Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: For all the idiots (Score 5, Insightful) 68

by mcrbids (#48273973) Attached to: Vulnerabilities Found (and Sought) In More Command-Line Tools

... to the masses of sarcastic "I though Open Source was more secure!" crowd: in an Open Source forum, when vulnerabilities are found, they are patched. Since it's a public forum, the vulnerabilities are disclosed, and patches / updates made available. The poor, sorry state of the first cut gets rapidly and openly improved.

With closed source, the vulnerabilities merely stay hidden and undisclosed, and you have no ability to know about it, or fix it yourself. the poor, sorry state of the first cut never improves. Yes, there are some cultures that take security seriously. You have no way of knowing.

This, right here, is what "more secure" looks like: public notification of the vulnerabilities and patches to distribute.

Comment: Re:I am SHOCKED, just SHOCKED... (Score 1) 432

by BVis (#48268433) Attached to: Ken Ham's Ark Torpedoed With Charges of Religious Discrimination

A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

1) A scientific mindset is not a set of beliefs. Scientists do not worship what they cannot understand; they only seek to understand it.
2) Scientists do not consider the cause or purpose of the universe, only its nature. Cause or purpose implies an intelligent creator. We do not have any objective evidence that one exists. The Bible is not objective evidence, only philosophy, narrative, and metaphor. Even if it were, the current versions of the work have been translated and interpreted so many times by so many people with so many different agendas to push that the original meaning has been lost for thousands of years.
3) There is no objective evidence that a superhuman agency or agencies created the universe. There is conjecture and hypothesis. The problem is that the zealots insist that you prove a negative when you express an opinion on the subject. As we all know, proving a negative is impossible. Thinking that something is possible doesn't mean you believe it to actually be the case. We do not know what was happening before the Big Bang happened, as current technology does not exist to look beyond the singularity. Nothing can be proven or disproven about the origin of the Big Bang at the moment, and that is not a concession of a weak argument; the three most important words in science are "I don't know".
4) Exactly what devotional and ritual observances do scientists engage in? The closest I can come up with is getting your morning coffee.
5) Scientifically based solutions and practices are not the same as a moral code. Morals are arbitrary rules of conduct that a particular slice of humanity has decided are worth upholding, and as such, cannot by definition be associated with science. Nothing in science says you can't have sex before marriage, for example, or stone the gays to death, or beat your wife, or kill your slaves..

I'm positive you don't know what you're talking about.

What the deniers dispute is humans having a majoritive effect on climate change. The science on that is not settled.

It's settled. Getting 97% of scientists to agree on something is virtually impossible if there is no objective evidence. CO2 in the atmosphere makes temperatures rise. We're dumping CO2 into the atmosphere by the billions of tons. Therefore, more heat from the sun is trapped in the atmosphere, making global temperature rise. Honestly, it's not a difficult concept, and if you need an example of a greenhouse effect gone mad, take a look at Venus. It's like 863 degrees F / 462 degrees C on the surface, in large part to the atmosphere being 96% CO2. The origins of the high levels of CO2 on Venus are different from those on Earth, but they share a similar problem in that there is insufficient biomass to recapture the carbon in the atmosphere.

especially when new papers are being published trying to explain a hiatus in the warming trend and the significance of the oceans in the atmospheric temperature.

Please link to some of those papers; if they're not in reputable peer-reviewed publications, though, don't bother.

If the science on that was settled there would be no use for continued research.

You are failing to grasp the nature of scientific endeavor. We will never know everything about a particular topic; there is always more knowledge to be obtained. If 97% (or even a significant majority) of the new research contradicts the human-caused theory of global warming, then a conclusion can be drawn.

But I'm wasting my breath. If human-caused climate change deniers are confronted with objective evidence that contradicts their hypotheses, they simply stick their fingers in their ears and say "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU". The evidence is overwhelming; the science is settled (in as much as anything in science can be settled; the strength of science is in its flexibility and the tacit admission that any theory can be rejected based on new evidence, if the evidence is compelling enough).

Nothing you say in this reply cannot be contradicted with objective facts.

Comment: This is why (Score 2) 442

by SuperKendall (#48267443) Attached to: Imagining the Future History of Climate Change

Crop yields are expected to decline because plants need more water as the temperature goes up:

We already know from historical records agriculture was better with the climate a few degrees warmer overall - also a warmer climate increases ocean evaporation, leading (as it has) to more rain in many areas.

If you are thinking regionally instead of globally, like say California, that is simply reverting to historical norms after a decade or two of above average precipitation - plus of course really badly managed water rights that hate agriculture.

As for your link, good luck with the magical thinking.

Comment: Why not the Golden Age? (Score 4, Interesting) 442

by SuperKendall (#48266829) Attached to: Imagining the Future History of Climate Change

What gets me is the mild warming we are obviously going to be experiencing (since large CO2 increase have not shown not to correlate to rapid temperature increases as previously thought) is going to bring an overall boon to the planet, just as it did in ages past - a wider range of arable land.

Sure some land will change for the worse, but overall as a species we will be better off - and the rate the climate is changing allows for plenty of time for people, plants and animals to adapt.

Comment: A good sign. (Score 3, Interesting) 102

It's a sign that years and years of mismanagement maybe didn't completely kill the ability for them to come up with interesting stuff This is exactly the kind of thing they need to do. Shore up HP Labs and solve some neat problems and ship cool stuff. Sure, let's be skeptical, but good for them for trying.

Comment: Re:ENTITLEMENTS, NOT RIGHTS (Score 1) 95

by roman_mir (#48262379) Attached to: Open Consultation Begins On Italy's Internet Bill of Rights

Property is exactly what you can protect. Having a rule of law based society, meaning society that does not discriminate, does not have multiple sets of laws for different people (no special case scenarios regardless of your wealth, race, gender, colour, whatever) is what allows us to have an actual working system, where the government is not there to own you but instead it's there only to enforce very specific rules in the same exact way to everybody. This of-course means you can't have income taxes and especially 'progressive' taxes, you can't have special privileges or entitlements based on any set of criteria that define any group to be different (government based discrimination).

I don't want government to steal anything, I want private property to be protected by private individuals on their own. To the extent that we have any government at all, its only function should be protection of private property (which also includes contract law), but taxes cannot come from income, levels of income, but they can only be capitation taxes or certain import duties, excise.

Comment: Re:ENTITLEMENTS, NOT RIGHTS (Score 1) 95

by roman_mir (#48262247) Attached to: Open Consultation Begins On Italy's Internet Bill of Rights

I don't see how the second follows from the first. The right to something isn't about who spend most time on it. If I am dying of thirst, and you are the only source of water, I have every moral right to acquire through any means short of killing you.

- why did you stop short of 'killing you'? How does that follow? You just made a very simple case, if you want or need something, you feel entitled to that item regardless of my wants and needs.

If you are in such a pickle that you are dying from thirst, you can ask me for water first and foremost, most people (including myself), will not deny you water because you are dying from thirst. You are not talking about me making a voluntary decision here, you are talking about using violence on the level of government to steal from me and to use all force needed to prevent me from protecting myself from this theft.

You can ask me for water, you can promise to pay me later, I may voluntarily give you water and not even ask for anything in return or I may put you on tab and hope that maybe you'll pay back, that would be up to me and a voluntary agreement. You are talking about theft and redistribution based on government violence, stop pretending in every comment that you do not understand this extremely simple concept.

How do I produce more land? What do I make it from? Who made it in the first place? How did they make it? Who is the original owner of the land?

- just because you don't understand the concept of trade makes you deficient in a sense, but it doesn't mean that there is no concept of trade.

You can sell a kidney and buy a house, you can work for 10 years, save money and buy a piece of property, land, house, lake, whatever, it doesn't matter, but you worked for it, your productive output was large enough to build savings that allowed you to purchase the property from whoever is owning it currently, the transaction is done, there is no 'lease granted by government', if there is, that's not ownership of property, that's slavery, again, be clear in what you stand for.

Take the people from a state. What do you have?

- there is no state that can own you that also is based on the rule of law. You can be a slave, but there is no equality there.

Neither do I. But it's a useful mechanism for allocating limited shared resources, such as land, and avoiding a tragedy of the commons type affair. If you have a better idea, I'm all ears.

- obviously a system based on rule of law, private contracts, private security and private courts.

Comment: Re:ENTITLEMENTS, NOT RIGHTS (Score 1) 95

by roman_mir (#48262161) Attached to: Open Consultation Begins On Italy's Internet Bill of Rights

The problem here is you considering the government to be your rulers rather than administrators. We are the state. Not them.

- government is the de facto ruler that buys votes of what you think is of as 'people' by destroying the rule of the law.

There is no need for any government administrators at all if the society is based on the rule of law, there is only need for private competing courts and private security companies, not even need for government cops actually.

There are no private property rights once 'society as a whole' can steal property from the owner. 'Society as a whole' doesn't exist. There are only people and some people want to steal from others, that's all there is. Some people will vote as a block to steal from others. Some other people will promise to destroy the rule of law and to steal on behalf of 'society as a whole' to stay in power and while in power they can steal from anybody they personally want to steal from as well.

There is no society once there is no rule of law, only a mob and thugs in power.

Information is the inverse of entropy.

Working...