That's not the problem. The problem will be that the agent required for this identification magic will not be available for your favorite OS. It will, however, be available for Windows Trusted Vista and, maybe, the latest Mac OS. The net effect will be that the NSA-enhanced SE-Linux is not trusted. Even if it is far more trustable than anything else out there.
Welcome to the new reality - where the telcos decide what you can and cannot do on your machine.
What if the only ISP in your area is either Comcast or SBC? What if you don't want cable? Two ISPs do not make a competitive field where you actually have a choice in offerings.
Correct. And not only for the reasons you mention (unless that's what you mean by sequestering). The single biggest reason the small ISPs won't be able to fight this with better service is because they lease their lines from the big Telcos. Guess what will happen when the little ISPs start to get more customers due to their better service? The large Telcos will simply filter the ISPs traffic in just the same way they filter their individual customers traffic, or the ISPs will suddenly find themselves with technical problems that the Telcos just won't be able to resolve. The end result is that the small ISPs will never be able to gain enough power to threaten the large Telcos. Unless Wi-Max actually delivers. And even that's not a given.
I know this because it happened to me. Speakeasy, my favorite geek ISP with super-friendly terms of services, had to downgrade my connection speed because SBC, which owns the local phone loop, was not going to fix the problem at the local phone switch. The only reason I'm staying with Speakeasy is because I refuse to pay SBC a red cent. I'm quite sure the majority of people who will have this happen to them will switch to SBC, where the problem will magically disappear.
Face it - competition in the telecommunications realm is a fantasy, perpetuated by SBC and Co. Whatever they decide will come to pass. And, unless you have a couple millions lying around to buy your own politicians, there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
Don't know where you get your information from, but the EU constitution was rejected by the french voters after extensive discussions and analysis. Did you know that before the vote, the EU constitution was the best selling book in France? And it's not cheap or small either, as it clocks in at nearly 500 pages.
So to your comment that people voted on it without understanding it, I say you go read some French newspapers from that time period. Or is Fox News taking up too much of your time?
A PS3 for "true" visual eye candy? I'm sure that's why most of the current "demos" for the system are simple movies, with nothing generated in-game. And the one that is supposed to be real-time (MGS4) looks suspiciously like the PS2 version. I'm not buying the MS hype either, but it looks like you bought the Sony hype hook, line and sinker.
MS baiting is fun, but at least try not to let your bias show that much. X360 on par with a PC from a few years back? Dude, you mistook your Toy Story DVD for a game.
Here is something else the content producers will have a hard time competing with: their old products. I've got a few DVDs, some more music CDs and a whole boatload of games for a variety of systems. A lot of the games I haven't finished, mostly due to lack of time. You know what I'm going to do once these DRM'ed monitors come out? I'll keep my old TV and play my old games, music and DVDs. I'll borrow stuff from friends. It's enough to keep me busy for at least a decade. And if my old stuff breaks and doesn't work? Then there's always the internet with its free content that will keep me entertained.
The content producers are aware of this, and are fighting this with their dreams of built-in obsolescence. To that, all I can say is good luck. I doubt I'm the only one who likes to own stuff instead of rent.
I don't get it. Why is the parent post rated funny? If this insightful on all accounts. Goodwill is something that is hugely built into Google's stock (a P/E ratio of 89+ is absolutely unheard of in todays environment), and its stock will tank once people do not consider Google as THE searchengine and the origin of Good Stuff (TM).
In a very real sense, scientific progress comes about not from the 100 corroborating experiments but from the single anomalous one.
Correct. Who said it? "All scientific discoveries did not start with 'Eureka!' , but with 'That's funny...'"
However, this is only true in retrospect. When we look back to the double-slit expirement, we realize that this was the moment that the wave-particle duality was proven. However, at that time, it was merely one more link in a long chain composed of multiple experiments, discussions, refutations and refinements. Science does not exist as a single experiment. Why do you think that cold fusion is regarded as a joke? Because the single experiment that did show a net energy gain could never be properly reproduced.
In short, the single anomalous experiment can be start, but also a dead end. Only hind sight can show which it is. In the meantime, consensus is all you can go on. Unless you're willing to do the research yourself. And at that point, you'll realize that what matters is neither 100% consensus nor a single paper or data set. What does matter is whether the current data has been thoroughly analyzed, and that the conclusions have been independently verified.
More importantly your link doesn't address the fundamental questions: to what extent is the climate changing, what kinds of effects will this have, to what extent can or should we prevent it?
Absolutely. It also wasn't intended to. It was simply intended to provide a counterpoint. The fact that it was easy to find underscored the fact that simply throwing quotations is not only easy, but also completely pointless. It doesn't advance the discussion. However, there are plenty of articles on the points you mention. Specifically, the two biggest studies done on the subject so far are the IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/) and UN (http://unfccc.int/). It has plenty of info on all your questions.
You're right about the parent poster's claim - and my initial paragraph was badly phrased. However, my point is easily expanded to include methodology as well as actual data sets. If someone has a problem with a methodology, people will dissect it, and at some point, a consensus will emerge on whether the methodology is appropriate.
Wow, still at it? I'll just pick at your philosophical argument, since I have no interest in digging through Google to find the counter evidence.
You're right, science is not about voting. It's about being right. Now, my question to you, and where I smell the big rat, is why pick that one paper? Why not pick the ones that debunk it? You state that "Repeating the same mistake 10,000 times is repeating the mistake 10,000 times." But how do you know it's a mistake? You redo the expirement, you cross check, you let other people have a crack at it. And if they find the same stuff? Well, it's probably you didn't make a mistake. Note that it doesn't mean that all papers and studies have to agree. Nor that it becomes "truth". It simply means that it looks like your model is able to accurately predict future developments.
Here's where you are dishonest: Popper and his philosophy of science is about empirical falsifiability. This does not mean that all it takes is one person to state something for a theory to come crumbling down. And research papers are exactly that: one person presenting a theory, providing evidence that is claimed to support the theory and inviting others to check it. Simply publishing a paper means nothing in and of itself. Got that? It's still an opinion. Just a well-supported one - or so you hope. How do you distinguish the cranks from the good stuff? If you don't know climatology, you go by where the consensus is pointing. Judging from your arguments, which all reference arguments (instead of argumenting on your own and citing data sets for support), you'd be better off going with the consensus.
Oh, and just because I can, here's the latest say on the satellite anomaly, curtesy of 15 minutes on Google: it's the orbital decay, stupid.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by your insistence to rely on a few flawed papers instead of listening to what people say. Apparently, it's now a proven fact that people tend to discard information if it contradicts their pre-existing beliefs. Even in that information is overwhelming and the pre-existing belief random. I'd say you're exhibit A for that behavior.
The root of the matter is that you and your cronies fundamentally oppose the wealth and affluence (and, yes, the inherent waste) of the society we live in, and will use any excuse at your disposal to curb its further growth, be it global warming, overpopulation, the dawning of a new ice age, nuclear scares, peak oil or worried aliens.
Wow. You just managed to prove his point in one blindingly arrogant sentence.
At least he provided data. You provide only babble.
I'm starting to think that babble for you is stuff that disturbs your happiness while driving your SUV. 2 minutes of googling brings up the next link. There's about 2 million more out there, thanks to a strong consensus by people who do this for a living. But I'm sure it's just babble to you.
http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/ warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm/
Oh, and last but not least: the pre-industrial levels of CO2 (claimed 280-290 CO2 ppmv before Industrial Revolution) have been FALSIFIED. Heard me?
I heard you. Except there is exactly zero supporting evidence for your claim. Considering that most people who do this for a living conclude that Global Climate Change (coming from an overall increase in average temperatures), I'd take their opinion over nitpicking such as "1540 could have been hotter than 2003". Come to think of it, all falsifications I've read so far seem to revolve around "it could be something else" or "it's not definite proof". The problem is that all the evidence taken together indicates that something massive is afoot. Too many things are starting to indicate that the global warming models are correct (or at least going in the right direction). Arguing that they might not be completely accurate is starting to sound like arguing whether that fire in your house is going to burn it down to the foundations or merely gut the top floor.
I would love to believe this. However, here are why your three points don't apply.
1) By definition, libraries don't hold all the books. This library might have decided against stocking it. And since this is the easiest part of the hoax to disprove (just ask the local librarian), I'm gonna assume that the IL was necessary. 2) China is by far the largest nation-threat to the US. As such, communism and Chinese leaders are part of American policy. And since Bush seems to think that library records are a good indicator of intent, Mao's little red book would be a good lead to follow-up on. 3) Actual threat has little to do with action these days - see the article.
Since I don't have indicators that would point to a hoax, but plenty of precedent for similar situations, I'm taking this at face value for now. It'll be interesting to follow-up on, but unless parts of the story change significantly, I think this is gonna hold up.
Because a couple of years ago, the Chinese reworked a lot of their anglicized spellings. During the same time that Peking became Beijing, Mao Tse Tung became Mao Zedong. It was a general move towards softer names, which, in my opinion, do sound closer to the chinese pronounciation.
And that, combined with the expense of hiring lawyers, is exactly what makes the current judicial system so open to extortion. "You sure you don't want to pay us $2000 now? It's a lot better than having to pay lawyers $20000...". The difference is that if you pay up, they never go away. Lawyers are under your control.
Here's something else to consider: most of the people who go watch these people in concerts already have their CDs. There's absolutely no need to rebuy these CDs. One of the most critical problems the recording industry is facing is that they're starting to compete with themselves. Hence their bed-wetting dreams about media that lasts only a few weeks.
So the people who were interested in Patents and Microsoft yesterday, are not interested in Patents and Microsoft today?
Nope. Specifically, because one is an opportunity to bash MS, the other an opportunity to bash patents. That alone means there's a fracturing of audience. Just to really make sure, I'd be quite happy if you'd show me one post that bashes MS in one topic and supports it in the other.
And the rip wasn't on what Slashdot is and is not - it was on the fact that there is no unified Slashdot poster. Thought I'd point it out in case advanced age has calcified the neurons.;)
No, it means that the Economist, while not always being +5, Insightful, frequently manages to be +5, Interesting. Which is more than can be said of the average slashdot poster. Which in turn means that a quotation from that magazine carries more weight than a random posting. Especially when the quote is a well-argued idea.
If it would really be written for Economists, it would contain far more financial information than it does now. It is written for people with a broad interest in the world, and a leaning towards liberalism and capitalism. Which doesn't make it worse, just not quite the authority on financial matters that you imply.
Of course, because there's exactly one "Slashdot" poster who posts all the comments you read on slashdot.com. It's not like it's a huge agglomeration of individuals, and where none of them comment on every story that appears.
oh, and there's no such deal as getting a popular item at 1/5th of the price,
Couldn't agree more.
Here's something I don't understand about people who buy stuff on eBay. Everytime I talk to them, they're all saying it's because they can find a great deal on something popular. Newsflash people: the price that an item fetches on eBay is the true value of it, the exact intersection of the supply and demand curve. This means that by definition, there is no such thing as a good deal on eBay. If someone's desperate to sell something at a low price, it will get bid up by people desperate to buy it.
The only reason I use eBay these days is for hard to find items: like a used triathlon bike that's properly sized for me. Or an old out-of-stock game. But I do not buy stuff on eBay that I can find in stores. The other golden rule: bid on auctions with real photos, not stock photos. You can still get scammed, but the likelyhood is a lot lower.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not the problem. The problem will be that the agent required for this identification magic will not be available for your favorite OS. It will, however, be available for Windows Trusted Vista and, maybe, the latest Mac OS. The net effect will be that the NSA-enhanced SE-Linux is not trusted. Even if it is far more trustable than anything else out there.
Welcome to the new reality - where the telcos decide what you can and cannot do on your machine.
What if the only ISP in your area is either Comcast or SBC? What if you don't want cable? Two ISPs do not make a competitive field where you actually have a choice in offerings.
Correct. And not only for the reasons you mention (unless that's what you mean by sequestering). The single biggest reason the small ISPs won't be able to fight this with better service is because they lease their lines from the big Telcos. Guess what will happen when the little ISPs start to get more customers due to their better service? The large Telcos will simply filter the ISPs traffic in just the same way they filter their individual customers traffic, or the ISPs will suddenly find themselves with technical problems that the Telcos just won't be able to resolve. The end result is that the small ISPs will never be able to gain enough power to threaten the large Telcos. Unless Wi-Max actually delivers. And even that's not a given.
I know this because it happened to me. Speakeasy, my favorite geek ISP with super-friendly terms of services, had to downgrade my connection speed because SBC, which owns the local phone loop, was not going to fix the problem at the local phone switch. The only reason I'm staying with Speakeasy is because I refuse to pay SBC a red cent. I'm quite sure the majority of people who will have this happen to them will switch to SBC, where the problem will magically disappear.
Face it - competition in the telecommunications realm is a fantasy, perpetuated by SBC and Co. Whatever they decide will come to pass. And, unless you have a couple millions lying around to buy your own politicians, there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
Don't know where you get your information from, but the EU constitution was rejected by the french voters after extensive discussions and analysis. Did you know that before the vote, the EU constitution was the best selling book in France? And it's not cheap or small either, as it clocks in at nearly 500 pages.
So to your comment that people voted on it without understanding it, I say you go read some French newspapers from that time period. Or is Fox News taking up too much of your time?
I'm sure that's why France is the most visited nation in the world: http://www.ambafrance-us.org/atoz/economy.asp/
A PS3 for "true" visual eye candy? I'm sure that's why most of the current "demos" for the system are simple movies, with nothing generated in-game. And the one that is supposed to be real-time (MGS4) looks suspiciously like the PS2 version. I'm not buying the MS hype either, but it looks like you bought the Sony hype hook, line and sinker.
MS baiting is fun, but at least try not to let your bias show that much. X360 on par with a PC from a few years back? Dude, you mistook your Toy Story DVD for a game.
Here is something else the content producers will have a hard time competing with: their old products. I've got a few DVDs, some more music CDs and a whole boatload of games for a variety of systems. A lot of the games I haven't finished, mostly due to lack of time. You know what I'm going to do once these DRM'ed monitors come out? I'll keep my old TV and play my old games, music and DVDs. I'll borrow stuff from friends. It's enough to keep me busy for at least a decade. And if my old stuff breaks and doesn't work? Then there's always the internet with its free content that will keep me entertained.
The content producers are aware of this, and are fighting this with their dreams of built-in obsolescence. To that, all I can say is good luck. I doubt I'm the only one who likes to own stuff instead of rent.
I don't get it. Why is the parent post rated funny? If this insightful on all accounts. Goodwill is something that is hugely built into Google's stock (a P/E ratio of 89+ is absolutely unheard of in todays environment), and its stock will tank once people do not consider Google as THE searchengine and the origin of Good Stuff (TM).
Correct. Who said it? "All scientific discoveries did not start with 'Eureka!' , but with 'That's funny...'"
However, this is only true in retrospect. When we look back to the double-slit expirement, we realize that this was the moment that the wave-particle duality was proven. However, at that time, it was merely one more link in a long chain composed of multiple experiments, discussions, refutations and refinements. Science does not exist as a single experiment. Why do you think that cold fusion is regarded as a joke? Because the single experiment that did show a net energy gain could never be properly reproduced.
In short, the single anomalous experiment can be start, but also a dead end. Only hind sight can show which it is. In the meantime, consensus is all you can go on. Unless you're willing to do the research yourself. And at that point, you'll realize that what matters is neither 100% consensus nor a single paper or data set. What does matter is whether the current data has been thoroughly analyzed, and that the conclusions have been independently verified.
More importantly your link doesn't address the fundamental questions: to what extent is the climate changing, what kinds of effects will this have, to what extent can or should we prevent it?
Absolutely. It also wasn't intended to. It was simply intended to provide a counterpoint. The fact that it was easy to find underscored the fact that simply throwing quotations is not only easy, but also completely pointless. It doesn't advance the discussion. However, there are plenty of articles on the points you mention. Specifically, the two biggest studies done on the subject so far are the IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/) and UN (http://unfccc.int/). It has plenty of info on all your questions.
You're right about the parent poster's claim - and my initial paragraph was badly phrased. However, my point is easily expanded to include methodology as well as actual data sets. If someone has a problem with a methodology, people will dissect it, and at some point, a consensus will emerge on whether the methodology is appropriate.
You're right, science is not about voting. It's about being right. Now, my question to you, and where I smell the big rat, is why pick that one paper? Why not pick the ones that debunk it? You state that "Repeating the same mistake 10,000 times is repeating the mistake 10,000 times." But how do you know it's a mistake? You redo the expirement, you cross check, you let other people have a crack at it. And if they find the same stuff? Well, it's probably you didn't make a mistake. Note that it doesn't mean that all papers and studies have to agree. Nor that it becomes "truth". It simply means that it looks like your model is able to accurately predict future developments.
Here's where you are dishonest: Popper and his philosophy of science is about empirical falsifiability. This does not mean that all it takes is one person to state something for a theory to come crumbling down. And research papers are exactly that: one person presenting a theory, providing evidence that is claimed to support the theory and inviting others to check it. Simply publishing a paper means nothing in and of itself. Got that? It's still an opinion. Just a well-supported one - or so you hope. How do you distinguish the cranks from the good stuff? If you don't know climatology, you go by where the consensus is pointing. Judging from your arguments, which all reference arguments (instead of argumenting on your own and citing data sets for support), you'd be better off going with the consensus.
Oh, and just because I can, here's the latest say on the satellite anomaly, curtesy of 15 minutes on Google: it's the orbital decay, stupid.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by your insistence to rely on a few flawed papers instead of listening to what people say. Apparently, it's now a proven fact that people tend to discard information if it contradicts their pre-existing beliefs. Even in that information is overwhelming and the pre-existing belief random. I'd say you're exhibit A for that behavior.
Wow. You just managed to prove his point in one blindingly arrogant sentence.
At least he provided data. You provide only babble.
I'm starting to think that babble for you is stuff that disturbs your happiness while driving your SUV. 2 minutes of googling brings up the next link. There's about 2 million more out there, thanks to a strong consensus by people who do this for a living. But I'm sure it's just babble to you. http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/ warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm/
I heard you. Except there is exactly zero supporting evidence for your claim. Considering that most people who do this for a living conclude that Global Climate Change (coming from an overall increase in average temperatures), I'd take their opinion over nitpicking such as "1540 could have been hotter than 2003". Come to think of it, all falsifications I've read so far seem to revolve around "it could be something else" or "it's not definite proof". The problem is that all the evidence taken together indicates that something massive is afoot. Too many things are starting to indicate that the global warming models are correct (or at least going in the right direction). Arguing that they might not be completely accurate is starting to sound like arguing whether that fire in your house is going to burn it down to the foundations or merely gut the top floor.
I would love to believe this. However, here are why your three points don't apply.
1) By definition, libraries don't hold all the books. This library might have decided against stocking it. And since this is the easiest part of the hoax to disprove (just ask the local librarian), I'm gonna assume that the IL was necessary.
2) China is by far the largest nation-threat to the US. As such, communism and Chinese leaders are part of American policy. And since Bush seems to think that library records are a good indicator of intent, Mao's little red book would be a good lead to follow-up on.
3) Actual threat has little to do with action these days - see the article.
Since I don't have indicators that would point to a hoax, but plenty of precedent for similar situations, I'm taking this at face value for now. It'll be interesting to follow-up on, but unless parts of the story change significantly, I think this is gonna hold up.
Because a couple of years ago, the Chinese reworked a lot of their anglicized spellings. During the same time that Peking became Beijing, Mao Tse Tung became Mao Zedong. It was a general move towards softer names, which, in my opinion, do sound closer to the chinese pronounciation.
Wake up and smell the fascism. Unless you want to face some alone time in a dark hole somewhere
Like many things in Futurama, it should be rated "Sad but True", not "Funny".
And that, combined with the expense of hiring lawyers, is exactly what makes the current judicial system so open to extortion. "You sure you don't want to pay us $2000 now? It's a lot better than having to pay lawyers $20000...". The difference is that if you pay up, they never go away. Lawyers are under your control.
Here's something else to consider: most of the people who go watch these people in concerts already have their CDs. There's absolutely no need to rebuy these CDs. One of the most critical problems the recording industry is facing is that they're starting to compete with themselves. Hence their bed-wetting dreams about media that lasts only a few weeks.
Nope. Specifically, because one is an opportunity to bash MS, the other an opportunity to bash patents. That alone means there's a fracturing of audience. Just to really make sure, I'd be quite happy if you'd show me one post that bashes MS in one topic and supports it in the other.
And the rip wasn't on what Slashdot is and is not - it was on the fact that there is no unified Slashdot poster. Thought I'd point it out in case advanced age has calcified the neurons. ;)
Dammit, I wish I still had my mod points from yesterday. Now the real question is - which one is the more accurate opinion?
No, it means that the Economist, while not always being +5, Insightful, frequently manages to be +5, Interesting. Which is more than can be said of the average slashdot poster. Which in turn means that a quotation from that magazine carries more weight than a random posting. Especially when the quote is a well-argued idea.
If it would really be written for Economists, it would contain far more financial information than it does now. It is written for people with a broad interest in the world, and a leaning towards liberalism and capitalism. Which doesn't make it worse, just not quite the authority on financial matters that you imply.
Of course, because there's exactly one "Slashdot" poster who posts all the comments you read on slashdot.com. It's not like it's a huge agglomeration of individuals, and where none of them comment on every story that appears.
oh, and there's no such deal as getting a popular item at 1/5th of the price,
Couldn't agree more.
Here's something I don't understand about people who buy stuff on eBay. Everytime I talk to them, they're all saying it's because they can find a great deal on something popular. Newsflash people: the price that an item fetches on eBay is the true value of it, the exact intersection of the supply and demand curve. This means that by definition, there is no such thing as a good deal on eBay. If someone's desperate to sell something at a low price, it will get bid up by people desperate to buy it.
The only reason I use eBay these days is for hard to find items: like a used triathlon bike that's properly sized for me. Or an old out-of-stock game. But I do not buy stuff on eBay that I can find in stores. The other golden rule: bid on auctions with real photos, not stock photos. You can still get scammed, but the likelyhood is a lot lower.