Even though its April 1st... This is not funny.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
No it's April...
The thing that many people seem not to realize is that, with legitimate and really important requests, you can get all signoffs in quite a short notice. The reason why most things take a while to authorize, is because everybody does it on their time and they have many to check. I already said it in a an other comment, but diverging from procedure is never a good idea, especially when something has to be done quick.
As the article state:
That said, it's debatable whether Microsoft's patent promise serves any purpose. By using the MIT licence, Microsoft already grants everyone who obtains a copy "Permission (...) to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software". People sometimes think of free software licences, such as the MIT licence, in terms of copyright, but the licence text doesn't talk about "permission under copyright", it talks about "permission". Then, since the recipient already has Microsoft's permission to use and modify the software, does the recipient really need an additional promise from Microsoft not to sue them for these acts?
I think they tried to quell fears with their patent promise that MS would sue people afterwards. The problem is that the legal department did want to give carte blanche, since that would adding one line of code from the runtime a valid patent defense from MS. The current situation makes is more confusing and sows more doubt.
Actually, brand recognition. Do you think that
*cought* Cargo Lifter *cought*
Actually in the case of accountants you want pedantic non free thinkers. You basically tell them "These are the procedures to authorize any transaction; follow them or be fired. Even if the CEO turns up in person, get all required sign-offs before authorizing a transaction." There are a huge amount of regulatory issues that need to be considered and the sign offs ensure that these are met and that the information is correct. Even if the CEO comes stomping in, the request to authorize a transaction may be legitimate, yet he may have the wrong account number.
Yes but it shows that model from the 80s and 90s where unable to predict the current situation. There is a good chance that current models are as inaccurate. The problem stems from numerical errors occurred by simplifying the model to actually be commutable. This shows that the climate is way more complicated than previously though. Then again changing one parameter like crazy and expecting nothing to happen is also nonsense.
He is working in the medial field. A server outage can actually mean that a hospital's operation grinds to a halt (rather is severely limited). With modern it systems down in hospitals, this really means significant worse patient care up to fatalities. (Patient file not available, intolerance of certain medicine, but action must be taken. Lose/lose situation.) He is talking to doctors and hospital staff; people that may jump up from any discussion without a hesitation in the case of an emergency. Making it in a manner that is least obtrusive is a good idea.
You are so wrong. Now granted they compared nuclear to coal, but on your stated grounds, you should abolish coal first. You are falling into the flying vs. driving fallacy. Just because the deaths incurred though the mining and pollution of coal (not to mention possible CO2 related issues) are so unspectacular does not make them not happen.
It appears to me that you fail at statistics. If you cherry pick the 2000 - 2015 period and take the trend from that period, you will see that the earth did not warm significantly in that period. Your graph actually confirms GP's statement. Now don't get me wrong; our current course of action is nonsense and we are in dire need of a change. Pumping humongous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, while destroying many carbon sinks is not a sustainable course of action. Although I think that many climate scientist are half frauds (don't have a clue about numerical simulations), but in the long run they are right, even if their current prognosis is borderline useless. Remember we need to continue living on this planet for the next couple of thousand years for the very least...
Greenpeace and many other environment groups are anti-nuclear, not because it is sensible, but because of institutional momentum. Nuclear was one of the big subjects that founded these organisations. If they back paddle on the issue, they fear to lose face. They want a solution that involves low CO2 and no nuclear... (Cake and eat it)
Some are and some are not... Most of the Chernobyl exclusion zone now has less radiation than natural radiation occurring in the Black Forest. Many species thrive; with comparable life spans and no significant anomalies, these are especially larger multi-celled organisms. Some organisms that have few anti-oxidants; especially some annual flowers and Bactria don't fare quite so well.
You must take into account tow issues, first the high radiation environment killed many organisms; especially single celled organisms. This has caused oddities, such as the Red Forest, where almost not decay is happening, because the bacteria and small organisms where all killed off by the radiation. This is still the case, because it takes time for Bacteria and small organisms to repopulate the area. (And they are still partially dying of mild radiation.) The second issue is, that because the the amount of anti-oxidants in the organism determines if it will thrive or not in mild radiation. it has brought the ecosystem somewhat out of kilter. Some ecological niches are not or only badly accounted for and this creates the situation that some organisms could survive the mild radiation, but can't because their dependent niches are empty.
And if they are still running they have a well defined end of life date before 2020. They are being taken out of service significantly earlier than planed.
Yes, yes... But is it usable as a weapon?