That's interesting, I hadn't considered that the Leftists might have a problem with cap and trade but I can see your point. Also, I wasn't aware that it was very effective for doing much in Europe other than making the brokers very wealthy...by that metric is was a great success.
...however, if one of them is truly necessary, a carbon tax is the lesser of evils. Cap and Trade is Al Gore's personal get-rich-quick scheme with a slogan of "Save the Earth" and a collateral consequence of global Socialism (i.e. the productive must purchase "credits" from the unproductive). No thanks.
Question #1: Do you have brain cancer? (Yes/No)
[If respondent answers yes to question #1, then continue]
Question #2: Do you have a cell phone? (Yes/No)
What's up with the "Let's hope this doesn't mean they actually try the nuclear option" commentary? If the world's top physicists (not necessarily implying that Obama's and Chu have assembled such) were to claim that the nuclear option is a valid one and worth any potential risks then why wouldn't we do it? I expect Slashdot to be more Science-friendly than the typical "OMG NUKULAR == BAD!" crowd. I am not for nuclear proliferation but that doesn't mean that we must AVOID finding practical uses for them.
This phrase strikes me as absolute and unnecessary FUD. The message is that if BP tries Russia's "mini-nuke" solution, which worked 5 out of 6 times tried, disregarding the fact that I don't believe it is currently even being considered, that we may all very well DIE. The oil spill is bad enough, let's not give a voice to "anonymous Chicken Littles".
Investors certainly DO have a purpose! They (well, the good ones) don't just throw darts at a board, rather they analyze businesses and markets and sectors to decide which of them will produce the greatest return on investment, then they...invest! Giving money to those companies that will make the most of it IS EXACTLY HOW YOU MAXIMIZE GROWTH FOR THE ECONOMY. This is only true for longer-term investors, however. Short-term and "day traders" truly do offer very little beyond making the market "more efficient" in theory (and "more volatile" in practice)...
I shove my car remote in the right front coin pocket of my jeans, and let the rest of the keys dangle. That way the keys don't poke my leg or eat through my pocket liner. They do jingle, but it's not unbearable, and I've noticed that if/when I enter a quiet room I'll grab the keys with my hand or just carry them. The need for silent walking is rarer than you might think.
I guess I'm now convinced that this was not a publicity stunt by Apple to hype their new phone...unless my reaction to the warrant was predicted and this is all a truly well-orchestrated dance with the media that involves Apple, Gizmodo and the California po-po?
While it's possible that the photographing vehicle was "stalking" her, I find it just as likely that she was walking alongside the vehicle. Otherwise, how could you explain that this poor old lady happened to be in 43 different locations that the vehicle wanted to record?? 43 pics of the front of her house? Unlikely.
I have been researching on this hack for hours upon hours, and something just doesn't add up. Earlier reports were of him cracking the SLE 66 CL which is embedded in the TPM but is NOT the TPM itself. The chips he has been using are cheap ones from China. The issue at hand is that Infineon is a German company, just a little different from your run-of-the-mill Chinese company. When you sum these things up, you can't really surmise that he has in fact cracked the Infineon TPM. So what if he has hacked a similar chip? You can't just go around saying that you have cracked a top-of-the-line Infineon. Every chip is NOT created equally.
On the flip side, there is an easy way for him to prove me wrong. Every Infineon TPM comes with an Endorsement Key, basically an RSA secret key. The purpose of this key is that it should be kept secret and never realized off the chip, not to software, not to any other board component. Infineon TPMs come with X.509 certificates issued by Infineon. If Tarnovsky has truly hacked this one out, he should be able to extract and publish the private part of the Endorsement Key along with Infineon's certificate on that key. All that he has to do is show that he has these TWO pieces of data.
But is he up for it?
I've been reading about this hack for days, but something seems fishy. Some of the earlier reports [computerworld.com] had him hacking the SLE 66 CL processor chip which is embedded in the TPM, not the TPM itself. This article also describes him as having to work with many copies of the chip to discover its secrets, but it has the chips being inexpensive ones from China. Problem is that Infineon is a German company and I don't think you can get Infineon TPMs cheaply from China. Putting this together, it's not clear to me that he has truly hacked an Infineon TPM. He may have hacked a similar chip and he assumes that the same attack would work on TPM.
However, there is a way for him to easily prove that he has done what he said. Every Infineon TPM comes with an RSA secret key embedded in it, called the Endorsement Key or EK. This key is designed to be kept secret and never revealed off-chip, not to the computer owner or anyone. And Infineon TPMs also come with an X.509 certificate on the public part of the EK (PUBEK), issued by Infineon. If Tarnovsky has really hacked an Infineon TPM and is able to extract keys, he should be able to extract and publish the private part of the EK (PRIVEK), along with the certificate by Infineon on that key. The mere publication of these two pieces of data (PRIVEK and Infineon-signed X.509 cert on PUBEK) will prove that his claim is true.
$100 says that this is damage control from Infineon by challenging Tarnovsky to something that they know, for whatever reason, he is unable to accomplish?
Caution! I am in no way qualified to answer this...
Anyway, I've wondered that same thing about the external testes, and here's my theory:
The placement of the testicles is not to give the individual male a survival advantage, but rather to place an evolutionary force on the population as a whole. When a male is overly stressed and/or insecure his testes are withdrawn and close to the body. It is well known that this makes sperm production lower because of the body heat (this is why fertility doctors will recommend against tight underwear!).
I agree that there is no such thing as "settled science", but that is not what is relayed to the public when government officials proclaim that AGW is incontrovertible. I don't personally doubt AGW but I am skeptical of the degree to which we contribute and the degree to which we will be able to affect change by cutting emissions.
If you are referring to "a majority opinion" when you say consensus then I will not disagree. If you are using the following...
Consensus (n.): An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole
then that is completely different. The latter definition implies unanimity, rather than a majority opinion, and there is clearly no unanimity in the interpretation of global warming data. Also, I would appreciate if you gave a reference to the "fake signatures" on "those lists" (specifically, the one I linked to http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64). Lastly, how can you believe that there was no effort being made to stifle dissent by the CRU at East Anglia when Jones talks about doing just that??
Proponent: "AGW science is now settled science because there is a consensus as evidenced by the lack of peer-reviewed, published articles questioning it."
Skeptic: "Yeah but here's evidence of lengthy measures taken by other proponents to keep those types of articles out of publication."
Proponent: "Yeah, well, those papers were written by fringe kooks. We still have a consensus."
Skeptic: "...and here's a list of scientists that openly question the science behind your claims. Isn't that evidence against your consensus?"
Proponent: "Steve-o-meter! Steve-o-meter! What, you think science is settled by who has a longer list?"
Skeptic: "No, I was questioning your claim that AGW is accepted and settled science by the Scientific community."
Prior to Climategate and unbeknownst to many, there are many of scientists who question the data behind the AGW proponents' claims. I would venture to say that, due to the politically volatile nature of this subject, there are many more that would also like to become signatories yet fear the repercussions.
http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64
It's possible that the CRU of East Anglia grossly manipulated the data in an attempt to influence the public, AND that their presumptions that they are trying to make the data fit to happen to be true anyway. Ironically, bad science does not make it wrong necessarily
Nevertheless, Climategate was a blow to scientific integrity. If you don't think so then you haven't read enough about it.
And when you complete your hot rod or your oil painting will it be a newsworthy event? The fact that we're all discussing this guy and that I just spent a few minutes studying his profile (and I don't even play WoW!) is testament against your point.
I find it delicious that you were modded funny when I suspect your post was sincere. How can you be so blind as to not see the motivation behind AGW proponents? Economically, the CRU itself has received tens of millions in grant money and I've read that the US Gov't has spent tens of BILLIONS over the decades in AGW inspired research, development, grants, etc. Politically, it's a tool to grant a moral high-ground to unproductive countries which is why it is so popular with anti-consumerists and Socialists. Have you never heard of the calls for exemptions on CO2 emissions for China, et al? What about some South American countries (recently and specifically the President of Brazil) proclaiming that "the Gringos should pay" for the deforestation occurring in their forests?
After further thought I suspect you are willfully blind or simply a shill trying to paint the AGW movement as an altruistic and unpolitical one.
I'm surprised I need to explain this to you, but the reason AGW is so politicized is because it basically criminalizes consumption and gives a moral high ground to the unproductive nations. It's a gigantic opportunity for a power grab and a redistribution of wealth all wrapped in to one. NO ONE wants the Earth to "die a heat death" but the reality is that the data is not indisputable (yet) and the motivations of those leading the charge are frequently suspect, as the CRU data hacking episode proves.
Agreed! In another email, Phil Jones writes "I'm going to kill my wife tonight and make it appear as an accident so as to collect money from her insurance policy". Clearly, only those small-minded people that take words in a very literal sense would find anything nefarious in this out-of-context comment. In the CRU culture, "kill my wife" simply means "mow the lawn", while "as an accident" means "freshly groomed". Lastly, "so as to collect money from her insurance policy" is another way of saying "then I'm going to make a ham sandwich".
Isn't it funny how dim-witted people can twist what is being read into exactly what they wish it to read??
...actually, calling someone a "Goodwin grammar nazi" is quite clever. It blends irony with sarcasm and tempts one to continue feeding the troll (it's Godwin, of course). Either this was intentional and I salute you, good sir, or you simply stumbled upon it and you are in fact a stupid angry fascist asshole.;)
Nevertheless, it raises an interesting question: if intelligence can be increased by something so simple as an increase in the expression of a single NMDA receptor subunit, why hasn't it already happened?
It HAS happened, but those affected (rats included) simply can't get laid to propagate the phenomenon...
Slashdot Mirror
That's interesting, I hadn't considered that the Leftists might have a problem with cap and trade but I can see your point. Also, I wasn't aware that it was very effective for doing much in Europe other than making the brokers very wealthy...by that metric is was a great success.
...however, if one of them is truly necessary, a carbon tax is the lesser of evils. Cap and Trade is Al Gore's personal get-rich-quick scheme with a slogan of "Save the Earth" and a collateral consequence of global Socialism (i.e. the productive must purchase "credits" from the unproductive). No thanks.
Question #1: Do you have brain cancer? (Yes/No)
[If respondent answers yes to question #1, then continue]
Question #2: Do you have a cell phone? (Yes/No)
The results were quite astonishing.
What's up with the "Let's hope this doesn't mean they actually try the nuclear option" commentary? If the world's top physicists (not necessarily implying that Obama's and Chu have assembled such) were to claim that the nuclear option is a valid one and worth any potential risks then why wouldn't we do it? I expect Slashdot to be more Science-friendly than the typical "OMG NUKULAR == BAD!" crowd. I am not for nuclear proliferation but that doesn't mean that we must AVOID finding practical uses for them.
This phrase strikes me as absolute and unnecessary FUD. The message is that if BP tries Russia's "mini-nuke" solution, which worked 5 out of 6 times tried, disregarding the fact that I don't believe it is currently even being considered, that we may all very well DIE. The oil spill is bad enough, let's not give a voice to "anonymous Chicken Littles".
Investors certainly DO have a purpose! They (well, the good ones) don't just throw darts at a board, rather they analyze businesses and markets and sectors to decide which of them will produce the greatest return on investment, then they...invest! Giving money to those companies that will make the most of it IS EXACTLY HOW YOU MAXIMIZE GROWTH FOR THE ECONOMY. This is only true for longer-term investors, however. Short-term and "day traders" truly do offer very little beyond making the market "more efficient" in theory (and "more volatile" in practice)...
I shove my car remote in the right front coin pocket of my jeans, and let the rest of the keys dangle. That way the keys don't poke my leg or eat through my pocket liner. They do jingle, but it's not unbearable, and I've noticed that if/when I enter a quiet room I'll grab the keys with my hand or just carry them. The need for silent walking is rarer than you might think.
I guess I'm now convinced that this was not a publicity stunt by Apple to hype their new phone...unless my reaction to the warrant was predicted and this is all a truly well-orchestrated dance with the media that involves Apple, Gizmodo and the California po-po?
While it's possible that the photographing vehicle was "stalking" her, I find it just as likely that she was walking alongside the vehicle. Otherwise, how could you explain that this poor old lady happened to be in 43 different locations that the vehicle wanted to record?? 43 pics of the front of her house? Unlikely.
Thank god his father didn't pass away while having sex!
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1543104&cid=31076056
I have been researching on this hack for hours upon hours, and something just doesn't add up. Earlier reports were of him cracking the SLE 66 CL which is embedded in the TPM but is NOT the TPM itself. The chips he has been using are cheap ones from China. The issue at hand is that Infineon is a German company, just a little different from your run-of-the-mill Chinese company. When you sum these things up, you can't really surmise that he has in fact cracked the Infineon TPM. So what if he has hacked a similar chip? You can't just go around saying that you have cracked a top-of-the-line Infineon. Every chip is NOT created equally. On the flip side, there is an easy way for him to prove me wrong. Every Infineon TPM comes with an Endorsement Key, basically an RSA secret key. The purpose of this key is that it should be kept secret and never realized off the chip, not to software, not to any other board component. Infineon TPMs come with X.509 certificates issued by Infineon. If Tarnovsky has truly hacked this one out, he should be able to extract and publish the private part of the Endorsement Key along with Infineon's certificate on that key. All that he has to do is show that he has these TWO pieces of data. But is he up for it?
VS
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1543104&cid=31077696
I've been reading about this hack for days, but something seems fishy. Some of the earlier reports [computerworld.com] had him hacking the SLE 66 CL processor chip which is embedded in the TPM, not the TPM itself. This article also describes him as having to work with many copies of the chip to discover its secrets, but it has the chips being inexpensive ones from China. Problem is that Infineon is a German company and I don't think you can get Infineon TPMs cheaply from China. Putting this together, it's not clear to me that he has truly hacked an Infineon TPM. He may have hacked a similar chip and he assumes that the same attack would work on TPM. However, there is a way for him to easily prove that he has done what he said. Every Infineon TPM comes with an RSA secret key embedded in it, called the Endorsement Key or EK. This key is designed to be kept secret and never revealed off-chip, not to the computer owner or anyone. And Infineon TPMs also come with an X.509 certificate on the public part of the EK (PUBEK), issued by Infineon. If Tarnovsky has really hacked an Infineon TPM and is able to extract keys, he should be able to extract and publish the private part of the EK (PRIVEK), along with the certificate by Infineon on that key. The mere publication of these two pieces of data (PRIVEK and Infineon-signed X.509 cert on PUBEK) will prove that his claim is true.
$100 says that this is damage control from Infineon by challenging Tarnovsky to something that they know, for whatever reason, he is unable to accomplish?
Caution! I am in no way qualified to answer this...
Anyway, I've wondered that same thing about the external testes, and here's my theory:
The placement of the testicles is not to give the individual male a survival advantage, but rather to place an evolutionary force on the population as a whole. When a male is overly stressed and/or insecure his testes are withdrawn and close to the body. It is well known that this makes sperm production lower because of the body heat (this is why fertility doctors will recommend against tight underwear!).
I agree that there is no such thing as "settled science", but that is not what is relayed to the public when government officials proclaim that AGW is incontrovertible. I don't personally doubt AGW but I am skeptical of the degree to which we contribute and the degree to which we will be able to affect change by cutting emissions.
If you are referring to "a majority opinion" when you say consensus then I will not disagree. If you are using the following...
Consensus (n.): An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole
then that is completely different. The latter definition implies unanimity, rather than a majority opinion, and there is clearly no unanimity in the interpretation of global warming data. Also, I would appreciate if you gave a reference to the "fake signatures" on "those lists" (specifically, the one I linked to http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64). Lastly, how can you believe that there was no effort being made to stifle dissent by the CRU at East Anglia when Jones talks about doing just that??
Proponent: "AGW science is now settled science because there is a consensus as evidenced by the lack of peer-reviewed, published articles questioning it."
Skeptic: "Yeah but here's evidence of lengthy measures taken by other proponents to keep those types of articles out of publication."
Proponent: "Yeah, well, those papers were written by fringe kooks. We still have a consensus."
Skeptic: "...and here's a list of scientists that openly question the science behind your claims. Isn't that evidence against your consensus?"
Proponent: "Steve-o-meter! Steve-o-meter! What, you think science is settled by who has a longer list?"
Skeptic: "No, I was questioning your claim that AGW is accepted and settled science by the Scientific community."
Prior to Climategate and unbeknownst to many, there are many of scientists who question the data behind the AGW proponents' claims. I would venture to say that, due to the politically volatile nature of this subject, there are many more that would also like to become signatories yet fear the repercussions. http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64
It's possible that the CRU of East Anglia grossly manipulated the data in an attempt to influence the public, AND that their presumptions that they are trying to make the data fit to happen to be true anyway. Ironically, bad science does not make it wrong necessarily
Nevertheless, Climategate was a blow to scientific integrity. If you don't think so then you haven't read enough about it.
And when you complete your hot rod or your oil painting will it be a newsworthy event? The fact that we're all discussing this guy and that I just spent a few minutes studying his profile (and I don't even play WoW!) is testament against your point.
"....data was not manipulated, dissenting papers were not suppressed..."
Jesus man, are you serious? Have you read anything other than the realclimate.org rebuttals???
I find it delicious that you were modded funny when I suspect your post was sincere. How can you be so blind as to not see the motivation behind AGW proponents? Economically, the CRU itself has received tens of millions in grant money and I've read that the US Gov't has spent tens of BILLIONS over the decades in AGW inspired research, development, grants, etc. Politically, it's a tool to grant a moral high-ground to unproductive countries which is why it is so popular with anti-consumerists and Socialists. Have you never heard of the calls for exemptions on CO2 emissions for China, et al? What about some South American countries (recently and specifically the President of Brazil) proclaiming that "the Gringos should pay" for the deforestation occurring in their forests?
After further thought I suspect you are willfully blind or simply a shill trying to paint the AGW movement as an altruistic and unpolitical one.
The Religion of Anthropogenic Global Warming...! :)
I'm surprised I need to explain this to you, but the reason AGW is so politicized is because it basically criminalizes consumption and gives a moral high ground to the unproductive nations. It's a gigantic opportunity for a power grab and a redistribution of wealth all wrapped in to one. NO ONE wants the Earth to "die a heat death" but the reality is that the data is not indisputable (yet) and the motivations of those leading the charge are frequently suspect, as the CRU data hacking episode proves.
Agreed! In another email, Phil Jones writes "I'm going to kill my wife tonight and make it appear as an accident so as to collect money from her insurance policy". Clearly, only those small-minded people that take words in a very literal sense would find anything nefarious in this out-of-context comment. In the CRU culture, "kill my wife" simply means "mow the lawn", while "as an accident" means "freshly groomed". Lastly, "so as to collect money from her insurance policy" is another way of saying "then I'm going to make a ham sandwich". Isn't it funny how dim-witted people can twist what is being read into exactly what they wish it to read??
...actually, calling someone a "Goodwin grammar nazi" is quite clever. It blends irony with sarcasm and tempts one to continue feeding the troll (it's Godwin, of course). Either this was intentional and I salute you, good sir, or you simply stumbled upon it and you are in fact a stupid angry fascist asshole. ;)
It's reindeer. Asshole.
Nevertheless, it raises an interesting question: if intelligence can be increased by something so simple as an increase in the expression of a single NMDA receptor subunit, why hasn't it already happened?
It HAS happened, but those affected (rats included) simply can't get laid to propagate the phenomenon...