So you think the safest thing to do is just let CO2 levels rise, because, you know, what exactly? This is an argument based on little more than short term stupidity. We know in general terms that increasing CO2 levels raises surface temperatures, and we know a helluva lot of things like ocean currents and rain belts are influenced mightily by those temperatures. Once again, pleading to ignorance doesn't make thermodynamics go away.
Thermodynamics still applies to complex systems. If you raise the thermal equilibrium of a system, simple or complex (however you define either term), there will be substantial effects. The only issue in a system with a lot of inputs and variables is just how those changes propagate and how they may effect existing cycles and create new feedback loops and cycles. But using the word "complex" does not make the entire premise disappear.
We weren't here the last time CO2 levels were that high. Yes, the Earth survived. Hell, the Earth survived the Dinosaur Killer strike, but a shit ton of species died.
It's hard to assess with statements like that whether the poster is just playing a rhetorical game, or is indeed a complete fucking moron.
It certainly does. The average daily North American commute is well below the maximum range of most charged EVs. But we'll hear all kinds of stories about how the majority of North Americans own cabins in the woods, or something.
Exposing an iSCSI node to the great big wide world seems to go beyond normal incompetence and borders on utter ineptitude. Not that any device with an IP shouldn't be locked down, even inside a LAN (that's a bad enough failure of security), but wow, the idiocy of actually throwing any iSCSI device on a routable IP just seems so jaw droppingly stupid.
Well, we're in the middle of the disruption. I suspect we'll all be stuck with two or three streaming service subscriptions by the time it's done, but really, if I have to pay $50 for streaming services so I can watch the shows and movies I want to watch, then I'll probably almost never walk inside a movie theater again. I do not see how the Hollywood distribution model will function in the long term, and in a way, the big studios like Disney and the networks trying to lock everyone in to their own streaming offerings will only hasten the death of the movie theater. It is sad, in a way, because there was something unique to watching a movie in the theater, an audience experience you don't get at home, but to pay $50+ for a couple of seats, overpriced popcorn and some asshole surfing Facebook on his phone directly in front of me, yeah, I'll take the movie money and get a subscription to the streaming services I want.
I certainly don't go to theaters as much as I did even five years ago. Sometimes the experience is good (watching Deadpool in the theater was fun just to share in the general good feelings the movie generated in the audience), but considering going out for one movie costs me and my girlfriend about four months worth of Netflix subscription, and about double what I'd pay to watch a newish release on Google Play or itunes, yeah, the argument for going to theater is becoming harder to justify.
If that's the case, then all the major computing platforms are "surveillance platforms for Big Brother." Is there some reason to pull Google in particular?
Basic research may have far-reaching ramifications in the future. In the 18th century, electricity was little more than a parlor trick, and researchers into electricity and its effects weren't exactly doing anything all that memorable through the lens of useful research. By the mid-19th century, the world's first telecommunications system was being built.
Trying to force every scientist to solve today's problems does nothing but starve the future. And really, engineering is applied science. It is not science, no matter how much some engineers seem to believe it is.
Cosmology and astronomy are not engineering disciplines. Different people have different strengths and abilities. It's like demanding entomologists abandon the study of insects so they can cure cancer.
When I took statistics, the text made it clear that a P-value of 0.05 is *somewhat* arbitrary, in that for any individual analysis, it is a useful threshold, but by itself not an absolute indicator of significance. I think the people in this group are guilty of overstating their argument. Determining P-value, or any other statistical measure of significance, is the *start* of a study, and then comes all the hard work of determining if that value is pointing to something truly significant. But a p value of 0.05 is certainly going to suggest that the finding is significant, but it is not THE definitive test.
And beyond that, where in the Constitution does it say the states pick the president. The electors are apportioned based on the number of Congressional seats each state has, the intent being that the states each got a certain number of Electors. The states have control over how the electors are selected, but there's clearly nothing in that that says that electors must be pledged. That's a convention that grew out of the first few elections.
Bagehot was referring to the original intent, which was pretty much discarded, and because the constitution remained largely silent on the functioning of the College, it ended up being decided by the states. The intent was a deliberative body, what was practiced in short order was little more than a pretense, and now really is just a sham. If it is the states that select the President, then why not just have each legislature make the pick, and get rid of the college entire?
The whole point of the EC was to create a check on the popular vote. The College could, at its discretion, pick any of the available candidates. And, as I said elsewhere, the whole notion of the Faithless Elector, which is how the states try to guarantee an Elector votes for who they pledge, is probably unconstitutional, so what we have is a failed deliberative body that's little more than a part of the party machine.
The original intent of the electoral college was that it be a sort of "parliament" for selecting the President. It was intentionally placed not just as a means for the states to influence who became President, but also as a check on the states and the voters. The intention was that the Electors in each state would seek out the best man for the job. Unfortunately, the Constitution itself left things vague enough that pretty quickly the Electors basically became little more than placemarkers. They don't discuss, they don't do anything other than cast the ballot for which they've pledged. The whole concept of the "faithless Elector" is an alien one imposed by the states and no one is quite sure whether such laws are constitutional, because the College is a failed relic, so faithless electors are so infrequent that no one has bothere mounting a case.
The Electoral College hasn't really functioned the way the Framers intended it to after the first couple of elections. Bagehot noted that all the way back in the 1860s:
"Washington and his fellow-politicians contrived an electoral college, to be composed (as was hoped) of the wisest people in the nation, which, after due deliberation, was to choose for President the wisest man in the nation. But that college is a sham; it has no independence and no life. No one knows, or cares to know, who its members are. They never discuss, and never deliberate. They were chosen to vote that Mr Lincoln be President, or that Mr Breckenridge be President; they do so vote, and they go home." - The English Constitution
Exatly. Desalinization for the purposes of agriculture would be enormously expensive, not to mention you then have to figure out what to do with the salt that is produced by such a process.
It's going to be pretty trivial to write an app in any operating system that can test what is capable of accessing and "nag" you. I could write a Powershell or Bash script in about five minutes that would alert a user "Hey, you need to open write access to C:\WINDOWS or/etc".
Slashdot Mirror
It's beneficial now. It ain't gonna be beneficial in a few decades. And I'd argue that it's already detrimental.
I think I have a better idea than someone who magically thinks that thermodynamics can be defeated by "complexity".
So you think the safest thing to do is just let CO2 levels rise, because, you know, what exactly? This is an argument based on little more than short term stupidity. We know in general terms that increasing CO2 levels raises surface temperatures, and we know a helluva lot of things like ocean currents and rain belts are influenced mightily by those temperatures. Once again, pleading to ignorance doesn't make thermodynamics go away.
You can certainly predict some things. And once again, complexity doesn't make thermodynamics go away.
Thermodynamics still applies to complex systems. If you raise the thermal equilibrium of a system, simple or complex (however you define either term), there will be substantial effects. The only issue in a system with a lot of inputs and variables is just how those changes propagate and how they may effect existing cycles and create new feedback loops and cycles. But using the word "complex" does not make the entire premise disappear.
We weren't here the last time CO2 levels were that high. Yes, the Earth survived. Hell, the Earth survived the Dinosaur Killer strike, but a shit ton of species died.
It's hard to assess with statements like that whether the poster is just playing a rhetorical game, or is indeed a complete fucking moron.
It certainly does. The average daily North American commute is well below the maximum range of most charged EVs. But we'll hear all kinds of stories about how the majority of North Americans own cabins in the woods, or something.
Exposing an iSCSI node to the great big wide world seems to go beyond normal incompetence and borders on utter ineptitude. Not that any device with an IP shouldn't be locked down, even inside a LAN (that's a bad enough failure of security), but wow, the idiocy of actually throwing any iSCSI device on a routable IP just seems so jaw droppingly stupid.
Well, we're in the middle of the disruption. I suspect we'll all be stuck with two or three streaming service subscriptions by the time it's done, but really, if I have to pay $50 for streaming services so I can watch the shows and movies I want to watch, then I'll probably almost never walk inside a movie theater again. I do not see how the Hollywood distribution model will function in the long term, and in a way, the big studios like Disney and the networks trying to lock everyone in to their own streaming offerings will only hasten the death of the movie theater. It is sad, in a way, because there was something unique to watching a movie in the theater, an audience experience you don't get at home, but to pay $50+ for a couple of seats, overpriced popcorn and some asshole surfing Facebook on his phone directly in front of me, yeah, I'll take the movie money and get a subscription to the streaming services I want.
I certainly don't go to theaters as much as I did even five years ago. Sometimes the experience is good (watching Deadpool in the theater was fun just to share in the general good feelings the movie generated in the audience), but considering going out for one movie costs me and my girlfriend about four months worth of Netflix subscription, and about double what I'd pay to watch a newish release on Google Play or itunes, yeah, the argument for going to theater is becoming harder to justify.
I'm fascinated to hear what products Oracle had in the works that Google wrecked by re-using Java library headers.
Microkernels are looking better all the time.
If that's the case, then all the major computing platforms are "surveillance platforms for Big Brother." Is there some reason to pull Google in particular?
Basic research may have far-reaching ramifications in the future. In the 18th century, electricity was little more than a parlor trick, and researchers into electricity and its effects weren't exactly doing anything all that memorable through the lens of useful research. By the mid-19th century, the world's first telecommunications system was being built.
Trying to force every scientist to solve today's problems does nothing but starve the future. And really, engineering is applied science. It is not science, no matter how much some engineers seem to believe it is.
Cosmology and astronomy are not engineering disciplines. Different people have different strengths and abilities. It's like demanding entomologists abandon the study of insects so they can cure cancer.
Do your parents know you're insane?
When I took statistics, the text made it clear that a P-value of 0.05 is *somewhat* arbitrary, in that for any individual analysis, it is a useful threshold, but by itself not an absolute indicator of significance. I think the people in this group are guilty of overstating their argument. Determining P-value, or any other statistical measure of significance, is the *start* of a study, and then comes all the hard work of determining if that value is pointing to something truly significant. But a p value of 0.05 is certainly going to suggest that the finding is significant, but it is not THE definitive test.
And beyond that, where in the Constitution does it say the states pick the president. The electors are apportioned based on the number of Congressional seats each state has, the intent being that the states each got a certain number of Electors. The states have control over how the electors are selected, but there's clearly nothing in that that says that electors must be pledged. That's a convention that grew out of the first few elections.
Bagehot was referring to the original intent, which was pretty much discarded, and because the constitution remained largely silent on the functioning of the College, it ended up being decided by the states. The intent was a deliberative body, what was practiced in short order was little more than a pretense, and now really is just a sham. If it is the states that select the President, then why not just have each legislature make the pick, and get rid of the college entire?
The whole point of the EC was to create a check on the popular vote. The College could, at its discretion, pick any of the available candidates. And, as I said elsewhere, the whole notion of the Faithless Elector, which is how the states try to guarantee an Elector votes for who they pledge, is probably unconstitutional, so what we have is a failed deliberative body that's little more than a part of the party machine.
The original intent of the electoral college was that it be a sort of "parliament" for selecting the President. It was intentionally placed not just as a means for the states to influence who became President, but also as a check on the states and the voters. The intention was that the Electors in each state would seek out the best man for the job. Unfortunately, the Constitution itself left things vague enough that pretty quickly the Electors basically became little more than placemarkers. They don't discuss, they don't do anything other than cast the ballot for which they've pledged. The whole concept of the "faithless Elector" is an alien one imposed by the states and no one is quite sure whether such laws are constitutional, because the College is a failed relic, so faithless electors are so infrequent that no one has bothere mounting a case.
The Electoral College hasn't really functioned the way the Framers intended it to after the first couple of elections. Bagehot noted that all the way back in the 1860s:
"Washington and his
fellow-politicians contrived an electoral college, to be composed (as
was hoped) of the wisest people in the nation, which, after due
deliberation, was to choose for President the wisest man in the
nation. But that college is a sham; it has no independence and no life.
No one knows, or cares to know, who its members are. They never
discuss, and never deliberate. They were chosen to vote that Mr
Lincoln be President, or that Mr Breckenridge be President; they do
so vote, and they go home."
- The English Constitution
Wow, a youtube video. Well I'm totally convinced.
And what garbage is that precisely?
Exatly. Desalinization for the purposes of agriculture would be enormously expensive, not to mention you then have to figure out what to do with the salt that is produced by such a process.
I wouldn't call that a strong GM/DM, I'd call that a shitty GM. A good GM rolls with the punches when players go off script.
It's going to be pretty trivial to write an app in any operating system that can test what is capable of accessing and "nag" you. I could write a Powershell or Bash script in about five minutes that would alert a user "Hey, you need to open write access to C:\WINDOWS or /etc".