky array splicing). OK, I'll admit, the significant indentation is probably a way of enforcing both good layout, and modularity (you would not want to be down 8+ deep loops and try to see which indent belonged to whom.) But those arrays?!
I wish someone had told me that before I read it!
"No you don't!"
Huh? Who said that?!