I'm not from the US, but surely most ISPs over there normally automatically charge your credit card? I put almost every bill I get (especially the fixed ones like ISP charges) on my CC - I don't have the time to manually pay *every* bill I get. I'd much rather just check my statement each month to make sure noone has double billed me.
Work Ethic? My reaction too - I'm Australian, and on reading that comment ended up with coffee all over my monitor. The big question is: Who's going to clean it up?
More than 1,300 people face identity theft after a state employee let in data-stealing spyware.
and
The Trojan horse gathered the equivalent of 7,000 text pages of data. But O'Meara said his staff spent weeks poring over the data and found no tax files or financial information. He said it was limited to Social Security numbers, names and addresses.
So that's ~5.3 "pages of text" per person they got only the SSN, name and address for. Either people in Oregon have really long names and addresses, or something else got sent with that data. I smell a cover up!:)
But also keep in mind that peak oil theory refers mainly to oil and gas, not coal. We have enough coal to keep pumping out for a long time to come.
It is estimated that with current mining technology, there is about a trillion tonnes of economically viable coal reserves. This expected to last us about 200 years (although I suspect that might be at current consumption rates) [http://www.australiancoal.com.au/vitalabundant.ht m].
If CO2 is the major cause of global warming, we won't be able to rely on economic pressures reducing usage, because "peak coal" is certainly a long way off.
So they are claiming that the documented increase in temperatures and the documented increase in carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are merely correlated and that there is no evidence of a causal relationship?
Hence my tongue-in-cheek pirate comment.
FTA: 'Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball.'
Certainly there is debate over how much of the temperature increase is caused by the CO2 increase, but it is certain that some of the temperature increase is caused by the increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
Exactly. So let's work out how much. The scientists in the article claim that during a period where the Earth's atmosphere had 10 times the CO2 it has now, the warming was less than it is now. If that were true, then that would indicate that the warming we are seeing at the moment may be primarily caused by something external.
Yes - we _know_ that CO2 allows high frequency EM to pass through while blocking low frequency. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The question is, how big is that effect in a complex system like the Earth's atmosphere?
Will reducing CO2 emissions have anything but a negligible effect, or should we be investing in big Monte Burns-esque sun shields to reflect the extra light we might be getting from the sun lately?
To be fair, the scientists this article is talking about are not actually claiming that the Earth is warming. They are just pointing out that there is no more evidence for the hypothesis that it has been caused by rising CO2 levels, than there is for the hypothesis that it is caused by normal cycles in the sun, or that it is caused by the falling number of pirates.
They accept that temperatures are increasing. They don't deny that it is a problem. They are questioning the way politicians are launching on a popular mission to tackle a problem we do not yet understand (although the article fails to make that point clear).
If we ignore all other hypothesis and we turn out to be wrong with the whole CO2 thing, then we're going to spend some incomprehensible number of dollars reducing our CO2 output over the next 100 years for no gain. If these alternate theories turn out to be right, then that money would be better spent either helping us adapt to a phenomenon we have no control over, or hiring more pirates.
Yes - let's curb our CO2 production for now, but let's not just assume we have the problem under control and put all our eggs in the one basket.
I think the stats I was looking at while writing that post said it was the 3rd biggest oil producer (but can't be bothered finding the link). China is one of the biggest, too (About 10th, from memory). I don't consider either of them to "have oil", because they both need to import the stuff.
It's an oversimplification, but it's also true in every clause.
Ok - I'll play.
So by "Nation A", you would mean America, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, probably Israel, and possibly North Korea. And by "Nation B", you would mean Saudi Arabia, Norway, Iran, Venuzuela, UAE, Kuwait, Nigeria, Mexico.
Russia doesn't fit into either (it's a large oil exporter and has nukes).
I think you might have oversimplified this to a point where it loses all validity.
You seem to think I'm American (despite my use of non-American English in my original post). I'm not. I have no particular love of the Americans, but your suggestion that they have no need for a military is rediculous. Are you aware that the Americans aren't the only ones fighting wars in the world? Nor are they the only ones to have started wars.
All any country needs to get invaded is to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and for some lunatic to get into power in some other country that has a grudge against them (sound familiar?). Additionally, police have never been much use at preventing civil wars.
The only countries that are (almost) military free have defence agreements with nearby neighbours, and those neighbours need to keep enough of an extra force to defend their dependants.
The US just needs to stop invading other countries - going military free isn't going to work.
Keep in mind this is just a PR piece. I'm sure Redhat is all too aware of the threat from their competitors. But they'd be idiots to go to the media and say, "Yes, we're really worried about the new Microsoft offering because it is superior to ours in so many ways." They will (and should) always talk down their competition externally. It is internally that they need to react to and manage the threat.
Debian and its derivatives has a combined user base larger then RedHat
That doesn't conflict with what they said. RedHat couldn't give a shit about installs on home PCs - that's no longer the market they're going after. What they care about is entiprise class distros.
Yes, they want to pick up debian customers (increasing the size of the market), but the customers they really want, are the ones already willing to pay for linux (increasing their market share).
Mind you, the article title is a bit misleading. They said they are not seeing the impact of Ubuntu yet. They didn't say that they do not see them as threats.
If the point of the new bomb is to reduce the current stockpile... then waiting 15 years and spending exactly zero dollars will accomplish the same goal, with the added benifit that it costs no money.
Not quite. Waiting 15 years without spending any money will give you thousands of nukes that they have to find a use for. It's not like they can just take these things down to the local dump.
Furthermore, as much as I'd like to see the end of nuclear weapons, it makes no sense for the US to get rid of _all_ their nuclear weapons. The same logic works with anything military. We all (well, most of us) oppose over-militarisation. A world where the US decided to get rid of their armed forces completely would not be a happy one for the 280 million odd people living there.
Even if this has no impact on the total number of nukes, anything that increases the safety of storing these things has to be a good thing.
I've often wondered: Why don't they just leave the foam on the tanks, and also coat the whole shuttle in foam to protect it from the bits that fall off?
I have sketched some concept drawings for my design. With my modifications, the shuttle would look a little like this.
Second, neither shortened life expectancy nor severely limited brain function precludes survival.
This is not the average run-of-the-mill genetic deformity. People with severe microcephaly are extremely unlikely to survive beyond childhood without care. As children, they are unable to feed. As they begin to grow, they experience seizures, fail to develop motor skills, are unable to learn, and can become paralysed. (Basically, the brain continues to try and grow as normal, but the head doesn't). I can handle a microcephalic child surviving to adulthood even tens of thousands of years ago. I don't buy them then going on to care for their own microcephalic child. [Disclaimer: IANAD]
In summary, it is believed to have been a slow evolutionary process. Some of the factors they believe select a smaller size are: temperature (pygmy populations have evolved almost exclusively around the equator - being smaller makes it easier to disipate heat); landscape (they tend to live next to or in dense forest, and being small makes it easier to move between branches etc).
And from WP: "Pygmies are smaller because in their early teens they do not experience the growth spurt normal in most other humans. This is an environmental adaptation, smaller bodies have evolved independently in non-human species in response to isolation on small islands or dense forest environments."
The thing I don't understand about the hypothesis that the fossil is actually a diseased human, is that they found partial fossils of 8 other individuals, which I assume were consistent with the near-complete fossil being debated. What are the chances of them all having this extremely rare defect, given that it shortens life expectancy, and severely limits normal brain function?
Slashdot Mirror
Well aren't you a lovely person. I'm sure people must just love dealing with you.
I'm not from the US, but surely most ISPs over there normally automatically charge your credit card? I put almost every bill I get (especially the fixed ones like ISP charges) on my CC - I don't have the time to manually pay *every* bill I get. I'd much rather just check my statement each month to make sure noone has double billed me.
And by my you mean by.
Ugh - By head's hurting.
Cleaning?
Wow - I just did that... Kinky!
Yes - because there wasn't a hint of sarcasm in my post.
Meh - 95% of the IT industry has never really had much in the way of IR protection anyway (nor do I think many IT professionals need it).
Work Ethic?
My reaction too - I'm Australian, and on reading that comment ended up with coffee all over my monitor. The big question is: Who's going to clean it up?
and
So that's ~5.3 "pages of text" per person they got only the SSN, name and address for. Either people in Oregon have really long names and addresses, or something else got sent with that data. I smell a cover up!
It's just lucky this happened in Oregon, rather than Virgina.
Now where's my +5, huh?
But also keep in mind that peak oil theory refers mainly to oil and gas, not coal. We have enough coal to keep pumping out for a long time to come.
t m].
It is estimated that with current mining technology, there is about a trillion tonnes of economically viable coal reserves. This expected to last us about 200 years (although I suspect that might be at current consumption rates) [http://www.australiancoal.com.au/vitalabundant.h
If CO2 is the major cause of global warming, we won't be able to rely on economic pressures reducing usage, because "peak coal" is certainly a long way off.
-1, Idiot.
Hence my tongue-in-cheek pirate comment.
FTA: 'Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball.'
Exactly. So let's work out how much. The scientists in the article claim that during a period where the Earth's atmosphere had 10 times the CO2 it has now, the warming was less than it is now. If that were true, then that would indicate that the warming we are seeing at the moment may be primarily caused by something external.
Yes - we _know_ that CO2 allows high frequency EM to pass through while blocking low frequency. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The question is, how big is that effect in a complex system like the Earth's atmosphere?
Will reducing CO2 emissions have anything but a negligible effect, or should we be investing in big Monte Burns-esque sun shields to reflect the extra light we might be getting from the sun lately?
To be fair, the scientists this article is talking about are not actually claiming that the Earth is warming. They are just pointing out that there is no more evidence for the hypothesis that it has been caused by rising CO2 levels, than there is for the hypothesis that it is caused by normal cycles in the sun, or that it is caused by the falling number of pirates.
They accept that temperatures are increasing. They don't deny that it is a problem. They are questioning the way politicians are launching on a popular mission to tackle a problem we do not yet understand (although the article fails to make that point clear).
If we ignore all other hypothesis and we turn out to be wrong with the whole CO2 thing, then we're going to spend some incomprehensible number of dollars reducing our CO2 output over the next 100 years for no gain. If these alternate theories turn out to be right, then that money would be better spent either helping us adapt to a phenomenon we have no control over, or hiring more pirates.
Yes - let's curb our CO2 production for now, but let's not just assume we have the problem under control and put all our eggs in the one basket.
I think the stats I was looking at while writing that post said it was the 3rd biggest oil producer (but can't be bothered finding the link). China is one of the biggest, too (About 10th, from memory). I don't consider either of them to "have oil", because they both need to import the stuff.
It's an oversimplification, but it's also true in every clause.
Ok - I'll play.
So by "Nation A", you would mean America, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, probably Israel, and possibly North Korea.
And by "Nation B", you would mean Saudi Arabia, Norway, Iran, Venuzuela, UAE, Kuwait, Nigeria, Mexico.
Russia doesn't fit into either (it's a large oil exporter and has nukes).
I think you might have oversimplified this to a point where it loses all validity.
You seem to think I'm American (despite my use of non-American English in my original post). I'm not. I have no particular love of the Americans, but your suggestion that they have no need for a military is rediculous. Are you aware that the Americans aren't the only ones fighting wars in the world? Nor are they the only ones to have started wars.
All any country needs to get invaded is to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and for some lunatic to get into power in some other country that has a grudge against them (sound familiar?). Additionally, police have never been much use at preventing civil wars.
The only countries that are (almost) military free have defence agreements with nearby neighbours, and those neighbours need to keep enough of an extra force to defend their dependants.
The US just needs to stop invading other countries - going military free isn't going to work.
Keep in mind this is just a PR piece. I'm sure Redhat is all too aware of the threat from their competitors. But they'd be idiots to go to the media and say, "Yes, we're really worried about the new Microsoft offering because it is superior to ours in so many ways." They will (and should) always talk down their competition externally. It is internally that they need to react to and manage the threat.
That doesn't conflict with what they said. RedHat couldn't give a shit about installs on home PCs - that's no longer the market they're going after. What they care about is entiprise class distros.
Yes, they want to pick up debian customers (increasing the size of the market), but the customers they really want, are the ones already willing to pay for linux (increasing their market share).
Mind you, the article title is a bit misleading. They said they are not seeing the impact of Ubuntu yet. They didn't say that they do not see them as threats.
Not quite. Waiting 15 years without spending any money will give you thousands of nukes that they have to find a use for. It's not like they can just take these things down to the local dump.
Furthermore, as much as I'd like to see the end of nuclear weapons, it makes no sense for the US to get rid of _all_ their nuclear weapons. The same logic works with anything military. We all (well, most of us) oppose over-militarisation. A world where the US decided to get rid of their armed forces completely would not be a happy one for the 280 million odd people living there.
Even if this has no impact on the total number of nukes, anything that increases the safety of storing these things has to be a good thing.
I've often wondered: Why don't they just leave the foam on the tanks, and also coat the whole shuttle in foam to protect it from the bits that fall off?
I have sketched some concept drawings for my design. With my modifications, the shuttle would look a little like this.
Second, neither shortened life expectancy nor severely limited brain function precludes survival.
This is not the average run-of-the-mill genetic deformity. People with severe microcephaly are extremely unlikely to survive beyond childhood without care. As children, they are unable to feed. As they begin to grow, they experience seizures, fail to develop motor skills, are unable to learn, and can become paralysed. (Basically, the brain continues to try and grow as normal, but the head doesn't). I can handle a microcephalic child surviving to adulthood even tens of thousands of years ago. I don't buy them then going on to care for their own microcephalic child. [Disclaimer: IANAD]
That's why inbreeding is bad. This is what created the pygmies and various other dwarf and midget populations throughout the world.
u estionofsize42/
I wouldn't mind seeing a reference on a claim like that. I call BS. See http://www.discover.com/issues/may-92/features/aq
In summary, it is believed to have been a slow evolutionary process. Some of the factors they believe select a smaller size are: temperature (pygmy populations have evolved almost exclusively around the equator - being smaller makes it easier to disipate heat); landscape (they tend to live next to or in dense forest, and being small makes it easier to move between branches etc).
And from WP:
"Pygmies are smaller because in their early teens they do not experience the growth spurt normal in most other humans. This is an environmental adaptation, smaller bodies have evolved independently in non-human species in response to isolation on small islands or dense forest environments."
It's still disputed. Wikipedia has a short summary of the 2 opinions here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis#A_
The thing I don't understand about the hypothesis that the fossil is actually a diseased human, is that they found partial fossils of 8 other individuals, which I assume were consistent with the near-complete fossil being debated. What are the chances of them all having this extremely rare defect, given that it shortens life expectancy, and severely limits normal brain function?