And we can tax the hell out of them if necessary to balance the books. Consider it a transformer fixing up the impedance mismatch between the U.S. and Indian economy.
I don't think that's going to happen because YOU are the problem globalization is supposed to fix. Once you are subdued, begging, starving and can't afford to live in the country of your birth you won't worry about your pay and conditions, you'll just be happy to have some form of employment (not _personally_ you btw). Globalization exports labor, but not pay and conditions.
Of course this is the reason unions existed in the first place, to protect workers and lobby politicians for the very solution you point to here.
Things are only evidence of a given theory or they are only valid if they confirm current theory.
This talk of double standards has another point. Talk of AGW and if it is or isn't man made, if it is or isn't happening centers around a key distraction because it is the main externality of modern man. Cast doubt on carbon as an externality then you cast doubt on every other of the plethora of externalities that we just expect nature to deal with.
So put aside AGW for a while and ponder if all the industrial products and processes we have actually produce pollution as an externality and, for how long has it been creating an impact?
How much garbage does it take for a gyre to form in both our largest oceans kilometres deep, just how much trees can we cut down - all of them? How many factory ships and by-catch does it take to empty the ocean ecosystems? All of these and thousands of other human externalities exist and every single one of them has an impact. So yeah, it may not be AGW related, however it is more than likely related to some form of human externality. My point is, does it matter which human externality it belongs to if we are so mired down with inaction and analysis-paralysis to do anything about them.
Pick *any* large scale human industrial activity and ask yourself what the impact is? You don't need science to tell you that if you burst a cyanide dam (used for gold mining) and it flows into a river - everything in its path is going to die. That if you choke rivers with fertilizers and on and on and on.
Does it matter which human externality is to blame anymore?
Here someone is going to attack me for pushing the denialist/skeptic position... because god forbid anyone question the orthodoxy
But you are pushing it and no one is attacking you because the denialist/skeptic position is politics, not science. It's forbidding anyone questioning the orthodoxy of the coal/oil industry by positioning them in an argument to render the actual science of AGW a moot point. It's genius really, a skeptic absolves them selves of any need to present proof of their argument and can deny an proof presented - no proof is possible.
And what's the point of denialist/skeptic being right? Right about what? What alternate thesis is being presented to the thousands of articles of science presented?
The oil/coal industry is an entity that has control over the media outlets that shape our opinions and has trillions of dollars for lobbying, you think you are questioning the orthodoxy however in reality, you are just towing the line. Prove to me you aren't towing the line, show me the science to back up an alternate claim.
Either do the science or disclaim your position with a statement that this is just your assumption/guess. I'm fine with people guessing. Guess all day. Don't tell me your guesses are science though.
The only claim made is that this is what was noticed in the NOAA survey of animal migration. This is a fact that contributes to science which denialist/skeptics won't accept anyway. What is your alternate claim, show me your evidence that this isn't caused by AGW, where is your evidence to support your alternate claim?
The science of AGW challenges oil and coal industry hegemony and the science was reported right here on/. even before Al Gore got up and made it trendy to talk about. I've read so much science about AGW I can't even remember just how many overwhelming arguments there are. The science is in, most people talk about their doubts about AGW and they don't even try to understand the science. The talk of double standards from denialist/skeptics is actually a double standard - what facts, based in science and research, have denialist/skeptics ever presented?
The only fact denialist/skeptics need to assess is if it's in the coal and oil industry's interest to cast enough doubt in everyone's minds to promote inaction, which is so mu
So far, I've read all the previous rants about Australia from other posters. For a moment, I could be convinced they were talking about either the US or UK. Is the entire "West" just fucked?
I think the baby boomers have all run out of ideas and don't trust the younger generations. They want everything and are just wreaking the place before they leave because it's easier than leaving a solid base for the future.
Doesn't sound like it. Nice irony post about being a whinging fuckwit!
Stop talking out your arse. Take the 'Aussie Pride' sticker of the back of the ute you drive and wake up you dumb ignorant anonymous gutless prick. They are right, and Australia is turning into this because useless dickhead such as you.
You are like the fucking cane toads ruining Australia. A fucking useless and ugly pest.
And you can't tell them, they won't listen, Aussies think they know everything
I am Australian - and I endorse everything you say.
I'll add that there are a lot of Australians that are sick of it. Unfortunately the dumb as fuck, thick as a house brick masses are such blind, igorant, apethetic, insular and stupid cowards they just cheers the government on into making Australia a police state.
Meanwhile, any Australian who cares about the country looks on in horror. We are one despot away from a dictatorship.
Just because soldiers suffer for my freedom doesn't mean I want whistleblowers to suffer also.
Soldiers protect us from foreign enemies, Whistleblowers protect us from domestic enemies. They are both heros however, the attacks and wounds they suffer differ.
He means, we all aspire to live as if we're Putin, who aspires to live like he was Chuck Norris.
If we were directly exposed to trying to live like Chuck Norris we would die from infinitely trying to roundhouse kick ourselves in the head for trying to live the Chuck Norris. Consequently we "does not live the guy" because Putin saves us from not being Chuck Norris as he is the only man manly enough to survive his own roundhouse kick to the head.
You don't give management all of the information they need as it creates a reporting burden for no reason. They don't know how difficult the reports are to use and they won't use a dashboard because that means they have to think about the dashboard instead of the decisions they are trying to make.
If you have management that wants reports, you ask them what they need to decide on and then you ensure that they will get *that* information without all the fluff. It doesn't matter whether or not anyone here thinks if dashboards vs reports are relevant, is it relevant to the user of the data? Unlike sales dashboards where management knows what they are looking for, they have now idea what technology articles they need, so until that day arrives, reports based on what decisions they have to make, are.
Chuck Norris doesn't need a stinkin' rocket to go to the moon, he just jumps.
Chuck Norris doesn't jump to the moon. The landing would knock it out of orbit. He simply points at the ground and the universe shifts around him by 385,000 km (give or take).
Actually "The Moon" is Chuck Norris mooning the whole earth. That's why it is called "The Moon", no other mooning comes close.
Whilst sadly amusing what the artist misses is that humanity is Gaia's most likely candidate for reproduction than any other species. Whilst we are, sadly, arrogant Homo Sapien represents the apex of evolution on the earth. Whilst nature would go on without humans it would also take billions of years for another species like humanity to emerge, IF another species emerges.
We may die before nature, but our evolution on this planet also serves natures inherent instinct to survive and reproduce elsewhere.
This is what the consequences of radionuclides in the food chain looks like. The next step are the lizards and birds that eat these insects. It's not surprising that this is hard to understand, because it happens so slowly.
We are seeing the slow consequence of releasing radionuclides into the environment, they are absorbed into metabolisms because they present as micronutrients that biota can utilise for growth and maintenance. Once ingested into the body they act in two ways.
The first, as alpha, beta and gamma emitters they act directly on the surrounding tissues to gestate cancers in the body, a process that takes about 6 years in humans depending on how energetic the radio isotope is.
The second is through genetic damage to the DNA. These damaged genes are passed down through generations and when certain combinations meet the result is transgenic disease.
These cover the radioactive effects of the emitter, however there is also some elements that are highly toxic as well which introduces a third vector based on toxicity. For those people directly exposed who ingested radio-isotopes at 3/11 it will be roughly 2017 when the cancer rates start increasing, following that bio-accumulation inserts a random period of time and distributions of radioactive materials before they are absorbed causing a statistical increase of particular types of cancer deaths in humans.
Over time we will no longer be talking about death rates but failed births and an overall reduction of the capacity for species, including humans, to reproduce. This will be coupled with a higher rate of mutations and abnormalities for successful reproductions. This will continue to occur for the halflife of the isotope multiplied by 20 daughter products before an isotope is benign. For sr90 with a half life of 600 years this means a 12000year decay cycle, for pu-239 it's a 500000 year decay cycle, from humanities perspective this is effectively permanent.
If anyone wanted a plausible explanation for the Fermi Paradox I believe this is a candidate.
China continues with their Long March series of missile, India/Pakistan/Korea expand their arsenals,
Perhaps if America stopped selling them Nuclear Reactors because the plutonium has to come from somewhere.
Russia recently stopped all shipments of processed Uranium from Russia to America for fuel processing, a move that indicates they have no intention of reducing their arsenal. Why would we reduce our arsenal in that situation?
So instead of dealing with one failing nuclear weapons infrastructure we have to deal with two, actually four - on both sides whilst being manipulated by tewworwists who practice asymmetrical warfare to politicians, press and public struggling to deal with the situation. Great from a MAD world to an INSANE one.
We will look back at the 90's and say Clinton should have been impeached for not taking a full disarmament treaty with a case of Kentucky's finest to Yeltsin, whilst offering a pen. The greatest missed opportunity.
"But what about the..." is a never-ending argument between conspiracy theorists and debunkers.
Unfortunately, each one that gets knocked down on its face means it's statistically more likely that the debunkers are right and the theorists wrong. We can go to infinity, but after ten or even 5 assertions wiped out with only basic experimentation, the chances of you having been right in the first place go beyond minuscule.
Unfortunately this is human nature - the desire to not be humiliated when proven wrong. The phenomenon is called "Social Proof" and is, effectively, the evangelization of a particular point of view or assertion in absence of evidence. Social Proof is responsible for many human failures, the Jonestown massacre being one example.
Scientific principle starts with "here's a hypothesis, does it fit the facts?" and goes BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD whenever any element of it is wrong. Conspiracy theorists just keep on pounding ignoring all their previous incorrect assertions until people get bored dealing with them and then "Ah ha! They won't answer!".
The issue with Social Proof is that when presented with evidence contrary to the belief system the beliefs become *more* entrenched. Nvidia's simulation will in fact cause the moon hoaxers to be *more* convinced that the landing were a hoax. Watch for the new "arguments" like finally we know how the pictures were generated in the first place.
In fact the best way to challenge Social Proof is to agree and go deeper than they do. I like pointing out that despite this and that evidence, this study, those artifacts it is a great pity that they are right and that such an achievement is in fact a fake and terrible lie. Letting them experience and explore the depths of their disappointment at being right about the "moon hoax" all along is, I've found, the best way to leave them feeling defeated and deflated. It consumes less of my energy and marvel at such an event while they entertain me at the same time. Planet Xers are also great fun to play with, chemtrailers the list goes on.
Perhaps it's arrogant but it's obvious to me that we went to the moon because that's where the transmission signals came from, "moon hoaxers" can believe what they will and so will I.
I agree and am happy to see this fork. As unpopular as it may make me, I actually like the initd functionality of systemd. I'm fine with using and writing the old init scripts, but systemd unit files are simple, concise, and powerful enough for my needs.
I think you've summed up the sentiments of most people who have done testing of systemd vs initd. We're running parallel tests in house and systemd has got some compelling features. Unit files do prevent some of the crappy init files. The binary logging I think is a mistake, however some of the journalctl functionality is pretty good. Anyone comfortable with awk and sed though will probably see this functionality as useful only to reduce the time it takes to parse logs for what you are looking for. The loss of the last binary encoded log data is a big failure though.
On the other hand, I find the kitchen-sink feature creep of systemd absolutely repulsive. Cramming all of that functionality into PID 1 as a unwieldy monolith seems like such a deeply flawed exercise. Uselessd seems like a perfect replacement for systemd: all of the benefits and none/less of the cruft.
systemd could be good if it was a replacement for the rc system only, which in my opinion is pretty broken. I'm still learning if OpenRC fixes this however our tests of systemd internally show it is not yet ready for production systems at all. Our installed version seems to have difficulty with some services as simple as ssh, which are restarted for no apparent reason along with the network services. With this things functioning properly on the parallel system it really highlights how far systemd has to go.
I think the good thing about systemd is it does raise focus on how broken init.d scripts can be. If systemd stopped at unit files it would probably be a resounding success.
Slashdot Mirror
And we can tax the hell out of them if necessary to balance the books. Consider it a transformer fixing up the impedance mismatch between the U.S. and Indian economy.
I don't think that's going to happen because YOU are the problem globalization is supposed to fix. Once you are subdued, begging, starving and can't afford to live in the country of your birth you won't worry about your pay and conditions, you'll just be happy to have some form of employment (not _personally_ you btw). Globalization exports labor, but not pay and conditions.
Of course this is the reason unions existed in the first place, to protect workers and lobby politicians for the very solution you point to here.
Things are only evidence of a given theory or they are only valid if they confirm current theory.
This talk of double standards has another point. Talk of AGW and if it is or isn't man made, if it is or isn't happening centers around a key distraction because it is the main externality of modern man. Cast doubt on carbon as an externality then you cast doubt on every other of the plethora of externalities that we just expect nature to deal with.
So put aside AGW for a while and ponder if all the industrial products and processes we have actually produce pollution as an externality and, for how long has it been creating an impact?
How much garbage does it take for a gyre to form in both our largest oceans kilometres deep, just how much trees can we cut down - all of them? How many factory ships and by-catch does it take to empty the ocean ecosystems? All of these and thousands of other human externalities exist and every single one of them has an impact. So yeah, it may not be AGW related, however it is more than likely related to some form of human externality. My point is, does it matter which human externality it belongs to if we are so mired down with inaction and analysis-paralysis to do anything about them.
Pick *any* large scale human industrial activity and ask yourself what the impact is? You don't need science to tell you that if you burst a cyanide dam (used for gold mining) and it flows into a river - everything in its path is going to die. That if you choke rivers with fertilizers and on and on and on.
Does it matter which human externality is to blame anymore?
Here someone is going to attack me for pushing the denialist/skeptic position... because god forbid anyone question the orthodoxy
But you are pushing it and no one is attacking you because the denialist/skeptic position is politics, not science. It's forbidding anyone questioning the orthodoxy of the coal/oil industry by positioning them in an argument to render the actual science of AGW a moot point. It's genius really, a skeptic absolves them selves of any need to present proof of their argument and can deny an proof presented - no proof is possible.
And what's the point of denialist/skeptic being right? Right about what? What alternate thesis is being presented to the thousands of articles of science presented?
The oil/coal industry is an entity that has control over the media outlets that shape our opinions and has trillions of dollars for lobbying, you think you are questioning the orthodoxy however in reality, you are just towing the line. Prove to me you aren't towing the line, show me the science to back up an alternate claim.
Either do the science or disclaim your position with a statement that this is just your assumption/guess. I'm fine with people guessing. Guess all day. Don't tell me your guesses are science though.
The only claim made is that this is what was noticed in the NOAA survey of animal migration. This is a fact that contributes to science which denialist/skeptics won't accept anyway. What is your alternate claim, show me your evidence that this isn't caused by AGW, where is your evidence to support your alternate claim?
The science of AGW challenges oil and coal industry hegemony and the science was reported right here on /. even before Al Gore got up and made it trendy to talk about. I've read so much science about AGW I can't even remember just how many overwhelming arguments there are. The science is in, most people talk about their doubts about AGW and they don't even try to understand the science. The talk of double standards from denialist/skeptics is actually a double standard - what facts, based in science and research, have denialist/skeptics ever presented?
The only fact denialist/skeptics need to assess is if it's in the coal and oil industry's interest to cast enough doubt in everyone's minds to promote inaction, which is so mu
They're all Scyencey and stuff, like you know sorta kinda facts and, stuff
What has the UK become with regulations and "attitudes" of law enforcement & government officials like this?
The City of London is different from London City. City of London is more like a Chamber of Commerce that started over a thousand years ago
How about protecting the public from the lobbyists and legislators pushing oppressive copyright laws?
Applause >
They will never.ever.ever.ever.stop.never
So far, I've read all the previous rants about Australia from other posters. For a moment, I could be convinced they were talking about either the US or UK. Is the entire "West" just fucked?
I think the baby boomers have all run out of ideas and don't trust the younger generations. They want everything and are just wreaking the place before they leave because it's easier than leaving a solid base for the future.
I'm Australian as well. Completely agree, This country is currently under an idiot,but a dangerous idiot as the sheeple believe him.
He is all about the stick and not about the carrot, Mr Rabbit.
Ex-dickhead?
Doesn't sound like it. Nice irony post about being a whinging fuckwit!
Stop talking out your arse. Take the 'Aussie Pride' sticker of the back of the ute you drive and wake up you dumb ignorant anonymous gutless prick. They are right, and Australia is turning into this because useless dickhead such as you.
You are like the fucking cane toads ruining Australia. A fucking useless and ugly pest.
I think it may create a big bang.
It did create the Big Bang, we are now in the infinite time and mass between kicks.
And you can't tell them, they won't listen, Aussies think they know everything
I am Australian - and I endorse everything you say.
I'll add that there are a lot of Australians that are sick of it. Unfortunately the dumb as fuck, thick as a house brick masses are such blind, igorant, apethetic, insular and stupid cowards they just cheers the government on into making Australia a police state.
Meanwhile, any Australian who cares about the country looks on in horror. We are one despot away from a dictatorship.
Just because soldiers suffer for my freedom doesn't mean I want whistleblowers to suffer also.
Soldiers protect us from foreign enemies, Whistleblowers protect us from domestic enemies. They are both heros however, the attacks and wounds they suffer differ.
I don't live him.
He means, we all aspire to live as if we're Putin, who aspires to live like he was Chuck Norris.
If we were directly exposed to trying to live like Chuck Norris we would die from infinitely trying to roundhouse kick ourselves in the head for trying to live the Chuck Norris. Consequently we "does not live the guy" because Putin saves us from not being Chuck Norris as he is the only man manly enough to survive his own roundhouse kick to the head.
You don't give management all of the information they need as it creates a reporting burden for no reason. They don't know how difficult the reports are to use and they won't use a dashboard because that means they have to think about the dashboard instead of the decisions they are trying to make.
If you have management that wants reports, you ask them what they need to decide on and then you ensure that they will get *that* information without all the fluff. It doesn't matter whether or not anyone here thinks if dashboards vs reports are relevant, is it relevant to the user of the data? Unlike sales dashboards where management knows what they are looking for, they have now idea what technology articles they need, so until that day arrives, reports based on what decisions they have to make, are.
And that is what you have to say.
I don't see how this can be practical to have a device so humans can walk like rats.
Yeah but it would be cool if it could help you rat dance!
Chuck Norris doesn't need a stinkin' rocket to go to the moon, he just jumps.
Chuck Norris doesn't jump to the moon. The landing would knock it out of orbit. He simply points at the ground and the universe shifts around him by 385,000 km (give or take).
Actually "The Moon" is Chuck Norris mooning the whole earth. That's why it is called "The Moon", no other mooning comes close.
Pfffft. I should have expected Korny jokes. (Ba-dum-csh.)
sh hhhh!
Precisely.
Actually I think we'll be just fine cranking out generations of imbeciles.
Ironically there is some truth in this as tritium ingested by pregnant mothers leads to decreased brain weight.
Whilst sadly amusing what the artist misses is that humanity is Gaia's most likely candidate for reproduction than any other species. Whilst we are, sadly, arrogant Homo Sapien represents the apex of evolution on the earth. Whilst nature would go on without humans it would also take billions of years for another species like humanity to emerge, IF another species emerges.
We may die before nature, but our evolution on this planet also serves natures inherent instinct to survive and reproduce elsewhere.
This is what the consequences of radionuclides in the food chain looks like. The next step are the lizards and birds that eat these insects. It's not surprising that this is hard to understand, because it happens so slowly.
We are seeing the slow consequence of releasing radionuclides into the environment, they are absorbed into metabolisms because they present as micronutrients that biota can utilise for growth and maintenance. Once ingested into the body they act in two ways.
The first, as alpha, beta and gamma emitters they act directly on the surrounding tissues to gestate cancers in the body, a process that takes about 6 years in humans depending on how energetic the radio isotope is.
The second is through genetic damage to the DNA. These damaged genes are passed down through generations and when certain combinations meet the result is transgenic disease.
These cover the radioactive effects of the emitter, however there is also some elements that are highly toxic as well which introduces a third vector based on toxicity. For those people directly exposed who ingested radio-isotopes at 3/11 it will be roughly 2017 when the cancer rates start increasing, following that bio-accumulation inserts a random period of time and distributions of radioactive materials before they are absorbed causing a statistical increase of particular types of cancer deaths in humans.
Over time we will no longer be talking about death rates but failed births and an overall reduction of the capacity for species, including humans, to reproduce. This will be coupled with a higher rate of mutations and abnormalities for successful reproductions. This will continue to occur for the halflife of the isotope multiplied by 20 daughter products before an isotope is benign. For sr90 with a half life of 600 years this means a 12000year decay cycle, for pu-239 it's a 500000 year decay cycle, from humanities perspective this is effectively permanent.
If anyone wanted a plausible explanation for the Fermi Paradox I believe this is a candidate.
China continues with their Long March series of missile, India/Pakistan/Korea expand their arsenals,
Perhaps if America stopped selling them Nuclear Reactors because the plutonium has to come from somewhere.
Russia recently stopped all shipments of processed Uranium from Russia to America for fuel processing, a move that indicates they have no intention of reducing their arsenal. Why would we reduce our arsenal in that situation?
So instead of dealing with one failing nuclear weapons infrastructure we have to deal with two, actually four - on both sides whilst being manipulated by tewworwists who practice asymmetrical warfare to politicians, press and public struggling to deal with the situation. Great from a MAD world to an INSANE one.
We will look back at the 90's and say Clinton should have been impeached for not taking a full disarmament treaty with a case of Kentucky's finest to Yeltsin, whilst offering a pen. The greatest missed opportunity.
"But what about the..." is a never-ending argument between conspiracy theorists and debunkers.
Exactly. It's essentially whack-a-mole but with paranoid and stupid people.
Absolutely! It's obvious that we went to the moon because that is where we met Aliens for the first time!!!
Unfortunately this is human nature - the desire to not be humiliated when proven wrong. The phenomenon is called "Social Proof" and is, effectively, the evangelization of a particular point of view or assertion in absence of evidence. Social Proof is responsible for many human failures, the Jonestown massacre being one example.
The issue with Social Proof is that when presented with evidence contrary to the belief system the beliefs become *more* entrenched. Nvidia's simulation will in fact cause the moon hoaxers to be *more* convinced that the landing were a hoax. Watch for the new "arguments" like finally we know how the pictures were generated in the first place.
In fact the best way to challenge Social Proof is to agree and go deeper than they do. I like pointing out that despite this and that evidence, this study, those artifacts it is a great pity that they are right and that such an achievement is in fact a fake and terrible lie. Letting them experience and explore the depths of their disappointment at being right about the "moon hoax" all along is, I've found, the best way to leave them feeling defeated and deflated. It consumes less of my energy and marvel at such an event while they entertain me at the same time. Planet Xers are also great fun to play with, chemtrailers the list goes on.
Perhaps it's arrogant but it's obvious to me that we went to the moon because that's where the transmission signals came from, "moon hoaxers" can believe what they will and so will I.
I agree and am happy to see this fork. As unpopular as it may make me, I actually like the initd functionality of systemd. I'm fine with using and writing the old init scripts, but systemd unit files are simple, concise, and powerful enough for my needs.
I think you've summed up the sentiments of most people who have done testing of systemd vs initd. We're running parallel tests in house and systemd has got some compelling features. Unit files do prevent some of the crappy init files. The binary logging I think is a mistake, however some of the journalctl functionality is pretty good. Anyone comfortable with awk and sed though will probably see this functionality as useful only to reduce the time it takes to parse logs for what you are looking for. The loss of the last binary encoded log data is a big failure though.
On the other hand, I find the kitchen-sink feature creep of systemd absolutely repulsive. Cramming all of that functionality into PID 1 as a unwieldy monolith seems like such a deeply flawed exercise. Uselessd seems like a perfect replacement for systemd: all of the benefits and none/less of the cruft.
systemd could be good if it was a replacement for the rc system only, which in my opinion is pretty broken. I'm still learning if OpenRC fixes this however our tests of systemd internally show it is not yet ready for production systems at all. Our installed version seems to have difficulty with some services as simple as ssh, which are restarted for no apparent reason along with the network services. With this things functioning properly on the parallel system it really highlights how far systemd has to go.
I think the good thing about systemd is it does raise focus on how broken init.d scripts can be. If systemd stopped at unit files it would probably be a resounding success.
Obviously we need Jack Black to come in here and write a song about the epic conflict unfolding here.