I hate to post like an Apple fanboy, but his argument is stupid.
His argument, basically, is that "Steve Jobs has the charisma, vision and instincts of every great information emperor." Therefore, Apple is dangerous. WTF? His argument is that any good company is to be feared.
Apple doesn't have anything like control over the internet. So far, the "control" that Apple has is control that has been in the form of designing a user interface that everybody likes, and having all the other companies copy it (e.g., the way desktops mostly now all look like the 1984 Mac desktop).
If there were one company that really does, right now, look as if it's getting control of the internet, that would be Google. (But Facebook is a strong runner up). I suggest if he wants to be afraid, he would do better to fear them.
I give my clients a simple process to create 'strong' passwords out of normal words or phrases (preferably 10+ chars) that makes them easy to remember.
Yeah, and if your clients only have one password to ever remember, and didn't have to change it, that would solve the problem. I have fifty passwords, many of which have to be changed every three months. Do you give your clients a "simple process" to create two hundred passwords per year, and remember which one goes with which system?
By the way, the single most important thing you should do to make sure your clients are secure is to make sure that they don't use the same password to access different systems. If they re-use their password on an insecure phishing site, doesn't matter how "strong" it is with "10+ chars"; it might as well be 123456.
Does your electrical company increase your rates or move to a higher tier if you run appliances all day long? What about your water company?
I can't tell if this question is deliberately naive, intended to be ironic, or if it's straight.
My electric company charges more if I use more kilowatt hours. My water company charges more if I use more gallons. They don't "change their rates", because they already have a rate that's proportional to the amount of product I use. It is the equivalent of an ISP charging a price per GB downloaded.
I've never heard of an electric company with an "unlimited electricity, no cap to usage" rate.
While not giving the left everything they were after, he rapidly increased federal spending with little transparent oversight,
Translation: after mismanagement of the economy by the Bush administration leading to the economy crashing and burning, he was forced to do an emergency stimulus that pretty much every economist admits was necessary to avoid a depression that would rival the great depression.
pushed the federal government to buy stock in private entities,
The GM bailout was in 2008. Obama took office in 2009.
enacted "Obamacare" in a nearly completely partisan vote with little to no real input from the right,
With 70% of the American public, as of the election, saying that they wanted the federal government to enact health care, this is hardly partisan. He worked very hard at trying to get bipartisan buy-in, and made an enormous amount of concessions, but the Repuplicans chose not to work with him.
The result was a watered-down health care bill that in no way whatsoeversatisfied the left. This is not an example of "left leaning and partisan"-- it's an example of bending over backwards to try to be centrist, and ending up screwed.
From the perspective of a conservative, his is THE most left-leaning...
Yes, as it turns out, "from the point of view of a conservative," the center is indeed "left".
GWB had a record of reaching across the aisle even with a majority (NCLB is the big one there, written by Ted Kennedy).
Obama has been reaching across the aisle. This has, so far, been his major failing, the belief that if he offers compromises on his side, the other side will find common ground. The other side of the aisle, however, has no interest in common ground.
Oh, god. As if it weren't easy enough already to find only information that only supports what you already believe, here's a search engine that deliberately provides blinders.
How about a search engine that analyzes your search, and then guides you to sites that show you information that confronts what you think you know with thoughtful and clearly-reasoned analysis and real, verifiable data?
Oh, wait-- clearly-reasoned and thoughtful analysis? This is the internet we're talking about. That gets buried under flames and opinions and half-understood facts.
I'm off-grid - no connection at all, unless you include the phone line.
SiliconEntity made a good point. I was thinking of a grid-connected system, so you'd still be attached to some wires (if only from the substation). But if you're completely off the grid, you're not attached to any long wires. Even a pulse of 50 volts per kilometer isn't going to give you very much voltage across the width of your house.
Connected to much shorter wires, you won't get nearly as much of a voltage transient. On the other hand, you don't seem to have any protection in place whatsoever, so your system will be much easier to fry.
if you resubmit your own work, it's not plagiarism.
Correct! It's amazing to see how many people don't understand this point, but it's correct: you can't plagiarize yourself, because plagiarism is the act of passing somebody else's work off as being yours.
I hate it when researchers report the same work in many different papers, but although it is a violation of research reporting standards, and in some cases a violation of an intellectual property contract... it's not plagiarism.
I am an election judge, I would be happy to provide the number of spoiled ballots.
In my last election, there were 3.
I will define any ballot for which there was a DEFAULT VOTE FOR ONE CANDIDATE BEFORE THE VOTER EVEN TOUCHED THE BALLOT as a spoiled ballot.
So, according to TFA, all the ballots in this Nevada election are spoiled.
The other case was where there were multiple candidates for 1 race (more than 2 candidates) and the voter chose more than one.
This is a flaw in the system: there is no reason that the ballot should be discarded in that case. Let them vote for all the candidates, if they want to.
This is just ONE of the big problems I have with the cult of global warming. It's always the doomsday predictions when the Earth warms. Good luck trying to find a story about the BENEFITS of a warmer climate.
That's not a problem with the "cult of global warming," it's a problem with the "cult of denying global warming." If you are blindly denying that the phenomenon exists and saying that all the science is wrong and the models are bullshit, there can't be any possible benefits, since to discuss possible benefits would have to admit the possibility that the effect is real and the science is right.
Since the right wing believes that global warming is not occurring, or that if it is occurring, it has nothing to do with humans and in any case is just a temporary fluctuation that has already turned around; there's nobody there to discuss whether or what part of climate change could be beneficial. The left is only interested in pointing out the adverse effects, and the right has abdicated any science discussion that involves climate.
Of course there are beneficial effects as well as adverse effects. But there's nobody there to discuss it. You would have to pay attention to the models to do so.
Exactly, which means that Islam never "carried the torch of civilization and culture."
During the middle ages, Byzantium (at the time, Constantinople) was a Christian city, not an Islamic city. Discussing Byzantium does not say anything about whether Islam "carried the torch of civilization and culture" one way or another, since if Islam carried the torch, it was carrying it somewhere else.
To the extent that Constantinople carried civilization and culture (from the Roman empire), that torch was thoroughly doused when the crusaders sacked the city and burned the famed library, an event that happened centuries before "as the rennaissance was beginning in Italy."
Sorry, that is not true. Byzantium was carrying the torch of civilization and culture.
True... however, "Byzantium" -- known at the time as Constantinople -- was, of course, a Christian city, not an Islamic city.
The collapse of Byzantium happened as the rennaissance was beginning in Italy.
The collapse of Byzantium happened when the 4th Crusade sacked Constantinople. Even though it was a Christian city, it was rich, and much easier to take than the not-terribly-rich-but-well-defended holy land.
There is probably a relationship between the two.
Undoubtably. The Italians not only eliminated a powerful trading rival, they sacked it and took the riches home.
I'm not sure what this has to do with global warming, but it's fascinating history.
The phrase "survival of the fittest" actually came from a mistake that was made when Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" was translated into German. The correct phrase, and concept, is "Survival of the most adaptable".
Since the phrase was first used by Herbert Spencer in 1864, writing in English, I don't think so. Darwin himself used the phrase "natural selection" and not "survival of the fittest," but in 1869 he did quote the "survival of the fittest" phrase (correctly attributing the quote to Spencer); and did it in English (not translating it into German).
Any questions? I'll try to answer responses to this post.
How can so much about the planet be observed without knowing which star the planet orbits? I'd think that information would be critical before any of the other information could be inferred.
Even Jupiter emits more light in some frequencies than it receives from the sun.
More generally, it radiates more energy than it receives from the Sun (with a different mechanism than in a star of course)
Most planets radiate more heat than they receive from the sun, of course. Including Earth, which generates internal heat by radioactive decay and radiates it away as part of its infrared output.
While I detest the whole idea of this, I do think that somebody should edit the original post to mention he was in posession of a stolen motorcycle, not bicycle. Although motorcycles are similar to bicycles-- they both have two wheels--there is a difference.
This video is a big let down: all he's doing is showing that it's possible to smelt iron & copper and construct an organic battery. This is not news...
Yep. Quick summary: "How to build a telegraph using stone age materials: first, invent the iron age. Then, build a telegraph using iron age materials."
And he fails step 1; he doesn't have the chops to invent the iron age (which requires fire...)
Actually, once you have fire, pig iron is remarkably easy to smelt, requiring only iron ore, charcoal, and clay. But you first have to be able to recognize iron ore. You can smelt chunks of basalt all you want; it's not gonna turn into iron.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate to post like an Apple fanboy, but his argument is stupid.
His argument, basically, is that "Steve Jobs has the charisma, vision and instincts of every great information emperor." Therefore, Apple is dangerous. WTF? His argument is that any good company is to be feared.
Apple doesn't have anything like control over the internet. So far, the "control" that Apple has is control that has been in the form of designing a user interface that everybody likes, and having all the other companies copy it (e.g., the way desktops mostly now all look like the 1984 Mac desktop).
If there were one company that really does, right now, look as if it's getting control of the internet, that would be Google. (But Facebook is a strong runner up). I suggest if he wants to be afraid, he would do better to fear them.
Speaking of which, I'm surprised nobody has posted the link to the relevant xkcd yet.
http://xkcd.com/792/
I give my clients a simple process to create 'strong' passwords out of normal words or phrases (preferably 10+ chars) that makes them easy to remember.
Yeah, and if your clients only have one password to ever remember, and didn't have to change it, that would solve the problem. I have fifty passwords, many of which have to be changed every three months. Do you give your clients a "simple process" to create two hundred passwords per year, and remember which one goes with which system?
By the way, the single most important thing you should do to make sure your clients are secure is to make sure that they don't use the same password to access different systems. If they re-use their password on an insecure phishing site, doesn't matter how "strong" it is with "10+ chars"; it might as well be 123456.
And they used it for "restoring damaged images". Yeah. Sure.
Images that were "damaged," for example, by having Trotsky in them.
Does your electrical company increase your rates or move to a higher tier if you run appliances all day long? What about your water company?
I can't tell if this question is deliberately naive, intended to be ironic, or if it's straight.
My electric company charges more if I use more kilowatt hours. My water company charges more if I use more gallons. They don't "change their rates", because they already have a rate that's proportional to the amount of product I use. It is the equivalent of an ISP charging a price per GB downloaded.
I've never heard of an electric company with an "unlimited electricity, no cap to usage" rate.
this seems baiting....
...until someone points out that Apple and Google did this before M$
Also Amazon.
While not giving the left everything they were after, he rapidly increased federal spending with little transparent oversight,
Translation: after mismanagement of the economy by the Bush administration leading to the economy crashing and burning, he was forced to do an emergency stimulus that pretty much every economist admits was necessary to avoid a depression that would rival the great depression.
pushed the federal government to buy stock in private entities,
The GM bailout was in 2008. Obama took office in 2009.
enacted "Obamacare" in a nearly completely partisan vote with little to no real input from the right,
With 70% of the American public, as of the election, saying that they wanted the federal government to enact health care, this is hardly partisan. He worked very hard at trying to get bipartisan buy-in, and made an enormous amount of concessions, but the Repuplicans chose not to work with him.
The result was a watered-down health care bill that in no way whatsoeversatisfied the left. This is not an example of "left leaning and partisan"-- it's an example of bending over backwards to try to be centrist, and ending up screwed.
From the perspective of a conservative, his is THE most left-leaning...
Yes, as it turns out, "from the point of view of a conservative," the center is indeed "left".
GWB had a record of reaching across the aisle even with a majority (NCLB is the big one there, written by Ted Kennedy).
Obama has been reaching across the aisle. This has, so far, been his major failing, the belief that if he offers compromises on his side, the other side will find common ground. The other side of the aisle, however, has no interest in common ground.
Oh, god. As if it weren't easy enough already to find only information that only supports what you already believe, here's a search engine that deliberately provides blinders.
How about a search engine that analyzes your search, and then guides you to sites that show you information that confronts what you think you know with thoughtful and clearly-reasoned analysis and real, verifiable data?
Oh, wait-- clearly-reasoned and thoughtful analysis? This is the internet we're talking about. That gets buried under flames and opinions and half-understood facts.
I'm off-grid - no connection at all, unless you include the phone line.
SiliconEntity made a good point. I was thinking of a grid-connected system, so you'd still be attached to some wires (if only from the substation). But if you're completely off the grid, you're not attached to any long wires. Even a pulse of 50 volts per kilometer isn't going to give you very much voltage across the width of your house.
Connected to much shorter wires, you won't get nearly as much of a voltage transient. On the other hand, you don't seem to have any protection in place whatsoever, so your system will be much easier to fry.
I was saying to myself, wait, this post is identical to the previous one... duh.
But, since you're posting as anonymous, it doesn't increase your publication count to republish it. Fail.
(And, anyway, "Anonymous Coward" is already the most-cited author on slashdot.)
if you resubmit your own work, it's not plagiarism.
Correct! It's amazing to see how many people don't understand this point, but it's correct: you can't plagiarize yourself, because plagiarism is the act of passing somebody else's work off as being yours.
I hate it when researchers report the same work in many different papers, but although it is a violation of research reporting standards, and in some cases a violation of an intellectual property contract... it's not plagiarism.
http://www.ctl.ua.edu/math103/voting/approval.htm
http://www.tursiops.cc/idhop/av/
http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approvalvote/center.html
I am an election judge, I would be happy to provide the number of spoiled ballots.
In my last election, there were 3.
I will define any ballot for which there was a DEFAULT VOTE FOR ONE CANDIDATE BEFORE THE VOTER EVEN TOUCHED THE BALLOT as a spoiled ballot.
So, according to TFA, all the ballots in this Nevada election are spoiled.
The other case was where there were multiple candidates for 1 race (more than 2 candidates) and the voter chose more than one.
This is a flaw in the system: there is no reason that the ballot should be discarded in that case. Let them vote for all the candidates, if they want to.
This is just ONE of the big problems I have with the cult of global warming. It's always the doomsday predictions when the Earth warms. Good luck trying to find a story about the BENEFITS of a warmer climate.
That's not a problem with the "cult of global warming," it's a problem with the "cult of denying global warming." If you are blindly denying that the phenomenon exists and saying that all the science is wrong and the models are bullshit, there can't be any possible benefits, since to discuss possible benefits would have to admit the possibility that the effect is real and the science is right.
Since the right wing believes that global warming is not occurring, or that if it is occurring, it has nothing to do with humans and in any case is just a temporary fluctuation that has already turned around; there's nobody there to discuss whether or what part of climate change could be beneficial. The left is only interested in pointing out the adverse effects, and the right has abdicated any science discussion that involves climate.
Of course there are beneficial effects as well as adverse effects. But there's nobody there to discuss it. You would have to pay attention to the models to do so.
Exactly, which means that Islam never "carried the torch of civilization and culture."
During the middle ages, Byzantium (at the time, Constantinople) was a Christian city, not an Islamic city. Discussing Byzantium does not say anything about whether Islam "carried the torch of civilization and culture" one way or another, since if Islam carried the torch, it was carrying it somewhere else.
To the extent that Constantinople carried civilization and culture (from the Roman empire), that torch was thoroughly doused when the crusaders sacked the city and burned the famed library, an event that happened centuries before "as the rennaissance was beginning in Italy."
Byzantium stood for another 200+ years after the 4th Crusade sacked the city.
It did, although it never regained its former status. The crusaders took the empire and split it up amongst them.
And, more to the point, it remained over that period a Christian city, not Islamic.
Sorry, that is not true. Byzantium was carrying the torch of civilization and culture.
True... however, "Byzantium" -- known at the time as Constantinople -- was, of course, a Christian city, not an Islamic city.
The collapse of Byzantium happened as the rennaissance was beginning in Italy.
The collapse of Byzantium happened when the 4th Crusade sacked Constantinople. Even though it was a Christian city, it was rich, and much easier to take than the not-terribly-rich-but-well-defended holy land.
There is probably a relationship between the two.
Undoubtably. The Italians not only eliminated a powerful trading rival, they sacked it and took the riches home.
I'm not sure what this has to do with global warming, but it's fascinating history.
Vac man! Is that you?
The phrase "survival of the fittest" actually came from a mistake that was made when Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" was translated into German. The correct phrase, and concept, is "Survival of the most adaptable".
Since the phrase was first used by Herbert Spencer in 1864, writing in English, I don't think so. Darwin himself used the phrase "natural selection" and not "survival of the fittest," but in 1869 he did quote the "survival of the fittest" phrase (correctly attributing the quote to Spencer); and did it in English (not translating it into German).
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/340400.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest
Any questions? I'll try to answer responses to this post.
How can so much about the planet be observed without knowing which star the planet orbits? I'd think that information would be critical before any of the other information could be inferred.
Even Jupiter emits more light in some frequencies than it receives from the sun.
More generally, it radiates more energy than it receives from the Sun (with a different mechanism than in a star of course)
Most planets radiate more heat than they receive from the sun, of course. Including Earth, which generates internal heat by radioactive decay and radiates it away as part of its infrared output.
While I detest the whole idea of this, I do think that somebody should edit the original post to mention he was in posession of a stolen motorcycle, not bicycle. Although motorcycles are similar to bicycles-- they both have two wheels--there is a difference.
This video is a big let down: all he's doing is showing that it's possible to smelt iron & copper and construct an organic battery. This is not news...
Yep. Quick summary: "How to build a telegraph using stone age materials: first, invent the iron age. Then, build a telegraph using iron age materials."
And he fails step 1; he doesn't have the chops to invent the iron age (which requires fire...)
Actually, once you have fire, pig iron is remarkably easy to smelt, requiring only iron ore, charcoal, and clay. But you first have to be able to recognize iron ore. You can smelt chunks of basalt all you want; it's not gonna turn into iron.