In fact, this sort of exaggeration is prevalent on a massive scale on all levels of government, and causes trillions of deaths per year because our anti-exaggeration department is too poorly funded to deal with it. Who knows what will happen if terrorists also deploy such methods?
When I was updating, I had a problem that the update option stopped appearing in update-manager.
There's a bunch of possible reasons. One may be that the mirrors haven't updated yet, in which case you'll have to wait. My problem was that when I rejected the update for the first time, update-manager for some reason stops displaying the update for 24 hours or something. (Devs, this isn't very smart behaviour...)
I found the way to solve this issue on the forums:
Run:
sudo update-manager -d
(I'm not sure what this does, and update-manager shockingly lacks a manpage, but it worked for me.)
Well, Google is censoring its own output, but Yahoo is actually sending people to jail. While Google's crime is not fighting the power and keeping its own mouth shut to abuses, Yahoo shows a more active collaboration, and so is more evil.
In Godwinny terms, Google represents the ordinary Germans who turned a blind eye to the Nazi regime, while Yahoo represents the slimeballs who reported their neighbours for hiding Jews, or being disloyal to the regime.
Can someone explain the slew of Global Warming related snarks and references? I mean, what the hell is similar between this and the other?
Global warming, we have a well understood and physically justified model whose conclusions are gradually confirmed by more and more evidence. Heliopause, we have a naive model based on little evidence, whose conclusion - uniformity of the Heliopause based on lack of apparent altering factors - is refuted by two pieces of probably not very significant evidence. We have no historical evidence of how the heliopause has altered in the past for us to compare our data. Global warming, we have a reasonable selection of known factors, and by seeing what effects they have on our model, we find that we cannot statistically reject GH gases as a significant issue. Heliopause, we have almost no known factors that can cause this distortion, and on the basis of this, we only know that the present factors appear insufficient based on our conventional assumptions. Global warming, we have a broad scientific consensus shown in all peer reviewed publications, questioned by only a few with dubious records of intellectual integrity and whose arguments have been shown to have hilarious errors over and over again. Heliopause, we have no consensus, because this is a new question that no one has tried to answer yet. All anyone can do is throw hypotheses up in the air. And no, 'human effect' is not one of them because the Earth goes around and around so any effect on the heliopause would be averaged out, and because we don't exert any measurable influence that could affect such a massive thing. (Inverse square law applies, and everything)
So, in summary, I don't get the joke. If this is at all like climatology, then the analogy would be with climatology in the 19th century, where we've only just begun to try to understand the weather. In that case, history shows waiting a few years will not be enough. A century, maybe...
"Argueably the greatest tragedy of the twentieth century. DDT was the best agent against mosquitos and despite the rhetoric there was nothing anywhere neat as good or as safe. Since the ban, two million people a year have died unnecessarily from malaria, mostly children. All together, the ban has caused more than fifty million needless deaths. Banning DDT killed more people than Hitler, Ted. And the environmental movement pushed hard for it."
Things to note: The statement doesn't mentioned how many people died per year without DDT. It doesn't mention any other effects.
Something about correlation != causation comes to mind...
The irony is that this is fairly close to what many western critics of Wikipedia propose. 'Moral responsibility', stronger 'editorial controls', protection of living people, 'accountability', anyone?
I guess this post is kinda flamebaity, but well...
Erm, water vapour is an amplifier, not a forcing. Such studies do not undermine Carbon effects, but tell us more about how locally AGW will lead to implications in the complex weather system. The models are accurate enough to show the massive heating. This new study tells us how massive, and where.
Indeed. I think Nintendo may soon deserve some credit for saving the games industry. Spiraling development cost driven by rising graphical expectation is a malaise that everyone loses out from in the long term. Nintendo is filling a vital role in the games industry by making innovation profitable again.
So WB wants to introduce something that cuts costs for them immensely (they aren't even paying for bandwidth, if I'm understanding this correctly), and then decides not to pass this saving onto the consumer. Together with more dubious DRMing, how is this going to terminate the piracy networks? You might as well ask people to buy DVDs and rip them for personal use. (if that isn't illegal yet)
I think it's fairly clear who they are aiming for with this: They are not trying to compete with piracy - no matter what they say in the press releases. Rather, they think it is more profitable for them to simply ignore the computer-literate current filesharers, and market directly towards the new and relatively tech-iliterate users. The pricing point is set to compete with DVDs, and the idea is that people unaware of DRM and so on can be sold on the convenience aspects, and would not dig deeply enough to find the free downloads available elsewhere. The companies can then reap the savings, and everyone is happy and rootkitted.
I'm sure the French thought something similar when they built the Maginot line - "Now we're safe from the Germans, all wars will be small colonial ones".
Except that these Star Wars projects are the equivalent of the Maginot Line. They are based on the assumption that the enemy will play exactly the strategy we happen to be thinking about at this time. Except that if we are really talking about a major war, we are talking 20 years down the line when this technology is obselete, and in the end, there are dozens of way our notional hi-tech enemy can get around such a defense. e.g.
The Chinese can neglect space war altogether. A crash program to place alot of space junk up there will negate satellites for both sides, and give a big advantage over the US who is investing deeply in that sphere.
They might neglect conventional war. How do you defend against a committed brigade of 1000 or so with backpack nukes?
They might wage economic war. Then nothing you blow up can do any good.
Using RTS metaphors, it's just dumb to be building defenses when you don't know what army your opponent is going to field, when your foe can just observe your spending and build up forces tailored against it.
(OK, if this was a RTS game, the US would be zerg-rushing China. Or maybe everyone would have lagged out already.)
I dunno. In a great many movies, I find myself cheering on the baddies as they get mowed down by the annoying heros. People don't like to support winners that are obviously going to win - they want the losers to stand a chance.
Examples: Die Hard, Broken Arrow, any Steven Seagal film...
All I see in those searchs are claims and allegations by Falun Gong itself. Though what China is doing with them is despicable, the religion itself is hardly an unbiased commentators with privileged access to such information.
The facts of the matter are that: Some of the organs China uses for transplantation, and yes, selling, come from executed criminals. China claims that the criminals gave their consent. However, they have offered little evidence for this. (There is no evidence to the contrary, however.) Some of the executed criminals are members of Falun Gong.
China isn't chasing Falun Gong members for their sweet, sweet kidneys. What is wrong in all of this is that Falun Gong members have been executed in the first place if they did not commit crimes that deserved execution, or that organs may have been donated without consent. (Some may argue that convicted and executed criminals in fact do not have to right to deny their bodies' use to save the lives of innocent people...) But for some reason, Falun Gong doesn't find the real crime to be interesting enough, but instead spins up this silly emotional excuse.
China does plenty of things wrong. Can't people please align criticism of China more closely to the actual facts, instead of hysterical screaming that only loses them credibility?
Seriously, what is needed is a variant of Godwin's law, only referring to terrorism instead of Nazis. Appeals to terrorism in a discussion never, as far as I can tell, enhances the level of the debate and is almost always a stupid appeal to emotion.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact, this sort of exaggeration is prevalent on a massive scale on all levels of government, and causes trillions of deaths per year because our anti-exaggeration department is too poorly funded to deal with it. Who knows what will happen if terrorists also deploy such methods?
Kindly send your cheque today.
When I was updating, I had a problem that the update option stopped appearing in update-manager.
There's a bunch of possible reasons. One may be that the mirrors haven't updated yet, in which case you'll have to wait. My problem was that when I rejected the update for the first time, update-manager for some reason stops displaying the update for 24 hours or something. (Devs, this isn't very smart behaviour...)
I found the way to solve this issue on the forums:
Run:
sudo update-manager -d
(I'm not sure what this does, and update-manager shockingly lacks a manpage, but it worked for me.)
I guess we'll have to cut off Scuttlemonkey's testicles, then.
Maybe they're just doing to apt-upgrade to Ubuntu Dapper?
I find it totally hilarious that parent is modded flamebait...
Well, Google is censoring its own output, but Yahoo is actually sending people to jail. While Google's crime is not fighting the power and keeping its own mouth shut to abuses, Yahoo shows a more active collaboration, and so is more evil.
In Godwinny terms, Google represents the ordinary Germans who turned a blind eye to the Nazi regime, while Yahoo represents the slimeballs who reported their neighbours for hiding Jews, or being disloyal to the regime.
Can someone explain the slew of Global Warming related snarks and references? I mean, what the hell is similar between this and the other?
Global warming, we have a well understood and physically justified model whose conclusions are gradually confirmed by more and more evidence.
Heliopause, we have a naive model based on little evidence, whose conclusion - uniformity of the Heliopause based on lack of apparent altering factors - is refuted by two pieces of probably not very significant evidence. We have no historical evidence of how the heliopause has altered in the past for us to compare our data.
Global warming, we have a reasonable selection of known factors, and by seeing what effects they have on our model, we find that we cannot statistically reject GH gases as a significant issue.
Heliopause, we have almost no known factors that can cause this distortion, and on the basis of this, we only know that the present factors appear insufficient based on our conventional assumptions.
Global warming, we have a broad scientific consensus shown in all peer reviewed publications, questioned by only a few with dubious records of intellectual integrity and whose arguments have been shown to have hilarious errors over and over again.
Heliopause, we have no consensus, because this is a new question that no one has tried to answer yet. All anyone can do is throw hypotheses up in the air. And no, 'human effect' is not one of them because the Earth goes around and around so any effect on the heliopause would be averaged out, and because we don't exert any measurable influence that could affect such a massive thing. (Inverse square law applies, and everything)
So, in summary, I don't get the joke. If this is at all like climatology, then the analogy would be with climatology in the 19th century, where we've only just begun to try to understand the weather. In that case, history shows waiting a few years will not be enough. A century, maybe...
{{sofixit}}
Wait...
Now where's my +1 Talent in every base?
"Argueably the greatest tragedy of the twentieth century. DDT was the best agent against mosquitos and despite the rhetoric there was nothing anywhere neat as good or as safe. Since the ban, two million people a year have died unnecessarily from malaria, mostly children. All together, the ban has caused more than fifty million needless deaths. Banning DDT killed more people than Hitler, Ted. And the environmental movement pushed hard for it."
Things to note: The statement doesn't mentioned how many people died per year without DDT. It doesn't mention any other effects.
Something about correlation != causation comes to mind...
The irony is that this is fairly close to what many western critics of Wikipedia propose. 'Moral responsibility', stronger 'editorial controls', protection of living people, 'accountability', anyone?
I guess this post is kinda flamebaity, but well...
I bet Ballmer's looking forward to a chair throwing game on Wii.
Erm, water vapour is an amplifier, not a forcing. Such studies do not undermine Carbon effects, but tell us more about how locally AGW will lead to implications in the complex weather system. The models are accurate enough to show the massive heating. This new study tells us how massive, and where.
Indeed. I think Nintendo may soon deserve some credit for saving the games industry. Spiraling development cost driven by rising graphical expectation is a malaise that everyone loses out from in the long term. Nintendo is filling a vital role in the games industry by making innovation profitable again.
It's not that USA-centric. The BBC and the Guardian won best News, and best Newspaper respectively.
It's waaaay older than that.....
_ 0.html
http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Mars_Express/SEMMTFNFGLE
So WB wants to introduce something that cuts costs for them immensely (they aren't even paying for bandwidth, if I'm understanding this correctly), and then decides not to pass this saving onto the consumer. Together with more dubious DRMing, how is this going to terminate the piracy networks? You might as well ask people to buy DVDs and rip them for personal use. (if that isn't illegal yet)
I think it's fairly clear who they are aiming for with this: They are not trying to compete with piracy - no matter what they say in the press releases. Rather, they think it is more profitable for them to simply ignore the computer-literate current filesharers, and market directly towards the new and relatively tech-iliterate users. The pricing point is set to compete with DVDs, and the idea is that people unaware of DRM and so on can be sold on the convenience aspects, and would not dig deeply enough to find the free downloads available elsewhere. The companies can then reap the savings, and everyone is happy and rootkitted.
Because of all his insightful comments about wikipedia?
Really, though, slashdot is addicted to trolls and flamebaits.
I'm sure the French thought something similar when they built the Maginot line - "Now we're safe from the Germans, all wars will be small colonial ones".
Except that these Star Wars projects are the equivalent of the Maginot Line. They are based on the assumption that the enemy will play exactly the strategy we happen to be thinking about at this time. Except that if we are really talking about a major war, we are talking 20 years down the line when this technology is obselete, and in the end, there are dozens of way our notional hi-tech enemy can get around such a defense. e.g.
The Chinese can neglect space war altogether. A crash program to place alot of space junk up there will negate satellites for both sides, and give a big advantage over the US who is investing deeply in that sphere.
They might neglect conventional war. How do you defend against a committed brigade of 1000 or so with backpack nukes?
They might wage economic war. Then nothing you blow up can do any good.
Using RTS metaphors, it's just dumb to be building defenses when you don't know what army your opponent is going to field, when your foe can just observe your spending and build up forces tailored against it.
(OK, if this was a RTS game, the US would be zerg-rushing China. Or maybe everyone would have lagged out already.)
Really though, what can these big companies do now?
Would it be possible/profitable for them to enter into the telecoms market themselves to safeguard their business? Can Microsoft buy Verizon?
I dunno. In a great many movies, I find myself cheering on the baddies as they get mowed down by the annoying heros. People don't like to support winners that are obviously going to win - they want the losers to stand a chance.
Examples: Die Hard, Broken Arrow, any Steven Seagal film...
I liked the vast global robot conspiracy explanation better.
All I see in those searchs are claims and allegations by Falun Gong itself. Though what China is doing with them is despicable, the religion itself is hardly an unbiased commentators with privileged access to such information.
The facts of the matter are that:
Some of the organs China uses for transplantation, and yes, selling, come from executed criminals.
China claims that the criminals gave their consent. However, they have offered little evidence for this. (There is no evidence to the contrary, however.)
Some of the executed criminals are members of Falun Gong.
China isn't chasing Falun Gong members for their sweet, sweet kidneys. What is wrong in all of this is that Falun Gong members have been executed in the first place if they did not commit crimes that deserved execution, or that organs may have been donated without consent. (Some may argue that convicted and executed criminals in fact do not have to right to deny their bodies' use to save the lives of innocent people...) But for some reason, Falun Gong doesn't find the real crime to be interesting enough, but instead spins up this silly emotional excuse.
China does plenty of things wrong. Can't people please align criticism of China more closely to the actual facts, instead of hysterical screaming that only loses them credibility?
Surely the answer is obvious? It got pushed down by the drill bit.
Seriously, what is needed is a variant of Godwin's law, only referring to terrorism instead of Nazis. Appeals to terrorism in a discussion never, as far as I can tell, enhances the level of the debate and is almost always a stupid appeal to emotion.