don't be evil, be greedy.
don't be evil, be greedy.
I guess it's too much to expect any company, even the "do no evil" one, to stand up for principle when there's so much money at stake.
Especially when it's doing absolutely no good. It made sense for Google to stand up to China when it appeared that there was a good chance they could win. But China won. The absence of Google's services did not cause the Chinese people to demand it, and the Great Firewall was successful at blocking and degrading Google's services enough that people largely don't bother. VPN services exist, but the Firewall makes them unreliable and short-lived solutions, so the Chinese just don't use Google much. And those who are doing all of the work to get around the Firewall are those who will do that work to get to uncensored search services anyway.
So, money aside (not that Google is ignoring the money), there's really nothing to be achieved by staying out of China, and at least some possibility of achieving something by being in China.
As long as they're careful to never lose video that may become the subject of media attention, I suppose it's possible. That seems like a game that's guaranteed to end badly, though, because it's not possible to know what will and will not become big news. Some things are obviously big (e.g. deaths) but lesser issues may not blow up until some subsequent sequence of events.
It seems like a really risky business strategy for Taser... and if any journalist ever caught wind of the "soft points", or any whistleblower decided to out them, it'd generate a firestorm.
What you describe is very feasible in heavily manual processes, but automated systems operate in the way they're designed, without variation, and deliberate holes leave traces. With manual processes, the worst case is that the agency has to find a scapegoat, some low-level employee who was responsible for doing something and didn't. With automated systems, it's much harder to argue that the problem wasn't deliberate. It's easy enough the first time "It's a bug!", but it doesn't take long before people want to know why the bug hasn't been fixed.
It's the Elbonian outsourcing model.
I love her legacy!
Me too! Deep Throat was a classic! The way she... uh... wait -- Ada? Ada Lovelace? Uh, I mean, wow, yeah, math... and stuff.
Note the complete lack of any discussion of artificial lighting. Heat is important for winter greenhouses in England, but with regard to light the only discussion is about shading during the summer. Moreover, I have a colleague who lives in a small town just north of Sheffield who gardens year-round in an un-lit greenhouse. He says the shorter days in the winter result in slower growth, and some plants like it more than others so he changes the mix of what he's growing seasonally. But he grows herbs and vegetables year-round.
If you go far enough north, lighting does become an issue for winter growing. For example, in Alaska: http://www.uaf.edu/files/ces/p.... But that's pretty extreme. In Fairbanks the shortest day of the year is barely three hours long. London days don't get much less than 8 hours.
I'm not saying that LEDs couldn't help in northerly climes, but the article seems to say that using LEDs in a cave is more efficient somehow than using the sun. Which is ridiculous.
The default gain may be poor, but it might be adjustable; it wouldn't surprise me at all if developers who were lax enough to not bother encrypting the feed also provided a low-level control interface over the same channel. It would be really convenient for debugging.
Even that doesn't really matter that much... do you really want a microphone in your house broadcasting what it hears? Exactly how much it hears may depend on where you are, what doors are open or closed, etc., but are you really sure it's never hearing anything you don't want broadcast?
And, more importantly, how many people who buy a baby monitor even think about the issue? Product designers should not build a product that requires their user to do that sort of security analysis. Especially since it's quite easy to make it a non-issue.
Feel free to add citations to your claims. The Eemian was warmer than our current interglacial.
Why do you believe (yes, believe is the correct word) that the records are broken on longer timescales than the instrumental one?
Example: Satellites are showing ice loss in the arctic. The satellite coverage begins in 1979.
We know from proxies that the arctic was possibly ice free in the summer during the Holocene Optimum - that's within the least 12000 years.
We know from proxies that the arctic was most certainly ice free during the last interglacial, the Eemium.
Thus, whenever someone says "records" - you need to ask yourself at which timescale. The Earth cares very little for human life spans.
On the contrary a leading theory of how reglaciation happens is because of ice melt in the arctic due to warm water influx. The Eemian had a "warm pulse" just before it plunged back into full glaciation.
See Late Eemian warming in the Nordic Seas as seen in proxy data and climate models (Born, Nisancioglu. Risebrobakken)
Yes, and the records are, quite simply, quite short.
It's a well known cognitive bias to always consider the time you yourself live in as special. History shows us that it isn't. Please read the link I gave.
Record storms, droughts, floods, forest fires, and heat waves are costing hundreds of billions and tens of thousands of lives right now.
Record as to compared to what?
Here's a good read of _documented_ (i.e, written down, well sourced) weather from all over the world for the last 2000 years. It's quite eye opening.
Why do you believe that?
(The science is still out as to what triggers re-glaciation from an interglacial)
Sigh. Typos in the rotation. Should have been:
Rotation: X = X * cos(theta) - Y * sin(theta); Y = Y * cos(theta) + X * sin(theta);
Pretty much. There are a lot of other things that also kind of fall into that category for me—salary, for example. I'm not likely to jump ship for a higher salary (in the absence of other reasons to leave a company), but if you stop paying me a salary, I'm not likely to stick around.
If it wasn't for Newton, we wouldn't have to eat bruised apples.