Slashdot Mirror

On what basis do you think the various carbon sinks are acting in an inconsistent way? I've never seen any evidence of that. The documented increase of carbon in the various carbon sinks matches well with the human contribution of carbon to the cycle.

Exactly what you said - increases of carbon sinks match human contributions.

The trick is, human contributions are dynamic - they change unpredictably all the time. It's surprising to see carbon *sinks* track that essentially in real time.

If a carbon sink always took 100gt/year, that would be consistent. I wouldn't expect the next year to be 200gt/year.

Or, if a carbon sink took 100gt/year, then the next year took in 110gt/year, then the next year took in 120gt/year, and so forth, that would at least seem consistent, driven by some other factor.

When a carbon sink takes in 100gt/year if humans emit 100gt that year, but then take in 200gt/year when humans emit 200gt that year, and then go back down to 150gt/year when humans emit 150gt that year - well that's just plain freaky. It's almost as if you have a system that doesn't care how much you put in, it will react to it precisely.

Even more puzzling is that CO2 continues on a gentle, consistent rise, despite human variation in emissions. If humans really drove it, you would think you would see plateaus during recessions when our CO2 emissions level off, and an acceleration during massive expansions of industry. But we don't:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/e...

http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...

Now, note, I'm not arguing humans have zero effect here - but all evidence makes it look like any effect we have is negligible - maybe 1-4% tops.

Snopes, politifact and factcheck are all DNC shill sites.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06...

Snopes' main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that - oddly enough - is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes as much as anything else.

While at Inquisitr, the future "fact-checker" consistently displayed clear partisanship (RELATED: Snopes Caught Lying About Lack Of American Flags At Democratic Convention)

She described herself as "openly left-leaning" and a liberal. She trashed the Tea Party as "teahadists." She called Bill Clinton "one of our greatest" presidents. She claimed that conservatives only criticized Lena Dunham's comparison of voting to sex because they "fear female agency."

She once wrote: "Like many GOP ideas about the poor, the panic about using food stamps for alcohol, pornography or guns seems to have been cut from whole cloth-or more likely, the ideas many have about the fantasy of poverty." (A simple fact-check would show that food stamp fraud does occur and costs taxpayers tens of millions.)

Lacapria even accused the Bush administration of being "at least guilty of criminal negligience" in the September 11 attacks. (The future "fact-checker" offered no evidence to support her accusation.)

https://www.usnews.com/opinion...

Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP."

http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...

If you look behind the scenes at these phony "fact check" sites, you find that they are funded by organizations with political biases. You must always ask yourself. Who is writing about this so-called "truth." Who funds the site and pays their expenses. What are the origins and history of the funders and who are they associated with. In the case of factcheck.org they receive their funding from the liberal Annenberg Foundation.

The Annenberg Foundation was originally founded by Walter J. Annenberg, a conservative who supported Ronald Reagan. However, when Walter Annenberg died, his family took over the management of the foundation and it took a turn to the far left and has ties to radical left individuals such as Bill Ayers and his friend and fellow left wing radical collegue Barack Obama. How is factcheck.org associated with these people:

To start, Ayers was the key founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a Chicago public school reform project from 1995 to 2001. Upon its start in 1995, Obama was appointed Board Chairman and President of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Geesh, that alone connects all three. Well, it branches out even more from there.

Ayers co-chaired the organization's Collaborative, which set the education policies of the Challenge. Oddly enough, Obama was the one who was authorized to delegate to the Collaborative in regards to its programs and projects. In addition to that, Obama often times had to seek advice and assistance from the Ayer's led Collaborative in regards to the programmatic aspects of grant proposals. Ayers even sat on the same board as Obama as an "ex officio member". They both also sat together on

Are you talking about socialism? Yes that has been a utter disaster every time it's tried.
From about 1990 to about 2005 Somalia had no government and life improved for them:
http://www.peterleeson.com/Bet...

Without government holding them down people can buy guns and defend against bandits and maffia just fine.
Note that the countries with the most crime have the most intrusive and anti-freedom governments.
Yes we had rulers before, like kings, they're no better, just another form of having rulers.
The problem with government is that they have the right to initiate violence against peaceful people, same applies to a king.

Yes some people are very bad, are you saying the political process selects the good people?
The last US election just had the worst two possible options in their history, the political process seduces the worst criminals to seek power.

Yes, the recent church shooting is the perfect example of why good people need to have guns.
1. The guy was able to murder 26 people (not 46) because none of them had a gun, it was a gun free zone.
2. Gun free zones only affect good people, the bad people will still have guns when they want to do bad things.
3. According to gun regulations the guy should not have been allowed to buy a gun on three accounts. So your solution has been tried and it failed utterly. The government can't do anything good, that's the fairy tale people like you believe in.
4. Even though government is such an abysmal failure you want to entrust it with your safety. Even though far more people die in mass shootings where they can keep going until the police stop them compared to when a citizen stops them: http://www.freerepublic.com/fo....
More reasons:
5. Kids used to bring their guns to school for shooting practice, no school shootings then.
6. Regular crime also gets worse when people aren't allowed to defend themselves, here are the stats specifically for murder in the UK, where they have almost no guns: https://crimeresearch.org/2013...
7. The lie on the australian gun buyback program is that things first got worse and then after they de-regulated guns a bit, and people got more guns, things got better again https://crimeresearch.org/wp-c...
8. States in the US have a relative high amount of freedom and have a wide variety of gun regulations. This allows different solutions to gun regulation to be tried out. And it hasn't worked, note that you never hear democrats talk about the stats on gun regulation. Even they know such a lie would be too blatant. In the US there is a strong correlation between gun ownership and crime, that's why the Democrats only argument is emotional.
9. Mass shooters shoot themselves when they're being shot at by cops or citizens. If you're going to wait until they're done murdering, you're going to be waiting a very long time.

Ha, so that 'miracle' played itself out quite a bit when the Pilgrims tried building their Communism and then almost died from hunger because that's what Communism (any collectivism actually) does, it removes personal responsibility together with personal ownership and then everybody suffers. It wasn't until the people become selfish that USA succeeded.

some articles on the matter.

Bill Clinton feared the open internet in 1995

http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...

> Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news
> would be consumed, President Bill Clinton's White House feared
> that the Internet was allowing average citizens, especially conservatives,
> to bypass legacy gatekeepers and access information that had
> previously been denied to them by the mainstream press.

Hillary Clinton whining about an internet "Without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function"

http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...

Apparently CNN (Clinton News Network) wasn't winning the battle for hearts and minds, so the Democrats wanted to destroy Breitbart website... Hillary Campaign Vows To Destroy Opposition Website
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08...

There are major differences between the parties. Trouble is, the left does what the left does. They start with newspapers, teaching, Well here it is -

http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...

Just think of how much of that is already done. Part of that is making people think they are the same thing. Towards that end we have "Republicans" that are Republicans in name only - a RINO. We know who they are, Susan Collins, John McCain that you are probably familiar with. The Democrats go from good guys to just outright flaming crazy. Maxine Waters comes to mind, Nancy Peleosi. They get so mad that sometimes they think George Bush is still president -

She's second up. Watch the people behind her .. they're like HUH?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I'm sure she's told what to say by a handler.

I could bring up the UK Parliament. House of commons... they're common alright. Look at how they're re-arranging the deck chairs with migrants that have absolutely no interest in the UK continuing. They are there to take over without firing a shot.

I hope things are better where you are.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...

> Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news would be consumed,
> President Bill Clinton's White House feared that the Internet was allowing average
> citizens, especially conservatives, to bypass legacy gatekeepers and access
> information that had previously been denied to them by the mainstream press.
>
> The infamous 1995 "conspiracy commerce memo" tried to demonize and discredit alternative
> media outlets on the right to mainstream media organizations and D.C. establishment figures.

President Kennedy made Bill Clinton look like a saint. He was fucking women all over the place, e.g. Marilyn Monroe. But there was no internet back in the early 1960's, and the MSM lapdogs were all protective of a Democrat president. Compare that with Bill Clinton in 1998. The MSM were still protecting their Democrat president. But there was now a thing called "the internet" or "the web". Along came a lowly store clerk (Matt Drudge) with a modem

http://australianpolitics.com/...

> Web Posted: 01/17/98 23:32:47 PST -- NEWSWEEK KILLS STORY ON WHITE HOUSE INTERN
>
> BLOCKBUSTER REPORT: 23-YEAR OLD, FORMER WHITE HOUSE INTERN, SEX RELATIONSHIP WITH PRESIDENT
>
> **World Exclusive**
> **Must Credit the DRUDGE REPORT**
>
> At the last minute, at 6 p.m. on Saturday evening, NEWSWEEK magazine
> killed a story that was destined to shake official Washington to its foundation: A White House
> intern carried on a sexual affair with the President of the United States!

Hillary Clinton's response was to lament the lack of "internet gatekeepers". http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...

"At least we didn't cozy up to the religious right, spawn the TEA partiers, and elect a cheeto."

So instead of cozying up to the religious right (the group of people who founded, and fought and died to create the country that you live in and benefit from http://www.freerepublic.com/fo... ), spawned the Tea party (a grass roots set of peaceful organizations fed up with Washington politics and liberal overreach who left their protest and event grounds cleaner than when they arrive http://www.thegatewaypundit.co... ) and elected president Trump (the only non-politician citizen running for the office this last election cycle). Instead of doing all that, which you somehow think is horrendous, the left spawned:

-The sometimes violent/rapist Occupy movement that caused mass disruptions and cost large cities millions of dollars to clean up after http://www.nydailynews.com/new...
-The violent, rioting, police and law and order hating, racist Black Lives Matter group who were founded on a lie in Fergusun http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfro... went on to inspire a man to mass murder police officers in Dallas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and generally hate law enforcement http://dailycaller.com/2015/08...
-The left has spawned violent riots over conservative speakers http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/...
-The left has disrupted and shouted down conservatives and their events and violently attacked Trump supporters. http://www.theblaze.com/news/2...

There seems to be a large contingent of rabid fascists on the left and an even larger cross section of lefies who are so secure in their moral superiority that reality cannot intrude. The fascist left had better tone it down or they may end up facing the national guard and lead bullets the next time they try to violently assault someone else's freedom to assemble/speak. The rest of the left had better start paying more attention to reality and pull their heads out of their collective echo chamber (or their asses, I can never tell which is which with them).

Based on this comparison, I will take the conservative approach any day of the week and twice on Sunday. You should focus less on name calling and more on staying abreast of actual actions committed by these groups, both left and right.

Do your research, don't simply tell other people that I am wrong without CHECKING. You want proof? Here:

1) Sex criminals less likely (do a simple google search):
http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...
https://www.scientificamerican...
And many others.

2) If you do any of the following, it is a sex crime and most people will not consider you a 'pervert'.
a) Get caught peeing in public (arrested for exposure)
b) Being 21 and have sex with a woman that SAID she was 18, but was 15, (we all know how women never lie about their age).,
c) Get drunk and have sex with a woman that is asleep. Congratulations, you are now a date rapist. But almost no one I know would consider you a pervert. If you are one, so is half the college students.

3) Sex crimes are INCREDIBALY subjectively prosecuted. Much more so than regular crime. Mainly because sex crimes are all about motive and mentality. It's a crime that occures in the mind, where everything is subjective.

Have naked pictures of your 5 year old child a bath tub? If you convince the prosecutor they are 'innocent' you have no trouble. If the prosecutor believes the pictures are 'lascivious', you go to jail.

> Actually its ABC's fault.
>
> Back when Clinton was president, the story about Monica was given
> to ABC 3 times over a 8 month period. They buried it every time they
> got it. There is no telling how many stories the "big 3" buried.

Add Newsweek to the list. http://australianpolitics.com/...

> At the last minute, at 6 p.m. on Saturday evening, NEWSWEEK magazine killed a
> story that was destined to shake official Washington to its foundation: A White
> House intern carried on a sexual affair with the President of the United States!
>
> The DRUDGE REPORT has learned that reporter Michael Isikoff developed the story of
> his career, only to have it spiked by top NEWSWEEK suits hours before publication.

By the way, the crying about "Fake News" by the lib-left elite is not new. It's been going on for over 2 decades already. http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...

> Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news would be
> consumed, President Bill Clinton's White House feared that the Internet was
> allowing average citizens, especially conservatives, to bypass legacy gatekeepers and
> access information that had previously been denied to them by the mainstream press.
>
> The infamous 1995 "conspiracy commerce memo" tried to demonize and discredit alternative
> media outlets on the right to mainstream media organizations and D.C. establishment figures.

When the Lewinsky scandal broke in 1998, the Clintons denied-denied-denied. Hillary Clinton even said that internet news needs a "rethink", and bemoaned the lack of "gatekeepers" whatever that means. http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...

And when she was running in 2016, her campaign sent out a newsletter saying that the Breitbart website did not have a right to exist. And it also suggested that if Hillary was elected, Breitbart would be shut down.http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/18/hillary-campaign-vows-to-destroy-opposition-website/

TLDR; The lib-left has controlled news for a long time via their media lapdogs. Thanks to the internet, anybody with an internet connection can break a story that the lib-left wants to bury. Do not expect the lib-left to go down without a fight. The next Democrat president, 4, 8, or however many years from now will rush in internet censorship ASAP. It may be under the guise of stopping "Fake News" or "Hate Speech" or whatever excuse, but underneath, it'll be the lib-left censoring conservatives.

They're pissed off because their near-monopoly of the lib-left newspapers, CNN (Clinton News Network), MSNBC (Most Socialist Network on Basic Cable), etc was easily bypassed. That's what cost Hillary the election.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...

> Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news would be
> consumed, President Bill Clinton's White House feared that the Internet was allowing
> average citizens, especially conservatives, to bypass legacy gatekeepers and
> access information that had previously been denied to them by the mainstream press.

http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...
3 years later, it happened. One of the "legacy gatekeepers", Newsweek was considering doing a story breaking the Clinton-Lewinski scandal. But management killed the story. Instead a lowly store clerk with a modem broke the story... you've heard of Matt Drudge http://www.drudgereport.com/ Hillary clinton's reaction was to whine about the lack of "gatekeepers".

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08...
What would've happened if Hillary had won?
> Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign has sent out a fundraising
> email arguing the website Breitbart News has no "right to exist,"
> and suggests that if elected, the website will be shut down entirely.

Back in 1995 the Bill Clinton White House was already scared shitless of the net... http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...

> Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news would be
> consumed, President Bill Clintonâ(TM)s White House feared that the Internet was
> allowing average citizens, especially conservatives, to bypass legacy gatekeepers
> and access information that had previously been denied to them by the mainstream press.

Before the internet, the lib-left elite controlled news. Embarressing stories were hushed up. E.g. President Kennedy was screwing more women than Bill Clinton could dream of, but the MSM kept quiet. Similarly, Newsweek refused to publish the Monica Lewinsky scandal story. But an impertinent upstart with a modem and a web site, Matt Drudge, broke the story.

Hillary Clinton was unhappy, and mused about "editing function" and "gatekeeping function"
http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...

Democrats/Lib-Left don't like free speech. Think Russia, China, Germany, etc. During the recent campaign, the Democrats were openly talking about shutting down Breitbart after the election... http://dailycaller.com/2016/08...

> "We've had a conservative media in this country for a while," says the email, sent
> Thursday and signed by deputy communications director Christina Reynolds.
>"I don't always like what they have to say, but I respect their role and their right
> to exist Reynolds' acknowledgment that the regular conservative media
> has a "right to exist," though, is used to contrast it with Breitbart, which
> apparently has no such right. "Breitbart is something different," she says.
> "They make Fox News look like a Democratic Party pamphlet. "

It's the lack of Internet.

I was curious about these 'fake news' sites and started reading a few. They loaded fast I looked at the source code and it looks like I could have written it by hand. These pages are optimized for people that lack access to broadband. FreeRepublic is a bare bones site. This is what a forum post looks like. I spent a few minutes trying to figure out if an ad blocker had taken out some obnoxious ad or something.

I know it may be difficult to understand for those in cities but we have shit internet out here. Even at 25/3 my wife complains about how slow some shopping sites load. Gone are the days of being able to surf the web on dialup.

Unfortunately that's what some people are stuck with. I moved 2 years ago and started attending the local town hall meetings, 'broadband meetings' and doing what ever I could to improve the internet in my rural part of the US. A lot of townships are on dialup, some have cable, some have DSL. In households earning less than $34k/year that have K-12 kids 50% have internet. I live in what I consider a fairly 'normal' area. I don't even want to guess what internet adoption looks like in more rural parts of the US. [And for those in ivory towers wondering what we mean when we say 'we feel left behind' this is part of it.]

These 'fake' news sites are likely the only 'news' sites that some of these people can access. And when they post material that they agree with it just amplifies the echo chamber. Huffington Post's front page weighed in at 7 MB. Even if there are people that might be on the fence and want to go out research other opinions they often can't. They flat out physically have no way to get other information.

If any hard core liberals really want to get back at Trump supporters run Fiber out to everywhere. It's easy to mock someone as ignorant when they have literally no way of learning any better.

That said, where the hell are the web page benchmarking tools? I've been using https://pageweight.imgix.com/ but I can't automate that. My interest is piqued and I really want to do a statistical difference between "liberal" and "conservative" (and "real" and "fake") news sites.

People said they were terrified for Obama's safety 8 years ago... Most of the people with guns like this guy a lot better. :)

Guns don't kill presidents, Democrats do.

http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...

1) Bill Clinton...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...

> Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news would be
> consumed, President Bill Clinton's White House feared that the Internet was
> allowing average citizens, especially conservatives, to bypass legacy gatekeepers and
> access information that had previously been denied to them by the mainstream press.

2) Hillary Clinton...

http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...

> "We are all going to have to rethink how we deal with this, because there are
> all these competing values ... Without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping
> function, what does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation?" she said.

"Gatekeeping" mentioned in both articles above. And while we're at it, the Democrats claim that Breitbart dot com doesn't have a right to exist...

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08...

> Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign has sent out a fundraising
> email arguing the website Breitbart News has no "right to exist,"
> and suggests that if elected, the website will be shut down entirely.

> CONSPIRACY THEORIES??
>
> [insert meme of "Aliens!" here]
>
> Has anyone thought about this act being caused by a
> "government agency" that has something to prove?

Take your pick...

1) DHS setting up for another power-grab

2) US government setting up to claim that [insert country name here] has CWMD ("Cyber Weapons of Mass Destruction") as a pretext for an invasion/war.

3) Democrats/lib-left-elite who are scared shitless of the free flow of information on the internet.
A) http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...
>Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news would be consumed,
> President Bill Clinton's White House feared that the Internet was allowing average
> citizens, especially conservatives, to bypass legacy gatekeepers and access information
> that had previously been denied to them by the mainstream press.

B) In the 1950's and the 1960's, JFK was f***ing women all over the place. President Bill Clinton was a saint in comparison. The lib-left elite needed only a few names/numbers in their rolodex, and any inconvenient stories were squashed. In a similar manner Newsweek killed the Lewinsky scandal story. Unfortunately for Bill Clinton, a lowly store clerk by the name of Matt Drudge didn't play lapdog to the elite... http://www.drudgereportarchive...
Hillary Clinton (yes, *THAT* Hillary Clinton) responded by whining about the lack of any "gatekeeping function" on the internet http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...

C) Notice that I quoted Breitbart.com? The lib-left is extremely pissed at the site. So much so that...
> Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign has sent out a fundraising
> email arguing the website Breitbart News has no "right to exist,"
> and suggests that if elected, the website will be shut down entirely.

  http://dailycaller.com/2016/08...

The lib-left elite would really rather have a gatekeeper-controlled internet. But that would be too obvious. So they'll settle for "random DDOS attacks. Only companies with big budgets would be able to afford the neccessary infrastructure to stay up against a DDOS attack.

> Considering the fact that the head of Google is the CTO of the Clinton campaign should
> not make this surprising to anyone, but between this and Google manipulating
> search results to aid Clinton they are about as fair and balanced as Jezebel or Twitter.

This is the same Clinton campaign that says Breitbart doesn't have a right to exist. http://dailycaller.com/2016/08... And don't forget that back in 1998, Hillary was whing about lack of "Internet Gatekeepers" http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...
> Hillary Rodham Clinton said IN 1998 during a meeting with reporters said
> that "we are all going to have to rethink how we deal with" the Internet
> because of the handling of White House sex scandal stories on Web sites.
>
> Clinton was asked whether she favored curbs on the Internet, after the
> DRUDGE REPORT made headlines with coverage of her husband's affair
> with a White House intern. "We are all going to have to rethink how we deal
> with this, because there are all these competing values ... Without any
> kind of editing function or gatekeeping function, what does it mean to have
> the right to defend your reputation?" she said.

Back in "the good old days before the internet", the elite controlled the MSM (Main Stream Media), and they still do. JFK was screwing every woman in sight, Bill Clinton was a saint in comparison. But the media kept quiet about it, and people didn't know. In 1998, the obedient lapdogs at Newsweek killed the Monica Lewinsky story article. But a virtually unknown store clerk, name of Matt Drudge, blew it wide open. The rest is history.

Actually, the Bill Clinton administration feared this in 1995. http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...

> The infamous 1995 "conspiracy commerce memo" tried to demonize and discredit alternative
> media outlets on the right to mainstream media organizations and D.C. establishment figures.
>
> The memo notes that the "Internet has become one of the major and most dynamic
> modes of communication" and "can link people, groups and organizations together instantly."
>
> "Moreover, it allows an extraordinary amount of unregulated data and information to be
> located in one area and available to all," the memo states.

The elite are scared of the open internet, because it bypasses the MSM, and the elite can no longer supress the truth. People coming together and sharing "unregulated data and information" means that controlling the MSM is not enough. Watch the elite try to destroy the internet in the coming years.

In "the good ole days before the internet", the MSM (Main Stream Media) controlled the news. The government needed a dozen people on their rolodex, and embarressing stories could be shut down. E.g. John F Kennedy was screwing women all over the place, and Bill Clinton would almost be a saint in comparison. But the MSM kept quiet, and it wasn't until much later that JFK's philandering became known.

Bill Clinton realized by 1995, that the internet had the potential to democratize the news and bypass the gatekeepers. "Moreover, it allows an extraordinary amount of unregulated data and information to be located in one area and available to all," http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...

In 1998, his worst fears came true. Clinton's MSM buddies at Newsweek spiked (i.e. killed) a bombshell of a story about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. But a lowly store clerk with a modem (i.e. Matt Drudge) published the story on his site. Hillary was whining about there not being any "gatekeepers" on the internet http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...

Fast-forward to the current election campaign, and the Democrats are openly talking about shutting down the Breitbart website http://dailycaller.com/2016/08...

Do you really want Hillary in charge?

A long time ago, a man named Randy Weaver barricaded himself in his remote Northern Idaho cabin against federal agents, who wanted him to infiltrate the Aryan Nations. Weaver had refused, fearing that the Aryan Nations knew he was not a white supremacist and would kill him.

The siege was widely reported in the news media at the time. Police of all stripe described Mr. Weaver as a white supremacist, racist, and all sorts of other names. In reality, Mr. Weaver was opposed to white supremacy and its movement.

During the siege, a helicopter carrying a large object was seen flying towards the cabin. But here's the actual quote from the time:

Mr. Gritz said that he and a local real estate agent were in the area near the cabin. They saw a helicopter approach with a large object hanging from the helicopter -- like one of the fire-fighting helicopters.

Both men were out in the open and Mr. Gritz was sure that they were spotted by the men aboard the helicopter. The helicopter changed direction and left the area.

Mr. Gritz suggested that just possibly the Weaver cabin was about to have a fire -- I can spectulate how it would have been reported -- "White supremacist kills wife, children, and self with arsenal of napalm bombs and flamethrowers! Federal agents look on in horror, wait for rest of arsenal to explode."

I personally remember Mr. Gritz being interviewed at the time on camera by someone famous (perhaps it was Morely Safer), and my memory of his verbal account matches the one quoted above.

I'm uncomfortable with this "turn off all social media" sort of action, because it also turns off the victim's ability to call for help, give their side of the story, and perhaps prevent law enforcement from telling a one-sided narrative.

We've recently seen how law enforcement's version of events don't track with video camera footage of events.

I'm very much in favor of keeping all channels of information open.

It keeps both sides honest.

(*) Weaver was later awarded 3.1 million dollars for the death of his son and wife, and the government admitted no guilt in the matter.

The only actually *REAL* controversy that exist among scientific is about the minute details of interpretation (like the exact expected decimals at the end of the predicted number), not about the broad existence of climate change.

Ah, thanks for clarifying. So it is now Ok, in your opinion, to imprison the remaining deniers and to erase (or otherwise keep inaccessible) the raw data, that has once lead our betters to these universally-accepted conclusions?

Or do you still agree, criminal prosecution of dissenters (however unreasonable they may be themselves) is wrong and unavailability of the data — suspicious?

Please, confirm. Thank you!

Now, boffins from Sweden and the UK have cast doubt on the quality of the science

Is not it great, that such Scientific scepticism remains legal and the raw data remains available for anyone trying to replicate the earlier findings of others?

I doubt that you're actually familiar with the principles upon which the US was founded; if you were, you probably wouldn't be touting them. You can review them here. Warning: there are a lot of references to God and Religion. The Founders were also strong supporters of property rights. As far as unregulated migration is concerned, I believe the applicable principle is, "A free people should be governed by law and not by the whims of men." You know, like the laws against unregulated migration.

Gord Thomson, a teacher from Campbellford, back in 1995. http://www.freerepublic.com/fo... http://www.drivers.com/article...

Your post gave me PTSD, you should be banned.

You laugh, but that crazy bitch Melody Hensley claims she got PTSD from twitter after she received some spirited criticism for some of her stupider comments.

She also tried to get some active duty military folks fired for daring to suggest that she might not actually have PTSD.

of course they are:

"the terrorist in chief is already bringing him to the white house. after that he'll introduce him to his terrorist buddies"
http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...

"It's a PR conspiracy between the White House and the CAIR"
also note that while the article admits its a stupid incident on the public officials' parts, but the readers/commenters have already jumped to "CAIR/Obama put the kid up to it, and the town fell for the trap"
http://www.redstate.com/2015/0...

In the 1930s in California, the term (often used in contempt) came to refer to very poor migrants from Oklahoma (and nearby states). The Dust Bowl, and the "Okie" migration of the 1930s brought in over a million newly displaced people; many headed to the farm labor jobs advertised in California's Central Valley.

This section is unreferenced as well. Moving on, I since found a rival article which states the following while discussing "Steinbeck's myth":

It should be emphasized, however, that the received story of the great Okie Exodus was not entirely an invention. Instead of Steinbeckâ(TM)s 300,000, there were actually about 90,000 agricultural workers fitting the Okie category who migrated to and settled in Californian farming valleys in the 1930s.

There would have been other immigrants, working outside of the agricultural sector, but it does indicate the level was substantially less than a million people over this time span.

Further, most of the US Midwest wasn't actually affected directly by the dust storms. I gather the Dust Bowl was on the western side of the US Midwest while most of the immigrants to California would have been from outside that region.

It was six months before 9/11 and actually the World Trade Center:

The Sept. 11 Parallel "Nobody Noticed" ("Lone Gunmen" Pilot Episode Video)
http://www.freerepublic.com/fo... :

Six months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks -- March 4, 2001, to be exact -- Gunmen premiered with an episode featuring a terrorist plot to fly a commercial airliner into the World Trade Center. The climactic sequence actually shows the plane heading into one of the Twin Towers, but at the last minute, it's pulled upward and just misses the building.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... :

Similar to theories posited about the events of 9/11, the episode's plot indicates that the hijacking was committed as an act of voracity by a greedy American arms manufacturer to ultimately increase its weapons sales by invoking U.S. retaliation against a scapegoated anti-American extremist dictator.

Fuzz, I'm surprised you never heard of this...

I'm *very* well aware that for a Naval aircraft, the second engine is a required feature.
That fact is why the engines are spaced so far apart on the late, great F-14. They are so far apart because the designers wanted to increase the likelihood that the other engine would survive if the aircraft were hit ( or if an engine tore itself apart, possibly due to battle damage ) It was important enough that they lived with the fact that being so far apart would tend to put the aircraft in a spin if one did go out ( as made famous in TopGun ).

My comment was that for general export sales to non Naval customers that second engine is *not* a sales feature. See my other post, the F-18 is heavier, will likely have higher operating costs, and is more expensive. For an air force flying from traditional land bases, as most export countries would be, the F-16 is the better choice. You can just about buy two F-16's for the cost of an F-18.
For a country looking to buy aircraft for their aircraft carriers, the F-18 would be the only choice between the two, even a "navalized" F-16 would lack the very important in that scenario second engine.

For an aircraft that is supposed to command the entire Pacific, I would actually want a more capable aircraft than the F-18. The F-18 is less expensive operationally than the F-14 was, and is aerodynamically better, but it does not have the range or payload ( during some missions against Afghanistan, the F-18 could not haul bombs to the distance the F-14 was able to. So, they put the bombs on the fighter ( the F-14 ), and had the attack aircraft ( the F/A-18 ) fly cover.
http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...

"Where is this "well regulated Militia"

They're in the woods in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Michigan when it's in season to kill Bambi. All totaled, more than 2 million. The worlds biggest Militia, cold, hung-over or drunk that has a minimal amount of "friendly kills".

http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...

As someone said the technical FAQ is light on details, however they also link to this article from 2007 http://www.freerepublic.com/fo... which is how far back Hellwig's complaints about GPL violation go.

Based on that, it wasn't a case of whether VMware had included Linux code in their binaries, so much as they were distributing binaries which depended wholly on Linux to run but not GPLing them.

Well deer are really just giant stilted rats with their only real predator being something that has 4 or more wheels. Also would say deer are a problem because too many people think they are wonderful majestic creatures and feed the dumb things. You know your state has a problem when phrases like "urban deer herd" are used and one goes running through the state capitol building.

but anonymity also allows people to express themselves without exposing themselves to harassment.

...or worse ...and even worse.

The prediction market Intrade judged cold fusion to be replicated.

One might argue that because Intrade is a real-money prediction market, that it is less valid than Ideosphere.

However, what is going to happen to Ideosphere's reputation if it judges cold fusion to be false and, later, the NYT, WSJ, WashPo and the Secretary of Energy along with all of its national labs is saying it is true -- when a real money exchange had it right years before?

There was no fight for an enemy nation in Odessa. There were anti-Maidan protesters.

Who wanted to secede and join Russia.

Except that it was not even proven that it was Yanukovich who used the snipers. And he wasn't indiscriminately shelling civilians in western Ukraine either. I have a coworker from Ukraine, his extended family in Donetsk (a young woman with two children) was killed by Ukrainian artillery.

That's tragic but blame the people who started the war.

What invasion are you talking about? There is a civil war going on. Irregulars on one side, quickly legalized former irregulars on the other side. Ukraine would never stand a chance against an actual invasion from Russia. Compare that to the utterly professional and practically bloodless annexion of Crimea. And this is why Ukrainian army doesn't even try to do anything about that, they know they don't stand a chance. Shelling cities, on the other hand, is easy. Especially these in Eastern Ukraine - Galicians don't consider Eastern Ukrainians to be real Ukrainians, even though they themselves were ousted from Poland when ethnic Poles were thrown out of Western Ukraine after WW2. They don't even speak the same language - a mix of Ukrainian and Polish by the Galicians, Surzhik by Eastern Ukrainian.

Russia is promoting, recruiting, and supplying the rebels. Russian soldiers are shelling across the border. It's not official Russian troops in Ukraine but it's sure as hell a Russian invasion.

Svoboda was recognized as a neo-nazi party by basically every European country. And even though this party was in minority in the last elections, they suddenly have received a lot of interesting positions after Maidan because their armed thugs helped the coup. And what followed were banning oppositional parties, censorship of media and other nice things that typically follow after a fascist coup.

Everything except the fascism of course.

An invasion has to happen first. Then one regular army can fight another regular army.

Did you miss Crimea? The floods of Russians streaming across the border being equipped by the Russian government.

And you're still dodging the question. Tens of thousands of foreign fighters stream across your border, occupy your cities, and claim them as an independent state.

What do you do?

You still missed the point, sorry :)

What I was saying is that your premise - "if he crashes the economy his country is no longer a threat to the world" - is incorrect. For one thing, it's always tempting to "fix" the crashed economy by going to war. But even if it doesn't actually fix it, it can be that last "okay, if we're going down, you're going down with us" sort of gesture. Yes, a country with a ruined economy won't be able to wage a protracted war, but it doesn't need to do so to make others hurt, and the bombs and the missiles won't magically disappear. Nor will the manpower - and said manpower is only going to be more desperate and therefore (with the right coaching) more angry.

Now, as to why I believe that such a war would work to bolster inner popularity. The trick, of course, is to present it in such a manner that the war is declared on you. Russian TV has already been quite successful at spinning things that way about Ukraine - a recent poll showed that 94% of Russians get their news primarily from TV channels (all of which are now state-run or indirectly state-controlled), and 75% believe that its coverage is truthful and objective. Only 25% believe that "propaganda" is an apt description for what they're seeing.

So, really, all Putin needs to do to escalate to war is to keep provoking the West, and then blowing up any responses as something big. And heck, there are tried and proven methods to get a decent casus belli when the time comes - see Mainila incident for an example. After all the crazy conspiracy theories that are eagerly accepted for granted in Russia (by the population, not by politicians!) just to be able to preserve the "we are the good guys" mentality... something like that would be swallowed very easily.

And yes, the "patriotic" fervor in Russia today is such that, with the right sugar-coating, the population will happily swallow the war pill. If they are explained that all economic woes are due to Western shenanigans (and the occasional spy/saboteur - for the sake of some public circus).

Hell, they are already clamoring for war, seemingly more so than the government itself. Did you see #PutinVvediVoiska ("Putin, move the armed forces in!" [to Ukraine]) Twitter hashtag? It's only growing in popularity as more sanctions come in. Then there's another thing where people are mocking the sanctions themselves - that is also going pretty strong.

Also, East Ukraine is full of ethnic Russians, shocking, I know.

I wasn't talking about ethnicity.

Bullshit, There was all of no hesitation on the part of Kyiv, regarding beginning an offensive in Donetsk and Luhansk. There was no hesitation involved in the shelling of civilian areas.

Except the months it took to actually do it.

Hyperbole, and it's their choice that the people of Donetsk and Luhansk made themselves. Don't you find it even slightly hypocritical that you can cry 'fascist' on one hand, but on the other, completely suppress the idea that a referendum took place?

I just held another referendum in my livingroom and the people of Donetsk and Luhansk just voted 93.425% that you're full of BS.

The think I find hilarious is that there's manufactured "proof" of Russian artillery fire, and satellite images showing troop buildups that don't exist, but no satellite imagery showing Russia moving BUK systems into Donetsk (because let's face it, neither Russia nor the separatists have anything to gain by downing passenger liners), it makes no sense for Kyiv to have moved SAM systems into Donetsk as the separatists have no air support. How'd the BUK system get there? Are we pretending that Kyiv has nothing to gain from making it look like Russia is downing airliners, they're desperate.

Yeah, the idea of Russian artillery fire is ridiculous.

And you're ignoring the obvious that the separatists have been downing planes for weeks.

Police are boots on the street, and need to be more personal and empathetic. Their role is to keep everyone safe, even if that does occasionally mean keeping people safe from themselves and their own actions.

Sorry, but that's not true in the US. I agree that it SHOULD be their role, but cops are there to enforce the law, not to keep you, or anyone else, safe. http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...

• Boris Karpichkov was a KGB spy in the 80s, he moved to Britain and applied for asylum there in 1998
• Boris has a history of making the news with unfounded claims like this

Based on the limited google search I did, and this article sums nicely, it seems more like Russia was monitoring Snowden as early as 2007 and then this Boris guy made some pretty outlandish claims about the monitoring.

Did you see this one? http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...

OK, then maybe we should go the other extreme. Lets take Kennesaw, GA- http://www.freerepublic.com/fo... or http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/411...

Every head of household is required to own a gun. Their crime rates, including murder, are down across the board. Morton, IL that took the opposite route banned all Guns, and has had increased crime rates.

Then there is Switzerland, with the majority of households owning a gun. They have a murder rate of .7 (.52 for murder by guns).

So maybe the answer is to have everyone trained and own a gun. After all, everything is on the table.

Or maybe we should look into curing our social ills. Removing guns from law abiding citizens does not remove them from criminals and case studies show that it emboldens criminals. I agree, we need to do something, taking away guns is not the answer.

For people like me with a 35 year old car that's in perfect working order, this is awesome. Car thieves can't even figure out what the 5 pedals do let alone how to drive with them (.. for those going "5?", my model has the headlights down there for whatever reason)

So this will be another old-time-tech that will make my vehicle even more difficult for would-be thieves. Example - http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...

Sad indeed. But it's not my fault that Malaysia Airlines chose Facebook as their official channel. Here's a non-Facebook quote if that makes you feel any better, though I suspect all non-Facebook sources are second-hand sources who themselves copied from MA's official Facebook page.. http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...

The Nazi's were hardcore socialists that very much believed is socialistic ideals. The Nazi's were very zealous about their socialism and enforcing it. They used everything from price and wage controls to verdant support for trains for the masses. Hitler was an adamant anti-capitalist and used this to support his genocide of the jews. Labor unions were replaced by government controlled unions and shops and other business were routinely seized by the state.

You can read some translated propaganda here where the Nazi's explained why they embraced socialism. In their own words:

We are socialists; We are enemies, mortal enemies, of the present-day capitalist economic systemâ¦We are resolved to annihilate this system despite everything.

The Soviets took them seriously enough to form a treaty with the Nazi's in the time leading up to WW2 - something they weren't in the habit of doing with other nations. Industry was effectively owned by the government (even when in name someone else held the title) and German industrial companies were seized as government assets for repatriation at the end of the war.

By way of example Hitler saw the need for a cheap car for the masses and ordered Ferdinand Porsche to design the original beetle to his specifications (Hitlers original sketch is a Google search away). The result was the founding of the Volkswagen (people's car) for the express purpose of building an affordable car for the masses. At the end of the war the English got that bit and almost put Volkswagen out to pasture, leaving it be only because they thought the company was worthless.

http://jerryfisher.hubpages.co...

Strip away all the genocide and war crimes and your left with very socialist ideals.

Upcoming:

MS deletes Firefox, saying it was used to infect millions of computers.

Microsoft only deleted the install used as part of Sefnit. They didn't disable legitimate installs, and they're not out to squash your freedom.

Which does not prevent them from dumping extension garbage silently in Firefox. I forget if they do the same with Silverlight and .Net.
It seems they calmed down since 2010, but I still have or see it in some old systems, which we all know are going to stick around forever given Windows XP + Firefox's tag team.

Losing potential search hits due to Bing search redirects is probably why Chrome 25 introduced blocking of these silent extensions.

How many crimes were perpetrated with fully automatic machine guns?

Very few. The actual number is pretty close to none.

How many school killings were committed with one?

Also an incredibly small number.

How many people in the USA died at the wrong end of a fully automatic assault rifle?

So few that it is statistically insignificant. The exact number is less than 100

I'll tell you why there are so few deaths from fully automatic assault rifles: gun control works.

Really? There are about 100 million rifles in the US with AR15 "assault rifles" accounting for around 5 million of these. In 2012 rifles of any sort were used to kill 348 people. That means the percentage of rifles used in a murder is 0.000384%. More people were killed from hands and feet then were killed by rifles of any sort last year. And you are going to tell me that an assault weapon ban is anything but propaganda?

If you want to talk about gun control, handguns account for virtually all murders with a firearm. Worrying about any other type of firearm is simply a waste of time.

And socialist, at that... Naziism was hardly socialist, name notwithstanding.

You, uh... You might want to read up on the term National Socialism.

As for right-vs-left, I'll just leave this here. I don't agree with everything in that (fairly short) essay, but overall it makes a solid case for Nazis as left-wing extremists.

Every problem that the teabaggers bitch about from Obama was done first and in most cases best by Bush, but they didn't have a problem with it when their guy was doing it.

Ugh, you really are ignorant of history. The Tea Party started in direct response to TARP, a Bush program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2448895/posts

Your specific list of issues is moot, since none of those are even fiscal stances (which is the only thing the original Tea Party gave a damn about -- the "current co-opted Tea Party" on the other hand you might as well just call "Republicans")

If it lands on someone's head, would it not be, technically speaking, a homicide?

No, it would not be homicide; it would be ironic. As illustrated by Scott Adams (Dilbert Newsletter 49.0 @ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/972846/posts):

I've also learned recently that "ironic" means anything you want it to mean. Example:

Me: "I heard that Bob was killed by a meteor."

Induhvidual: "Wow. That's ironic."

Me: "Why is it ironic? Was he an astronomer?"

Induhvidual: "No, it's ironic because, you know, what are the odds?"

Me: "So anything unlikely is automatically ironic?"

Induhvidual: "No, it also needs to be bad."

Me: "This conversation is ironic."

Try asking anyone under 30 if they know what the phrase "Papers Please!" denotes

It's just two words... It's a lot of things.

It's when the Military place soldiers in a natural disaster area such as New Orleans after Katrina requiring you to show military ID or proof of government authorization, to avoid arrest, or having vehicles impounded

It's an attack onAmerican birthright citizenship

It's two words that succinctly describe America's dark future.

Personal and Professional Encounters with Surveillance

anti-state.com: May I See Your Papers Please?

It's what Mr. Hiibel of Nevada went to jail for refusing to comply with

It's what police do now to ordinary people minding their own business.

It's congress work on the REAL ID act

It's a name given to a section of an Arizona law upheld by the Supreme court.

It's the name of a complaint against changes the US is making starting this Fall 2013 to further restrict the free travel of Americans and greatly increase the difficulty of US citizens getting passports

It's the name of a dystopian video game about communist immigration control.

It's the name of an anti-TSA blog

It's a request you comply with when asked by the police; otherwise, you face immediate arrest.

• Texas 77 year old Grandmother arrested after refusing to show ID
• Police arrest for refusing to show ID while on private property
• Exhibit 1
• Exhibit 2: According to the Supreme Court, the police may arrest for failure to identify
• Arrested at Circuit City for refusing to show ID: "It all started when I refused to show my receipt to the loss prevention employee at Circuit City, and it ended when a police officer arrested me for refusing to provide my driver's license."
• I follow the blog of a guy who walked across the country (California to New York) last year. He was arrested in Greencastle, Indiana last summer, after a prison worker called the police to report him as a suspicious person after they exchanged words while he was walking past the prison complex.
• Florida Cops Tase man for refusing to show ID
• Refusal to show id in Georgia (arrest)
• Man in Arizona arrested for refusing to surrender firearm to officers who refused to show their own ID