Slashdot Mirror

The company has morhped already:

https://www.metro.us/news/the-...

They are really catching the discarded skin of the snake.

http://www.metro.us/games/quiz...

Please point the Nazis out on that political spectrum, my understanding was that Nazi was supposed to be the national socialists. Please show me how the Nazis were in any way conservative rather than socialistic. And no, racism isn't conservative, as that isn't part of any party's platform.

Maybe not.

You mean like this?

I like this one:

Woman Told She Could Not Hand Out Free Bottled Water In Summer Heat.

You mean like this?

Looking around, it turns out that there are many places that either already have some people starting occupations (no not jobs), or are planning some to add to Wall St. A list of hashtags are popping up, and at least one protest is being planned in Boston.
It looks like this could be something gaining some steam... whether or not it continues to the point of influence is another question.

Don't you yank peoples have an equivalent of the metro? A paper that knows what it's worth?

Yes, it's called (wait for it) Metro.

I don't see anthropogenic global warming as a condemnation of civilization.

That humans — especially the wealthy humans — are destroying the planet with their consumption is explicit in many "save the Earth" pieces, and implied in nearly all of them. I'm going to believe here, that you aren't feigning your ignorance of this wide-spread opinion and give you some examples...

This recent video attempts to instill guilt in people flying by showing bloodied polar bears falling from the sky. Each passenger, we are told, causes the amount of CO2, that's a weight of a polar bear. It is implied (with plausible deniability, of course, because the idiotic connection would only work on a weaker mind), that each passenger is thus responsible for a dead polar bear... Every time.

For another example, here is criticism of Ford's recent ad, that shows Ford's SUV among polar bears. The critic states, the ad "might upset a few people". Now, it might not be upsetting to you, but it is evidence, that large number of people consider SUVs a crime against nature.

Violent assholes from Earth Liberation Front will happily burn a business to stop it from "destroying the environment". The threat is not theoretical: "If you build it, we will burn it." The ideology has many sympathizers and represents the number one terrorist threat in the US.

More examples exist, of course... I hope, you will be able to find them yourself now.

Now I see why the deniers are so hot and bothered.

I don't think, it is fair to label us "deniers". The burden of proof ought to be on those, who want to make civilization change its ways. For over a decade, we were told "the science is settled" — that not only does global warming exist, there is a significant anthropogenic contribution to it, which ought to be stopped.

Thanks to this whistle-blower (or a hacker, or whoever), we learned, that the consensus in this case achieved in a Marxist manner: through elimination of dissent. We read these "scientists" discussing boycotts against peer-reviewed journals to prevent publishing works of "sceptics". All so that the foot-soldiers on forums such as this one could continue to claim, that "no peer-reviewed journal published anything by this guy, so he must be a fringe lunatic."

We also read, how frustrated they became, faced with the actually lowering temperatures, which their computer models failed to predict. Where I'm from, a scientific theory, that fails to predict what's observed in life, is discarded. But, I guess, these guys stood to lose too much government funding, so they "massaged" their data until they got the pre-determined result.

The answer to AGW will be a combination of adapting ourselves to inevitable changes

Every proposed answer to AGW (which might not even exist) involves large tax increases and increased government control over citizens' lives. The Big Brother watching is Ok, because it is for "a greener planet" (the modern era's "Greater Good" (TM)). Scratch any advocate of AGW, and you'll find a Che Guevara T-shirt underneath... That alone ought to turn a reasonable human being into a "denier".

Although voluntary for now, starting 2017, Columbia University plans to have a compost bin in every dorm room. I sure hope, my daughter is not forced to live like that, when she goes to college, over junk science

A few suspect emails do not destroy millions of man hours of research.

The Humanity in general and the Western civilization in particular were on trial. We are accused of "destroying Gaia" and facing the punishment of huge fines and severe drop in the quality of life (such as living with worms composting our garbage).

So, guess what? When, suddenly, thanks to a whistle-blower (whom the prominent Illiberals in Congress want prosecuted, BTW), we learn of the massive prosecutorial misconduct (some of it, such as deleting files after receiving Freedom of Information requests, outright criminal), that affects a substantial amount of evidence against us, we move for the "court" to dismiss the entire case.

Those "millions of man hours" are now tainted.

The motivations are different. Whereas the Republicans are instinctively against any regulation — even if they overcome that initial reaction often, the Democrats believe, a good Government regulation is the best solution to any problem.

So Republicans were opposing "Net Neutrality" because it is a regulation. These Democrats oppose it, because it does not fit their goals.

In addition to the "concerns for minorities" (the equivalent of Republican's "think of the children"!), it should be noted, that "Net Neutrality" will also impede implementation of the "Fairness Doctrine" online. And they will come to that right after imposing the said doctrine on the airwaves — the same people, who want to shut up Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh (1st Amendment be damned), can't be happy about Drudge's selection of headlines...

Oh, and if you think, the doctrine is abandoned, think again. The above link is dated June 28, 2007. But the same text was just republished as on op-ed word-to-word by a free daily newspaper on October the 14th, 2009. The author didn't even bother adjusting the wording, which — two years later — still refers to some events as "recent". Maybe, the professor is just cheating on the newspaper to augment his Columbia salary. More likely, this is the sign, the Left are giving up on trying to establish their own talk-shows, and want to use laws against the speech they don't like...

To put that another way, you know what would really stop terrorists from hijacking an airplane? Hundreds of well-armed passengers. And no, a bullet hole will not decompress an aircraft.

Yeah I would feel much safer with that drunk jerk behind me packing heat. And when you get delayed on the tarmac for 6 hours I am sure he won't take out his frustration on the staff. It isn't like they already have to land planes to drag off people who freak out...

Lets look at some gun stats - http://www.metro.us/us/article/2009/06/16/03/5431-82/index.xml Looks like big pro-gun southern states see 300-500% more gun related deaths than states with strong gun control like Massachusetts. Problem with giving everyone guns is that obnoxious bully or mentally damaged teen also want guns, and when one person fires or misfires do you think grandma will keep her cool and not accidentally shoot the guy who stands up to look around pulling his own gun out? As a cope I wouldn't want to enter a plin with a couple hundred panicked gun toting passengers.

The last thing they need is a pitched gun battle with 30-40 people on a plane all trying to help by shooting at that other guy who must be a bad guy, I mean everyone can spot an Afghan/Saudi. No one will mistake that darkskinned guy, or jewish lady. No one will shoot that Arabic dude "just in case". Hell, only half of Americans know who was involved in 9/11 attacks and most of them couldn't identify a Saudi Arabian on sight.

Anyone Jewish, Arabic, Dark-skinned, would be an "obvious" threat. And it isn't like that bullet will go through multiple chairs and people before stopping... http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/theboxotruth.htm I mean their tests only went through a dozen plywood walls and its not like anyone would miss while panicked and shooting at a human for the first time.

*shakes head* Keep the guns off the plane. Carrying in public is asking for trouble... People may panick when they see you packing heat, and if something does happen the right response is almost always to not use the gun. Yet that wasn't your first justification for bringing one, was it? It was to use in case of an attack , not as a deterrent. And hundreds of people shooting towards the cockpit won't cause any issues, right? I mean avionic electronics are not sensitive machines with wires running all over the plane... /end rant

It's impossible to accurately give a price to what it costs to publish a magazine without knowing how much ad revenue you get from it and how many subscribers it has. For example Metro is an international five-times-a-week newspaper that prints in 4 colors. They were obviously entirely ad-supported, but at least aesthetically they were pretty high quality.

Periodicals like to almost give subscriptions away because it means they can increase their subscriber (guaranteed) reader base and charge more for ads.