Considering that a lot of people (not everyone of course) drive to work alone in their car, stuck in traffic at 20-40 km/h, you could imagine a sort of "lightweight commute vehicle" that could be useful. I guess it would be half-way between a car and a bicycle (yes, tons of people ride a bike to work, especially in Asia), close to a motor bike I guess.
They say "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog". If you're not really careful, it's easy to get tricked by someone pretending to be someone else. It happens in real-life, but the Internet makes it *much* easier. For example, I can easily pretend to be an 18-year old teen online, but in real-life people might be much less easily tricked. Same goes for phishing. I can easily pretend to be Bank XYZ online, but I'd have a much harder time opening a fake branch without attracting attention.
Up until the age of about 11 or 12 children should have no guaranteed privacy in terms of what they say and do...
I suppose you read the part of my post that mentioned the 12-16 range, right? Starting around 12 yo, you can't just check everything they do.
This may sound terribly draconian but I think it's the only way to bring up children safely and with an understanding of what's right and safe and what's wrong and dangerous.
I'm afraid it's a little more complicated than that. Unlike 10-15 years ago, at least half of people with Internet access would probably fall into your definition of "complete moron" (and remember that you're probably a complete moron about at least one thing). At some point, "something" will have to be done because "bad guys" tend to learn/adapt faster than "complete morons". Should the solution be to make sites responsible (I hope not)? Have an "Internet license" (with a test required like for a driver's license? I've no idea what form it will have and I hope it won't do more damage than it causes, but eventually things will have to change. I guess teens in the ~12-16 range are especially vulnerable because: 1) You can't monitor everything they do on the Internet anymore 2) There's still a lot of things they don't know (but should) 3) They think they know enough
Oh, of course not. Just because it's the US that is feeding the rest of the world doesn't mean that anyone, anywhere will starve when US farmers are no longer able to get the energy they need to grow their crops.
That *has* to be the best one! "We'd like to reduce CO2 output, but we need to feed the rest of the world". Let me point out that 1) Farms aren't the most "high-CO2" activities (and certainly aren't responsible for the huge increase in the past few decades) 2) Cars (and especially big SUVs) do not help feed the third world 3) The rest of the world doesn't depend on the US feeding it 4) If anything, (subsidized) agricultural exports are making things worse for the third world countries because it weakens their economy (and yes I know the EU is probably worse than the US on that one).
Do you really think that punishing the United States for its success is going to make ANY difference (i.e, more than a few hundredths of a degree) in global temperatures?
Not just the US, most western countries (plus a few more and soon China) are to blame. It's not a matter of punishing anyone, it's a matter of not getting screwed. You know, I don't personally care about CO2 per-se. However, I do care about being able to live in a decent world in 20+ years. Of course, if you're 60+ or something, you can probably afford not to care. (don't think just because we live in rich countries we won't be affected)
Sorry, 1970 was picked out of my *ss without looking at anything. I would've picked 1950, but I was picking a year where the population was closer to what it is now. The point is we've lived decently for much longer than this energy-wasting period.
IF anthropogenic CO2 is causing global warming, THEN it follows that any amount of anthropogenic CO2 is going to have an effect. Simply reducing the rate of increase to that of some arbitrary year in the past isn't going to solve the problem -- it will only delay it.
OK, so your assumption is that once CO2 is out, it stays there, right? This would be a good assumption if there were no plants on this planet, but it's not the case. Try better.
Or maybe there isn't a need to *eliminate* carbon dioxide emissions? The current Kyoto treaty only specifies 6% below the levels of 1990 (though it's probably not enough). No need to go back to the 18th century either. The levels of 1970 were *much* lower than the levels of 1990 despite the Earth's population being nearly the same (about a billion less or so).
And, most importantly, worldwide famine. Billions dead. With a B.
Yeah right. May I remind you that it's the *rich* countries that produce all the CO2? It's not like cutting emissions in the US (which is responsible for 25% of the emissions) will cause famine everywhere else in the world. If only industrialized countries reduced their emissions to 1970 (or so) levels, we'd be much better and there wouldn't be more people starving. If anything, the 3rd world countries could have their energy a bit cheaper (because less demand) and be better off.
And the global warming alarmists want all of this to happen, just to save the earth from warming two tenths of one degree -- which is the worst-case estimate right now of how much of the current warming period is attributable to anthropogenic gases.
Actually, the alarmist (whether they're right or wrong, it's worth at least paying attention) predict far worse than that. They say we're close to the tipping point where we won't be able to reverse the warming process.
the supporters of the global warming theory to come up with extremely strong evidence for their claims, they just haven't done so
Even if I agreed (I don't) that extremely strong evidence is required to prove global warming scientifically, the mere fact that there is good evidence (though not necessarily extremely strong) that supports it is enough to convince me we need to do something about it. Why? Because there's millions (if not billions) of lives at stake! Put is another way, the decision criterion (to minimize "badness") is: probability_that_global_warming_is_real * how_bad_it_is > probability_that_it_s_not_real * how_bad_it_is_to_reduce_carbon_dioxyde
I believe the above would say we need to reduce carbon dioxyde even if the odds of global warming being real were less than 10%.
Actually, my impression is that the main reason why installing random packages on Ubuntu just works, unlike Fedora, is that almost all applications now have been packaged (un universe/multiverse) for specific debian/ubuntu version, whereas you get random rpm that have been compiled on some random rpm-based distro that might have different libraries than you have.
What's the difference between "secret lobbying" and "bribery"
Bribery is when it goes in the minister's pocket. Secret lobbying is when it goes into the party's pocket. The main problem is that the latter is easier to get away with (especially for the company).
He says a flood of undiscriminated traffic to and from Youtube, Coldplay, and Victoria's Secret will bring down the Internet, leading to failures of IPTV, VOIP, and emergency services which depend on VOIP.
Yes, he's right! It is thus very important that ISPs not be allowed to charge a fee for increasing the bw to those sites (like the current plan). That would be taking money for something that can take down the Internet and help terrorist. The ISPs wouldn't want to be charged for terrorism, wouldn't they?
Maybe everyone's been looking for a similar process, but only these guys (claim to) have succeeded by setting the right temperature and mixing with the right electrolytes... and probably a lot of very import details that are not in the article.
Communism has been tried in many different countries all over the world, and it has always resulted in totalitarianism.
The sad truth is that there are far more totalitarian regimes than democracies in the world, regardless of the system. The other truth is that revolutions/coups (be they communist or otherwise) also tend to lead to totalitarian regimes. Just see what happens when a democratically-elected communist regime gets overthrown by capitalistic interests.
But think about it, now there's a precedent you can use (at least in that jurisdiction). In the end, it might be a good thing (think what the precedent would be otherwise).
Re:How to make sure your data is not readable
on
Online Revenge
·
· Score: 1
B. Shred the Hard drive into pieces less then one square milimeter in size.
If you're that paranoid, I would instead recommend melting, or at least bringing the drive above the Curie temperature.
Also, you forgot the most important reason why writing random data doesn't work (if you go through the whole drive, the disk cache is not an issue). That's because the drive can re-allocate sectors when bad sectors are found, so an old copy of the data can still exist in a sector that is defective.
Are China and the US becoming more and more like eachother nowadays?
Yes.
It's like this country is moving to a pseudo-communist form of government:(
No, the thing is that China is becoming more and more capitalistic (despite the communist talk), while the US is becoming more and more repressive. Therefore both are becoming capitalistic, repressive regimes.
The thing about free speech is this. Your words have consequences, which might include you losing your job. There is no first amendment guarantee to others not taking action against you because of your words.
Sure, and think about it, your words have consequences, which might include you being jailed. There is no first amendment guarantee to others not jailing you because of your words.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not aware of any other part of the world where the US uses landmines (care to enlighten me?)
How about Unexploded cluster bombs? It's not because they don't call it a landmine that it isn't one.
You'll also notice that China, Vietnam, India, a whole bunch of Muslim Countries (Iran, Pakistan, etc.) are on your list...
How odd, exactly the countries the US likes to criticize (rightly) for not caring about human rights.
Reutty was 'more interested in protecting' her library [and its users] than helping the police
I think I'd actually be proud if someone said something like that about me.
Considering that a lot of people (not everyone of course) drive to work alone in their car, stuck in traffic at 20-40 km/h, you could imagine a sort of "lightweight commute vehicle" that could be useful. I guess it would be half-way between a car and a bicycle (yes, tons of people ride a bike to work, especially in Asia), close to a motor bike I guess.
Can *you* go 3,145 miles on a bicycle and drink only a gallon?
They say "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog". If you're not really careful, it's easy to get tricked by someone pretending to be someone else. It happens in real-life, but the Internet makes it *much* easier. For example, I can easily pretend to be an 18-year old teen online, but in real-life people might be much less easily tricked. Same goes for phishing. I can easily pretend to be Bank XYZ online, but I'd have a much harder time opening a fake branch without attracting attention.
Up until the age of about 11 or 12 children should have no guaranteed privacy in terms of what they say and do...
I suppose you read the part of my post that mentioned the 12-16 range, right? Starting around 12 yo, you can't just check everything they do.
This may sound terribly draconian but I think it's the only way to bring up children safely and with an understanding of what's right and safe and what's wrong and dangerous.
You don't have kids, do you?
I'm afraid it's a little more complicated than that. Unlike 10-15 years ago, at least half of people with Internet access would probably fall into your definition of "complete moron" (and remember that you're probably a complete moron about at least one thing). At some point, "something" will have to be done because "bad guys" tend to learn/adapt faster than "complete morons". Should the solution be to make sites responsible (I hope not)? Have an "Internet license" (with a test required like for a driver's license? I've no idea what form it will have and I hope it won't do more damage than it causes, but eventually things will have to change. I guess teens in the ~12-16 range are especially vulnerable because:
1) You can't monitor everything they do on the Internet anymore
2) There's still a lot of things they don't know (but should)
3) They think they know enough
Care to mention what improvement (driver/scheduler/...) is responsible for the increased speed.
Oh, of course not. Just because it's the US that is feeding the rest of the world doesn't mean that anyone, anywhere will starve when US farmers are no longer able to get the energy they need to grow their crops.
That *has* to be the best one! "We'd like to reduce CO2 output, but we need to feed the rest of the world". Let me point out that
1) Farms aren't the most "high-CO2" activities (and certainly aren't responsible for the huge increase in the past few decades)
2) Cars (and especially big SUVs) do not help feed the third world
3) The rest of the world doesn't depend on the US feeding it
4) If anything, (subsidized) agricultural exports are making things worse for the third world countries because it weakens their economy (and yes I know the EU is probably worse than the US on that one).
Do you really think that punishing the United States for its success is going to make ANY difference (i.e, more than a few hundredths of a degree) in global temperatures?
Not just the US, most western countries (plus a few more and soon China) are to blame. It's not a matter of punishing anyone, it's a matter of not getting screwed. You know, I don't personally care about CO2 per-se. However, I do care about being able to live in a decent world in 20+ years. Of course, if you're 60+ or something, you can probably afford not to care. (don't think just because we live in rich countries we won't be affected)
Sorry, 1970 was picked out of my *ss without looking at anything. I would've picked 1950, but I was picking a year where the population was closer to what it is now. The point is we've lived decently for much longer than this energy-wasting period.
IF anthropogenic CO2 is causing global warming, THEN it follows that any amount of anthropogenic CO2 is going to have an effect. Simply reducing the rate of increase to that of some arbitrary year in the past isn't going to solve the problem -- it will only delay it.
OK, so your assumption is that once CO2 is out, it stays there, right? This would be a good assumption if there were no plants on this planet, but it's not the case. Try better.
Or maybe there isn't a need to *eliminate* carbon dioxide emissions? The current Kyoto treaty only specifies 6% below the levels of 1990 (though it's probably not enough). No need to go back to the 18th century either. The levels of 1970 were *much* lower than the levels of 1990 despite the Earth's population being nearly the same (about a billion less or so).
And, most importantly, worldwide famine. Billions dead. With a B.
Yeah right. May I remind you that it's the *rich* countries that produce all the CO2? It's not like cutting emissions in the US (which is responsible for 25% of the emissions) will cause famine everywhere else in the world. If only industrialized countries reduced their emissions to 1970 (or so) levels, we'd be much better and there wouldn't be more people starving. If anything, the 3rd world countries could have their energy a bit cheaper (because less demand) and be better off.
And the global warming alarmists want all of this to happen, just to save the earth from warming two tenths of one degree -- which is the worst-case estimate right now of how much of the current warming period is attributable to anthropogenic gases.
Actually, the alarmist (whether they're right or wrong, it's worth at least paying attention) predict far worse than that. They say we're close to the tipping point where we won't be able to reverse the warming process.
I fail to see how millions/billions of people could die if we unnecessarily cut on carbon dioxide emissions. Perhaps you could enlighten me on that?
the supporters of the global warming theory to come up with extremely strong evidence for their claims, they just haven't done so
Even if I agreed (I don't) that extremely strong evidence is required to prove global warming scientifically, the mere fact that there is good evidence (though not necessarily extremely strong) that supports it is enough to convince me we need to do something about it. Why? Because there's millions (if not billions) of lives at stake! Put is another way, the decision criterion (to minimize "badness") is:
probability_that_global_warming_is_real * how_bad_it_is > probability_that_it_s_not_real * how_bad_it_is_to_reduce_carbon_dioxyde
I believe the above would say we need to reduce carbon dioxyde even if the odds of global warming being real were less than 10%.
Actually, my impression is that the main reason why installing random packages on Ubuntu just works, unlike Fedora, is that almost all applications now have been packaged (un universe/multiverse) for specific debian/ubuntu version, whereas you get random rpm that have been compiled on some random rpm-based distro that might have different libraries than you have.
Actually, tons of TNT has become a real way to measure energy (think nuclear warheads in kilotons/megatons).
Were any laws broken?
Maybe not, but maybe something's also wrong with the law. The laws are made by the same people who receive the money. Why would they change it?
Is this behavior considerably apart from the norm?
If bribery was the norm as well, it would be right?
What's the difference between "secret lobbying" and "bribery"
Bribery is when it goes in the minister's pocket. Secret lobbying is when it goes into the party's pocket. The main problem is that the latter is easier to get away with (especially for the company).
He says a flood of undiscriminated traffic to and from Youtube, Coldplay, and Victoria's Secret will bring down the Internet, leading to failures of IPTV, VOIP, and emergency services which depend on VOIP.
Yes, he's right! It is thus very important that ISPs not be allowed to charge a fee for increasing the bw to those sites (like the current plan). That would be taking money for something that can take down the Internet and help terrorist. The ISPs wouldn't want to be charged for terrorism, wouldn't they?
Maybe everyone's been looking for a similar process, but only these guys (claim to) have succeeded by setting the right temperature and mixing with the right electrolytes... and probably a lot of very import details that are not in the article.
Communism has been tried in many different countries all over the world, and it has always resulted in totalitarianism.
The sad truth is that there are far more totalitarian regimes than democracies in the world, regardless of the system. The other truth is that revolutions/coups (be they communist or otherwise) also tend to lead to totalitarian regimes. Just see what happens when a democratically-elected communist regime gets overthrown by capitalistic interests.
But think about it, now there's a precedent you can use (at least in that jurisdiction). In the end, it might be a good thing (think what the precedent would be otherwise).
B. Shred the Hard drive into pieces less then one square milimeter in size.
If you're that paranoid, I would instead recommend melting, or at least bringing the drive above the Curie temperature.
Also, you forgot the most important reason why writing random data doesn't work (if you go through the whole drive, the disk cache is not an issue). That's because the drive can re-allocate sectors when bad sectors are found, so an old copy of the data can still exist in a sector that is defective.
Are China and the US becoming more and more like eachother nowadays?
:(
Yes.
It's like this country is moving to a pseudo-communist form of government
No, the thing is that China is becoming more and more capitalistic (despite the communist talk), while the US is becoming more and more repressive. Therefore both are becoming capitalistic, repressive regimes.
The thing about free speech is this. Your words have consequences, which might include you losing your job. There is no first amendment guarantee to others not taking action against you because of your words.
Sure, and think about it, your words have consequences, which might include you being jailed. There is no first amendment guarantee to others not jailing you because of your words.