Is that 15K per person? Because that sounds like 15 years worth of subscriptions if you are paying 1Kpp... why on earth wouldn't you subscribe if buying up front would take 16 years to pay off?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
People change, parties change, labels change. With the Democrats increasingly gaining votes from white collar workers in large cities, and the Republicans picking them up from blue collar rural areas we are in the middle of another big shift - give it 20 years and people would be amazed that you would associate Democrats with the Labour Unions at all!
Sure, thats exactly what happened, the IT guy screwed up and tried to fix it and accidently deleted something. Because you know, he was an IT guy and I am sure wasn't following the news and had no idea the implication of doing so.
According to Politifacts timeline a subpeona was issued on March 4th. Then, around March 24th they were deleted. So, there may be no evidence that she or her team asked for them to be deleted - but they had 20 days to ask for them all to be retained and to tell him to NOT delete the emails.
At a minimum its grossly incompetent. If a company tried to pull that in a court of law they would be screwed.. 'Oh I am sorry your honor, I forgot to tell IT to not delete all the records you ask for, and so they did it anyway'. Whether she asked or not its an example of a disregard for the law, she obviously made the decision that she would take less political heat deleting them than releasing them, if you think otherwise then you are kidding yourself.
Citation please? Any evidence that "people were predicting the death of the oil industry" in the 1950 or 1960s? You wouldn't just be making this up, right?
The idea that the rate of oil production would peak and irreversibly decline is an old one. In 1919, David White, chief geologist of the United States Geological Survey, wrote of US petroleum: "... the peak of production will soon be passed, possibly within 3 years."
Think you got your math a bit wrong there... 1960 was 55 years ago, 1970 was only 45 years. So split the difference and we have had good satellite coverage of the earth for 50 years. As the GP said, prior to that even the biggest ships nowadays get the f-out the way because they dodn't want to go rolling into a big storm, and its not like there were ships over the whole ocean anyway, so coverage of big tropical storms prior to that is probably sketchy.
Other than the French taxi drivers calling in Uber then beating them and destroying their cars, is this actually happening more frequently than with Taxi's? Seriously, if you are right this is a big concern. If course I would bet that it wasn't and that you are totally wrong. But then I would just be doing the same as you, making wild ass assumptions without and real data to back it up.
In summary, every time you hear someone talk about oil subsidies, they are likely talking about tax deductions taken by the oil and gas companies. There aren't specific oil company tax deduction though, they are just using the same deductions that all industrial companies from GM to Apple use.
Ha, dream on. Now that they are trying to pass 'Net Neutrality' by pushing Title 2 on all all broadband providers just wait and see how long it takes before they deem the 'dark web', aka TOR and any VPN traffic the NSA can't see, as 'unlawful content'. Your netflix might not be buffering, but you better not try doing anything anonymously on the internet - I mean, if it was lawful, why would you hide it?
Eric is confusing two issues, probably purposefully.
The issue of illegal (at least against US citizens) mass surveillance by the NSA and the like is one problem - but as others have pointed out, its something that should be assumed to always be happening, and doesn't have any real impact on the internet. People make a fuss about it, particularly in the US, but I think most people assumed it was happening anyway and it hasn't really changed the way that people, businesses or governments operate. Just look at the recent Silk Road story as an example
The issue that has everyone jittery is the close cooperation that has been shown between the US Government and US based companies, and from a legal perspective the stance that the US government is taking on data stored by US companies, outside the US, for a non-US entity. This has a huge effect on Google's business in particular, not as an adverting company - I would be surprised if they are loosing a significant amount of their consumer business - but rather their growing enterprise / cloud business. No one outside the US will want to switch to Gmail if their email can be read, without their knowledge, by the US Government issuing a National Security Letter, or even just by any local judge issuing a subpoena.
This is what they are talking about when they say you have to start a data center in Germany just to serve customers there. Its not the NSA hacking your system, or even snooping on the wire people are worried about. Its the legal and risk issue that the US government can seize your data, without any notification, and you have no legal recourse to prevent it happening.
Its a great opportunity for companies in Europe, but if your a US headquartered company, as Google is, its going to break *your* small part of the internet
At my last programming job, the head of engineering took all my time estimates for a project and arbitrarily cut them in half, because "we're smarter than most companies".
I take all my developers estimates and arbitrarily double them,. In my experience even experienced developers will hit something they didn't forsee, or have requirements changes forced on them.
They do pay a lot of money to organizations that question man made climate change yes. But then again, the flip side of that is the tens of billions of dollars that are invested in global warming being real and caused by man. Regardless of scientific merit I have always thought it odd that people think that 'climate deniers' are better funded than the groups supporting the idea.
I assume you mean that the pro man-made climate change are the groups that get the funding. You must do because the amount of money spent by just the US Government (around $2B a year on just scientific studies alone, and growing) dwarfs that spent by the energy companies on research.
If you can be bothered here is the GAO Report and a much easier to read summary
Not saying the money isn't well spent, or that man-made climate change isn't happening - but its just plain wrong to say that Big Oil is outspending the poor universities when it comes to climate research.
The problem is that the media is motivated... to make money. You don't think all those adverts for Coal power on TV, or 'brand' ads about what a great company GE is are just for fun do you? The conversation goes like this 'well... we could spend money to investigate a story slamming a company that spent $50m advertising with us last quarter - or we could not, just re-print their press release about, and still be profitable and employed'. Sure, one or two reports might try to write it, but they would never get on air. You should try listening to the No Agenda show (just google it) for a great description of how it really works
Add to that the oil companies paying researchers tons of money to write anything that "disproves" global warming, and the complete lack of peer-reviewed research that disproves global warming probably means that there's not enough support for that position to stand up to any peer review at all.
This always drives me crazy... please show me any study, article or any bit of information that shows that oil companies are paying researchers any more money than companies that have a vested interested in climate change. You can't, because whilst you can find a lot of information on the Koch Brothers Funding Climate Denial, I bet you can't find anything talking about the funding that is provided from companies, institutions and individuals with a vested interested in finding climate change.
They have either a poor understanding or perhaps no concept at all that short term temperature fluctuations are merely data points in a longer term trend
I purchase it because you need Plus to get streaming on devices other than PC's, my Roku for example. Also, in a way I don't mind - $7 a month is nothing and if it supports keeping hulu and other streaming services around and I am happy to pay it.
Although I agree with you in the case of snap chat, normal people just don't think things through like that. I for one didn't know its not pushed to your phone until you read it.
The other thing is its not just police search warrants you have to look out for.
In many states a lawyer involved in a lawsuit (for example a divorce or child custody hearing) can issue their own subpoena for electronic records *without* law enforcement or the courts reviewing it. In this case its not evidence of a crime... but your ex wife might subpoena snap chat for all images sent to you and suddenly that secret picture your new girlfriend sent isn't so secret, and is being used in court against you. Its not illegal, but its not something you want to share.
That assumes all votes are made equal, which they are not. Because of gerrymandering in the US something like 80 or 90% of political offices are not competitive votes, which means that incumbents are always reelected and if you live in one of those districts, your vote basically doesn't count. What it means is that only votes in the primaries count, so you end up loosing the center since the only competitive vote is within your own party.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that 15K per person? Because that sounds like 15 years worth of subscriptions if you are paying 1Kpp... why on earth wouldn't you subscribe if buying up front would take 16 years to pay off?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... People change, parties change, labels change. With the Democrats increasingly gaining votes from white collar workers in large cities, and the Republicans picking them up from blue collar rural areas we are in the middle of another big shift - give it 20 years and people would be amazed that you would associate Democrats with the Labour Unions at all!
Sure, thats exactly what happened, the IT guy screwed up and tried to fix it and accidently deleted something. Because you know, he was an IT guy and I am sure wasn't following the news and had no idea the implication of doing so.
According to Politifacts timeline a subpeona was issued on March 4th. Then, around March 24th they were deleted. So, there may be no evidence that she or her team asked for them to be deleted - but they had 20 days to ask for them all to be retained and to tell him to NOT delete the emails.
At a minimum its grossly incompetent. If a company tried to pull that in a court of law they would be screwed.. 'Oh I am sorry your honor, I forgot to tell IT to not delete all the records you ask for, and so they did it anyway'. Whether she asked or not its an example of a disregard for the law, she obviously made the decision that she would take less political heat deleting them than releasing them, if you think otherwise then you are kidding yourself.
Citation please? Any evidence that "people were predicting the death of the oil industry" in the 1950 or 1960s? You wouldn't just be making this up, right?
Well that was hard to find... Peak Oil
The idea that the rate of oil production would peak and irreversibly decline is an old one. In 1919, David White, chief geologist of the United States Geological Survey, wrote of US petroleum: "... the peak of production will soon be passed, possibly within 3 years."
https://xkcd.com/936/
https://xkcd.com/936/
Think you got your math a bit wrong there... 1960 was 55 years ago, 1970 was only 45 years. So split the difference and we have had good satellite coverage of the earth for 50 years. As the GP said, prior to that even the biggest ships nowadays get the f-out the way because they dodn't want to go rolling into a big storm, and its not like there were ships over the whole ocean anyway, so coverage of big tropical storms prior to that is probably sketchy.
Other than the French taxi drivers calling in Uber then beating them and destroying their cars, is this actually happening more frequently than with Taxi's? Seriously, if you are right this is a big concern. If course I would bet that it wasn't and that you are totally wrong. But then I would just be doing the same as you, making wild ass assumptions without and real data to back it up.
Oh the irony. Complaining about social media on a social media site.
Maybe we should take all the oil subsidies & give them to the solar/wind/geo folks.
That would be nice, except there aren't any oil subsidies http://www.washingtontimes.com...
In summary, every time you hear someone talk about oil subsidies, they are likely talking about tax deductions taken by the oil and gas companies. There aren't specific oil company tax deduction though, they are just using the same deductions that all industrial companies from GM to Apple use.
Ha, dream on. Now that they are trying to pass 'Net Neutrality' by pushing Title 2 on all all broadband providers just wait and see how long it takes before they deem the 'dark web', aka TOR and any VPN traffic the NSA can't see, as 'unlawful content'. Your netflix might not be buffering, but you better not try doing anything anonymously on the internet - I mean, if it was lawful, why would you hide it?
Eric is confusing two issues, probably purposefully.
The issue of illegal (at least against US citizens) mass surveillance by the NSA and the like is one problem - but as others have pointed out, its something that should be assumed to always be happening, and doesn't have any real impact on the internet. People make a fuss about it, particularly in the US, but I think most people assumed it was happening anyway and it hasn't really changed the way that people, businesses or governments operate. Just look at the recent Silk Road story as an example
The issue that has everyone jittery is the close cooperation that has been shown between the US Government and US based companies, and from a legal perspective the stance that the US government is taking on data stored by US companies, outside the US, for a non-US entity. This has a huge effect on Google's business in particular, not as an adverting company - I would be surprised if they are loosing a significant amount of their consumer business - but rather their growing enterprise / cloud business. No one outside the US will want to switch to Gmail if their email can be read, without their knowledge, by the US Government issuing a National Security Letter, or even just by any local judge issuing a subpoena.
This is what they are talking about when they say you have to start a data center in Germany just to serve customers there. Its not the NSA hacking your system, or even snooping on the wire people are worried about. Its the legal and risk issue that the US government can seize your data, without any notification, and you have no legal recourse to prevent it happening.
Its a great opportunity for companies in Europe, but if your a US headquartered company, as Google is, its going to break *your* small part of the internet
And Windows is supported for 10+ years, and people *still* complain when they try to EOL XP!
and 90% of the battered Mars Bars.
At my last programming job, the head of engineering took all my time estimates for a project and arbitrarily cut them in half, because "we're smarter than most companies".
I take all my developers estimates and arbitrarily double them,. In my experience even experienced developers will hit something they didn't forsee, or have requirements changes forced on them.
They do pay a lot of money to organizations that question man made climate change yes. But then again, the flip side of that is the tens of billions of dollars that are invested in global warming being real and caused by man. Regardless of scientific merit I have always thought it odd that people think that 'climate deniers' are better funded than the groups supporting the idea.
Also... they are recording everything.
I assume you mean that the pro man-made climate change are the groups that get the funding. You must do because the amount of money spent by just the US Government (around $2B a year on just scientific studies alone, and growing) dwarfs that spent by the energy companies on research.
If you can be bothered here is the GAO Report and a much easier to read summary
Not saying the money isn't well spent, or that man-made climate change isn't happening - but its just plain wrong to say that Big Oil is outspending the poor universities when it comes to climate research.
The problem is that the media is motivated... to make money. You don't think all those adverts for Coal power on TV, or 'brand' ads about what a great company GE is are just for fun do you? The conversation goes like this 'well... we could spend money to investigate a story slamming a company that spent $50m advertising with us last quarter - or we could not, just re-print their press release about, and still be profitable and employed'. Sure, one or two reports might try to write it, but they would never get on air. You should try listening to the No Agenda show (just google it) for a great description of how it really works
Add to that the oil companies paying researchers tons of money to write anything that "disproves" global warming, and the complete lack of peer-reviewed research that disproves global warming probably means that there's not enough support for that position to stand up to any peer review at all.
This always drives me crazy... please show me any study, article or any bit of information that shows that oil companies are paying researchers any more money than companies that have a vested interested in climate change. You can't, because whilst you can find a lot of information on the Koch Brothers Funding Climate Denial, I bet you can't find anything talking about the funding that is provided from companies, institutions and individuals with a vested interested in finding climate change.
Or not... its a stretch to say its more extreme than it has been over the past thousands of years. http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2013/12/explaining-the-flaw-in-kevin-drums-and-apparently-science-magazines-climate-chart.html
They have either a poor understanding or perhaps no concept at all that short term temperature fluctuations are merely data points in a longer term trend
Couldn't agree with you more..... http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2013/12/explaining-the-flaw-in-kevin-drums-and-apparently-science-magazines-climate-chart.html
I purchase it because you need Plus to get streaming on devices other than PC's, my Roku for example. Also, in a way I don't mind - $7 a month is nothing and if it supports keeping hulu and other streaming services around and I am happy to pay it.
Although I agree with you in the case of snap chat, normal people just don't think things through like that. I for one didn't know its not pushed to your phone until you read it.
The other thing is its not just police search warrants you have to look out for.
In many states a lawyer involved in a lawsuit (for example a divorce or child custody hearing) can issue their own subpoena for electronic records *without* law enforcement or the courts reviewing it. In this case its not evidence of a crime... but your ex wife might subpoena snap chat for all images sent to you and suddenly that secret picture your new girlfriend sent isn't so secret, and is being used in court against you. Its not illegal, but its not something you want to share.
That assumes all votes are made equal, which they are not. Because of gerrymandering in the US something like 80 or 90% of political offices are not competitive votes, which means that incumbents are always reelected and if you live in one of those districts, your vote basically doesn't count. What it means is that only votes in the primaries count, so you end up loosing the center since the only competitive vote is within your own party.