Comment I can just hear the radio adverts.... (Score 1) 224
A romantic gift for her this holiday season...
A romantic gift for her this holiday season...
From Source:
World Proved(1) Reserves of Oil and Natural Gas, Most Recent Estimates
World Proved.... Okay lets see what that means...
Again, from source:
Proved reserves are estimated quantities that analysis of geologic and engineering data demonstrates with reasonable certainty are recoverable under existing economic and operating conditions.
Okay. Supports (not proves) the argument that the reserves in the Gulf of Mexico probably only contain millions or perhaps billions, as opposed to trillions of barrels of oil.
Is the DOE good enough?
Normally I'd say yes, but I can't find ANY specifically mentioned offshore data in the rows. I can't find any of the major offshore reserves in this data. I'm not joking either. I looked.
Perhaps I am simply misunderstanding the data. But then again, I'm not attempting to use this data to prove that "this guy is just a total idiot".
Probably not, but whatever
You're probably right, but whatever.
The current estimate for total world reserves is just over 1 trillion,
Sauce plz.
Thanks in advance.
Are you implying that "centrists, libertarians, independents, right, etc" are somehow "unbiased peoples"?
oh, that's right.... you posted AC. How subtle.
I've avoided doing business with someone because it meant using Paypal. Don't trust them. Likely never will. It seems statistically unlikely that I'm the only one with this attitude toward them.
Hmmm, I thought *I* was the only one.
To second apoc.famine...
A great many businesses have missed a great deal of my business because they are paypal only -- and I am paypal never. It sucks. I almost feel like some sort of Luddite because of my nearly morbid disdain of paypal but as was stated accurately before, they are not a bank. They don't operate on any rules other than their own TOS. I have to assume that are not FDIC insured (correct me if I'm wrong). They represent the way I do not handle my money. Period.
Evil dies slowly and grows quickly if it's not fought.
AND... when it posts anonymously.
"Programmers are a dime a dozen. We get 500+ resumes a week for your position alone. We can easily hire a programmer who won't get sick on the job for a fraction of what we pay you."
For future reference, those are walking papers.
I was given an equivalent song and dance once also (back in 2003). I had my resignation turned in in less than 30 minutes. Hated to do that, but at least I wasn't abandoning an important project at the time, plus I didn't want to be walked out by security. Later that month, four other devs followed suit.
"this would connect to a DRM server on the Internet whenever the cell phone user would try to play a song. The song would only play if the response of the server would be positive. Otherwise no song would be played."
Under this silly scheme, even the copyright owner couldn't listen to their own stuff on their own phone!
That is the very first thing I thought of when I read the above statement. Essentially, the recording industry wants final say over which string of octets (bytes or data sent to an audio codex) are acceptable and which are not. Since there will (and can only) be a finite number of "acceptable" octet permutations, the number of unacceptable octet permutations becomes a mystery. If they leave it as finite, attempting to selectively target pirated copies, their DRM can be polymorphically (if not easily) circumvented. If the number of unacceptable octet permutations is infinite, then ONLY approved permutations of octets sent to said codex may be decoded. Checkmate! All your codex are belong to us.
Mathematically, any fair and equitable version of this scheme is not feasible by any stretch of the imagination. This is before you take into account that if the DRM server is "unreachable" the codex must necessarily fail to operate. Otherwise the DRM is easily circumvented.
We don't need more criminal law on the books, there is already enough to make criminals of all of us.
The Agile Police State: Criminalize everything/everyone you don't like. Selectively enforce.
I wish I had been able to copy the CD and play around with the trojans in a sandbox but we were instructed not to touch it after we called the proper authorities. It would have been interesting to see what they were all about and where they are phoning home.
That was the first thing that popped in to my head when I saw the article. Hacking brand new malware to see how it works and what it does is fascinating to me. Of course, when the Secret Service says "no touch", they really really mean it.
scumbags don't call me, but politicians do
You contradict yourself.
No, you do. A "scumbag" is a failed sociopath. We call the successful ones "CEO", "Hedge Fund Manager", and "Sir".
TRIPLE KILL!!!
Damn I'm slow today. Almost missed it:
It takes a while, but as I said, when you look for 25 minutes to find a spot--if I even think I can fit, fuck it, I'm going in!
Solid Gold!!!
Everybody should get on each others ass, that way there is no wasted space.
WOOHOO! My new sig!
Portland victim here... I concur. They are truly one of the ultimate expressions of technological douche-baggery ever inflicted on living creatures. At least we don't have the sensors (do we? Hell, I don't know). Just talking about it makes me want to go out and kill one WITH FIRE!!!! I even find myself avoiding the downtown area during the daytime because of those things.
This leaves an opening for abuse. One that will no doubt be ruthlessly exploited: The 'victim' merely has to 'claim' that her reputation was threatened or in some way affected by some remark made by an anonymous detractor. Court order -> detractor outed -> retribution time. I admit, once Cohen got her name. She chose not to go further with the pettiness. Kudos to her. However, this whole affair smacks of pettiness, and self indulgence on the parts of everyone involved. Including the judge, who played the role of enabler to some random internet cat fight on the public dime. (just my opinion... but I'm sticking to it)
Cohen possibly felt this derogatory claim threatened her reputation or even her earning power.
I've been there too, but in my case sniveling and whining did not constitute proper evidence. The judge was not nice about it either. I quietly and humbly learned a valuable lesson: Be able to show actual, compelling evidence or STFU. Cohen's snivelling was delivered by better attorneys and thus actionable. She bent the court AND Google to her will (practically on a whim, hooray for money). Worse things are said about better people everyday, but somehow this instance was special? I call bullshit. I have to. It's the only way I can stay sane. =-P
If someone questions your skankiness in a newspaper, you generally have the power to rebut in the same forum. Not so in this case.
How not so? If you mean f2f? Post IMO deserved to be outed, but not with taxpayer money, and 'just because I (Cohen) can'! That is my main opinion (which is probably wrong, but I refuse to give up my sanity for the sake of "legal correctness").
And if you ever question my skankiness, there will be hell to pay! >;-D
New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman
