Having loaded 7 webcomic pages, newscientist's main page, slashdot's first page and this article, Firefox is sitting at 176 MB and rising by between 10 and 30 KB per second.
[quote]However I get the very distinct feeling with both threads that the real message is, "Since global warming is not real / not anthropogenic, we don't need to modify our actions. We can keep our fossil-fuel-based energy and transportation, unmodified." (and business models, might I add...)[/quote] This is a dangerous statement. I'm of the very firm belief that "Global Warming" in general isn't anthropic or anthropogenic or whichever one you want to use. However, any idiot must realize that humans are contributing more energy to the system now than we used to. There's so much waste heat generated by practically everything we do from burning fuels to, well, I guess burning fuels is the basis of pretty much everything we do. We use it to heat homes in winter (duh, heat generation) to cooling homes in the summer (not many people think of this one, I'm sure) to general use in electronics (ever watched the temperature in your house rise while watching TV on that 60" screen without the furnace on in the middle of a Canadian Winter? I have) and even more generally in electrical systems (ever touched that light bulb that's been on for a few minutes or all day?).
The Question shouldn't be whether or not human action is contributing. The Question should be about how much we are contributing. If you're going to keep going off the deep end with implicit claims that the world would be in an ice age if not for humans (I'm exxaggerating. Simmer down), then you're being as damaging to the larger issue as those few who do claim that humans are completely innocent. The Science of Climate Change needs to pin down the amount contributed from ALL sources--not just humanity--in order to accurately model and predict the future changes and identify efficient methods to reverse the trends, if such action is even needed. So far, from the most direct commentary from scientists I've read, they appear to agree that the models all overestimate how much warming is occurring, and actual measurements are either at the very low end of or entirely below the predicted rates.
If we're going to talk "making more sense" then let's actually put this in perspective: Which makes more sense: 1) A small group that was selected at least in part for mental stability having a bunch of mentally-unstable people or 2) a large group of unfiltered people having a bunch of mentally-unstable people.
Personally, I'm much more willing to believe the protesters are being at the very least verbally abusive to the authorities. Part of protesting is resisting authority. It makes sense that those resisting will try to make themselves seem more intimidating.
Re:Without remorse there is no rehabilitation.
on
Kevin Mitnick Answers
·
· Score: 2
You are in the dangerous position of not looking for justice. He committed an act, was punished for it in a way the government thought was appropriate at the time, and now no longer commits the same acts without being granted permission. He cannot still be a criminal if he's not committing criminal acts. What you are looking for is vengeance and instilling punishment for thought crimes. It's time for you to let the past go and move on with your life.
This requires aging and use before an app can be determined to be good and/or malware-free. Many early adopters will get the short end of the stick which they will blame on Apple instead of their own idiocy.
Apple took the approach that made the most business sense because it also keeps up the reputation of their products, and *that* is their goal here. The same cannot be done with Slashdot's rating system.
If I pay for a car, it damn better be a COMPLETE car. But these days, they sell incomplete cars now and the after-market mods later. After-market mods are nothing but a scam.
Or someone brings a really strong magnet to work and carelessly leaves it by your phone? Worrying about either one quailifies as paranoia, no matter how you split the hair.
I'm sorry. I don't like posting, but here we go, anyway.
Why, exactly, must we be talking about biological evolution? The Replica... I mean Cylons obviously didn't do biological replication (which I'm sure you're trying to point out), but that doesn't mean they, as a species, couldn't evolve. The designs changed over time. Pretty sure that's the very definition of evolving.
You can even see the intelligence of the regular cylons evolving. Well, you can see the end result, anyway. They turned on their malevolent controllers. I'm sorry if that spoiled the show for you, but it's been out for years. Too bad. Now, because there's no biology in the cylon, we can definately say that it happened non-biologically. After all, they don't reproduce biologically, and yet, it's still evolution of a kind.
In short, I don't think the word means what you think it means.
Religion is not stifling science. Idiots are. It just so happens that some (maybe even many) of them happen to also be religious.
Actually, no. I don't think even the idiots are because science is still advancing faster than they can attack it. I mean, more than 80% of people know better. Assertions to the contrary aside, I am not of the belief that we need to worry about the remaining ones.
let me know when the knetbooks get touch screens and kill the trackpad (usb mice reduce portability). Until then, I'll be over at the tablets, drooling in anticipation.:)
So, no, you did not, in fact, test Anthropogenic Global Warming. All you did was take what someone said, probably someone you consider authoritative, tested one of their assertions, that CO2 can contribute to Global Warming, and then trusted their assertions that both, CO2 does contribute and that Humans are the major cause of Global Warming.
Thanks for the experimental support of my assertion.:)
what you've just said is that everyone should test every assertion ever made. Let's start with you: Did you personally test Anthropogenic Global Warming? 'Cause I'm willing to bet you trusted someone else's assertion. While your point that we should be critical thinkers is valid, your assertion that we shouldn't trust authoratative sources is misdirected. We should test the source, but if they prove to be authoritative, we don't need to distrust everything out-of-hand. If they make mistakes, other authoratative sources will correct them.
Singh is quite right: We should be critical thinkers in deciding who to trust before we decide what we should believe.
In group 2, why would any of them pay for a game when they can have it for free? Isn't that the capitalist way? Paying the least for the greatest enjoyment?
The common argument is that this is a self-correcting system in that developers won't make good games, anymore, but the that always ignores the other obvious effect that we, actually, are witnessing right now: the birth of DRM. You suggest a false claim that those who may or may not buy the game would definitely do so if the game were good, but that's just not true. Why should they pay for it and worry about their next purchase when they could have both it for free AND the next purchase?
I mean, the evidence is all over the report. The only thing stopping them from saying that it is conclusively man made is that 1) it's probably impossible to prove it and 2) there might always be some evidence of non anthropogenic warming contributing to the cause but not accounting for all of it.
Therein lies the problem: If it's impossible to prove, it's religion. As for point 2, the question isn't really about whether mankind is contributing so much as it is what percent of the warming makind is responsible for. Anthropogenic Warming can't contribute the whole, and there's disagreement in the scientific community that it's even contributing "a lot."
What, then, would be the difference between a D and an F? The D would be superfluous and repetitious. One of them would have to go. The school district probably chose to keep F because it has a long-standing tradition of invoking fear in the student population.
One reply already pointed out how dropping a letter changes the meaning of the scale, but where I went to school, a C (65% or higher, actually) was required to pass already, so this news story is unsurprising to me. Scratch that: it's suprising to me to learn that some schools still allow Ds to pass.
Or, as others in this thread have put it, people are idiots.
Or, perhaps, smarter than you give them credit for and you're using an unfortunately vocal minority to judge the whole. I'm not saying it's a small minority, but most people I know have no problems with viruses/botnets/rootkits nor identity theft.
For point #1, record profits does not mean anything with regards to a person's right to violate law. It's like saying you have the right to break into your neighbour's house just because his yearly salary broke seven figures.
For point #2, I have to break this one up:
a) This one is very simple: Not all of the people who download illicitly then go out to buy anything, and
b) The people who do go out to buy certainly don't buy everything they download. That fraction of people only buy what they like, right? This means they're still listening to (or watching, or playing, or using) the products they don't like without paying for it. While I'm sure you feel justified in claiming you shouldn't pay for what you don't like, that does not put you above the law. If you're going to violate the law, just admit it and shut up.
Certainly, I agree that the legal system in many countries regarding copyright protection is messed up and I also believe it needs to change, but if you're going to argue about it, at least use good, solid arguments and stop relying on error and fallacy.
Judging intent is a phenomenally difficult task. To say Charles Dodgson was satirizing his trade can only be speculative, and it's just as easy to speculate that he wasn't. If an author writes a modern-day story involving a corrupt god, is he satirizing religion or is it merely just a story device he decided to use because he's religious and familiar with the concepts deity and good/bad?
Ultimately, and I think you know this already, authors write what they know about. Dodgson knew math, so is it really so odd to think he included mathematical concepts in his story because he thought it would be cool?
(Yes, I read the full article, and I see a whole lot of room for uncertainty.)
So, we all should be allowed to break into your house because your locks aren't adequate enough to keep the skilled and determined ones out?
Your house is the code. Your doors and windows are the DRM. You can add more locks and/or more sophisticated locks, but as long as the door/window is there, someone can get in whether by lock-pick or brute force.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't know the cause, you can't predict it. You can only put reaction-plans in place--not preventitive measures.
I should note that this article is the only tab I have open.
Having loaded 7 webcomic pages, newscientist's main page, slashdot's first page and this article, Firefox is sitting at 176 MB and rising by between 10 and 30 KB per second.
My apologies to those who read my above post. There's a reason for the "Preview" button that I just can't get used to. =\
[quote]However I get the very distinct feeling with both threads that the real message is, "Since global warming is not real / not anthropogenic, we don't need to modify our actions. We can keep our fossil-fuel-based energy and transportation, unmodified." (and business models, might I add...)[/quote] This is a dangerous statement. I'm of the very firm belief that "Global Warming" in general isn't anthropic or anthropogenic or whichever one you want to use. However, any idiot must realize that humans are contributing more energy to the system now than we used to. There's so much waste heat generated by practically everything we do from burning fuels to, well, I guess burning fuels is the basis of pretty much everything we do. We use it to heat homes in winter (duh, heat generation) to cooling homes in the summer (not many people think of this one, I'm sure) to general use in electronics (ever watched the temperature in your house rise while watching TV on that 60" screen without the furnace on in the middle of a Canadian Winter? I have) and even more generally in electrical systems (ever touched that light bulb that's been on for a few minutes or all day?).
The Question shouldn't be whether or not human action is contributing. The Question should be about how much we are contributing. If you're going to keep going off the deep end with implicit claims that the world would be in an ice age if not for humans (I'm exxaggerating. Simmer down), then you're being as damaging to the larger issue as those few who do claim that humans are completely innocent. The Science of Climate Change needs to pin down the amount contributed from ALL sources--not just humanity--in order to accurately model and predict the future changes and identify efficient methods to reverse the trends, if such action is even needed. So far, from the most direct commentary from scientists I've read, they appear to agree that the models all overestimate how much warming is occurring, and actual measurements are either at the very low end of or entirely below the predicted rates.
If we're going to talk "making more sense" then let's actually put this in perspective: Which makes more sense: 1) A small group that was selected at least in part for mental stability having a bunch of mentally-unstable people or 2) a large group of unfiltered people having a bunch of mentally-unstable people.
Personally, I'm much more willing to believe the protesters are being at the very least verbally abusive to the authorities. Part of protesting is resisting authority. It makes sense that those resisting will try to make themselves seem more intimidating.
You are in the dangerous position of not looking for justice. He committed an act, was punished for it in a way the government thought was appropriate at the time, and now no longer commits the same acts without being granted permission. He cannot still be a criminal if he's not committing criminal acts. What you are looking for is vengeance and instilling punishment for thought crimes. It's time for you to let the past go and move on with your life.
What if he rearranged his answer to "Perhaps, Not Perhaps"? Then he just needs to show that P != NP
This requires aging and use before an app can be determined to be good and/or malware-free. Many early adopters will get the short end of the stick which they will blame on Apple instead of their own idiocy.
Apple took the approach that made the most business sense because it also keeps up the reputation of their products, and *that* is their goal here. The same cannot be done with Slashdot's rating system.
Let me fix that for you.
If I pay for a car, it damn better be a COMPLETE car. But these days, they sell incomplete cars now and the after-market mods later. After-market mods are nothing but a scam.
Or someone brings a really strong magnet to work and carelessly leaves it by your phone? Worrying about either one quailifies as paranoia, no matter how you split the hair.
I'm sorry. I don't like posting, but here we go, anyway.
Why, exactly, must we be talking about biological evolution? The Replica... I mean Cylons obviously didn't do biological replication (which I'm sure you're trying to point out), but that doesn't mean they, as a species, couldn't evolve. The designs changed over time. Pretty sure that's the very definition of evolving.
You can even see the intelligence of the regular cylons evolving. Well, you can see the end result, anyway. They turned on their malevolent controllers. I'm sorry if that spoiled the show for you, but it's been out for years. Too bad. Now, because there's no biology in the cylon, we can definately say that it happened non-biologically. After all, they don't reproduce biologically, and yet, it's still evolution of a kind.
In short, I don't think the word means what you think it means.
Religion is not stifling science. Idiots are. It just so happens that some (maybe even many) of them happen to also be religious.
Actually, no. I don't think even the idiots are because science is still advancing faster than they can attack it. I mean, more than 80% of people know better. Assertions to the contrary aside, I am not of the belief that we need to worry about the remaining ones.
let me know when the knetbooks get touch screens and kill the trackpad (usb mice reduce portability). Until then, I'll be over at the tablets, drooling in anticipation. :)
So, no, you did not, in fact, test Anthropogenic Global Warming. All you did was take what someone said, probably someone you consider authoritative, tested one of their assertions, that CO2 can contribute to Global Warming, and then trusted their assertions that both, CO2 does contribute and that Humans are the major cause of Global Warming.
Thanks for the experimental support of my assertion. :)
what you've just said is that everyone should test every assertion ever made. Let's start with you: Did you personally test Anthropogenic Global Warming? 'Cause I'm willing to bet you trusted someone else's assertion. While your point that we should be critical thinkers is valid, your assertion that we shouldn't trust authoratative sources is misdirected. We should test the source, but if they prove to be authoritative, we don't need to distrust everything out-of-hand. If they make mistakes, other authoratative sources will correct them.
Singh is quite right: We should be critical thinkers in deciding who to trust before we decide what we should believe.
In group 2, why would any of them pay for a game when they can have it for free? Isn't that the capitalist way? Paying the least for the greatest enjoyment?
The common argument is that this is a self-correcting system in that developers won't make good games, anymore, but the that always ignores the other obvious effect that we, actually, are witnessing right now: the birth of DRM. You suggest a false claim that those who may or may not buy the game would definitely do so if the game were good, but that's just not true. Why should they pay for it and worry about their next purchase when they could have both it for free AND the next purchase?
I mean, the evidence is all over the report. The only thing stopping them from saying that it is conclusively man made is that 1) it's probably impossible to prove it and 2) there might always be some evidence of non anthropogenic warming contributing to the cause but not accounting for all of it.
Therein lies the problem: If it's impossible to prove, it's religion. As for point 2, the question isn't really about whether mankind is contributing so much as it is what percent of the warming makind is responsible for. Anthropogenic Warming can't contribute the whole, and there's disagreement in the scientific community that it's even contributing "a lot."
I should note that my school's scoring was A at 80-100, B at 70-80, C at 65-70, D at 50-65, and F below 50.
What, then, would be the difference between a D and an F? The D would be superfluous and repetitious. One of them would have to go. The school district probably chose to keep F because it has a long-standing tradition of invoking fear in the student population.
One reply already pointed out how dropping a letter changes the meaning of the scale, but where I went to school, a C (65% or higher, actually) was required to pass already, so this news story is unsurprising to me. Scratch that: it's suprising to me to learn that some schools still allow Ds to pass.
Indeed. There are only actually 2 reasons for why they suck (reasons 4 and 5). The rest are all just evidence of sucking.
Or, as others in this thread have put it, people are idiots.
Or, perhaps, smarter than you give them credit for and you're using an unfortunately vocal minority to judge the whole. I'm not saying it's a small minority, but most people I know have no problems with viruses/botnets/rootkits nor identity theft.
Fallacy. Fallacy. All is fallacy.
For point #1, record profits does not mean anything with regards to a person's right to violate law. It's like saying you have the right to break into your neighbour's house just because his yearly salary broke seven figures.
For point #2, I have to break this one up:
a) This one is very simple: Not all of the people who download illicitly then go out to buy anything, and
b) The people who do go out to buy certainly don't buy everything they download. That fraction of people only buy what they like, right? This means they're still listening to (or watching, or playing, or using) the products they don't like without paying for it. While I'm sure you feel justified in claiming you shouldn't pay for what you don't like, that does not put you above the law. If you're going to violate the law, just admit it and shut up.
Certainly, I agree that the legal system in many countries regarding copyright protection is messed up and I also believe it needs to change, but if you're going to argue about it, at least use good, solid arguments and stop relying on error and fallacy.
Judging intent is a phenomenally difficult task. To say Charles Dodgson was satirizing his trade can only be speculative, and it's just as easy to speculate that he wasn't. If an author writes a modern-day story involving a corrupt god, is he satirizing religion or is it merely just a story device he decided to use because he's religious and familiar with the concepts deity and good/bad?
Ultimately, and I think you know this already, authors write what they know about. Dodgson knew math, so is it really so odd to think he included mathematical concepts in his story because he thought it would be cool?
(Yes, I read the full article, and I see a whole lot of room for uncertainty.)
So, we all should be allowed to break into your house because your locks aren't adequate enough to keep the skilled and determined ones out?
/window is there, someone can get in whether by lock-pick or brute force.
Your house is the code. Your doors and windows are the DRM. You can add more locks and/or more sophisticated locks, but as long as the door