Heck, we knocked it out in less than 100, and we're still climbing.
Far more alarming to me is that ice, that we know from core samples hasn't melted in a minimum of 10,000 years, is melting at an alarming rate. There isn't much "perma" left in permafrost.
Yes, nature changes on it's own, and that change can't be stopped. But nature also has no problem whatsoever wiping out a species, be it dinosaur or human.
Personally, I'd rather we stick around a little longer.
Actually, the main school of thought is that global warming will cause the next ice age.
The theory goes that as things become more and more unbalanced and chaotic, eventually they earths climate system will "flip", plunging us into an ice age.
I don't pretend to understand it, but a quick Googling will show you plenty.
That's all fine and good, except that means I have to block every single site I come across manually, and no one else gets to benefit from my efforts, and I don't get to benefit from theirs.
I'd much rather report a site, have it reviewed by someone from the search engine, and removed from their cache permanently. This also penalizes the SEO spammer in a major way: financially.
I wasn't going to buy from the scum buckets anyway, so it doesn't hurt them in the least if I block it.
What I want to see Google and other search engines do is add a small link next to every result in their search listings:
"Report this site as spam."
Of course they would only want to offer this to registered users who were signed in (so they can shut down offending accounts and keep company A from trying to destroy company B and in the process overwhelming the system), and the most frequently reported sites are groomed from the cache after review by a search engine employee.
I hate the sites that clearly exist for no other purpose than to manipulate the search engines (of course in 15 minutes of searching I can't find one, but the next time I search for real they'll be everywhere.), cheat (see the tiny links at the bottom), fake blogs that just reguritate free articles from all over the net, and other such scum that offers absolutely nothing to any human being visiting them.
I hate them both as a surfer and a webmaster.
I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that they made up more than 50% of the entire internet.
Actually, I do know exactly what it is like to be raising a family and then suddenly be unemployed. I have 3 daughters (2, 5, and 6), and I am self-employed for the past 6 years. At the end of every contract I AM unemployed.
I have to plow-the-pavement for work and new contracts all the time. I know all to well the stress of having bills and not having work.
I also know that for the average person out of work, ~maybe~ about 20% of their time is spent looking for work. I'm no different, when I am between contracts I find all sorts of ways to spend my time (Slashdot being on of them) that have nothing to do with finding new work.
The difference is, I've never had the luxury of a $400 a week safety net from the government, which I'm sure would make it even harder to get out and find work. When I don't find work, the cost of living goes on credit cards and I pay it off over time after I find work.
I'm not saying people shouldn't collect unemployment, because some of them should. I'm simply saying that there is massive and wide-spread abuse of the system (identity theft and fraud being only a small part of that), and seeing that makes it hard not to expect them to be able to ride the bus 5 miles for FREE MONEY.
Require them to pick up the first check, and subsequent first checks of each month, in person at a government agency where their identity can be confirmed.
There are maybe 2% of the people that will have legitimate reasons why the can't make that trip (in hospital, in traction, etc). In these cases send someone out.
If these people can't come out of their hole to collect a check, they obviously aren't getting out of their hole to look for a job, so they don't deserve benefits anyway.
What do you know about it?
I've lost 32 pounds and reached my goal weight, my blood sugar problems are completely gone (after $300 in blood tests all the doctor could say was "eat more frequently", and I have physical and mental energy I haven't had in years.
What do you care if I share it in my sig?
Just because something is passed into law, doesn't mean that it has passed "due process".
There are many, many of our laws that are passed because they were attached to much bigger issues and slipped through, when the law itself would never pass scrutiny or due process.
I'd love to see the time when every law had to pass on it's own merits instead of being bundled into one big mess that lives or dies together.
Well, if you ask John Paul Stevens, he's a Republican.
That's one of the reasons I hate party lines so much, people think in terms of blue or red, when in reality there are an infinite number of shades of purple...:}
I've always considered myself a Republican (and voted that way), but the vast majority of what has happened while Bush has been in office makes me want to puke.
I read the article before it was posted on Slashdot.
3 republican judges voted for it, and 3 republican judges voted against it.
I mention Bush because he has been so focused on his own agenda (handing any natural resources and programs we have over to the rich) that he wouldn't notice if we were invaded by Russia until it advanced so far it interrupted his golf game. Even then he'd study the score card for 10 minutes before even responding...
I'm a lifelong republican who voted for Bush in 2000, but his time in office has made me want to puke. It reminds me of the lines in Revenge of the Sith, "The Sith always deal in absolutes" (Evil Doers, you're either with us or you're against us), and "So this is how liberty dies, amid cheering and applause", because that seems to be exactly what is happening. But as long as we're kicking Saddam's butt everybody is happy...
60% of those who voted FOR it were "conservative" judges...
In favor: John Paul Stevens - Ford/republican Anthony Kennedy - Reagan/republican David H. Souter - Bush/republican Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Clinton/democrat Stephen G. Breyer - Clinton/democrat
Against: Sandra Day O'Connor - Reagan/republican William H. Rehnquist - Nixon-Reagan/ republican Antonin Scalia - Reagan/republican Clarence Thomas - Bush/republican
60% of those who voted FOR it were "conservative" judges...
In favor: John Paul Stevens - Ford/republican Anthony Kennedy - Reagan/republican David H. Souter - Bush/republican Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Clinton/democrat Stephen G. Breyer - Clinton/democrat
Against: Sandra Day O'Connor - Reagan/republican William H. Rehnquist - Nixon-Reagan/ republican Antonin Scalia - Reagan/republican Clarence Thomas - Bush/republican
Bush Jr. has changed the definition of "conservative" so much that it is anything BUT conservative!
If he weren't so distracted turning over America to his rich buddies, invading countries that have exactly nothing to do with 9/11, opening up every natural resource we have to mass harvesting, trying to own social security, medicaid, and medicare, maybe he'd still have enough credibility in Washington to get some good judges in.
As it is, the American people are sick of him and are finally starting to see through his crap, and about half of the republicans are sick of him, too. Including this one. I want my vote back.
Our forefathers would have been marching in the streets with pitchforks and axes.
We're too busy checking our email, playing our consoles, reading Slashdot, and fighting over distros to care.
This is awful, and was already being severely abused. Walmart is by far one of the biggest offenders, but they won't be the last.
With this new law watch for cabins to be knocked down for ski resorts, and beach front homes to be leveled for new beach resorts. Watch neighborhoods be leveled for new shopping malls.
What I'm talking about is using 2 separate GPS units, each connected to a linux box.
The fixed unit is on a known, surveyed point.
The other unit is out and about taking measurements. The fixed unit sends the mobile unit real-time data corrections.
Commercial DGPS equipment works in much the same way, but is very, very expensive.
Perhaps it's not possible to do what I'm thinking using a couple of old linux boxes, a couple off the shelf GPS's, and a means of communication (wi-fi, bluetooth, UHF / VHF radio) to send corrections, but since it's the way commercial systems work, it seems like it could be done as an open source project supporting any NEMA compatible GPS receiver.
I wish there were an open source DGPS project out there.
The premise seems simple enough: Have one GPS at a fixed position, and the other receives corrections via radio.
But I haven't been able to find anything.
My house sits on a large lot (over an acre) and I've wanted to survey it fairly accurately (within a foot at least) to recreate it digitally and be able to plan shops, gardens, landscaping, etc.
How are they limiting free speech if I have to ASK to be included in the filtering?
Each of the web sites on the list still have full and complete freedom of speech. They aren't censored in any way. Not a single adult is prevented from visiting the site that wants to.
In reality though, most installed filter packages suck, don't get updated, and either start out being totally ineffective or quickly become ineffective.
It's much either to say "Yes, for $2 a month I'd like my internet filtered" when you signup.
"Good parenting" and "good education" are nice concepts, but the reality is our kids are absolutely surrounded by sex, drugs, and violence every single day of their lives, everywhere they go. The absolute best families in America are not immune to these problems, and the statistics are staggering.
One more tool to allow non-technical parents an easy, cheap way to obtain some level of protection in their home is a good thing. It doesn't hurt the ISP's, most of whom offer this service already, and it doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone because it is entirely opt-in.
Let's see, maybe parents that go to the movies and don't want the babysitter looking at porn?
Or parents that aren't in the same room as their kids every single second of the day?
Nah, that just stupid. I should put my head in the sand next to all the other parents in the country with the "won't happen to my kid" attitude. Yeah, we don't have a problem with drugs, teen pregnancy, STD's, or violence in this country. Nope, not at all. All's well...
I don't want my kid to walk in on the babysitter looking at porn. This is a reasonable law to ensure that parents have the option to control what is viewed in their house.
Since 99.9% of ISP's already provide this and use it as a selling feature, I don't know what the stink is about...
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I find the trend of the graph far more telling than any portion of it.
i mate_Change.png
The little ups and downs are noise, cold years, hot years, etc.
The trend from 1910 to 2005 is hard to miss. A 1 degree change is something nature usually does over millions of years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Cl
Heck, we knocked it out in less than 100, and we're still climbing.
Far more alarming to me is that ice, that we know from core samples hasn't melted in a minimum of 10,000 years, is melting at an alarming rate. There isn't much "perma" left in permafrost.
Yes, nature changes on it's own, and that change can't be stopped. But nature also has no problem whatsoever wiping out a species, be it dinosaur or human.
Personally, I'd rather we stick around a little longer.
Of course you're right.
But it's interesting that we did in 50 years what took nature, according to the graph you presented, 50 million years.
Call me dumb and ugly, but I'd say we're having an effect.
Actually, the main school of thought is that global warming will cause the next ice age.
The theory goes that as things become more and more unbalanced and chaotic, eventually they earths climate system will "flip", plunging us into an ice age.
I don't pretend to understand it, but a quick Googling will show you plenty.
Of course there are other things that affect the climate.
e mperature_Record.png
But it's pretty hard to ignore a chart like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_T
The correlation between the rise of cars / planes and the rise of average temperatures is stunning.
That's all fine and good, except that means I have to block every single site I come across manually, and no one else gets to benefit from my efforts, and I don't get to benefit from theirs.
I'd much rather report a site, have it reviewed by someone from the search engine, and removed from their cache permanently. This also penalizes the SEO spammer in a major way: financially.
I wasn't going to buy from the scum buckets anyway, so it doesn't hurt them in the least if I block it.
What I want to see Google and other search engines do is add a small link next to every result in their search listings:
"Report this site as spam."
Of course they would only want to offer this to registered users who were signed in (so they can shut down offending accounts and keep company A from trying to destroy company B and in the process overwhelming the system), and the most frequently reported sites are groomed from the cache after review by a search engine employee.
I hate the sites that clearly exist for no other purpose than to manipulate the search engines (of course in 15 minutes of searching I can't find one, but the next time I search for real they'll be everywhere.), cheat (see the tiny links at the bottom), fake blogs that just reguritate free articles from all over the net, and other such scum that offers absolutely nothing to any human being visiting them.
I hate them both as a surfer and a webmaster.
I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that they made up more than 50% of the entire internet.
Actually, I do know exactly what it is like to be raising a family and then suddenly be unemployed. I have 3 daughters (2, 5, and 6), and I am self-employed for the past 6 years. At the end of every contract I AM unemployed.
I have to plow-the-pavement for work and new contracts all the time. I know all to well the stress of having bills and not having work.
I also know that for the average person out of work, ~maybe~ about 20% of their time is spent looking for work. I'm no different, when I am between contracts I find all sorts of ways to spend my time (Slashdot being on of them) that have nothing to do with finding new work.
The difference is, I've never had the luxury of a $400 a week safety net from the government, which I'm sure would make it even harder to get out and find work. When I don't find work, the cost of living goes on credit cards and I pay it off over time after I find work.
I'm not saying people shouldn't collect unemployment, because some of them should. I'm simply saying that there is massive and wide-spread abuse of the system (identity theft and fraud being only a small part of that), and seeing that makes it hard not to expect them to be able to ride the bus 5 miles for FREE MONEY.
There is a very easy solution to this:
Require them to pick up the first check, and subsequent first checks of each month, in person at a government agency where their identity can be confirmed.
There are maybe 2% of the people that will have legitimate reasons why the can't make that trip (in hospital, in traction, etc). In these cases send someone out.
If these people can't come out of their hole to collect a check, they obviously aren't getting out of their hole to look for a job, so they don't deserve benefits anyway.
What do you know about it? I've lost 32 pounds and reached my goal weight, my blood sugar problems are completely gone (after $300 in blood tests all the doctor could say was "eat more frequently", and I have physical and mental energy I haven't had in years. What do you care if I share it in my sig?
Just because something is passed into law, doesn't mean that it has passed "due process".
There are many, many of our laws that are passed because they were attached to much bigger issues and slipped through, when the law itself would never pass scrutiny or due process.
I'd love to see the time when every law had to pass on it's own merits instead of being bundled into one big mess that lives or dies together.
Well, if you ask John Paul Stevens, he's a Republican.
:}
That's one of the reasons I hate party lines so much, people think in terms of blue or red, when in reality there are an infinite number of shades of purple...
I've always considered myself a Republican (and voted that way), but the vast majority of what has happened while Bush has been in office makes me want to puke.
I read the article before it was posted on Slashdot.
3 republican judges voted for it, and 3 republican judges voted against it.
I mention Bush because he has been so focused on his own agenda (handing any natural resources and programs we have over to the rich) that he wouldn't notice if we were invaded by Russia until it advanced so far it interrupted his golf game. Even then he'd study the score card for 10 minutes before even responding...
I'm a lifelong republican who voted for Bush in 2000, but his time in office has made me want to puke. It reminds me of the lines in Revenge of the Sith, "The Sith always deal in absolutes" (Evil Doers, you're either with us or you're against us), and "So this is how liberty dies, amid cheering and applause", because that seems to be exactly what is happening. But as long as we're kicking Saddam's butt everybody is happy...
60% of those who voted FOR it were "conservative" judges...
In favor:
John Paul Stevens - Ford/republican
Anthony Kennedy - Reagan/republican
David H. Souter - Bush/republican
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Clinton/democrat
Stephen G. Breyer - Clinton/democrat
Against:
Sandra Day O'Connor - Reagan/republican
William H. Rehnquist - Nixon-Reagan/ republican
Antonin Scalia - Reagan/republican
Clarence Thomas - Bush/republican
60% of those who voted FOR it were "conservative" judges...
In favor:
John Paul Stevens - Ford/republican
Anthony Kennedy - Reagan/republican
David H. Souter - Bush/republican
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Clinton/democrat
Stephen G. Breyer - Clinton/democrat
Against:
Sandra Day O'Connor - Reagan/republican
William H. Rehnquist - Nixon-Reagan/ republican
Antonin Scalia - Reagan/republican
Clarence Thomas - Bush/republican
Bush Jr. has changed the definition of "conservative" so much that it is anything BUT conservative!
Well I still blame Bush.
If he weren't so distracted turning over America to his rich buddies, invading countries that have exactly nothing to do with 9/11, opening up every natural resource we have to mass harvesting, trying to own social security, medicaid, and medicare, maybe he'd still have enough credibility in Washington to get some good judges in.
As it is, the American people are sick of him and are finally starting to see through his crap, and about half of the republicans are sick of him, too. Including this one. I want my vote back.
Exept for one problem. It undermines the US Constitution.
Basic property rights shouldn't have to be defined 50 times in 50 different constitutions and fought in the courts of 50 different states.
The whole point of the Constitution is to protect the rights of all US citizens, regardless of which state they live in.
Our forefathers would have been marching in the streets with pitchforks and axes.
We're too busy checking our email, playing our consoles, reading Slashdot, and fighting over distros to care.
This is awful, and was already being severely abused. Walmart is by far one of the biggest offenders, but they won't be the last.
With this new law watch for cabins to be knocked down for ski resorts, and beach front homes to be leveled for new beach resorts. Watch neighborhoods be leveled for new shopping malls.
This is a major, major problem that is now going to get much worse.
And people thought Bush wouldn't accomplish anything in office...
I hadn't looked into this for a while, and it looks like some work has been done on it.
:}
Several open source programs / projects are listed here.
I haven't tried whether they work the way I want them to, or whether they provide the accuracy I crave...
What I'm talking about is using 2 separate GPS units, each connected to a linux box.
The fixed unit is on a known, surveyed point.
The other unit is out and about taking measurements. The fixed unit sends the mobile unit real-time data corrections.
Commercial DGPS equipment works in much the same way, but is very, very expensive.
Perhaps it's not possible to do what I'm thinking using a couple of old linux boxes, a couple off the shelf GPS's, and a means of communication (wi-fi, bluetooth, UHF / VHF radio) to send corrections, but since it's the way commercial systems work, it seems like it could be done as an open source project supporting any NEMA compatible GPS receiver.
I wish there were an open source DGPS project out there.
The premise seems simple enough: Have one GPS at a fixed position, and the other receives corrections via radio.
But I haven't been able to find anything.
My house sits on a large lot (over an acre) and I've wanted to survey it fairly accurately (within a foot at least) to recreate it digitally and be able to plan shops, gardens, landscaping, etc.
How are they limiting free speech if I have to ASK to be included in the filtering?
Each of the web sites on the list still have full and complete freedom of speech. They aren't censored in any way. Not a single adult is prevented from visiting the site that wants to.
That works awesome if you have 1 kid and nothing else to do.
What about when you have more than 1 kid and don't want to sit there every second they're surfing the net?
Be realistic.
In reality though, most installed filter packages suck, don't get updated, and either start out being totally ineffective or quickly become ineffective.
It's much either to say "Yes, for $2 a month I'd like my internet filtered" when you signup.
"Good parenting" and "good education" are nice concepts, but the reality is our kids are absolutely surrounded by sex, drugs, and violence every single day of their lives, everywhere they go. The absolute best families in America are not immune to these problems, and the statistics are staggering.
One more tool to allow non-technical parents an easy, cheap way to obtain some level of protection in their home is a good thing. It doesn't hurt the ISP's, most of whom offer this service already, and it doesn't infringe on the rights of anyone because it is entirely opt-in.
Let's see, maybe parents that go to the movies and don't want the babysitter looking at porn?
Or parents that aren't in the same room as their kids every single second of the day?
Nah, that just stupid. I should put my head in the sand next to all the other parents in the country with the "won't happen to my kid" attitude. Yeah, we don't have a problem with drugs, teen pregnancy, STD's, or violence in this country. Nope, not at all. All's well...
And what about when the parents go to a show?
I don't want my kid to walk in on the babysitter looking at porn. This is a reasonable law to ensure that parents have the option to control what is viewed in their house.
Since 99.9% of ISP's already provide this and use it as a selling feature, I don't know what the stink is about...