And if he doesn't, it will be fun being the opposition for the next four years. Opposition suits me, to be honest.
Two years.
Reps have control of the legislature and executive. If they don't fix some things in the next two years, the Dems will take control of the legislature, and we'll have even worse gridlock than we've had.
Probably not. The Republican margin in the House of Representatives looks pretty safe at the moment, and in the Senate it doesn't look like the seats that are up for election in 2018 have incumbents that are particularly vulnerable.
It's a U.S. tradition that the party that wins the presidential election does poorly in the following mid-term, but the election maps make it look like "poorly" won't mean "change control of the Senate or House."
Your comments, over and over, can be summarize to this: "I don't know fact X, therefore fact X is hard to find out."
You have never actually tried to find out where voting machines are stored. You don't know whether it's hard or not. Saying that the information is hard to get is a logical fallacy known as "argument from ignorance."
...
Note that you haven't pointed to any reason to think at all that this information is being kept secret....
And you haven't given any reason to think it's readily available.
So, if you don't know whether the system is secure-- and you repeat several times that you don't know-- is the conclusion "therefore it is secure" justified?
(In any case, the best you can say about your argument that security by obscurity works is that breaking the security might need an inside man.)
The crackers thing is BS. Delhi has the pollution that it does due to both the number of cars/buses/trucks/... as well as the factories. The crackers are 1, maybe 2 days in a year, which would do squat in terms of pollution. Not to mention that in India, a lot of people have been moving away from fireworks under the pretext of being more eco-friendly.
And, in fact, the actual story says that the problem is not Diwali fireworks: "images published by NASA suggest that burning of crops in the neighboring states of Punjab and Haryana could be the biggest reason why the air quality in the world’s most polluted city refuses to clear." With a link to a NYT article discussing it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11... and to interesting satellite images on the NASA website
This story has nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions. It is about particulate pollution: more specifically, PM2.5: that is, particles suspended in the air with diameter of 2.5 micrometres or less.
You just proposed the "security by obscurity" approach to voting machine security.
You said it's hard for you to know what the security-- if any-- is for the physical location of voting machines, and since you don't know how to find out, that means they're secure!
Note that you haven't pointed to any reason to think at all that this information is being kept secret-- you just stated that you don't know, and therefore since you don't know, you "guess" that only a handful of people know.
A statement from social media is wrong, here, the proof is in another candidate's social media app!
Uh, no.
The "app" mentioned in the article is the Microsoft app used to report precinct results to the state office; it had nothing to do with social media. This was deployed by the Iowa Caucus (and used by both Republican and Democratic caucus, for what it's worth), but only used by about half the precincts (the other half just phoned the results in)
The app, from what people say, was slow and crashed a lot, but don't blame the results on the app-- the app was just the means used to report results.
I don't know why we don't tariff these guys. We readily allow their products and services in, yet they put up barriers to our software and services, creating lopsided trade. If we keep giving in, they'll keep doing it.
Because standard economic theory, the stuff you would have learned in Economics-101, says that protectionism and tariff wars always hurt both parties.
How is this so different from what the US government says they need to do to "keep us safe"?
It is different because people in the U.S. talk about policies that require real names, and even about censoring, while in China the government has implemented real name policies and censorship.
There is a big difference between random people talking about something, and a government actuallly doing it.
An abusive spouse is just one of thousands of scenarios of voting coercion.
The U.S. adopted secret ballots for a reason: to make it harder to implement vote buying and coercion. Maybe you're thinking that in modern times when everybody is trustworthy and nobody had bad motives, we don't need this safeguard. But nevertheless, there is a reason for the secret ballot, and we shouldn't undermine it.
When they come out of storage, ready for election season, they're set to factory settings.
Are they? By whom?
That would be the clearly best time to compromise the machine; you even have a perfect excuse for opening it up and meddling with the settings. "I'm just re-initializing the flash, according to procedure." You think the poll watchers have the slightest expertise in telling whether you're initializing to factory settings, whether you're installing an approved security patch, or whether you're installing malware?
What I do object to is that the machine's hardware/code is not available to the public for scrutiny.
Yep.
Also the way the machine's are procured is highly diabolical!
Don't know how machines are procured, so I can't comment on that one.
This woman won 6 of 6 coin tosses to beat Bernie in Iowa.
That is incorrect information that was pushed by the media in initial frenzy of reporting, but completely debunked. Here's the Iowa Register story, which I would the most accurate source for information in Iowa: http://www.desmoinesregister.c...
According to the Register, the report of Hillary winning six coin flips came from social media. Of the seven coin flips to break ties that were actually officially reported through the voting app, Sanders won six, and Clinton one. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/...
Here's a more interesting question: since Clinton did not in fact win a majority of coin tosses, what are the statistical chances that coin flips that happened to get reported in on social media would suggest that she did?
How do bad actors accomplish that [physical access] on a large scale?
Voting machines are stored when they are not in use, and in general, the places they are stored are not guarded by armed guards. (And, more to the point, are not guarded by pairs of armed guards.)
To get physical access to the machines, you just need to get a key to the warehouse that they're kept in. Try the janitor.
There are a large number of people associated with each voting precinct. You just need to insert one person. And you don't need to alter all the machines-- just a few.
It's easy to make up shit that supposedly Al Gore said that he didn't ever actually say, and post it as anonymous coward.
Citation needed.
And not a citation to "well, here's something he said that was kinda vaguely on the same subject, I just posted that completely made up quote as clickbait to get you to engage." You put it in quotations marks. Give me a cite to that quotation.
I'm also puzzled as to why deniers are so fascinated with Al Gore. He's not a scientist. The people discussing anthropogenic global warming don't cite him at all, only the deniers. In the question of the science, it really doesn't matter what he said.
The whole AGC platform is based on the premise that CO2 is the driver of global temperatures to a degree that makes all other sources infinitesimal in comparison, and its doctrine does not allow dissent from the premise.
The way science works in the real world is by comparing models to observations,and excluding the models that don't match the observations. The null hypothesis-- that the average temperature isn't warming-- is strongly excluded. So, if you want to propose that the effect is due to other variables: do the numbers. Make a model and show that it fits the data.
Right now, anthropogenic global warming is a model that fits the data. If you think it's wrong, find another model.
1. Death threats are never an appropriate response. 2. Death threats of which the sender says "ha ha, I was only joking when I said I was going to rape and kill your wife and then kill you" are also never an appropriate response. 3. Defending people who send death threats is also never appropriate.
Sorry, but that's just not the case. The problem in that statistical analysis is that the "pause" only exists if you pick exactly the right data subsetset. Pick the wrong start year, and it vanishes. But when you have to select a specific data subset to show an effect, and the only reason to pick that data subset is that this is the one that shows the effect-- that's not signal; that's statistical noise. The noise in the measurement is about 0.2C; the run of 18 years (or whatever run you pick) is simply mathematically not long enough to derive a local slope with high enough precision to reject a 0.015/year rise..
The fact that the deniers don't have a well-defined null hypothesis is a significant part of the reason that scientists don't consider their work science. Here is a good null hypothesis: "greenhouse gasses added by humans to the atmosphere do not cause an increase in the average temperature". This null hypothesis thus states that the rise in temperature from 1960 to present is statistical fluctuation (or, due to natural random factors not known, which is equivalent.) But, random noise will go down as much as it goes up. But the upward trend is significant. The graph trends up, but never down.
So, the null hypothesis is statistically rejected.
Now, rejecting the null hypothesis does not necessarily mean that the rise is due to human effects: it means that the rise is real, but does not say what causes it. So, the "human produced gasses do not cause warming" argument needs a different explanation of the rise.
So far, that different explanation simply has not been found, although there have been many many people looking for it.
So what you're saying is if you predict far enough in the future, making it unfalsifiable, it isn't science
Astrophysicists predict that in about five billion years, the sun will expand into a red giant. This prediction is not likely to be verified against observation. Nevertheless, astrophysics is a science, because the theory is well verified against other observations.
Climate scientists compare models to observation all the time. The particular predictions the previous anonymous coward posted, however, were of predictions for dates that are yet in the future.
The current trend is no statisically significant warming for about 18 years,
No, it's not. You're quoting denier talking points from several years ago. The purported "pause"-- which never reached the level of statistical significance-- went back to a rising trend years ago. http://blogs.discovermagazine.... Get some up-to-date talking points, why not?
and considering how few sunspots there have been lately, it's likely to cool down a bit as well.
Considering that meteorologists and climate scientists have been looking for a link between sunspots and temperature for over a hundred years now, and have still failed to find any link, this is a speculation that doesn't seem to have any evidence. The latest solar cycle (24) was lower than the previous one... but the temperature rise during this cycle was more than during the previous one. So, if anything, the most recent solar cycles show the opposite from what you suggest.
Slashdot Mirror
Two years.
Reps have control of the legislature and executive. If they don't fix some things in the next two years, the Dems will take control of the legislature, and we'll have even worse gridlock than we've had.
Probably not. The Republican margin in the House of Representatives looks pretty safe at the moment, and in the Senate it doesn't look like the seats that are up for election in 2018 have incumbents that are particularly vulnerable.
It's a U.S. tradition that the party that wins the presidential election does poorly in the following mid-term, but the election maps make it look like "poorly" won't mean "change control of the Senate or House."
"Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
--Winston Churchill
Your comments, over and over, can be summarize to this: "I don't know fact X, therefore fact X is hard to find out."
You have never actually tried to find out where voting machines are stored. You don't know whether it's hard or not. Saying that the information is hard to get is a logical fallacy known as "argument from ignorance."
...
Note that you haven't pointed to any reason to think at all that this information is being kept secret....
And you haven't given any reason to think it's readily available.
So, if you don't know whether the system is secure-- and you repeat several times that you don't know-- is the conclusion "therefore it is secure" justified?
(In any case, the best you can say about your argument that security by obscurity works is that breaking the security might need an inside man.)
The crackers thing is BS. Delhi has the pollution that it does due to both the number of cars/buses/trucks/... as well as the factories. The crackers are 1, maybe 2 days in a year, which would do squat in terms of pollution. Not to mention that in India, a lot of people have been moving away from fireworks under the pretext of being more eco-friendly.
And, in fact, the actual story says that the problem is not Diwali fireworks:
"images published by NASA suggest that burning of crops in the neighboring states of Punjab and Haryana could be the biggest reason why the air quality in the world’s most polluted city refuses to clear."
With a link to a NYT article discussing it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11...
and to interesting satellite images on the NASA website
This story has nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions. It is about particulate pollution: more specifically, PM2.5: that is, particles suspended in the air with diameter of 2.5 micrometres or less.
You just proposed the "security by obscurity" approach to voting machine security.
You said it's hard for you to know what the security-- if any-- is for the physical location of voting machines, and since you don't know how to find out, that means they're secure!
Note that you haven't pointed to any reason to think at all that this information is being kept secret-- you just stated that you don't know, and therefore since you don't know, you "guess" that only a handful of people know.
A statement from social media is wrong, here, the proof is in another candidate's social media app!
Uh, no.
The "app" mentioned in the article is the Microsoft app used to report precinct results to the state office; it had nothing to do with social media. This was deployed by the Iowa Caucus (and used by both Republican and Democratic caucus, for what it's worth), but only used by about half the precincts (the other half just phoned the results in)
The app, from what people say, was slow and crashed a lot, but don't blame the results on the app-- the app was just the means used to report results.
I don't know why we don't tariff these guys. We readily allow their products and services in, yet they put up barriers to our software and services, creating lopsided trade. If we keep giving in, they'll keep doing it.
Because standard economic theory, the stuff you would have learned in Economics-101, says that protectionism and tariff wars always hurt both parties.
How is this so different from what the US government says they need to do to "keep us safe"?
It is different because people in the U.S. talk about policies that require real names, and even about censoring, while in China the government has implemented real name policies and censorship.
There is a big difference between random people talking about something, and a government actuallly doing it.
Thank you for correcting the record.
You're welcome.
Did you read the leaks where the rest of the Clinton staff scorns CTR?
I don't particularly care about the campaign's click-through rate (CTR).
An abusive spouse is just one of thousands of scenarios of voting coercion.
The U.S. adopted secret ballots for a reason: to make it harder to implement vote buying and coercion. Maybe you're thinking that in modern times when everybody is trustworthy and nobody had bad motives, we don't need this safeguard.
But nevertheless, there is a reason for the secret ballot, and we shouldn't undermine it.
Every two years.
When they come out of storage, ready for election season, they're set to factory settings.
Are they? By whom?
That would be the clearly best time to compromise the machine; you even have a perfect excuse for opening it up and meddling with the settings. "I'm just re-initializing the flash, according to procedure." You think the poll watchers have the slightest expertise in telling whether you're initializing to factory settings, whether you're installing an approved security patch, or whether you're installing malware?
What I do object to is that the machine's hardware/code is not available to the public for scrutiny.
Yep.
Also the way the machine's are procured is highly diabolical!
Don't know how machines are procured, so I can't comment on that one.
This woman won 6 of 6 coin tosses to beat Bernie in Iowa.
That is incorrect information that was pushed by the media in initial frenzy of reporting, but completely debunked. Here's the Iowa Register story, which I would the most accurate source for information in Iowa: http://www.desmoinesregister.c...
According to the Register, the report of Hillary winning six coin flips came from social media. Of the seven coin flips to break ties that were actually officially reported through the voting app, Sanders won six, and Clinton one. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/...
Here's a more interesting question: since Clinton did not in fact win a majority of coin tosses, what are the statistical chances that coin flips that happened to get reported in on social media would suggest that she did?
Another link: http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...
How do bad actors accomplish that [physical access] on a large scale?
Voting machines are stored when they are not in use, and in general, the places they are stored are not guarded by armed guards. (And, more to the point, are not guarded by pairs of armed guards.)
To get physical access to the machines, you just need to get a key to the warehouse that they're kept in. Try the janitor.
There are a large number of people associated with each voting precinct. You just need to insert one person. And you don't need to alter all the machines-- just a few.
Never give up, never surrender.
Today slashdot, tomorrow the world!
It's easy to make up shit that supposedly Al Gore said that he didn't ever actually say, and post it as anonymous coward.
Citation needed.
And not a citation to "well, here's something he said that was kinda vaguely on the same subject, I just posted that completely made up quote as clickbait to get you to engage." You put it in quotations marks. Give me a cite to that quotation.
I'm also puzzled as to why deniers are so fascinated with Al Gore. He's not a scientist. The people discussing anthropogenic global warming don't cite him at all, only the deniers. In the question of the science, it really doesn't matter what he said.
The whole AGC platform is based on the premise that CO2 is the driver of global temperatures to a degree that makes all other sources infinitesimal in comparison, and its doctrine does not allow dissent from the premise.
The way science works in the real world is by comparing models to observations,and excluding the models that don't match the observations. The null hypothesis-- that the average temperature isn't warming-- is strongly excluded. So, if you want to propose that the effect is due to other variables: do the numbers. Make a model and show that it fits the data.
Right now, anthropogenic global warming is a model that fits the data. If you think it's wrong, find another model.
Yeah. Now all those photosnarks that have a picture of a politician saying something they didn't say will have audio clips attached.
We really are moving to a truth-free society.
1. Death threats are never an appropriate response.
2. Death threats of which the sender says "ha ha, I was only joking when I said I was going to rape and kill your wife and then kill you" are also never an appropriate response.
3. Defending people who send death threats is also never appropriate.
http://blogs.discovermagazine....
Sorry, but that's just not the case. The problem in that statistical analysis is that the "pause" only exists if you pick exactly the right data subsetset. Pick the wrong start year, and it vanishes. But when you have to select a specific data subset to show an effect, and the only reason to pick that data subset is that this is the one that shows the effect-- that's not signal; that's statistical noise. The noise in the measurement is about 0.2C; the run of 18 years (or whatever run you pick) is simply mathematically not long enough to derive a local slope with high enough precision to reject a 0.015/year rise..
The fact that the deniers don't have a well-defined null hypothesis is a significant part of the reason that scientists don't consider their work science. Here is a good null hypothesis: "greenhouse gasses added by humans to the atmosphere do not cause an increase in the average temperature". This null hypothesis thus states that the rise in temperature from 1960 to present is statistical fluctuation (or, due to natural random factors not known, which is equivalent.) But, random noise will go down as much as it goes up. But the upward trend is significant. The graph trends up, but never down.
So, the null hypothesis is statistically rejected.
Now, rejecting the null hypothesis does not necessarily mean that the rise is due to human effects: it means that the rise is real, but does not say what causes it. So, the "human produced gasses do not cause warming" argument needs a different explanation of the rise.
So far, that different explanation simply has not been found, although there have been many many people looking for it.
So what you're saying is if you predict far enough in the future, making it unfalsifiable, it isn't science
Astrophysicists predict that in about five billion years, the sun will expand into a red giant. This prediction is not likely to be verified against observation. Nevertheless, astrophysics is a science, because the theory is well verified against other observations.
Climate scientists compare models to observation all the time. The particular predictions the previous anonymous coward posted, however, were of predictions for dates that are yet in the future.
Judging by recent stories, sounds like they're pretty wise.
Who said he received death threats? He did.
And many others. https://www.theguardian.com/sc...
but also https://insideclimatenews.org/...
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/01/mit-climate-scientists-wife-threatened-frenzy-hate
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jun/06/australia-climate-scientists-death-threats
http://grist.org/news-2/here-are-some-of-the-death-threats-sent-to-a-climate-scientist/
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/116404/response/288373/attach/4/Appendix%20A%20Data%20file%20072.pdf
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1545134/Scientists-threatened-for-climate-denial.html
Genau.
The current trend is no statisically significant warming for about 18 years,
No, it's not. You're quoting denier talking points from several years ago. The purported "pause"-- which never reached the level of statistical significance-- went back to a rising trend years ago. http://blogs.discovermagazine.... Get some up-to-date talking points, why not?
and considering how few sunspots there have been lately, it's likely to cool down a bit as well.
Considering that meteorologists and climate scientists have been looking for a link between sunspots and temperature for over a hundred years now, and have still failed to find any link, this is a speculation that doesn't seem to have any evidence. The latest solar cycle (24) was lower than the previous one... but the temperature rise during this cycle was more than during the previous one. So, if anything, the most recent solar cycles show the opposite from what you suggest.