Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:i'm glad to work for free (Score 1) 381

by Jane Q. Public (#47509581) Attached to: Dealing With 'Advertising Pollution'
I almost forgot:

A company does not HAVE TO advertise over the internet, and even if they do, that doesn't "drive" the internet. In fact, a lot of large companies do not advertise on the internet at all. They use their regular media outlet advertising, and maintain a website. It works for them.

Ubiquitous web advertising is simply NOT a necessary thing for the existence of the internet, and never has been. In fact the internet saw MOST of its growth when advertising wasn't nearly the bandwidth leech it is now.

Comment: Re:let me correct that for you. (Score 1) 439

It does not follow that "Marx was a loon". Given a society or species that is much more altruistic, willing to contribute to the entire society rather than focusing on personal benefit, the result would be elevation of everybody.

In theory. In practice it has never worked and is never likely to work, because there will always be those people who aren't altruistic, and are instead power-hungry leeches.

You are correct, however, that it doesn't follow that Marx was a loon. I didn't mean that literally. I wouldn't say he was actually a loon. Rather, he was a paid tool of Statists who needed a justification for their Statist power-grabbing. And what is better justification than "the evolutionary road to Utopia"?

It was the people who followed his ideas, in hopes of gaining that theoretical but in practice unworkable Utopia, who were the actual loons.

Comment: Re:Warrants are supposed to be narrow (Score 1) 149

by Jane Q. Public (#47509447) Attached to: New York Judge OKs Warrant To Search Entire Gmail Account

How is searching an entire hard-drive for a particular thing (a file containing X) any different than searching an entire house for a .40 S&W handgun. Knowing the basics of file structures, would you have them specify which sectors on which tracks of which platters to search? Please, lets be a little bit realistic about things.

It isn't, necessarily. It depends on what they're searching for, which we don't know from the story. Don't assume I'm being "unrealistic" just because you didn't read my comment carefully. I said the question is whether it was justified. TFA itself says some courts say no.

Comment: Re:i'm glad to work for free (Score 1) 381

by Jane Q. Public (#47509321) Attached to: Dealing With 'Advertising Pollution'

Realistically, the internet is not free. It costs money to maintain all that.

People PAY money to build their websites for their customers.

Customers PAY their ISPs for internet access.

Nobody -- not me, anyway -- said it was "free". I just said that Open Source was a workable model.

But pay-for-service (other than ISPs) is NOT a "necessary" thing. At all. It could go away tomorrow and the internet would continue to thrive.

Comment: Re:let me correct that for you. (Score 4, Informative) 439

Communism is State Socialism. It should be wrong to say that it is the only socialism out there, but it is definitely socialism.

Nonsense. Read your Marx. Communism and Socialism don't even remotely resemble one another. The only reason people get them confused is that Communism, as defined by Marx, was the ideal human goal and has never actually existed.

What you describe as "State Socialism" is what most people just call Socialism... because socialism requires a strong State.

While some countries liked to CALL THEMSELVES communist, they were not. They were anything but. The best any of them ever managed to achieve were bad forms of socialism and fascism.

The reason for that is simple: socialism (the real economic theory of socialism) requires a strong central authority. Whereas communism (genuine communism, according to social and economic theory) has no "authority" at all.

The problem has been that once a relatively few people got all that authority, under a socialist or fascist regime, they then never wanted to give it up. So societies never "evolved" beyond that to true communism. Nor is it likely to ever happen. Marx was a loon.

Comment: Re:Warrants are supposed to be narrow (Score 4, Insightful) 149

by Jane Q. Public (#47500545) Attached to: New York Judge OKs Warrant To Search Entire Gmail Account

Could be. If several witnesses see an assailant bludgeon someone on the sidewalk with an obscured object, then run into a house, the police may not be able to ascertain exactly what the weapon is, but they'd certainly have enough evidence for a search, and they could keep a record of any potential weapons seen in the house in case forensics can later get them a better description of the weapon used.

I don't think the question is really whether the judge can order such a thing. I think it's more of a question of whether it is justified in this case.

GP made a very good point. Search warrants are required to be particular, and to specify the particular thing(s) being searched for. If they don't know what they're looking for, broadening the search to turn it into a "fishing expedition" is not allowable.

The general principle is that the search should be as narrowly focused on particular evidence as can practically be managed. Is that the case here? It doesn't seem to be, but I'm not the judge, I don't know the details.

Comment: Re:i'm glad to work for free (Score 1) 381

by Jane Q. Public (#47498445) Attached to: Dealing With 'Advertising Pollution'

I have no objection to paying for ad-free stuff.

Free and Open Source (for just one example) shows that advertisement-free is a workable model and the people can not only profit from it, but others can benefit from it. Without advertising.

That is why I stopped when I read:

Everyone gets that advertising is what powers the internet, and that our favorite sites wouldn't exist without it

NO. Not everyone "gets" that, because it isn't true. And if your "favorite" site is using that revenue model, then maybe you're visiting the wrong sites.

I have been around long enough to have been on the internet when the most active places were "Bulletin Boards", and the BEST of the net was indeed free. And it continued to be so for a long time.

If it weren't for THAT (and not ad-driven sites) the internet would not have survived. But take away the ads, it would still not only exist, it might be a hell of a lot better.

Comment: Re:Need Or Can (Score 1) 52

by Jane Q. Public (#47498423) Attached to: Genetically Modifying an Entire Ecosystem
Recent (within several years) accidental releases from "secure" biological containment facilities, specifically involving [what many scientists say was extremely dangerous and unethical] experimentation on increasing the virulence of H5N1 flu virus, illustrates the inadequacy of genetic containment. They can't even keep the most "secure" labs secure, and we have learned that they do shit there they should never be allowed to attempt.

We already have not just proof but ubiquitous reports of GMO crops escaping their intended places. And somebody wants to make it EASIER for chosen genes to propagate?

I repeat what someone else said above, facetiously: "What could possibly go wrong?"

Until our state-of-the-art is a hell of a lot better than today, I don't say "regulate", I say ban outright.

Comment: Re:Hmm... (Score 1) 154

by Jane Q. Public (#47498297) Attached to: NASA: Lunar Pits and Caves Could House Astronauts

There's just an opportunity in Siberia - just opened up this week. Current theories are giant sandworms, graboids, pingo's, ufo's or an alien missile base:

The ideal finding, of course, would be all of the above.

"Visitors: to ensure optimum relations with the locals, no anal probes will be allowed beyond this point. You may check them in at Customs and reclaim them on your return home.

"Mind the sandworms."

Comment: Re:Paper tracked barter (Score 1) 100

by Jane Q. Public (#47498267) Attached to: New Digital Currency Bases Value On Reputation

Without more than a passing familiarity with economics, the point of this exercise seems to me to be to illustrate the way money works without centralization. Isn't this in fact how the international money trade works?

No.

Money, pretty much by definition, is a standard medium of exchange. It might fluctuate in value a bit here or there, but if it isn't relatively stable, then it isn't good money in the first place. An example of that is the hundred trillion dollar note in Zimbabwe currency.

This experiment would remove any standard: a "coin" would be worth vastly more to one person than another, based on completely arbitrary definitions of "value".

So it isn't a standard -- it's kind of the opposite -- therefore it isn't "money", in any conventional sense. But then neither were Zimbabwe dollars.

Comment: Re:State sponsors of corruption (Score 1) 228

by Jane Q. Public (#47487583) Attached to: Chicago Red Light Cameras Issue Thousands of Bogus Tickets

You are incorrect. The camera's were conceived as an FHWA program for specific intersections to reduce fatalities.

Um, I really hate to have to tell you this, but what they were "conceived" for is very different from what they are actually used for.

The camera's actually did reduce fatalities at some of those high fatality intersections.

But by now we also have LOTS of statistics saying that in many cities, they actually increased not just the number but also the average severity of accidents. I am aware this is counterintuitive, nevertheless it is true.

Comment: Re:The GISS adjusted^^^ dataset (Score 1) 552

by Jane Q. Public (#47484811) Attached to: The Last Three Months Were the Hottest Quarter On Record

The study you linked to about overestimations basically makes the "only atmospheric warming" argument, which is what creates the illusion of "the pause."

The study I linked to makes no such argument. That is a straw-man. What the study shows is that surface temperature warming has been about half of what an average of all models projected. (Note that "surface temperature" is actually atmospheric temperature near the surface.) Regardless of whether there changes happening elsewhere, the models still got it wrong. That is the point. The models are flawed.

In case you weren't looking at the right one, it's this one specifically:

I admit that I had missed your second link. But this is hardly proof of anything. You brought us right back to the original issue: whether (and how) the datasets like GISS, HadCRUT etc. have been manipulated. It isn't valid to use that data as proof of itself. In order to demonstrate anything you have to compare it to something else. Like, for example... satellite data!

I can only assume your problem with the "97%" meta-study result was not considering those that didn't express a position on the issue in their abstract.

I don't know why you can only assume that. Criticism of that purported "study" are all over the place. Here are two examples from a climate scientist. And there are more. Many more. Which are very easy to find with any search engine. Probably the most relevant comment, which many of these criticisms state in various ways, is the following (yes, it's Monckton but pay attention to what he says, not who he is):

"The non-disclosure in Cook et al. of the number of abstracts supporting each specified level of endorsement had the effect of not making available the fact that only 41 papers -- 0.3% of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0% of the 4014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1% -- had been found to endorse the quantitative hypothesis, stated in the introduction to Cook et al. and akin to similar definitions in the literature, that 'human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)'."

Optimization hinders evolution.

Working...