I predict that tomorrow, there will be weather! Yeah, that's not what people mean by predicting the weather. Sure: the 24-hour weather forecast is better than random guessing, but it's still not much better than looking at the sky, and a barometer. And the 5-day forecast? Accuracy isn't in it.
You make and play the kind of game you like, and we'll make an play the kind of games we like, OK? There's room on Steam for lots of games.
get a liberal arts degree
I'd prefer a job instead, but hey: to each his own!
Well, let me know when we actually get to the weather-predicting stage. I look forward to that. But I think we'll get fusion first, and maybe spelling and calendar reform.
or we can act on the best information we have right now with a degree of tentativity reasonable for any such endeavor
Oh ho! A moderate. Are you sure you're on the right site? Surely you meant to say "global warming is a hoax!" or "repent your sins of carbon emission, no economic sacrifice is too great!"
Or would a rational person perhaps look at the store as a profit center because it makes money, despite having overhead costs like
How about the cash registers?
How about the front door?
Is every last bit of overhead inside a profit center a tiny, microscopic cost center?
Look, CO2 is like a blanket on the bed. Making it thicker makes you warmer. You wish to deny this?
I'm sorry, your answer must be in the form of a car analogy.
With respect, the phlogiston theory worked apart from the oxidation of iron. Noticing this shortcoming was one of the things that led to the discovery of oxygen.
Exactly. And aether made a lot of sense. And Freud had to start somewhere. None of that was bad science, that's just what early science looks like. We've just since the late 90s had the technology to seriously contemplate climate modeling, and only really in the past 5-8 years has the vast parallelism needed to do it well been available from more than a couple of research computers.
Again, just as it's a mistake to call it "pseudoscience", it's a mistake to believe than any of these early models in the first generation of a new science are particularly worthwhile. Certainly Climate Science is a field that needs more funding and research for decades to come. But just as certainly, it's not a fucking unfallible font of religious truth, and people who act as if it is are as annoying as the SJWs.
Forget programming. Sit down with him and make a few board and card games.
Too many game designers these days look at the technology and the graphics and the monetarization and all the other crap and forget that first and foremost, there needs to be a game.
When you limit yourself to the bare essentials, you see the game for what it is, and learn to make games by focussing on what makes a game.
Cable between the street and the house might have be redone.
Yes. But the cable doesn't connect to the street, that's just how we say it. It connects to that grey box on the corner, which means after the garden it runs underneath the street and/or sidewalk for typically a few hundred meters.
What is more, the cabling between the house and the street might be owned by the home owner.
Can't say for other countries, in my country almost never.
We could set up a junction box at the street that links into the home's network./quote
We not only could, this is what we do right now. But those boxes serve an entire block, not one house. Theoretically we could change the whole network layout and install such a box at the edge of every property and terminate there, but there are reasons why the system is the way it is, and changing it would require changes in the system, maybe even a partial redesign of the local loop.
Your experience has clearly made myopic and unable to think creatively about the issue.
Of course. If you disagree with someone, it must be that the someone is an idiot. It's not possible that maybe you are wrong.
There's no point having a discussion on this level. People who have arguments don't need to use personal insults.
Profit requires revenue, and security generates NO revenue for most companies.
So, a company's money-making, walk-up retail storefront isn't a profit center?
Like you, I want the facts. I have seen no facts that implicate the DPRK over the people who claimed responsibility initially (GOP). Wired had an article on it two days ago when the first stories started to attempt to pin the hack on the DPRK which has been ignored by all US and UK media. Not only have all US media outlets jumped on the "it was those dirty North Koreans" bandwagon, but the BBC has become complicit in this as well.
I fairness, I was able to do some digging to find more information on the BBC that I could not in US media. Let me go through the evidence. and comment on each after that.
Before doing so, let me explain something critical. In order to teach hacking, a person has to have access to the internet. This is a huge dilemma for the DPRK who has to risk any Internet access with the knowledge that the person with access _WILL_ see information damaging to their loyalty to the DPRK. There are no computer cafe's in North Korea where guys can go learn to hack to make a couple extra bucks, in fact unless you have explicit Government approval you can not have a computer. Even if you are a "tourist" you must have permission and you will not be able to take your laptop wherever you wish.
This means that the only hacking that could come from the DPRK is Government sponsored, and the amount of hackers they have would be tiny. They don't have the money for "new" or unique equipment either, so any computer hardware they have is going to be 2nd hand junk that China no longer wants. What the Military has for hacking tools would be 2nd hand script kiddie tools or, provided by China.
Not only does an extraordinary claim require extraordinary proof, but in this case US Politicians have lied so often I don't trust a damn thing I'm told any longer. Our "media" follows the scripts they are handed just like the politicians, and I don't trust them either. So here is the claim summary.
First, the FBI says its analysis spotted distinct similarities between the type of malware used in the Sony Pictures hack and code used in an attack on South Korea last year.
So we turn to another, better clue: IP addresses - known to be part of "North Korean infrastructure" - formed part of the malware too. This suggests the attack may have been controlled by people who have acted for North Korea in the past.
That's it folks, that is all we have. The "Hacks" last year (actually since 2009) which were never tracked to the DPRK are the first reason they believe this hack was. Wow, that's quite a leap in logic. DarkSeoul is still anonymous and there is no evidence that links them to North Korea. Lots of claims that China is training and letting the DPRK use their resources, but no evidence that the group is even operating out of China. Finally we have IP addresses, which any Script kiddie knows to spoof with someone's IP address you hate! I'm positive that the FBI can not be that goddamn dumb, they have to realize IPs can be spoofed too!
Ok, time to get off my soap box...
How much would it cost to retrofit 32000 ships?
How much it would cost the EPA to mandate the change? Nothing!