In many cases not even that, just the extent of the various causes of it. GP is engaging in the typical behaviour of a fanatic on either side of the debate in trying to create a false connection between people who refuse to acknowledge something that's been scientifically tested for many years and those who have the audacity to want to hear more evidence on the climate issue before reaching a decision. This is the whole root of the issue - I have no strong pro or anti climate change feelings, I'd just like to hear more evidence and reasoned debate from those in the know, but I can't hear anything they're saying because of the people on both fringes screaming about how the opposition are idiots.
This doesn't say being found in use of the tools is to be made illegal, though. It says creation of them. If you shut down all the flashlight manufacturers then the people who intended to use them for legitimate purposes suffer as much as those who intended to commit crime.
Why does anyone elect the super rich? They control the media, either directly, or through advertising, or through the old boys' network, and the average person doesn't read much beyond the headlines in their tabloid of choice before deciding which way to vote. The handful of people who do weigh up all the available evidence (and even there it's skewed by those with the money to get their message out) are not present in sufficient numbers to prevent the distorting effect of everyone else.
Even that's a poor analogy. These same tools are used to ensure security and prevent hacking. By saying only government licensed vendors could use them you will price many smaller companies out of their security solution. The ones who intend to use the tools for crime won't care that they're illegal - their actions are already illegal and it's not stopped them. All you will do is reduce security for lots of small to medium businesses while making it more expensive for everyone else (and recent events show even massive corporations are skimping on security, the last thing we need is more associated costs).
Ah, but if they ban the tools the bad guys use, then there's no need for the tools the good guys use - it's obvious! While they're about it, they should ban theft and then make locks illegal because they're no longer required. Oh, wait...
It's a pretty weak law if it can be wholly bypassed by a statement from the software developer saying that it's a security tool and not a hacking tool, though. In reality what this boils down to is yet another law they can use to lock you up if they really want to but otherwise have no good cause. "We assume you're up to no good, we can't find any evidence but... erm... look! you have some software that could be used for naughty stuff. Take him away!"
Sure, and you can still technically shoot a Welshman in Hereford on a Sunday, with a longbow, in the Cathedral Close, but try it and see what the repercussions are. The legal landscape is littered with laws that are either no longer enforced or have been overruled by subsequent law or legal precedent. Sure, technically it might be illegal to make a copy, it didn't stop the sale of video recorders and video casettes back in the 70's/80's and it's not stopping the sale of digital devices today. It might be letter-of-the-law illegal, but it's the de facto position that format shifting is generally acceptable.
I guess because that small little forum is sharing your information with 12 other people and Facebook is sharing it with 600 million other people. The consequences of giving out more information than you intended are clearly much greater with the latter, although I don't know why this is supposed to be Google's responsibility rather than the individual user's.
Agreed - Facebook pretty much is a data breech by design. Time and time again in the last few years we've seen news reports of some huge privacy faux pas on FB's part and yet they're still as popular. Why do we need FB to lose people's data when they're already selling it off to the highest bidder?
YES! But the coal power kill 10.000 people a year and then the effects STOPS!!!
You do understand what the "a year" part of that sentence means, don't you? It means each and every year, not a one off incident. Having grown up in a mining community and having family who worked in some of the most dangerous jobs I can certainly attest to the ongoing dangers. Then there are miners who, years after leaving the coal face, suffer with emphysema from breathing coal dust, or vibration white finger from using heavy machinery, or the like. These are ongoing conditions that people who left the industry years ago are still suffering today (mining was pretty much gutted by the government in the mid 80's but there are still ex-miners suffering or even dying from mining related illnesses today).
Add to that the unknown effects of coal power pumping radioactive material directly into the sky in the form of smoke and soot (as opposed to nuclear where the waste is relatively contained) - who knows how many birth defects per year are caused by that. But no, carry on deluding yourself that nuclear is a worse option or that it kills more than coal, despite whole volumes of evidence to the contrary, if that helps salve your conscience. Maybe renewables are a better alternative, but coal most certainly isn't.
It's a fine line to tread but this vote is absolutely the evidence that pure democracy doesn't always work, that's why most country's that operate a democracy only use it to choose a government, and thereafter the government decide on policy, not the public (other than shaping the general direction of said policy). Whether you agree with nuclear or not, surely one thing anyone can agree on is that an incredibly important topic such as the future energy policy of your country should not be tied to a politician's popularity contest, yet reports out of Italy state that many people are using this as a protest vote against an unpopular leader. The time for protest votes is at a general election, not during a referendum to determine important public policy.
It slows down progress in nuclear technologies (safety and efficiency gains, etc), that's a given. It will only speed up progress in alternatives if there is a concerted effort to use alternatives (the economic situation in Europe would suggest this is unlikely to happen on a large scale at this time). If the chosen approach is to bury their heads in the sand and continue burning coal/oil/gas then it's certainly a net loss for progress.
Because we've never seen global repercussions from certain countries having a monopoly on the primary sources of energy in the past? I think you might come to re-evaluate how much of a win this is sometime in the future. Best case Italians end up paying over the odds for energy - that's best case.
That would only be true if nothing else had changed globally. I'd say the massive increase in oil prices and increasing demand in the far east is enough to change the status quo. This is more like standing on the beach ordering the tide not to come in. It's all very laudable choosing alternative sustainable energy sources over nuclear if someone can tell us what those sources are.
What's wrong with "give me more money" - particularly when we're supposedly in a global recession, the workers on the ground are being asked to accept pay freezes or even cuts and yet the people at the top are awarding themselves the usual massive bonuses or taking golden parachutes to leave dying companies? I'd say fighting for a little more equality in society isn't automatically a worthless goal.
Even more likely: they'll just lobby for the law to be changed to cover this situation. The judge has to follow the letter of the law, if a new law allows John Does to be named without establishing jurisdiction, his hands will be tied.
Which is exactly the position they claim - why do you think bars have to have a license to play music in the background, even though the average bar isn't full of audiofiles listening intently to the music, it's mostly incidental.
The only good sides were it never runs out of batteries and has better contrast in direct sunlight.
The only good sides? I'm guessing you've never tried to sell your second hand ebooks or give them away for a charity sale? The fact that ebooks effectively prevent you selling your purchases on is a big negative factor for some people. There are no second hand ebook stores, every purchase is full price, and that price is almost always above paperback price.
I agree with your view of RMS, but there are people just as rabidly trying to take our freedoms away on the other side of the fence, so I suspect we need someone like him so that the people in the middle can have a reasoned debate. The problem is, if the opposing view (that we need freedoms) is reasonable at the extreme, then when they meet us in the middle it will already skew the argument heavily in favour of the anti-freedom folk. I don't agree with his extreme views but I can see why we need him or someone like him.
Slashdot Mirror
In many cases not even that, just the extent of the various causes of it. GP is engaging in the typical behaviour of a fanatic on either side of the debate in trying to create a false connection between people who refuse to acknowledge something that's been scientifically tested for many years and those who have the audacity to want to hear more evidence on the climate issue before reaching a decision. This is the whole root of the issue - I have no strong pro or anti climate change feelings, I'd just like to hear more evidence and reasoned debate from those in the know, but I can't hear anything they're saying because of the people on both fringes screaming about how the opposition are idiots.
That pretty much also sums up the rationale behind every religious war in the history of mankind.
This doesn't say being found in use of the tools is to be made illegal, though. It says creation of them. If you shut down all the flashlight manufacturers then the people who intended to use them for legitimate purposes suffer as much as those who intended to commit crime.
Why does anyone elect the super rich? They control the media, either directly, or through advertising, or through the old boys' network, and the average person doesn't read much beyond the headlines in their tabloid of choice before deciding which way to vote. The handful of people who do weigh up all the available evidence (and even there it's skewed by those with the money to get their message out) are not present in sufficient numbers to prevent the distorting effect of everyone else.
Even that's a poor analogy. These same tools are used to ensure security and prevent hacking. By saying only government licensed vendors could use them you will price many smaller companies out of their security solution. The ones who intend to use the tools for crime won't care that they're illegal - their actions are already illegal and it's not stopped them. All you will do is reduce security for lots of small to medium businesses while making it more expensive for everyone else (and recent events show even massive corporations are skimping on security, the last thing we need is more associated costs).
Ah, but if they ban the tools the bad guys use, then there's no need for the tools the good guys use - it's obvious! While they're about it, they should ban theft and then make locks illegal because they're no longer required. Oh, wait...
It's a pretty weak law if it can be wholly bypassed by a statement from the software developer saying that it's a security tool and not a hacking tool, though. In reality what this boils down to is yet another law they can use to lock you up if they really want to but otherwise have no good cause. "We assume you're up to no good, we can't find any evidence but... erm... look! you have some software that could be used for naughty stuff. Take him away!"
Sure, and you can still technically shoot a Welshman in Hereford on a Sunday, with a longbow, in the Cathedral Close, but try it and see what the repercussions are. The legal landscape is littered with laws that are either no longer enforced or have been overruled by subsequent law or legal precedent. Sure, technically it might be illegal to make a copy, it didn't stop the sale of video recorders and video casettes back in the 70's/80's and it's not stopping the sale of digital devices today. It might be letter-of-the-law illegal, but it's the de facto position that format shifting is generally acceptable.
I guess because that small little forum is sharing your information with 12 other people and Facebook is sharing it with 600 million other people. The consequences of giving out more information than you intended are clearly much greater with the latter, although I don't know why this is supposed to be Google's responsibility rather than the individual user's.
Agreed - Facebook pretty much is a data breech by design. Time and time again in the last few years we've seen news reports of some huge privacy faux pas on FB's part and yet they're still as popular. Why do we need FB to lose people's data when they're already selling it off to the highest bidder?
The time for revolution is when they start "poking" you.
YES! But the coal power kill 10.000 people a year and then the effects STOPS!!!
You do understand what the "a year" part of that sentence means, don't you? It means each and every year, not a one off incident. Having grown up in a mining community and having family who worked in some of the most dangerous jobs I can certainly attest to the ongoing dangers. Then there are miners who, years after leaving the coal face, suffer with emphysema from breathing coal dust, or vibration white finger from using heavy machinery, or the like. These are ongoing conditions that people who left the industry years ago are still suffering today (mining was pretty much gutted by the government in the mid 80's but there are still ex-miners suffering or even dying from mining related illnesses today).
Add to that the unknown effects of coal power pumping radioactive material directly into the sky in the form of smoke and soot (as opposed to nuclear where the waste is relatively contained) - who knows how many birth defects per year are caused by that. But no, carry on deluding yourself that nuclear is a worse option or that it kills more than coal, despite whole volumes of evidence to the contrary, if that helps salve your conscience. Maybe renewables are a better alternative, but coal most certainly isn't.
It's a fine line to tread but this vote is absolutely the evidence that pure democracy doesn't always work, that's why most country's that operate a democracy only use it to choose a government, and thereafter the government decide on policy, not the public (other than shaping the general direction of said policy). Whether you agree with nuclear or not, surely one thing anyone can agree on is that an incredibly important topic such as the future energy policy of your country should not be tied to a politician's popularity contest, yet reports out of Italy state that many people are using this as a protest vote against an unpopular leader. The time for protest votes is at a general election, not during a referendum to determine important public policy.
It slows down progress in nuclear technologies (safety and efficiency gains, etc), that's a given. It will only speed up progress in alternatives if there is a concerted effort to use alternatives (the economic situation in Europe would suggest this is unlikely to happen on a large scale at this time). If the chosen approach is to bury their heads in the sand and continue burning coal/oil/gas then it's certainly a net loss for progress.
Because we've never seen global repercussions from certain countries having a monopoly on the primary sources of energy in the past? I think you might come to re-evaluate how much of a win this is sometime in the future. Best case Italians end up paying over the odds for energy - that's best case.
And ban bananas :)
That would only be true if nothing else had changed globally. I'd say the massive increase in oil prices and increasing demand in the far east is enough to change the status quo. This is more like standing on the beach ordering the tide not to come in. It's all very laudable choosing alternative sustainable energy sources over nuclear if someone can tell us what those sources are.
Well fortunately the people working at Apple stores are not only SMART, they're geniuses. Finding a better job should be child's play.
What's wrong with "give me more money" - particularly when we're supposedly in a global recession, the workers on the ground are being asked to accept pay freezes or even cuts and yet the people at the top are awarding themselves the usual massive bonuses or taking golden parachutes to leave dying companies? I'd say fighting for a little more equality in society isn't automatically a worthless goal.
Even more likely: they'll just lobby for the law to be changed to cover this situation. The judge has to follow the letter of the law, if a new law allows John Does to be named without establishing jurisdiction, his hands will be tied.
Which is exactly the position they claim - why do you think bars have to have a license to play music in the background, even though the average bar isn't full of audiofiles listening intently to the music, it's mostly incidental.
The only good sides were it never runs out of batteries and has better contrast in direct sunlight.
The only good sides? I'm guessing you've never tried to sell your second hand ebooks or give them away for a charity sale? The fact that ebooks effectively prevent you selling your purchases on is a big negative factor for some people. There are no second hand ebook stores, every purchase is full price, and that price is almost always above paperback price.
You know paper books come DRM free, right?
I agree with your view of RMS, but there are people just as rabidly trying to take our freedoms away on the other side of the fence, so I suspect we need someone like him so that the people in the middle can have a reasoned debate. The problem is, if the opposing view (that we need freedoms) is reasonable at the extreme, then when they meet us in the middle it will already skew the argument heavily in favour of the anti-freedom folk. I don't agree with his extreme views but I can see why we need him or someone like him.
They have a set of glasses with each side attuned to a different player and they just close one eye or the other :)