Previously unthinkable technology fails to be miraculous! News at 11...

That troll would be more effective with a low uid...

If the defendant is "Nestle Water," not "Nestle," they've already lost because the suit has been moved into a shell corporation, which is probably already in debt and will have no assets left if the case goes to trial.

I think this is actually going to be it's legacy: That building something with cheap non-hardened components can still work and do good science.

I've seen this sort of thing over and over again as protocols are removed from browsers, etc., with no option to just ignore the issue, with the result being that people have to use old versions to manage embedded appliances or old stuff that is no longer being supported. This forces you to use an old browser that will likely get hacked if you forget and open a modern site (like forgetting you're in the old browser and googling for something), but it would have been completely secure because the appliance or old device is in some disconnected network where no one is snooping on the traffic. I had this with UPSs, printers, data acquisition systems, lab testing equipment, etc.

This move will result in more expired certs, meaning more people will be trained to ignore expired certs, meaning they won't notice that the cert wasn't just expired but replaced. Even if the updates are automated, the real risk is that the signing cert is hacked, and that will just keep getting used in automation. The thing that needs quicker response time is invalidation. The same logic led to decades of 30-day password expiry...

There's a bunch of information here and on GitHub, but no one was ever able to make a compelling alternative use for it... It would be great to control Spotify in the living room if it weren't tied to a phone.

There's no precise formula or baseline. But it is at least a decadal average, so we won't officially pass it for five years, more if temperatures decrease from El Nino. But we're certainly on the way thereâ"you can only pass it by having periods above 1.5.

Decades ago, before global warming became obvious, it was clear that there would be a day of peak oil. At that point, whoever had the most reserves in the ground would win the planet because oil was vital, and whoever had the last drops for their war machine would win. So it was best to let others extract their reserves while holding on to your own.

Now that it's clear that burning even a fraction of the reserves we know about will alter life as we know it, it's a race to see who can extract their reserves the fastest because there'll always be enough oil for the war machine, but whoever hasn't extract their oil will be left with nothing.

The problem is that it's a game of chicken combined with Russian roulette. Whoever stops extracting too early misses out on all the money, but if too much oil is burned, someone will pay a heavy price. Like all gamblers, the rich and their political puppets think they'll be the ones to win and not pay the price. And if history is any lesson, the rich will probably win, and the poor will suffer...

I just ask Bill what he's doing about systematic racism in policing. He's stopped calling... And Ted from the firefighters union gets asked about convict firefighters. If there's an actual person on the other end of the line or standing at your door, engaging them with real issues is much more effective at making them go away than chasing them off your lawn. Their supervisor doesn't want their bubble burst, or else they might realize they're being exploited.

The problem with this is that there is no tracking of reasons for citation, like +1,-1 here. If you get a junk paper published, it will often be highly cited, all saying you're an idiot... Some fields in the social sciences use a "for/against" style in their citations, but the h-index does not capture those. A lot of very highly cited papers are also "method" papers. If ASTM/IEEE standards had an h-index, it would be huge and meaningless. And then there's the issue of missing citations (very convenient when one research group 'forgets' to cite their 'rival' group), incorrect citations, etc.

7.5e12*1e6g*334J/g = 2.5e21J, or 2.5 ZJ... But yes, since over those 26 years, the earth has absorbed about 350ZJ of excess energy, that's 0.7% of the total AGW, which, given that current models have total ice melt at ~4%, with the Antarctic Ice Shelves seeing the least impact, that seems about right for a quick check.

Hmm, I clock it at 7.5 exagrams? 7.5*1e12*1e6=7.5e18. The original paper has 7500 Gt, or 7500*1e9*1e6=7.5e18g.

-1, Confused?

That's not true. e.g., Teslas do not have spare wheels or jacks and are widely sold in California.