When I see scientists claiming that the late 20th century warming was unprecedented
I hope you're a better historian than reader of scientific papers. Scientists don't claim that the warming was unprecedented, they claim that the rate of increase of global temperatures is unprecedented during human settlement time.
I'll point out the discrepancies for you: - rate of change versus absolute temperature - global vs local temperature.
When someone keeps asking the same question in class, the response at some point becomes "just be quiet". It is the socially accepted response to someone being either unable to learn, unwilling to learn, or just looking for trouble. That's the response you got. Draw your own conclusions.
It's the number WE are designed to handle. Is that so hard to understand? I don't give a rats ass that some Megaflora thrived in 4000 PPM of CO2. I'd die.
'It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.'"
In other words, minimizing the illegal exchange of copyrighted becomes the responsibility of the copyright holders, by forcing them to identify which works are their copyright, and which works they would like to not have floating around on the Internet. Go cry me a river. It's bad public policy only in the world where 'public" is defined as "corporations under the RIAA umbrella".
The more you steal from the public domain, the less I care about abiding by copyright law. I haven't bought a new CD in years, my movie buying is exceedingly limited, and care less and less about ripping any movie/song that I like.
Before someone accuses me of not wanting to pay for content that I use - nonsense. I actually donate money to a completely silly online game because even FB game developers need to eat, and I donate to NPR because I listen to them. I pay if I think I'm getting something in return, or if I feel that I'm supporting a deserving cause. I feel that I don't get anything from the media conglomerates.
What the hell happened to the idea that technology was supposed to make society better?
People.
People replaced "... makes society better" with "... makes company more profitable". I was going to say capitalism instead of people, but this would also happen in any other economic and political model. We've demonstrated again and again that we're just a bunch of egoistic little chimps, who at best have the well-being of their tribe at heart.
And that open ticket is going to hit their closing average hard. There is no reason for a front-line phone person to be accommodating, or to do anything but close the open ticket as quickly as possible. And the same goes for the first two tiers of managers as well.
Pediatrist at Emory wants to disagree:http://www.pediatrics.emory.edu/ccm/lectures/files/Brain%20Death.ppt Warning: PPT. Heart rate is controlled by various parts of the nervous system, including certain parts of the brain, but it is still most dependent on the autonomic nervous system. What stops the heart quickest is lack of oxygen through lack of respiration, which is what gets stopped once the brain stem gets removed.
The difference is that I get to choose which people decide what happens to my packets when that decision is made by the ISP.
Only if you aren't subjected to a monopoly. And the current ISPs are natural monopolies, where the first mover has tremendous advantages. As an example: I can get a crappy ATT line, or a Comcast line. Great choice. Especially when it comes to Net Neutrality.
If it is done by a bureaucrat, I have no choice in who decides what happens to my packets, that decision is made by the majority (ideally) or by the politically connected (in which case how different is it from when the company does it?).
The company is designed to fuck me over, the bureaucrat merely has the ability to fuck me over.
Not possible, and if they aren't hooked up immediately, the host body's heart would stop, along with hundreds of other more or less vital processes.
Not quite. Most vital processes are autonomic - i.e. not under control of the brain itself. Cut someone's head off, and the heart keeps beating until it's starved of blood and oxygen.
Keep alive without access to a circulatory system for the time needed to perform the transfer
Two words: cold storage. Medicine has made tremendous progress in its understanding of how to cool the body and the brain to minimize damage from lack of oxygen.
That said, I agree that the proposed experiment is pretty useless, as that question has already been answered: yes, it would transfer.
What's the difference between corporate espionage and a joint venture? In the former, information is transferred without the knowledge of one party, in the second both parties know what information is transferred.
What the Chinese government wants to do is to outsource its corporate espionage to the foreign companies. Smart idea. China knows it has a quarter of the world market and that execs are drooling at the prospect of instantly increasing their market by at least 25%. Very few companies can resist the lure of setting up joint ventures. At some point, either the venture is successful, and local skill, services and markets grow, or the venture is unsuccessful, and local skill grows. The only guaranteed winner in this scheme is China. And all that without having to set up a single spy.
The alternative is that companies get to do whatever they want with the packets going through their equipment, and at that point, you'll still have people deciding what happens to your packets. Except that these people are incentivized to fuck with your packets as much as technically possible. With the government, there is the chance that bureaucracy will prevent much from happening.
The social question of Net Neutrality regulation breaks down as follows: do you want a sociopath in control of your packets, or a bureaucrat?
I'm choosing the bureaucrat every time. He cannot be worse than the sociopath.
And Comcast IS the web for a lot of people. See where this is going? The goal is to create an entertainment monopoly by leveraging a communications monopoly (or frequently, a duopoly). And the communications monopoly being a natural monopoly, it's quite possible to make that happen.
But if you control the entire entertainment and delivery vertical for a population that has only one choice in delivery, then there is no need to be in touch with your customer. Remember ATT? "We're the phone company, we don't have to care."
Liberal feel-good policies in the army? Really? The place where hazing is still tolerated, being gay is a fireable offense, religious proselytizing is a CO-supported activity and women run into a code of silence when dealing with rape?
Really? I know the current storyline is that everything bad comes from liberals, but at some point the narrative just becomes so ridiculously detached from reality that it's laughable. Feel free to show me a source that proves me wrong, but it better be a study and not somebody else's opinion.
It matters when the dying creatures are 50 ton dinosaurs having their death-throes in your living room - and the ability to vote. The only solution is eternal vigilance and nipping these proposals in the bud.
Hey now - thanks to her and a shady lab, we have some hard data on what happens when stem cells (prob extracted from her own bone marrow) are injected willy-nilly into organs. That's data that would be impossible to come by in a normal hospital with normal experimental procedures. She gave her life for science!
Warning. The preceding was 92% sarcasm and 8% honesty, with a 15% error margin. Read at your own risk.
The physical or logical topology of the Internet is irrelevant to this discussion.
Now you're just arguing with yourself. The entire reason behind the idea of "the internet routes around damage" is its physical and logical topology. I'm not sure you actually understand how the internet works.
How about the fact that DoD was so infested with political correctness that it ignored the warning signs regarding a Muslim service member whom later went on a shooting rampage and killed over a dozen innocent people?
Got a source for the notion that it was political correctness that ignored the warning signs, and not the same "move the problem away from me" attitude that had pedophile priests moved from parish to parish? And no, the opinion of a Fox News talking head doesn't count. I'm looking for a quote from the DoD investigation here.
There's also Comedy Central's hypocrisy -- they allow South Park (and Jon Stewart to a lesser extent) to rip every other religion to shreds but refuse to allow them to do the same to Islam.
Again, this has nothing to do with political correctness with respect to religion, and all to do with a business doing a risk/benefit analysis, and picking the approach that maximizes the outcome. Blame capitalism for that, not political correctness.
If there's one thing I'm tired of, it's hearing white Christians complain of being oppressed or somehow being unfairly targeted. You have no idea what that means.
What??? How was this modded informative?? Hitler may have been born Catholic, but he was Catholic in the same way Marx was Jewish--both are religions that are also ethnic identities, because people are inducted into them in childhood.
Note sure what distinction you want to make here. Have you been to Germany? Especially Bavaria, where Hitler and the Nazis got started? Religion is part of the social fabric there. You don't go anywhere without it - kinda like the South in the US. It's not an ethnic identity, it's a social identity. And people are as serious about God there as they are in the South. When they address God, they mean it. Not all places in Germany are as devoted to their saints as Bavaria, but to argue that somehow Hitler was a Christian in name only is ludicrous. God, and the Christian God in particular, was a significant part of the Nazi rhetoric.
(Quoted by Albert Speer, architect of the Third Reich)
You might want to specify here that he was literally the architect of the Third Reich - until he stopped designing buildings for the Nazi party and picked up a ministerial position.
--From Mein Kampf
Ever heard of hyperbole? You might want to stop quoting little snippets and perform a full analysis of all speeches and documents. Otherwise you just come across as somebody who is mining a text for hits that confirm your preconceived belief.
Oh, so hopeful. You're forgetting that China is already sanitizing the Internet. ACTA wants to expand sanitizing specific content to all countries. Iran is also providing its own Internet filtering. This is already way beyond just Pakistan. How much filtering and blocking has to happen before you realize that you do not have an Internet anymore, but a loosely connected set of Intranets?
What if that religious fanaticism happens to be the religion that controls a major portion of the oil in the world? Islamic countries tend to stick together for no other reason than they happen to be islamic.
It also is a sign of things to come: more countries will sue citizens of other countries for what they did on the Internet. There is a real risk that this will impede business all over the world.
I guess this is a development that no one really foresaw in the early stages of the Internet: instead of creating a global village with a global set of social mores, the Internet is creating a global court room where every jurisdiction can claim tort against anybody who does something over the Internet. Furthermore, it was always implicitly assumed (especially in the US) that the Internet users would adopt, or at least move to American moral standards. Instead, we're discovering that there are plenty of communities out there who are happy to apply their local standards to the world, and that these communities have enough power to at least make life uncomfortable for everyone.
There is a lesson here. Actually, there are two lessons here. One, Americans aren't the only ones willing to export their values, and they will have a difficult time arguing that others shouldn't. Two, we can lay to rest the notion that the Internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it: nations have enough power, and those in power have enough incentive, to use the other code base to control the Internet - the code of law.
I have a sneaking suspicion I know which one is going to win, and it's going to give geeks heartburn all over the world.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd have a psychologist look into that persecution complex of yours.
When I see scientists claiming that the late 20th century warming was unprecedented
I hope you're a better historian than reader of scientific papers. Scientists don't claim that the warming was unprecedented, they claim that the rate of increase of global temperatures is unprecedented during human settlement time.
I'll point out the discrepancies for you:
- rate of change versus absolute temperature
- global vs local temperature.
Enjoy.
When someone keeps asking the same question in class, the response at some point becomes "just be quiet". It is the socially accepted response to someone being either unable to learn, unwilling to learn, or just looking for trouble. That's the response you got. Draw your own conclusions.
It's the number WE are designed to handle. Is that so hard to understand? I don't give a rats ass that some Megaflora thrived in 4000 PPM of CO2. I'd die.
'It will actually discourage service providers from taking steps to minimize the illegal exchange of copyrighted works on their sites.'"
In other words, minimizing the illegal exchange of copyrighted becomes the responsibility of the copyright holders, by forcing them to identify which works are their copyright, and which works they would like to not have floating around on the Internet. Go cry me a river. It's bad public policy only in the world where 'public" is defined as "corporations under the RIAA umbrella".
The more you steal from the public domain, the less I care about abiding by copyright law. I haven't bought a new CD in years, my movie buying is exceedingly limited, and care less and less about ripping any movie/song that I like.
Before someone accuses me of not wanting to pay for content that I use - nonsense. I actually donate money to a completely silly online game because even FB game developers need to eat, and I donate to NPR because I listen to them. I pay if I think I'm getting something in return, or if I feel that I'm supporting a deserving cause. I feel that I don't get anything from the media conglomerates.
Go suck it, RIAA.
Cuz I'd like to know when it's ok to stop living in fear and handing complete control over to the government. Or is that a national security secret?
What the hell happened to the idea that technology was supposed to make society better?
People.
People replaced "... makes society better" with "... makes company more profitable". I was going to say capitalism instead of people, but this would also happen in any other economic and political model. We've demonstrated again and again that we're just a bunch of egoistic little chimps, who at best have the well-being of their tribe at heart.
And that open ticket is going to hit their closing average hard. There is no reason for a front-line phone person to be accommodating, or to do anything but close the open ticket as quickly as possible. And the same goes for the first two tiers of managers as well.
Of course, that near monopoly exists because of government regulations in the first place.
Please educate yourself on natural monopolies before you betray your ignorance on the topic.
Pediatrist at Emory wants to disagree:http://www.pediatrics.emory.edu/ccm/lectures/files/Brain%20Death.ppt
Warning: PPT. Heart rate is controlled by various parts of the nervous system, including certain parts of the brain, but it is still most dependent on the autonomic nervous system. What stops the heart quickest is lack of oxygen through lack of respiration, which is what gets stopped once the brain stem gets removed.
The difference is that I get to choose which people decide what happens to my packets when that decision is made by the ISP.
Only if you aren't subjected to a monopoly. And the current ISPs are natural monopolies, where the first mover has tremendous advantages. As an example: I can get a crappy ATT line, or a Comcast line. Great choice. Especially when it comes to Net Neutrality.
If it is done by a bureaucrat, I have no choice in who decides what happens to my packets, that decision is made by the majority (ideally) or by the politically connected (in which case how different is it from when the company does it?).
The company is designed to fuck me over, the bureaucrat merely has the ability to fuck me over.
Not possible, and if they aren't hooked up immediately, the host body's heart would stop, along with hundreds of other more or less vital processes.
Not quite. Most vital processes are autonomic - i.e. not under control of the brain itself. Cut someone's head off, and the heart keeps beating until it's starved of blood and oxygen.
Keep alive without access to a circulatory system for the time needed to perform the transfer
Two words: cold storage. Medicine has made tremendous progress in its understanding of how to cool the body and the brain to minimize damage from lack of oxygen.
That said, I agree that the proposed experiment is pretty useless, as that question has already been answered: yes, it would transfer.
What's the difference between corporate espionage and a joint venture? In the former, information is transferred without the knowledge of one party, in the second both parties know what information is transferred.
What the Chinese government wants to do is to outsource its corporate espionage to the foreign companies. Smart idea. China knows it has a quarter of the world market and that execs are drooling at the prospect of instantly increasing their market by at least 25%. Very few companies can resist the lure of setting up joint ventures. At some point, either the venture is successful, and local skill, services and markets grow, or the venture is unsuccessful, and local skill grows. The only guaranteed winner in this scheme is China. And all that without having to set up a single spy.
The alternative is that companies get to do whatever they want with the packets going through their equipment, and at that point, you'll still have people deciding what happens to your packets. Except that these people are incentivized to fuck with your packets as much as technically possible. With the government, there is the chance that bureaucracy will prevent much from happening.
The social question of Net Neutrality regulation breaks down as follows: do you want a sociopath in control of your packets, or a bureaucrat?
I'm choosing the bureaucrat every time. He cannot be worse than the sociopath.
NBC's biggest competition is the web.
And Comcast IS the web for a lot of people. See where this is going? The goal is to create an entertainment monopoly by leveraging a communications monopoly (or frequently, a duopoly). And the communications monopoly being a natural monopoly, it's quite possible to make that happen.
But if you control the entire entertainment and delivery vertical for a population that has only one choice in delivery, then there is no need to be in touch with your customer. Remember ATT? "We're the phone company, we don't have to care."
Liberal feel-good policies in the army? Really? The place where hazing is still tolerated, being gay is a fireable offense, religious proselytizing is a CO-supported activity and women run into a code of silence when dealing with rape?
Really? I know the current storyline is that everything bad comes from liberals, but at some point the narrative just becomes so ridiculously detached from reality that it's laughable. Feel free to show me a source that proves me wrong, but it better be a study and not somebody else's opinion.
It matters when the dying creatures are 50 ton dinosaurs having their death-throes in your living room - and the ability to vote. The only solution is eternal vigilance and nipping these proposals in the bud.
Hey now - thanks to her and a shady lab, we have some hard data on what happens when stem cells (prob extracted from her own bone marrow) are injected willy-nilly into organs. That's data that would be impossible to come by in a normal hospital with normal experimental procedures. She gave her life for science!
Warning. The preceding was 92% sarcasm and 8% honesty, with a 15% error margin. Read at your own risk.
The physical or logical topology of the Internet is irrelevant to this discussion.
Now you're just arguing with yourself. The entire reason behind the idea of "the internet routes around damage" is its physical and logical topology. I'm not sure you actually understand how the internet works.
How about the fact that DoD was so infested with political correctness that it ignored the warning signs regarding a Muslim service member whom later went on a shooting rampage and killed over a dozen innocent people?
Got a source for the notion that it was political correctness that ignored the warning signs, and not the same "move the problem away from me" attitude that had pedophile priests moved from parish to parish? And no, the opinion of a Fox News talking head doesn't count. I'm looking for a quote from the DoD investigation here.
There's also Comedy Central's hypocrisy -- they allow South Park (and Jon Stewart to a lesser extent) to rip every other religion to shreds but refuse to allow them to do the same to Islam.
Again, this has nothing to do with political correctness with respect to religion, and all to do with a business doing a risk/benefit analysis, and picking the approach that maximizes the outcome. Blame capitalism for that, not political correctness.
If there's one thing I'm tired of, it's hearing white Christians complain of being oppressed or somehow being unfairly targeted. You have no idea what that means.
What??? How was this modded informative?? Hitler may have been born Catholic, but he was Catholic in the same way Marx was Jewish--both are religions that are also ethnic identities, because people are inducted into them in childhood.
Note sure what distinction you want to make here. Have you been to Germany? Especially Bavaria, where Hitler and the Nazis got started? Religion is part of the social fabric there. You don't go anywhere without it - kinda like the South in the US. It's not an ethnic identity, it's a social identity. And people are as serious about God there as they are in the South. When they address God, they mean it. Not all places in Germany are as devoted to their saints as Bavaria, but to argue that somehow Hitler was a Christian in name only is ludicrous. God, and the Christian God in particular, was a significant part of the Nazi rhetoric.
(Quoted by Albert Speer, architect of the Third Reich)
You might want to specify here that he was literally the architect of the Third Reich - until he stopped designing buildings for the Nazi party and picked up a ministerial position.
--From Mein Kampf
Ever heard of hyperbole? You might want to stop quoting little snippets and perform a full analysis of all speeches and documents. Otherwise you just come across as somebody who is mining a text for hits that confirm your preconceived belief.
Oh, so hopeful. You're forgetting that China is already sanitizing the Internet. ACTA wants to expand sanitizing specific content to all countries. Iran is also providing its own Internet filtering. This is already way beyond just Pakistan. How much filtering and blocking has to happen before you realize that you do not have an Internet anymore, but a loosely connected set of Intranets?
What if that religious fanaticism happens to be the religion that controls a major portion of the oil in the world? Islamic countries tend to stick together for no other reason than they happen to be islamic.
It also is a sign of things to come: more countries will sue citizens of other countries for what they did on the Internet. There is a real risk that this will impede business all over the world.
I guess this is a development that no one really foresaw in the early stages of the Internet: instead of creating a global village with a global set of social mores, the Internet is creating a global court room where every jurisdiction can claim tort against anybody who does something over the Internet. Furthermore, it was always implicitly assumed (especially in the US) that the Internet users would adopt, or at least move to American moral standards. Instead, we're discovering that there are plenty of communities out there who are happy to apply their local standards to the world, and that these communities have enough power to at least make life uncomfortable for everyone.
There is a lesson here. Actually, there are two lessons here. One, Americans aren't the only ones willing to export their values, and they will have a difficult time arguing that others shouldn't. Two, we can lay to rest the notion that the Internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it: nations have enough power, and those in power have enough incentive, to use the other code base to control the Internet - the code of law.
I have a sneaking suspicion I know which one is going to win, and it's going to give geeks heartburn all over the world.