This might have been a good article had it not been for the pretentious, holier-than-thou introduction. Apparently enjoying the fruits of a modern life make you a mindless drone compared to the "contemporary fine artist" who lives on a boat or someone living in a forest re-inventing the wheel for every modern necessity.
I didn't perceive it as pretentious. In my opinion the problem is not enjoying the fruits of modern life, but letting others define for you what has or hasn't value, and living a life where the only goal is being perceived by others as "successful".
Its worse when you see someone preaching marxism like these hollywood actors and big bankers praising cuba, the che guevara and what not, yet fully enjoying the luxuries of capitalism.
The king is at C7 and the Queen is at A8 in the video. They king can't do anything. The whole reason to under promote is for white to avoid stalemate when he/she has a winning checkmate.
The only other moves are after white pawn b7 would be to just run the king out of the fork (legal) but then black's whole position collapses and white just cleans up the same as if black plays king B8.
Once the king is tucked in and the D file pawns are blocked he can ONLY move to C7. If he moves out of the fork earlier to C7 or D8 he still loses the rook and the two pawns are still trapped. Against white's D pawn.
I don't know much about network security. Is there a difference between the kind of attacks that would be caught by honeypots vs targeted attacks? Do these statistics depend heavily on how they setup their honeypots, which I assume is limited by the company's logistics.
This graphic really just plays into the hands of climate change deniers. No labelled axis, a timeline of only 100 years (you could also argue the dinosaurs caused global warming), and the quite proud declaration at the end the argument is really "no contest" under the assumption that correlation == causation. I could also make a graph that shows the increase in global temperature correlating with the rise in the Latino population, could I then declare it a "no contest"?
> under the assumption that correlation == causation
Except we do have a pretty good understanding of the chemisty/physics of the greenhouse effect, too. So there's a prediction ("increased CO2 will lead to warming") and a validation. What more do they want?
Is this increase in CO2 a significant amount on the scale of Earth's history? How much of it was caused by humans vs natural cycles? A cursory search informed me C02 levels and average temperature was much higher during the dinosaur ages[0], what was the cause then? Note I'm playing devil's advocate here and I haven't studied climate much, but my point is the graphic wouldn't persuade someone who is already biased against human-driven climate change, and only encourages equally primitive arguments from their side.
Obviously, an explanation for the break in the causation link that was observed between '96 until '10. CO2 production rose faster than modeled while warming took a break.
It's just that the presentation overreached. They should at least mention the other inputs to a comprehensive model that were tried but just didn't have a big impact, otherwise it feels like they just decided in advance that CO2 was the answer.
Well, you could read the source of course, to see whether the photo data is sent to the server or whether the cert is generated client-side. And then there is this: https://github.com/bloombergmedia/whatiscode/
I can only see the top 3 boxes in the results. Opened the iframe in a new window (http://www.bbc.com/earth/bespoke/your-life/), which suggests there's more, but still not loading.
