No. People turn from socialists to conservatives once they have stuff to conserve. It's the ultimate short-sightedness. "I have mine, go fuck yourself."
In which case you should be supporting the end of subsidized student loans.
I see this is a common meme. Since you seem to be more coherent than some of the other trolls, I'll just cut and paste my questions here. Unfortunately for you, every question needs an answer before I start to even consider the possibility that my assumptions are wrong. * there is no perfect free market. Education especially. What makes you think that there are other lenders available? * supply is not inelastic, especially in Education. What makes you think that it is? * what is important is marginal cost. You are fixated on supply and demand. Why is that? * You also need to compare the funding gap that is covered by the loans with the amount that tuition increased as a result of the guaranteed loans. So: how much does the cost go up versus how much of the funding gap is being covered? Studies please, no laffer curve nonsense.
Yes, any subsidy drives up prices, because in a perfect market, higher demand and inelastic supply leads to higher prices. Couple of things though: * there is no perfect free market. Education especially. * supply is not inelastic, especially in Education * what is important is marginal cost. You are fixated on supply and demand. * You also need to compare the funding gap that is covered by the loans with the amount that tuition increased as a result of the guaranteed loans. Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air out of your ass.
IMO, it is not a mission of government to 'encourage' higher education.
Woah, woah, woah. What? Did you miss the part about encouraging the well-being of the nation. Have we really fallen so low that we are now back to arguing whether better access to education is a good or a bad thing? Oh wait, this is the nation where some people booed the golden rule - and didn't get called to the carpet for it.
You know what - maybe a dissolution of the union IS a good idea. That way, all the ass-backwards states can find out exactly how much life sucks without other states subsidizing their lifestyles.
Yes, even their Search Engine wasn't really that novel.
Bullshit. Their algorithm, page rank, was something brand new that was a significant improvement on the two standard approaches to search engines: hierarchically organized oracles (Yahoo) and keyword matching based on relative frequencies (Altavista).
Seriously, I'm sorely disappointed by the amount of basic information that techies here are getting just plain wrong. I'm starting to think that the astroturfing/trolling is having an effect on people. How does it go? A lie gets half-way around the world before truth gets its pants on. As said, I'm pretty disappointed by the posts here.
Google Goggles? Google Sky? Not necessarily innovative, but certainly big additions to my app collection, and offered by no one else. Finally, you're also completely underestimating the impact that Google Maps had on map users. Before Google Maps, we had scrolling via buttons, slow zooms and no satellite imagery you could switch from. Now, Google Maps is the gold standard when it comes to map interfaces.
I mean, do you also complain that Apple stole from Parc? That Gimp really is nothing but Paint with fancy layers? Finally, you're actually lying when you say that Orkut was bought. Or did you miss that it bears the name of its creator, a Google employee? Same with Android.
Ohhhh.... wait a second. Brand new user whose first post is on this story. 100% incorrect information in post. Google is Evil, subtle MS is good post. I've been trolled by bonch. Damn. This crap is really getting old
You do realize that the parents ALREADY can filter out the naughtiness from the internet connection? It's called putting the computer in the living room, and using a password on it. By the time the kids are old enough to defeat those security measures, they're old enough to browse for boobies. By the time they can defeat anything more serious, as well as the threat of "I'm logging everything at the router", they're old enough to have sex.
In other words, this is a solution to a non-existent problem.
Congratulations. You made the jump from seeing something to assigning a sentient creator to said something. You are furthermore confusing evidence with an internally consistent model. You might want to read a bit more about what Plato and Socrates had to say about these things.
Thanks. Good to see that my rep seems to be doing ok so far. Against CSIPA, against SOPA/PIPA, and a couple of other bills that were important. Go Honda!
Sad, but true: organic food - and with it, all the grass-fed, free-range and other land- and labor-intensive farming - will be the purview of the rich. Or at least the moderately wealthy. The rest of you, go stand in line for pink slime, industrial eggs and speed-grown corn.
..well.. for starters, they're asking for more rights than you usually as a content buyer have.
Congratulations. You just discovered that corporations have different rights from you, because they have an army of lawyers that can write, argue and rewrite any contract the corporation comes in touch with. You don't.
Since you clearly didn't catch the example I provided for why they need a worldwide license to publicly display your data, let me ask you this: assume you're building a company that stores user content, and allows users to provide access to said content to anyone they wish, including anonymous access. Think maybe flickr. How would you write it? And by the way, when you do come up with an answer, run it by your corporate counsel. If they don't laugh you out of the office, post it here. I suspect it will be remarkably similar to what Google has.
(IANAL, there's undoubtedly a better way to phrase it, but that's the concept)
And because you're not a lawyer, you haven't come across these types of agreements. Welcome to the world of contracts and legal terms of service. You specify everything under the sun, because if you don't mention it in a contract, it doesn't exist. And legalese is legalese because lawyers are assholes and will nail you for any omission, inconsistency or inaccuracy.
bonch most likely posted the article, and is back to his Anti-google crusade. This seems to be par for the course for him. I expect more Anti-Google stories in the near future, along with brand new accounts posting immediately after the story goes live.
That's exactly right. Not sure what the privacy advocates are complaining about. Pretty much everything listed in there is required to have a functioning and useful cloud service. As others have pointed out, the policies for MS and Dropbox are almost identical in the relevant parts - they are the equivalent of legal boilerplate. Now, there is some wiggle room here indeed for things to show up in ads, but I can guarantee you that that would result in a huge outcry - kinda like what Facebook experienced when people's profile pictures started showing up in ads. Google might do something that stupid, but in the meantime, even something as weird as "publicly display" might be necessary to run their service. For example, what if I want to set permissions in my google drive to public, or even to something my friends can access? You know, like some real cloud storage? Bam, public display.
So again, privacy advocates are barking up the wrong tree. They shouldn't be talking about Google's privacy policies, but about what it means to live in a world where everyone is potentially connected to everyone else - and this time, literally? There are some huge implications here that we're not used to dealing with.
Personally, I'm approaching this sharing business cautiously. Everything is filtered to friends I actually know in meat space. And if I don't know them, hello pseudonymous handle.
I agree, that is the right question. However, you're making two assumptions that at this point are flat out wrong. Likelihood of warming vs cooling is known at this point, and it points directly to warming. Feel free to point me even two studies that indicate cooling instead of warming (and that's studies, not wattsupwiththat.com making idiotic comments about trends since 1998). Otherwise, I'd just point you at the NOAA and IPCC sites to get you started on the warming trends. Furthermore, the cost of warming is significantly higher than the cost to significantly reduce CO2 - depending on exactly how much warming happens, catastrophically higher (as in, Hurricane Katrina level catastrophes). Again, the latest IPCC report covers some of the economic scenarios quite nicely.
Finally, just out of curiosity, do you consider the US Army being in cahoots with "warmists"? Because they are running their strategic global assessments by including global warming effects.
You do realize that all those periods had definitely no humans, and only a smattering of mammals around? Yes, evolution was at different stages, but to argue that because we had some giant ferns at that time, that we humans would do well, is... well, worthy of various double-facepalm memes. Not to mention that the issue isn't so much that we can't adapt to a new normal, but that in order to do so, it will cost a shit ton of lives and money. Just look at what the medieval warm period did to Europe.
So really - if you're that worried about the US debt, you might want to look into some long-term climate mitigation, because living in a world of even 1000 ppm CO2 is going to be dramatically different than the cozy setup we have right now.
The solar thermal plant in Cali worked great. We should be building a bunch of these - it's proven as base load power generation, not just powerpoint slides. And if there were any scarcity in natural gas, maybe we would (but wow is the market ever flooded in a glut of natural gas - they'll be paying you to burn it soon at this rate).
We really are in an ice age [wikipedia.org].
You really ought to read your own links. Glasshouses, etc. come to mind. To wit: "Currently, the earth is in an interglacial period, which marked the beginning of the Holocene epoch." Not to mention that wikipedia is NOT an authoritative resource. So really, your correction is.... lacking.
Start here: how does a greenhouse work?
How is that relevant? A greenhouse works on entirely different principles from how greenhouse gases work. I mean, I appreciate that you can probably trip up a lot of people with that question, but you're really not helping your cause here. All you're doing is coming across somebody who reads the first two lines of a Wikipedia article and thinks he has solved every problem in the field.
If you seriously think they will ever go back online you aren't paying attention.
[Citation needed] At the very least.
Germany is shutting their nuke down.
Germany has been shutting down their nukes for years.
Frace would if they weren't so utterly dependent on them
So France would shut down nukes if they wouldn't like them so much they're getting 70%+ of their electricity from them? I like your logic. There's a strong anti-nuke branch, but it's gonna be a while before they get enough traction to do anything about it.
Because the total value of the electricity derived from one over it's normal service life doesn't equal the TCO of the equipment
#1 Wrong on its face - it depends entirely on how much sun you get. #2 oil isn't viable either if you remove the subsidies it's getting for exploration and securing various countries around the world. What's your point?
And the rest of the fluff... well, I won't rehash the studies have been done, since you clearly know so much better. But considering your lack of arguments for something as basic as break-even points of solar panels, I don't have much hope.
Japan has just finished turning off all nuclear power over a "disaster" that proved just how safe modern nuclear can be
And this is why no one takes you or your kind seriously. #1 Japan didn't turn off all nuclear. For one, it would take far longer than a few months to do so. For two, they're taking them offline for security checks. They plan on bringing them back online. It just so happens that there will be a period of time when no nuclear plant will be online. #2 Solar panels work great. I have em, and they cut my bill in half. You mean they can't replace coal by themselves by tomorrow? SHocking. They must be useless and tossed out. #3 One solar thermal plant wasn't built because the company didn't want to immediately fork over the money to alleviate environmental concerns brought on by the government. You should know better, considering you seem to live in the Bay Area. #4 Even if we are in an ice age (and we really aren't), that doesn't matter one lick. What matters is that there are drastic changes coming to our civilization, which has been built according to the climate variations of the past 300 years. That's going to cost money. #5 And the rest of your arguments are just total nonsense (long-term norm? glaciers in Europe? a few meters of oceans rising is not a problem?)
Seriously, I'd love to hear a good argument about a) why AGW isn't real, and b) why we shouldn't worry. Instead, I get the worst Monday Morning quarterbacking possible.
You know what would bring in REAL cash? As in, prizes, accolades, grant money beyond your wildest dreams? Proving that everyone is wrong about AGW. If there is money in AGW research, it is in proving it is wrong, not in proving what everyone knows.
Like... I dunno, maybe IPCC's claim that the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035? But that turned out to be unreviewed speculation and the glaciers actually haven't lost any net ice over the decade... Oops!
You're still hanging on to that? Because that's really one of the very few significant errors that have ever been demonstrated. And for what it's worth, you know who found the error? Those damn crackpot scientists on the IPCC panel.
Now, I don't mean to extrapolate that to saying all climate data as bunk
Actually, that's exactly what you're saying. Stop beating around the bush. Otherwise, you wouldn't be pulling out a single data point to request opening up the discussion about AGW in general.
too many politicians with a preexisting anti-civilization (Western industrial captialism based ccivilization that is...) bias
So what you're saying is that too many westerners are biased against western civilization? Too many corporations are biased against western industrial capitalism? Or are you suddenly arguing that too many politicians exist in a vacuum, with no elections to fight and no campaign fundraisers to run? Cuz from what I see, politicians all over pretty much swing (mostly) with the fundraising and (sometimes) the voting wind.
Your paranoia would be cute if it wouldn't be so widespread.
I have no idea. That sentence made absolutely no sense to me. I think this is right up there in terms of "WTF does slashdot have editors for?" My best guess is that it's supposed to mean "because the sun drags the earth through areas that have significant differences in the amount of cosmic rays in them, the total effect of cosmic rays on global temperatures has been larger than previously thought". But again, it's a guess that's more based on the notion that cosmic rays impact global temperatures rather than the actual sentence or anything that's in the article.
Slashdot Mirror
No. People turn from socialists to conservatives once they have stuff to conserve. It's the ultimate short-sightedness. "I have mine, go fuck yourself."
In which case you should be supporting the end of subsidized student loans.
I see this is a common meme. Since you seem to be more coherent than some of the other trolls, I'll just cut and paste my questions here. Unfortunately for you, every question needs an answer before I start to even consider the possibility that my assumptions are wrong.
* there is no perfect free market. Education especially. What makes you think that there are other lenders available?
* supply is not inelastic, especially in Education. What makes you think that it is?
* what is important is marginal cost. You are fixated on supply and demand. Why is that?
* You also need to compare the funding gap that is covered by the loans with the amount that tuition increased as a result of the guaranteed loans. So: how much does the cost go up versus how much of the funding gap is being covered? Studies please, no laffer curve nonsense.
Yes, any subsidy drives up prices, because in a perfect market, higher demand and inelastic supply leads to higher prices. Couple of things though:
* there is no perfect free market. Education especially.
* supply is not inelastic, especially in Education
* what is important is marginal cost. You are fixated on supply and demand.
* You also need to compare the funding gap that is covered by the loans with the amount that tuition increased as a result of the guaranteed loans. Otherwise, you're just blowing hot air out of your ass.
IMO, it is not a mission of government to 'encourage' higher education.
Woah, woah, woah. What? Did you miss the part about encouraging the well-being of the nation. Have we really fallen so low that we are now back to arguing whether better access to education is a good or a bad thing? Oh wait, this is the nation where some people booed the golden rule - and didn't get called to the carpet for it.
You know what - maybe a dissolution of the union IS a good idea. That way, all the ass-backwards states can find out exactly how much life sucks without other states subsidizing their lifestyles.
Ahem? France's problem in WW2 was never it's lack of air superiority. It was WW1 strategies going up against WW2 strategies.
Yes, even their Search Engine wasn't really that novel.
Bullshit. Their algorithm, page rank, was something brand new that was a significant improvement on the two standard approaches to search engines: hierarchically organized oracles (Yahoo) and keyword matching based on relative frequencies (Altavista).
Seriously, I'm sorely disappointed by the amount of basic information that techies here are getting just plain wrong. I'm starting to think that the astroturfing/trolling is having an effect on people. How does it go? A lie gets half-way around the world before truth gets its pants on. As said, I'm pretty disappointed by the posts here.
Google Goggles? Google Sky? Not necessarily innovative, but certainly big additions to my app collection, and offered by no one else. Finally, you're also completely underestimating the impact that Google Maps had on map users. Before Google Maps, we had scrolling via buttons, slow zooms and no satellite imagery you could switch from. Now, Google Maps is the gold standard when it comes to map interfaces.
I mean, do you also complain that Apple stole from Parc? That Gimp really is nothing but Paint with fancy layers? Finally, you're actually lying when you say that Orkut was bought. Or did you miss that it bears the name of its creator, a Google employee? Same with Android.
Ohhhh.... wait a second. Brand new user whose first post is on this story. 100% incorrect information in post. Google is Evil, subtle MS is good post. I've been trolled by bonch. Damn. This crap is really getting old
You do realize that the parents ALREADY can filter out the naughtiness from the internet connection? It's called putting the computer in the living room, and using a password on it. By the time the kids are old enough to defeat those security measures, they're old enough to browse for boobies. By the time they can defeat anything more serious, as well as the threat of "I'm logging everything at the router", they're old enough to have sex.
In other words, this is a solution to a non-existent problem.
Congratulations. You made the jump from seeing something to assigning a sentient creator to said something. You are furthermore confusing evidence with an internally consistent model. You might want to read a bit more about what Plato and Socrates had to say about these things.
Thanks. Good to see that my rep seems to be doing ok so far. Against CSIPA, against SOPA/PIPA, and a couple of other bills that were important. Go Honda!
Sad, but true: organic food - and with it, all the grass-fed, free-range and other land- and labor-intensive farming - will be the purview of the rich. Or at least the moderately wealthy. The rest of you, go stand in line for pink slime, industrial eggs and speed-grown corn.
..well.. for starters, they're asking for more rights than you usually as a content buyer have.
Congratulations. You just discovered that corporations have different rights from you, because they have an army of lawyers that can write, argue and rewrite any contract the corporation comes in touch with. You don't.
Since you clearly didn't catch the example I provided for why they need a worldwide license to publicly display your data, let me ask you this: assume you're building a company that stores user content, and allows users to provide access to said content to anyone they wish, including anonymous access. Think maybe flickr. How would you write it? And by the way, when you do come up with an answer, run it by your corporate counsel. If they don't laugh you out of the office, post it here. I suspect it will be remarkably similar to what Google has.
(IANAL, there's undoubtedly a better way to phrase it, but that's the concept)
And because you're not a lawyer, you haven't come across these types of agreements. Welcome to the world of contracts and legal terms of service. You specify everything under the sun, because if you don't mention it in a contract, it doesn't exist. And legalese is legalese because lawyers are assholes and will nail you for any omission, inconsistency or inaccuracy.
bonch most likely posted the article, and is back to his Anti-google crusade. This seems to be par for the course for him. I expect more Anti-Google stories in the near future, along with brand new accounts posting immediately after the story goes live.
That's exactly right. Not sure what the privacy advocates are complaining about. Pretty much everything listed in there is required to have a functioning and useful cloud service. As others have pointed out, the policies for MS and Dropbox are almost identical in the relevant parts - they are the equivalent of legal boilerplate. Now, there is some wiggle room here indeed for things to show up in ads, but I can guarantee you that that would result in a huge outcry - kinda like what Facebook experienced when people's profile pictures started showing up in ads. Google might do something that stupid, but in the meantime, even something as weird as "publicly display" might be necessary to run their service. For example, what if I want to set permissions in my google drive to public, or even to something my friends can access? You know, like some real cloud storage? Bam, public display.
So again, privacy advocates are barking up the wrong tree. They shouldn't be talking about Google's privacy policies, but about what it means to live in a world where everyone is potentially connected to everyone else - and this time, literally? There are some huge implications here that we're not used to dealing with.
Personally, I'm approaching this sharing business cautiously. Everything is filtered to friends I actually know in meat space. And if I don't know them, hello pseudonymous handle.
I agree, that is the right question. However, you're making two assumptions that at this point are flat out wrong. Likelihood of warming vs cooling is known at this point, and it points directly to warming. Feel free to point me even two studies that indicate cooling instead of warming (and that's studies, not wattsupwiththat.com making idiotic comments about trends since 1998). Otherwise, I'd just point you at the NOAA and IPCC sites to get you started on the warming trends. Furthermore, the cost of warming is significantly higher than the cost to significantly reduce CO2 - depending on exactly how much warming happens, catastrophically higher (as in, Hurricane Katrina level catastrophes). Again, the latest IPCC report covers some of the economic scenarios quite nicely.
Finally, just out of curiosity, do you consider the US Army being in cahoots with "warmists"? Because they are running their strategic global assessments by including global warming effects.
You do realize that all those periods had definitely no humans, and only a smattering of mammals around? Yes, evolution was at different stages, but to argue that because we had some giant ferns at that time, that we humans would do well, is... well, worthy of various double-facepalm memes. Not to mention that the issue isn't so much that we can't adapt to a new normal, but that in order to do so, it will cost a shit ton of lives and money. Just look at what the medieval warm period did to Europe.
So really - if you're that worried about the US debt, you might want to look into some long-term climate mitigation, because living in a world of even 1000 ppm CO2 is going to be dramatically different than the cozy setup we have right now.
The solar thermal plant in Cali worked great. We should be building a bunch of these - it's proven as base load power generation, not just powerpoint slides. And if there were any scarcity in natural gas, maybe we would (but wow is the market ever flooded in a glut of natural gas - they'll be paying you to burn it soon at this rate).
We really are in an ice age [wikipedia.org].
You really ought to read your own links. Glasshouses, etc. come to mind. To wit: "Currently, the earth is in an interglacial period, which marked the beginning of the Holocene epoch." Not to mention that wikipedia is NOT an authoritative resource. So really, your correction is.... lacking.
Start here: how does a greenhouse work?
How is that relevant? A greenhouse works on entirely different principles from how greenhouse gases work. I mean, I appreciate that you can probably trip up a lot of people with that question, but you're really not helping your cause here. All you're doing is coming across somebody who reads the first two lines of a Wikipedia article and thinks he has solved every problem in the field.
If you seriously think they will ever go back online you aren't paying attention.
[Citation needed] At the very least.
Germany is shutting their nuke down.
Germany has been shutting down their nukes for years.
Frace would if they weren't so utterly dependent on them
So France would shut down nukes if they wouldn't like them so much they're getting 70%+ of their electricity from them? I like your logic. There's a strong anti-nuke branch, but it's gonna be a while before they get enough traction to do anything about it.
Because the total value of the electricity derived from one over it's normal service life doesn't equal the TCO of the equipment
#1 Wrong on its face - it depends entirely on how much sun you get. #2 oil isn't viable either if you remove the subsidies it's getting for exploration and securing various countries around the world. What's your point?
And the rest of the fluff... well, I won't rehash the studies have been done, since you clearly know so much better. But considering your lack of arguments for something as basic as break-even points of solar panels, I don't have much hope.
Japan has just finished turning off all nuclear power over a "disaster" that proved just how safe modern nuclear can be
And this is why no one takes you or your kind seriously.
#1 Japan didn't turn off all nuclear. For one, it would take far longer than a few months to do so. For two, they're taking them offline for security checks. They plan on bringing them back online. It just so happens that there will be a period of time when no nuclear plant will be online.
#2 Solar panels work great. I have em, and they cut my bill in half. You mean they can't replace coal by themselves by tomorrow? SHocking. They must be useless and tossed out.
#3 One solar thermal plant wasn't built because the company didn't want to immediately fork over the money to alleviate environmental concerns brought on by the government. You should know better, considering you seem to live in the Bay Area.
#4 Even if we are in an ice age (and we really aren't), that doesn't matter one lick. What matters is that there are drastic changes coming to our civilization, which has been built according to the climate variations of the past 300 years. That's going to cost money.
#5 And the rest of your arguments are just total nonsense (long-term norm? glaciers in Europe? a few meters of oceans rising is not a problem?)
Seriously, I'd love to hear a good argument about a) why AGW isn't real, and b) why we shouldn't worry. Instead, I get the worst Monday Morning quarterbacking possible.
You know what would bring in REAL cash? As in, prizes, accolades, grant money beyond your wildest dreams? Proving that everyone is wrong about AGW. If there is money in AGW research, it is in proving it is wrong, not in proving what everyone knows.
Like... I dunno, maybe IPCC's claim that the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035? But that turned out to be unreviewed speculation and the glaciers actually haven't lost any net ice over the decade... Oops!
You're still hanging on to that? Because that's really one of the very few significant errors that have ever been demonstrated. And for what it's worth, you know who found the error? Those damn crackpot scientists on the IPCC panel.
Now, I don't mean to extrapolate that to saying all climate data as bunk
Actually, that's exactly what you're saying. Stop beating around the bush. Otherwise, you wouldn't be pulling out a single data point to request opening up the discussion about AGW in general.
too many politicians with a preexisting anti-civilization (Western industrial captialism based ccivilization that is...) bias
So what you're saying is that too many westerners are biased against western civilization? Too many corporations are biased against western industrial capitalism? Or are you suddenly arguing that too many politicians exist in a vacuum, with no elections to fight and no campaign fundraisers to run? Cuz from what I see, politicians all over pretty much swing (mostly) with the fundraising and (sometimes) the voting wind.
Your paranoia would be cute if it wouldn't be so widespread.
The speed of light was not the problem. The problem was the timing of the detection of the neutrino. Slight - but significant - difference.
I have no idea. That sentence made absolutely no sense to me. I think this is right up there in terms of "WTF does slashdot have editors for?" My best guess is that it's supposed to mean "because the sun drags the earth through areas that have significant differences in the amount of cosmic rays in them, the total effect of cosmic rays on global temperatures has been larger than previously thought". But again, it's a guess that's more based on the notion that cosmic rays impact global temperatures rather than the actual sentence or anything that's in the article.
Funny. Two moronic replies around a throwaway line, and both come from foes.