Because you mentioned a bunch of internet services that have absolutely nothing to do with "the cloud".
Do I use hosted services? No.
Do I use IMAP? Yes.
Do I use Web hosting? Nope.
Do I use QuickBooks online? Nope
Do I use Gmail? Yes.
Di I use Adobe online? Nope
Do I use a DNS registrar? Yes
Do I use DDNS? No.
But guess what? *I* don't use "the cloud". The point being that just because you use somebody else's service, does not mean you use "the cloud". Every one of those things you mentioned as examples existed before "the cloud" did. And just because some of those services may use or be cloud providers themselves does NOT mean that I also do. It's not transitive. My accountant has a housekeeper - that does not mean that I have one too.
*sigh*............ LOOK AT THE QUOTE. It doesn't say anything about where the satellite was launched FROM - it simply says Australia was the 3rd country to LAUNCH a sattellite.
We bought it, we paid for it, we built it, and we designed it. It was a Canadian-owned and operated scientific satellite. NASA got involved after we convinced them that they'd benefit from the collected data - they didn't think the technology was advanced enough for what we wanted to do.
I know a lot of Canadian, British and German countries that were involved in the design & development of the Abrams, too - but when was the last time you heard it referred to as the "joint American/Canadian/British/German/whatever M1"?
It was launched from Vandenburg AFB, after it was built in CANADA and shipped there. It was launched for CANADA, when CANADA paid them to.
Still a Canadian satellite, still years before the Australian satellite. Where it was launched FROM I didn't address, because that's not what I was correcting.
Dump on whoever wrote that ambiguous headline, not me.
50 years after Australia became the third country to launch a satellite into space, they had another big announcement.
Australia's 1st satellite was launched November 29,1967. Canada's Alouette satellite made us Canucks the 3rd country behind the Soviet Union and the USA when it was launched September 29, 1962.
Two Statements:
Ship owners are realizing bigger ships aren't better than smaller ships
Ship owners continue to prefer to buy bigger ships rather than smaller ships.
Consumers are realizing that energy drinks are bad for your health.
Consumers continue to prefer to buy more and more energy drinks rather than getting a good night's sleep.
Assuming we are talking about the same "ship owners", one of these two statements isn't true.
Even given your assumption, that's not true. It's called "cognitive dissonance"
One of them is an empirical statement which demonstrates ship owner revealed actual preferences and the other one is a quote from the piece's author which seems inline with their own expressed opinion about bigger ship=bad. Which one do you think is more likely to be accurate?
Again - not an issue. They can both be true.
The more you personally know about the details of a media story, usually the less accurate you'll think the story is.
And that statement is ABSOLUTELY true. You just chose a bad example.
This also applies to media stories you don't know as much about, just many people don't realize it when it's not slapping them in the face.
If possible, this is even more true than your last statement.
Specifically, Assange revealed the leaked emails show that she overrode the Pentagon's reluctance to overthrow sovereign Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, and that "they predicted the post-war outcome would be what it is, which is ISIS taking over the country."
Maybe I'm wrong, but as far as I know, ISIS didn't really exist before 2003 - so how would the Pentagon have been worried about them pre-2011?
This would be issuance of a passport pursuant to rendering him to arrest, to permit him to legally enter the US under custody. And quite within the powers of the government to do.
If he has a passport, he can go where ever the hell he wants - for example, to finish his long-delayed trip to South America. That's kinda/sorta the entire purpose of a passport. If it's just a matter of giving himself up, all he needs to do is show up at the American Embassy.
In law, rendition is a "surrender" or "handing over" of persons or property, particularly from one jurisdiction to another. For criminal suspects, extradition is the most common type of rendition. Rendition can also be seen as the act of handing over, after the request for extradition has taken place.
Read your own quote. Traveling OF HIS OWN FREE WILL to the US, to face charges or for any other reason, is not rendition.
Also from Wikipedia, the disambiguation page:
Rendition (law), a legal term meaning "handing over"
If he's traveling OF HIS OWN FREE WILL, he is not being "handed over". He's surrendering. Different thing.
Extraordinary rendition, the apprehension and extrajudicial transfer of a person from one nation to another
Again - if traveling OF HIS OWN FREE WILL, there is no "apprehension" involved, and is not an extrajudicial transfer.
You see, you're missing something very basic. If he's been arrested ("apprehended"), he DOESN'T NEED A PASSPORT. If it's an "extraordinary rendition" (read illegal, read kidnapping), HE DOESN'T NEED A PASSPORT.
Any conversation that involves "get a passport and come back to face the consequences" is a non-starter - he HAD a passport, and the US government revoked it. It's on THEM, not him; they are the ones that caused the problem in the first place - THEY are the ones that removed that option from the table, no Snowden.
He needs to get lawyers, come on back, and decide, see what he wants to do: Go to trial, try to cut a deal. I think there has to be a consequence for what he has done."
Except he can't come back, even if he wanted to. You lot cancelled his passport - that's why/how he got stranded in Russia in the first place.
Don't stand there and spout crap about how he should do the right thing when you're the reason that option literally doesn't even exist for him.
The FDA recalls or the drug industry (quietly) pulls 3out of every 4 or 5 drugs the FDA approves, because they have caused "unforeseen hazards", which is f'in laughable since they are supposed to be going through long drug trials to prevent "unforeseen hazards"
I really, really, REALLY want to see a citation for those figures you're throwing around.
A land-grab in the ocean? The Battle of Ellesmere Island?
I think there's about as much chance of having a small arms conflict in the Arctic as there is of Putin invading Greenland riding a polar bear. What exactly do you envision? Canadian troops invading Novaya Zemlya? The Arctic is unpopulated in a way that is difficult to describe. There is no one to shoot, and even getting there is a huge logistical problem. I'm pretty sure you've never been to the Arctic, but for the sake of argument, is there any basis to these ideas of yours?
It's when reading things like this that I miss the Cold War.....:)
CFS Alert, on the northern tip if Ellesmere Island is an intelligence station (COMINT & SIGINT). I had two tours there, 6 months each, during the lat '70s.
During my 2nd tour, we had a base defense exercise. The scenario (such as it was), was that for some strange reason, the Soviets decided to drop a regiment of paratroopers to attack the base while the Bears flew overhead to rain nuclear destruction on North America. Our mission was to defend the base - specifically, the operations building - long enough to destroy all the classified material contained therein.
We were freaking squints, not frikking pongos....... even so, they figured we should be able to hold out for 4-6 hours before being overrun. Personally, I think they were being optimistic.
Too bad they also discovered that it would take us 3-4 weeks to destory all the classified material.......
Full disclosure: I'm 56 years old, and still own a Lee-Enfield that was given to me by my father when I was 13, which originally belonged to HIS father. It still works as well as it did the day I got it.
I grew up in Labrador, hunting fishing and camping. I had two tours of CFS Alert, at 82 deg 30 min North. I've been to Whitehorse, Yellowknife, Churchill, Tuktoyuktuk, Iqualiuit, and very many places in between. Believe me, I've seen cold - but cold isn't even the biggest problem.
The Rangers are generally either Innu or Amerind. Technically, they are on duty or on call 24/7. Most of those involved in the Rangers still follow their traditional lifestyles - they hunt, fish, and trap for a living, and spend their time outdoors.
They don''t carry multiple weapons - they don't have the space or weight to spare, given the rest of their kit. That's why the Lee-Enfield has lasted as long as it has - it can be used to hunt for seal, moose or caribou, or defence against moose (ugly, nasty brutes - very evil tempered), wolves, or polar bears. You can hit a target out to about 350 yards or so - more than sufficient for any practical use, and long enough that you don't have to do extra laundry because a polar bear decided that you looked like a snack.
In the meantime - the rifle is carried around on your back while you're going through thick brush, getting banged and nicked as you go. It's sitting in the bottom of a canoe, or a kayak. it's getting banged around while sitting on the running boards of the snowmobile. It's in the bottom of a 12 foot motor boat while you go from island to island in the Arctic Ocean, getting banged around and covered with salt spray. It's stuffed where ever it can fit on the dogsled (yes, they are still used in some places). And after all that crap and abuse, you just have to pick the thing up, and it will hit what you aim at. No fuss, no muss.
Bottom line: Stand me in the world's best gun shop, give me unlimited credit, and tell me I can take one - and ONLY one weapon. I'll take the Lee-Enfield, every time. And I'll still be using it when every other weapon there has died of old age or just disintegrated because of the environment.
I pity the poor bastard that has to make the decision on the replacement. I'm just glad it's not me.
People with any number of diseases are a potential public health threat. HIV comes to mind. But putting health records into one big database might allow for the types of research to identify patterns of disease that don't rise above the 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10,000 threshold that most studies are limited to. Picking on vaccinations rather than just linking all health records to a centralized database seems narrow and punitive rather that good public policy.
Except that you're not going to catch HIV from somebody standing next to you at the bus stop, just because they said hello to you and breathed in your general direction
Except, nothing according to ANY wiki can be considered to be anything but suspect. Personal (and professional) opinion is that they did exist.
-- signed, somebody who has an honours degree in Soviet & East European Studies, and has used the name Gorshkov (yes, from the self-same Admiral) on the internet since the early '80s.
Back during the Cold War the question was often posed, is Russia the most backward advanced country in the world, or the most advanced backward country in the world
The "rule of thumb" breakdown was like this: Anything that required physical equipment (powerful computers, test rigs, etc) they sucked at, because they didn't have it. Anything that did NOT require physical equipment (mathematics, optics, theoretical physics, etc), they excelled at.
I remember when I was doing my linguist course while in the Navy, back in '82. One of my instructor's husband had PhD in physics - they were Jewish, and had only been able to leave the Soviet Union the year before. He saw the chess programme I had on my Radio Shack Model I (yes, I'm that old), and nearly freaked - not because of the chess programme, but because he'd never seen a computer that powerful - and he couldn't believe he could just go to the store and actually *buy* one.
The whole idea that China should be 'held responsible' for the hacking is just plain silly on it's face. Governments and private corporations have been spying on each other ever since the first cave man tried to keep a secret.
Can you imagine during the cold war of the US President went to Stalin and said "please stop spying on us"? Because that's exactly what's been suggested here.
Well, I grew up in a small town myself - only 3,500 - in the interior of Labrador. It don't get no smaller than that:)
Also, the riding of Ottawa-Vanier wasn't exactly what you would call The Big CIty....... Vanier was (still is?) a small French slum surrounded by Ottawa. We had grade 8 kids come to the campaign office asking questions for their social studies classes who literally couldn't speak a word of English. It honestly reminded me of being on the North Shore up past Quebec City, it was so provincial.
You must be a conservative.
Despite that fact, it is still based on valid science.
There is a big difference between thinking that Climate Change is a myth, and being against Kyoto. I am a (Canadian) conservative.
Do I think that climate change is real? Yes.
Do I think it's mostly man-made? Yes.
Do I think Kyoto is a GOOD THING(tm)? No freaking way.
Kyoto exempted two of the biggest carbon producers in the world - India & China - from having to reduce their emissions, while expecting the developed world to not only reduce theirs, but to PAY EVERYBODY ELSE TO DO NOTHING.
Kyoto, in practice, was more about wealth redistribution to the developing world than climate change.
And in the specific Canadian case..... the Jean Cretien government, which actually signed the treaty, did absolutely nothing to implement it - to the point where not only did we NOT reduce our emissions, but they had actually increased by a rather large percent - to the point where we would have had to shut down every gasoline & diesel engine in the country for a year to even begin to meet it's objectives. All the Tories did was call a spade a spade, and face reality.
Slashdot Mirror
Because you mentioned a bunch of internet services that have absolutely nothing to do with "the cloud".
Do I use hosted services? No.
Do I use IMAP? Yes.
Do I use Web hosting? Nope.
Do I use QuickBooks online? Nope
Do I use Gmail? Yes.
Di I use Adobe online? Nope
Do I use a DNS registrar? Yes
Do I use DDNS? No.
But guess what? *I* don't use "the cloud". The point being that just because you use somebody else's service, does not mean you use "the cloud". Every one of those things you mentioned as examples existed before "the cloud" did. And just because some of those services may use or be cloud providers themselves does NOT mean that I also do. It's not transitive. My accountant has a housekeeper - that does not mean that I have one too.
"On the internet" != "In the cloud"
*sigh* ............ LOOK AT THE QUOTE. It doesn't say anything about where the satellite was launched FROM - it simply says Australia was the 3rd country to LAUNCH a sattellite.
We bought it, we paid for it, we built it, and we designed it. It was a Canadian-owned and operated scientific satellite. NASA got involved after we convinced them that they'd benefit from the collected data - they didn't think the technology was advanced enough for what we wanted to do.
I know a lot of Canadian, British and German countries that were involved in the design & development of the Abrams, too - but when was the last time you heard it referred to as the "joint American/Canadian/British/German/whatever M1"?
It was launched from Vandenburg AFB, after it was built in CANADA and shipped there. It was launched for CANADA, when CANADA paid them to.
Still a Canadian satellite, still years before the Australian satellite. Where it was launched FROM I didn't address, because that's not what I was correcting.
Dump on whoever wrote that ambiguous headline, not me.
50 years after Australia became the third country to launch a satellite into space, they had another big announcement.
Australia's 1st satellite was launched November 29,1967. Canada's Alouette satellite made us Canucks the 3rd country behind the Soviet Union and the USA when it was launched September 29, 1962.
Two Statements:
Ship owners are realizing bigger ships aren't better than smaller ships
Ship owners continue to prefer to buy bigger ships rather than smaller ships.
Consumers are realizing that energy drinks are bad for your health.
Consumers continue to prefer to buy more and more energy drinks rather than getting a good night's sleep.
Assuming we are talking about the same "ship owners", one of these two statements isn't true.
Even given your assumption, that's not true. It's called "cognitive dissonance"
One of them is an empirical statement which demonstrates ship owner revealed actual preferences and the other one is a quote from the piece's author which seems inline with their own expressed opinion about bigger ship=bad. Which one do you think is more likely to be accurate?
Again - not an issue. They can both be true.
The more you personally know about the details of a media story, usually the less accurate you'll think the story is.
And that statement is ABSOLUTELY true. You just chose a bad example.
This also applies to media stories you don't know as much about, just many people don't realize it when it's not slapping them in the face.
If possible, this is even more true than your last statement.
Maybe I'm wrong, but as far as I know, ISIS didn't really exist before 2003 - so how would the Pentagon have been worried about them pre-2011?
Apologies to all. I misread the dates - this is why I shouldn't post before morning coffee.
Specifically, Assange revealed the leaked emails show that she overrode the Pentagon's reluctance to overthrow sovereign Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, and that "they predicted the post-war outcome would be what it is, which is ISIS taking over the country."
Maybe I'm wrong, but as far as I know, ISIS didn't really exist before 2003 - so how would the Pentagon have been worried about them pre-2011?
If he has a passport, he can go where ever the hell he wants - for example, to finish his long-delayed trip to South America. That's kinda/sorta the entire purpose of a passport. If it's just a matter of giving himself up, all he needs to do is show up at the American Embassy.
Read your own quote. Traveling OF HIS OWN FREE WILL to the US, to face charges or for any other reason, is not rendition.
Also from Wikipedia, the disambiguation page:
If he's traveling OF HIS OWN FREE WILL, he is not being "handed over". He's surrendering. Different thing.
Again - if traveling OF HIS OWN FREE WILL, there is no "apprehension" involved, and is not an extrajudicial transfer.
You see, you're missing something very basic. If he's been arrested ("apprehended"), he DOESN'T NEED A PASSPORT. If it's an "extraordinary rendition" (read illegal, read kidnapping), HE DOESN'T NEED A PASSPORT.
Any conversation that involves "get a passport and come back to face the consequences" is a non-starter - he HAD a passport, and the US government revoked it. It's on THEM, not him; they are the ones that caused the problem in the first place - THEY are the ones that removed that option from the table, no Snowden.
If they give him a passport - temporary or otherwise - it's not rendition of any sort. It's normal travel
Except he can't come back, even if he wanted to. You lot cancelled his passport - that's why/how he got stranded in Russia in the first place.
Don't stand there and spout crap about how he should do the right thing when you're the reason that option literally doesn't even exist for him.
The FDA recalls or the drug industry (quietly) pulls 3out of every 4 or 5 drugs the FDA approves, because they have caused "unforeseen hazards", which is f'in laughable since they are supposed to be going through long drug trials to prevent "unforeseen hazards"
I really, really, REALLY want to see a citation for those figures you're throwing around.
Of 12 day care facilities affiliated with tech companies, six—that’s half—have below-average vaccination rates, according to the state’s data.
In other words, half the day care facilities were below average, and half were above. Isn't that kinda/sort the DEFINITION of average?
A land-grab in the ocean? The Battle of Ellesmere Island?
I think there's about as much chance of having a small arms conflict in the Arctic as there is of Putin invading Greenland riding a polar bear. What exactly do you envision? Canadian troops invading Novaya Zemlya? The Arctic is unpopulated in a way that is difficult to describe. There is no one to shoot, and even getting there is a huge logistical problem. I'm pretty sure you've never been to the Arctic, but for the sake of argument, is there any basis to these ideas of yours?
It's when reading things like this that I miss the Cold War ..... :)
CFS Alert, on the northern tip if Ellesmere Island is an intelligence station (COMINT & SIGINT). I had two tours there, 6 months each, during the lat '70s.
During my 2nd tour, we had a base defense exercise. The scenario (such as it was), was that for some strange reason, the Soviets decided to drop a regiment of paratroopers to attack the base while the Bears flew overhead to rain nuclear destruction on North America. Our mission was to defend the base - specifically, the operations building - long enough to destroy all the classified material contained therein.
We were freaking squints, not frikking pongos ....... even so, they figured we should be able to hold out for 4-6 hours before being overrun. Personally, I think they were being optimistic.
Too bad they also discovered that it would take us 3-4 weeks to destory all the classified material .......
Except in this case, their not military. Police have different requirements than the military, not the least of which is sticking to a budget.
Except the Rangers *are* military. Their officers are Army, they are trained by the Army, supplied by the Army, and paid by the Army.
Full disclosure: I'm 56 years old, and still own a Lee-Enfield that was given to me by my father when I was 13, which originally belonged to HIS father. It still works as well as it did the day I got it.
I grew up in Labrador, hunting fishing and camping. I had two tours of CFS Alert, at 82 deg 30 min North. I've been to Whitehorse, Yellowknife, Churchill, Tuktoyuktuk, Iqualiuit, and very many places in between. Believe me, I've seen cold - but cold isn't even the biggest problem.
The Rangers are generally either Innu or Amerind. Technically, they are on duty or on call 24/7. Most of those involved in the Rangers still follow their traditional lifestyles - they hunt, fish, and trap for a living, and spend their time outdoors.
They don''t carry multiple weapons - they don't have the space or weight to spare, given the rest of their kit. That's why the Lee-Enfield has lasted as long as it has - it can be used to hunt for seal, moose or caribou, or defence against moose (ugly, nasty brutes - very evil tempered), wolves, or polar bears. You can hit a target out to about 350 yards or so - more than sufficient for any practical use, and long enough that you don't have to do extra laundry because a polar bear decided that you looked like a snack.
In the meantime - the rifle is carried around on your back while you're going through thick brush, getting banged and nicked as you go. It's sitting in the bottom of a canoe, or a kayak. it's getting banged around while sitting on the running boards of the snowmobile. It's in the bottom of a 12 foot motor boat while you go from island to island in the Arctic Ocean, getting banged around and covered with salt spray. It's stuffed where ever it can fit on the dogsled (yes, they are still used in some places). And after all that crap and abuse, you just have to pick the thing up, and it will hit what you aim at. No fuss, no muss.
Bottom line: Stand me in the world's best gun shop, give me unlimited credit, and tell me I can take one - and ONLY one weapon. I'll take the Lee-Enfield, every time. And I'll still be using it when every other weapon there has died of old age or just disintegrated because of the environment.
I pity the poor bastard that has to make the decision on the replacement. I'm just glad it's not me.
People with any number of diseases are a potential public health threat. HIV comes to mind. But putting health records into one big database might allow for the types of research to identify patterns of disease that don't rise above the 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10,000 threshold that most studies are limited to. Picking on vaccinations rather than just linking all health records to a centralized database seems narrow and punitive rather that good public policy.
Except that you're not going to catch HIV from somebody standing next to you at the bus stop, just because they said hello to you and breathed in your general direction
Except, nothing according to ANY wiki can be considered to be anything but suspect. Personal (and professional) opinion is that they did exist. -- signed, somebody who has an honours degree in Soviet & East European Studies, and has used the name Gorshkov (yes, from the self-same Admiral) on the internet since the early '80s.
model villages to model aircraft - an (obvious, I think) reference to Potemkin Villages. And a damned good comparison, at that.
Back during the Cold War the question was often posed, is Russia the most backward advanced country in the world, or the most advanced backward country in the world
The "rule of thumb" breakdown was like this: Anything that required physical equipment (powerful computers, test rigs, etc) they sucked at, because they didn't have it. Anything that did NOT require physical equipment (mathematics, optics, theoretical physics, etc), they excelled at.
I remember when I was doing my linguist course while in the Navy, back in '82. One of my instructor's husband had PhD in physics - they were Jewish, and had only been able to leave the Soviet Union the year before. He saw the chess programme I had on my Radio Shack Model I (yes, I'm that old), and nearly freaked - not because of the chess programme, but because he'd never seen a computer that powerful - and he couldn't believe he could just go to the store and actually *buy* one.
Actually French Candians speak a more historical accurate french than people from France.
Same for Newfoundlanders, if you want to be accurate.
Am I the only one here who understood my comment to be a joke?
Maybe but French Canadians have such a wonderful french accent. That excuses everything else.
Calling what is spoken in Quebec "French" is just as silly as saying what is spoken in Newfoundland is "English"
You answered your question in your question. To wit:
.... and has been parroting what his subordinates have told him without question.
In other words, he's not managing.
The whole idea that China should be 'held responsible' for the hacking is just plain silly on it's face. Governments and private corporations have been spying on each other ever since the first cave man tried to keep a secret.
Can you imagine during the cold war of the US President went to Stalin and said "please stop spying on us"? Because that's exactly what's been suggested here.
Well, I grew up in a small town myself - only 3,500 - in the interior of Labrador. It don't get no smaller than that :)
....... Vanier was (still is?) a small French slum surrounded by Ottawa. We had grade 8 kids come to the campaign office asking questions for their social studies classes who literally couldn't speak a word of English. It honestly reminded me of being on the North Shore up past Quebec City, it was so provincial.
Also, the riding of Ottawa-Vanier wasn't exactly what you would call The Big CIty
You must be a conservative. Despite that fact, it is still based on valid science.
There is a big difference between thinking that Climate Change is a myth, and being against Kyoto. I am a (Canadian) conservative.
..... the Jean Cretien government, which actually signed the treaty, did absolutely nothing to implement it - to the point where not only did we NOT reduce our emissions, but they had actually increased by a rather large percent - to the point where we would have had to shut down every gasoline & diesel engine in the country for a year to even begin to meet it's objectives. All the Tories did was call a spade a spade, and face reality.
Do I think that climate change is real? Yes.
Do I think it's mostly man-made? Yes.
Do I think Kyoto is a GOOD THING(tm)? No freaking way.
Kyoto exempted two of the biggest carbon producers in the world - India & China - from having to reduce their emissions, while expecting the developed world to not only reduce theirs, but to PAY EVERYBODY ELSE TO DO NOTHING.
Kyoto, in practice, was more about wealth redistribution to the developing world than climate change.
And in the specific Canadian case