Well, Edison did have a point that AC is more dangerous. There is a dead elephant to prove it.
Topsy, executed for killing three men, was killed with the "evil" Alternating Current. But that, in itself, says nothing about it being less or more dangerous than the alternative (Direct Current). Edison realized it, of course, but the public — just as short on attention span as it is now — did not... Ehh, if only those people had the Internet! They would've argued with and trolled each other without having to bother with elephants or the like...
How funny is it, that the name Tesla will now be associated with the Direct Current, that Edison was pushing during the War of Currents?
Here’s an absolute fact that all of these reporters, columnists, and media pundits need to get into their heads:
The web doesn’t suck. Your websites suck.
All of your websites suck.
You destroy basic usability by hijacking the scrollbar. You take native functionality (scrolling, selection, links, loading) that is fast and efficient and you rewrite it with ‘cutting edge’ javascript toolkits and frameworks so that it is slow and buggy and broken. You balloon your websites with megabytes of cruft. You ignore best practices. You take something that works and is complementary to your business and turn it into a liability.
The lousy performance of your websites becomes a defensive moat around Facebook.
Of course, Facebook might still win even if you all had awesome websites, but you can’t even begin to compete with it until you fix the foundation of your business.
Those people who view one side as better than the other, because they are "less evil" are simply delusional.
There are more than two sides. Rand Paul — currently from the "Libertarian wing" of the Republican Party — may as well become a bona-fide Libertarian. At least, that would assure a Presidential nomination for him.
Whatever he does, his attempts to block the extensions of this "most unpatriotic law" gained him support from both sides of the traditional isle (as his other actions did before).
Libertarianism has been rising over the last few decades — one can see it from Slashdot's own poll as well as feel it in the increasingly shrill reaction Libertarian ideas get from Slashdot's resident Statists. Maybe, we'll have three major parties once again soon.
Yes, technically there is a way to execute phone specific code with specially crafted text messages. This is not doing that. It's not executing a program.
Generally, if a carefully-crafted input can cause your application to crash, a similarly-crafted data may be able to exploit the same bug and cause an execution of malicious code. If — as is usually the case — the crash is due to buffer overflow and I can stomp over your app's memory, I may be able to place my code in the right place and it will be executed as part of the app...
There are ways to mitigate that — such as by declaring data-parts of memory non-executable — but the earlier successful exploits of buffer overflow in the image-parsing code suggest, Apple is not using this.
But this is not what I expect from Apple. This is just bad. Lack of sanity testing?
Security — as any good work in general — is hard. Disproportionally harder than the merely Ok work. The real measure is not the number of bugs, really, but the speed of the fixes, once the problems are discovered. Unfortunately, Apple seems to be slow at that too...
Ha! The submissions can all be dismissed as "biased" without trying too hard. All of the Climate-scientists paid by the government and international institutions, for example, are inherently biased — should they conclude, there is no danger in global warming, their grants will dry out and they'll lose their jobs and influence.
Worse! Even if the scientists themselves are sincere, the people who run their departments and the international institutions are politicians and thus (far) less trust-worthy. And it is in their interest to only seek-out and hire scientists, who favour their agenda — sincerely or otherwise. A good scientist may still be able to find employment, but if the International Panel on Climate Change is closed, a lot of the currently-influential people will become nobodies...
The conflict of interest is so stunning, I'm surprised we can still breath in the room with this giant elephant. Compared to that bias, a blogger's personal agenda is nothing to speak of...
Here's the latest one.
Like I said many times before: once the result is known, finding somebody having "predicted" is too easy to be convincing. If you put 720 stalled clocks into one room, each set to a different minute, one of them will always show correct time.
No, please, link to a prediction published — anywhere, be it "peer-reviewed" publication or a tabloid — online before it materialized... And not just one, but at least two or three.
it isn't a good example of a prediction.
Of course, it is not a good example of a prediction — it failed! I "cited" it as an illustration of a "binary" prediction only. Sorry, I don't know of any "good" predictions made by the Climate-scientists, so I cited a bad one. Do you?
Are you ready to try again? Of all people, you already know very well, what I'm seeking — and agree, that the format I ask for is not unreasonable...
It was about sea ice. The ice loss in evidence is land ice.
Distinction without difference. Both would evidence to the dangers of global warming — or lack thereof. That one was posted, while the other was not, hints at a bias...
It fails to distinguish between Arctic sea ice (which is retreating) and Antarctic (which is advancing).
The difference between the poles may affect local residents on each, but it does not affect the debate of whether or not the whole planet is warming to an alarming — or even perceptible — degree.
Once again, replying to a request for pairs of links with a single link does not count. Your submission is hereby rejected. FAIL.
If you'd like to play again, sift through your sources yourself to identify the predictions and post links to them separately from the confirmations of each one materializing. This was the challenge from the beginning of this sub-thread.
Note, that the other condition was that the links be at least 3 years apart — because, once the result is known, finding a prediction for it may be too easy (and even, some times, intellectually dishonest too).
"Conversion, fastidious Goddess, loves blood better than brick, and feasts most subtly on the human will." -- Virginia Woolf, "Mrs. Dalloway"