Slashdot Mirror

I saw this article on the U.S. Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee website.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction= Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad -494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=

I get a chance to read a lot of articles while at work, and everyday a few studies come out saying the world is about to end because of us and a few come out saying we bear no responsibility. I think its time we admit we don't know jack about the environment and what is causing this to happen.

You want to hear from scientists? Perhaps you should go read what these scientists have to say (The scientist's comments are a little way down the page.)

Suffice it to say that the scientific community is not unanimous on the issue of anthropocentric warming.

Related Links:
Senator Inhofe declares climate momentum shifting away from Gore (The Politico op ed)

Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate

Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven "Consensus'

Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics

Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic
Top Israeli Astrophysicist Recants His Belief in Manmade Global Warming - Now Says Sun Biggest Factor in Warming

Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say

Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears- Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical

MIT Climate Scientist Calls Fears of Global Warming 'Silly' - Equates Concerns to 'Little Kids' Attempting to "Scare Each Other"

Weather Channel TV Host Goes 'Political'- Stars in Global Warming Film Accusing U.S. Government of 'Criminal Neglect'

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don't Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes 'Man-Made Global Warming Hype'

The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for Decertification for Global Warming Skeptics
Senator Inhofe Announces Public Release Of "Skeptic's Guide To Debunking Global Warming"

"Yet despite all the complexities, a firm and ever-growing body of evidence points to a clear picture: the world is warming, this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with increasingly serious consequences."

First, see Growing number of scientists reconsidering global warming fears. Not the best site ever, but it shows that the consensus everyone likes to talk about is bogus. The _media_ refuses to let allow the discussion to continue and the scientific process run its course without interference.

On Drudge, right now, there is an article saying with the headline, WARMING ON HOLD? April's temperatures were below average.... That right there prove the point that the media has DESTROYED any chance we have at a honest examination of the issue. People see that headline and think, "Maybe this global warming thing is bogus," but that article literally has 0 relevance to global warming. People think it does though because they do not care to think for themselves and believe what everyone else tells them. Sheep, they are sheep. It has been said a million times here, but is true. If you read that headline and draw any correlation to global warming from it, you have no place in any discussion about the topic.

Why? Well it is because they cannot grasp the concept of global warming if that headline/article does anything but anger them about the issue of global warming. Global warming is better referred to as Climate Change. A cold month means nothing, NOTHING, in the grand scheme of things, and that is the point. The grand scheme of things. It is all about averages I guess you can say. People cannot grasp the idea of the climate, let alone what any change in the climate means. Instead, they read a headline/story, not knowing anything about the subject, form an opinion(the one the media likely tells them to form), and parade around as if they have even the slightest clue on the subject, but they do not.

Stop telling me there is a firm and ever-growing body of evidence, because there isn't. There is just a slew of weak minded people buying into the hysteria that you are contributing to with your article. Thanks again for the awesome journalism mass media, you never cease to amaze.

Listen, if we want to beat this thing, write your representatives in Congress and make sure they understand the Will of the People. Also, I skimmed over the proposed legislation. Apparently it affects *all* forms of copyright infringement, including counterfeit prescription drugs, etc, not just MAFIAA stuff. But the wiretapping is kinda spooky, as if I don't have enough to worry about already with the Bill of Rights shot to pieces. Good thing I still have my gun... and I plan to keep it.

http://www.senate.gov/
http://www.house.gov/

Let's get this thing. Here's a PDF of the proposition: http://politechbot.com/docs/doj.intellectual.prope rty.protection.act.2007.051407.pdf
- CautionaryX

...get in touch (preferably in writing) with your local Congresscritter if you're in the US:
Contacting the Congress
Write your House Rep
Senators of the 110th Congress
How to Contact US Senators

...get in touch (preferably in writing) with your local Congresscritter if you're in the US:
Contacting the Congress
Write your House Rep
Senators of the 110th Congress
How to Contact US Senators

Which one is the Republican, again? While I realize that Herb Kohl might as well be a Republican (based on his voting patterns and policy initiatives), Russ Feingold is more Democrat than most Democrats.

I was not familiar with the practice of legislative holds, so I googled it and found this description by the same senator that is holding up this bill, Tom Coburn. I thought others might find it interesting as well.

(1) Who is the single senator? (whose name is apparently much more difficult to type than 'single senator')
(3) What is he actually doing that's "holding up" the bill?

Not that I necessarily agree with the context of your post, but here is how you can contact your reps:

• U.S. House of Representatives contact info
• U.S. Senate contact info

Well then, if "multiple" officials have done this, it should be easy for you to find an example...

Unfortunately the Crooks and Liars 'torture' archive only reaches as far back as their last server move, mid 2006, so I can't point to the video clips of the many interviews I watched personally, although I particularly remember the individual ones with Rice, Rumsfeld, Chertoff and Gonzales waeving and dodging desperately about "making sure that the interrogators have all the tools" etc.

It is quite amazing that the net has such short memory, quite an eye opener for me.

I was able to find some printed material, such as this infamous Bybee memo to the White House.

One of the clips now gone from C&L was the CSPAN video of this performance by Infhoe.

Then there is Trent Lott with this.

I could look for more (it seems to be a royal pain in the butt to find proper references to any bloviating official which are older then 2 weeks) but these should give a reasonable approximation of "multiple", although they are Republican elected officials rather then White House ones.

The fact that you think that the criminal abuse that happened at Abu Ghraib (which was identified through internal mechanisms and swiftly prosecuted resulting in several convictions) is even closely related to this tells me that you have already made your mind up on the issue regardless of the facts

You gotta be kidding. "Identified through internal mechanisms"?! Rumsfeld, Miller and Sanchez planned and supervised the whole damn disguisting thing! "Swiftly prosecuted"?! Who?! Oh you mean some hapless idiots who had the bad luck of filming themselves doing the deeds?! What about all the other ones?! The CIA, the "private security contractors" etc and so on. You are surely jesting.

It wasn't that long ago when any post on Slashdot indicating any kind of anti-Bush sentiment would bring out all the rednecks like fleas on a dog's back.

Yes, and after a well orchestrated gang rape with the moderations system, all those people dispelling an anti-anti-Bush post have been successfully karma'd out or just move on to sites that weren't taken over by the left. This is a problem with the politics section being left in rather then taken out after the election like the plan original was stated. Just look at what happens to this post and you will see. Anything that questions global warming or the left's political causes get modded down.

Any question that anyone of Middle Eastern appearance was not inherently evil had them all frothing at the mouth, spitting invective at these left-wing pinko commies.

And yes, the old frayed ability to lump everyone into one group based on a common denominator. The thing is, I remember only certain middle eastern countries being inherently evil. But I guess after years of exposure to America being the root of all evil, these middle eastern contries don't seem as bad. I guess instead of a common denominator, we are focusing on the least common denominator.

Now the atrocities are mounting up in Cuba, Iraq and Afghanistan, just a few people are starting to think about what is happening,

Loud music and flushing the bible down the toilet is atrocities? After all, this is what the torture amounts to according to amnesty international. There were a few reports about physical abuse but there is never any scares and such to validate them. I'm not saying that means it didn't happen, but I would attempt to make my captors look in the worst light possible if I had the chance. Maybe atrocities just doesn't mean what it did 10 years ago. Maybe this is the one area were the dictionary failed to preserve the meaning of the words in it in favor of political posturing.

but few will stop to wonder about how they were played like an accordion before.

Maybe his is because few have changed their minds in places were they think they can speak freely. Maybe This is because in order to be a converted thinker on the issues mentioned for the reasons mentioned, you are bing played by the other side too. I would suck to think about how you were a tool from one idea just to realize that you are now a tool for another. And this can be validated with the politics in the US to the extreme. All the leadership from the major opposing parties do is complain that something isn't going right. They don't ever offer alternative solutions or plans that would work better. Kerry ran for office in 2004 claiming he had a plan for Iraq that would work better but because he wasn't elected as president, the country of America doesn't get to know what this better thing was. We have democrat walking around claiming the conversation on Iraq has to change but then not offering and conversation to the One guy who could change anything about it. Instead they are demanding troops quite fighting, making references to losing like in vietnam and then trying to play games with the funding of the troops and the levels of support they have to press the issues just like in vietnam were congress forced us into a loss.

But being a tool or being played like an accordion isn't anything new. It is something that has been around for a while. Look at senator Reid's response to the recent partial birth abortion case brought before the supreme court. He voted for the Ban in the first place and then claimed the court was stacked incorrectly when it went before them. And like the Wars we are in the middle of, the side opposing it the most today was supporting it back then. But t

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

In all seriousness, at least Sen. Patrick Leahy is smart enough to know that emails are not easily erased.

Quoting Leahy:
"You can't erase e-mails, not today. They've gone through too many servers," said Leahy, D-Vt. "Those e-mails are there, they just don't want to produce them. We'll subpoena them if necessary."

And last I checked, nobody, not even Congress has any love for the RIAA. They get complaints by the hundreds or thousands I bet - each and every single Congress Member - about the RIAA.

All of which are helpfully read by some unpaid staffer and promptly placed in the "circular file."

Meanwhile, those members of Congress do seem to be listening to the entertainment companies that sign the donation checks -- or did you forget about all the Senators and Representatives who signed on to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act?

When push comes to shove, unless it's immediately preceding an election and it's an issue that's being widely covered by the media, cash talks and bullshit -- which includes pretty much anything not written on check paper -- walks. Politicians only care about two things: how they'll get re-elected, and how they'll get paid. And it's going to take a lot more publicity than we have right now to turn digital media into an issue that drives votes, like abortion, gun control, or taxes.

Want some names? Dianne Feinstein, for starters, is practically the film and recording industry's representative to the Senate. [1] She's personally cosponsored more pro-industry, anti-consumer legislation than anyone else that I can think of, and she gets re-elected, year after year. Orrin Hatch is another one, on the other side of the aisle. Ditto for Ted Stevens -- the man's a borderline retard, but he brings home the bacon to Alaska, and that's all voters there care about.

Until you can get enough interest to knock some of the politicians who are obviously in the pocket of the industry out of office, nothing's really changed. They'll appear to clean up their act for a while when they know their offices are on the line (in theory), but once back off the hook they'll just go back to screwing the public like they always do.

[1] Here's one sample that looks like it was probably drafted by the RIAA itself; the "ART" Act from 2005: http://feinstein.senate.gov/05releases/r-piracy-ar tact0201.htm

This bill does many of the things that we in the /. community have argued for for some time now including open code inspection, reliable voting systems, and yes, reliable recounts and audits. Now is the time for the /. community to act on our endless snarky comments and help to move real change forward.

The Bill's text and record are available at Thomas. While there you can peruse the list of 200 Cosponsors to see if your house rep is among them (and should be given a cookie for that) or not (and should be corrected).

If you both support the bill and are a U.S. Citizen or Resident, you can go to the U.S. House of Representatives Website at www.house.gov, and Write your rep or contact them via their website (Recommended) to urge them to support the bill or thank them for already cosponsoring it.

With time to spare you can head over to the Senate and urge your senators to back the forthcoming companion bill in the senate. Following that a stop off to contact The Executive Branch (va a aqui para Espanol) to urge signing of the bill wouldn't hurt.

If you believe in any of the things this bill does then a few minutes on the phone or sending a polite e-mail shouldn't be too much. As cynical as we all can be about the influence of money on elections a groundswell is too costly to be overrun.

The RIAA will step on anyone at the will of the major labels money. Please help stop the RIAA and the band of Corp. thieves.

HELP SAVE NET RADIO IN THE US..

http://www.loc.gov/crb/proceedings/2005-1/rates-te rms2005-1.pdf

SaveNetRadio.org

Help Keep Internet Radio Online

Whats Happening

On Friday March 2nd 2007, the Copyright Royalty Board announced new royalty rates for Internet Radio stations. The rates are retroactive to January of 2006.

The new rates are far higher than any industry experts expected. In fact, if they remain unchanged, bankruptcy looms for many online radio stations.

The new rates essentially levy a tax of $0.0011 per performance. Now, that doesn't sound bad does it. But consider this. Each hour, the average radio station plays 16 songs. So that's about 1.76c per hour, per listener. A station with 500 listener average would be hit with fees of $211 per day, $6,336 a month or $76,000 a year.

This amount of money is beyond the resources of all but the very wealthiest of corporations. Many of the internet radio stations are run by enthusiasts and hobbyists. These small stations are the ones bringing new music, and old favorites to you every day. Music you can't hear on corporate-owned terrestrial stations.

Could this be the day the music died?

What can you do?

If you enjoy internet radio, HEARING YOUR BAND ON INTERNET RADIO, you need to make your feelings known right now to your representatives in the Congress and Senate. Write to them and ask them to help repeal the decision of March 2nd by the Copyright Royalty Board. It only takes a couple of minutes.

SaveNetRadio.org

Congress: House.gov/writerep

Senate: Senate.gov

More background on this decision

SaveNetRadio.org

DigiMedia.org

DigiMedia.org FAQ

KurtHanson.com

Broadcastlawblog

Thank you & please help.

http://myspace.com/scottandpam

Once a Treaty is ratified by the Senate, it becomes part of the Supreme Law of the Land. Please read the U.S. Constitution.

Useful Links:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common /briefing/Treaties.htm#1

Sugar cane ethanol is the viable alternative, if you are going to use biomass based fuel. Brazil is doing it since the seventies, it already works on most cars that use gas with little to no modification (Fiat, GM and other auto companies already produces them in quantities there) and it is almost a closed cycle, using barely to no fossil fuel on its production. This (warning, PDF) is a good summary on the benefits of sugar cane ethanol, of course we can wait for hydrogen or whatever is the technology of the future, just like we are waiting since the seventies, but if you want something that already works, sugar cane ethanol is the way to go.

Do you know that the only reason that makes U.S. not to get more ethanol from Brazil is protectionism via subsides and import quotas? Fidel got it right on this one, in order to protect the few (and rich) local corn farmers (not to mention the oil barons), U.S. impedes cheap sugar and ethanol to reach the U.S., artificially increasing the demand of corn for ethanol production, driving corn prices up and, this way, making things harder for poor people on U.S. itself and, indirectly, on Mexico too (thanks Nafta). Check this article and see, it is past the point of speculation and conspiracy theories.

Law of unintended consequences in action here. It could be different. Unfortunately, I'm not a citizen of U.S., so, I'm not part of the democratic process there. But a lot of you are, and only you could make the difference. You can wait for the Tesla electric car all your lives (maybe it will fly too, if you wait time enough) while complaining about dependence on fossil fuels and financing wars on it, or you can make the difference now and take a stand on it.

http://lugar.senate.gov/energy/press/articles/0511 25sbtrib.html

The insufficient supply (in YOUR estimation) basically comes from a flawed assumption "FOOD to Ethanol" Land usage. If you were to substitute CORN and SUGAR for switchgrass or similar, this argument is warrantless. Why can Brazil do it efficiently and we cannot? Oh I see, because sugar can be grown there. If only we had suitable plant material easily convertible to Ethanol, oh wait we do.

I would rather shoot for cheap than 'more secure' or whatever.

It's people like you what cause unrest. And it really comes down to "shooting" for it in the long run, doesn't it? (Or Bombing, or whatever).

I would prefer Secure, Cheap, Renewable, efficient energy production done state by state. But hey, thats just me. I have this weird theory that if you pay American farmers to grow energy, that money doesn't leave the country so quickly to become artificial Luxury islands in the middle east or Brazil. No offense to those countries or their Royalty. I just think the local economy is better served. Told you it was weird.

http://lugar.senate.gov/energy/press/articles/0511 25sbtrib.html

The insufficient supply (in YOUR estimation) basically comes from a flawed assumption "FOOD to Ethanol" Land usage. If you were to substitute CORN and SUGAR for switchgrass or similar, this argument is warrantless. Why can Brazil do it efficiently and we cannot? Oh I see, because sugar can be grown there. If only we had suitable plant material easily convertible to Ethanol, oh wait we do.

I would rather shoot for cheap than 'more secure' or whatever.

It's people like you what cause unrest. And it really comes down to "shooting" for it in the long run, doesn't it? (Or Bombing, or whatever).

I would prefer Secure, Cheap, Renewable, efficient energy production done state by state. But hey, thats just me. I have this weird theory that if you pay American farmers to grow energy, that money doesn't leave the country so quickly to become artificial Luxury islands in the middle east or Brazil. No offense to those countries or their Royalty. I just think the local economy is better served. Told you it was weird.

Man. Those stats are super-duper scary. I'm no scientist, but based on my computer models, if we don't ground these planes now New York will be under water by Christmas. Good thing man-made global warming is a hoax, otherwise you'd have me really worried.

I haven't researched our presidential candidates much but one of the comments on this board made me look up what the individual candidiates think about the Patriot Act. Personally, I think it's some of the worst legislation ever passed and I get angry just thinking about it. While according to the Wikipedia, this quote is incorrectly attributed to Benjamin Franklin, I think it applies all to well to this discussion. "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." I KNOW that Mr Franklin would have issues with the Patriot Act as it stands now.

You really need to check out what Barack Obama said about it. The interesting thing about politicians, and I can't help but think cynically, is that they all sound like sensible people until they actually get the job. Once they're in office they usually do a complete 180 and are more concerned about their golf handicap than they are the real issues. I don't know who to vote for yet, but Senator Obama sounds like a good man. http://obama.senate.gov/speech/051215-senate_floor _statement_of_senator_barack_obama_on_the_patriot_ act/index.html

I wish that people wouldn't be such leftist nidjits...

Absolutely. One of the major problems in today's society is that it is almost impossible to have a debate about modern technology, including Internet access technologies such as DSL, cable, and WiMAX, without the heavy involvement of leftist groups such as the Shining Path guerrillas of Peru, the Red Army Faction terror group in Germany, and the infamous OSI so-called "freedom fighters" of the US. Widely known for recruiting young, naive, soldiers in universities, brainwashing them into beliefs such as the moral superiority of forced redistributions of wealth, the bourgeois imperialist bankrupsy of representative democracy, and the superiority of a socialist, common ownership, share and share alike, model for the development of computer software, these groups cause immense damage to progress, which ironicly they hold up by preventing the trickle down effect, the engine of all progress, from having any realistic possibility of success.

While left wing terror groups continue to make their extreme, anti-economic, demands, politicians merely appease them and their demands. Some countries, for example, have initiated welfare state programs, guaranteeing a minimum level of living, while others have promised equal access to health care regardless of income. The state of Massachussets has gone one step better and actually forced their already over-burdened citizens to use open document formats to exchange information in a blatant attempt to pacify the OOO, the infamous breakaway faction of the OSI. In all these cases, state involvement has merely crippled the trickle down effect and made it impossible for billionaires to buy DSL connections.

Such actions have prevented progress, and as such have actually helped the leftist groups by allowing them to exploit the lack of progress as some kind of fault of crapitalism.

This quagmire of progress both being prevented by leftist groups, and the resulting lack of it helping those same groups not disappear by itself. Resources need to be devoted, and unless people are prepared to actually act, not just talk about it on Slashdot, nothing will ever get done. Apathy is not an option.

You can help by getting off your rear and writing to your congressman or senator. Tell them that leftist threats to progress is an issue that is important to you. Tell them that you appreciate the work being done by right-wing terror groups such as the Contras, Al-Qaida, the KKK, and the BSA but that unless something stronger is done to tackle leftism you will be forced to use less and less secure and intelligently designed alternatives. Explain the concerns you have about freedom, openness, and choice, and how the impedement of progress from leftist groups harms all three. Let them know that this is an issue that effects YOU directly, that YOU vote, and that your vote will be influenced, indeed dependent, on their policies on left wing terrorism.

You CAN make a difference. Don't treat voting as a right, treat it as a duty. Remember, it was thanks to ordinary people like YOU that we are now seeing such innovations as SMP in OpenBSD. Keep informed, keep your political representatives informed on how you feel. And, most importantly of all, vote.

Don't get me wrong: I don't think it's unreasonable for people to expect better of the telcos.

I'm just telling you why it's not going to happen. In a nutshell, they were handed a golden goose by the government. In order to keep that money-train rolling, they've willingly cooperated with government requests -- including unlawful ones.

Yes, nowadays there's more of a duopoly between them and the cable companies. But don't think they are any better. One reason the government is scrutinizing VOIP is because they want the same level of oversight that they've had with the telcos for years prior.

So when you see members of Congress pass bills such as the Patriot Act and others, granting overreaching powers to the FBI, think carefully for a moment. Considering that the average age of Congress members is 55 for Representatives and 60 for Senators, most of them should be familiar with J. Edgar Hoover. That should be required history for the younger generation as well. Substitute "terrorist" for "radical", with superior surveillance technology, and that's what you have today.

When your elected representatives express shock and disbelief that the FBI could ever abuse its power, don't believe them. They know damn well what they are voting for from the start.

And that's the problem right there... anyone who is sponsored by an energy company (who don't care if they make their money off selling you oil or wind power), their results are immediately impugned. Only science which points toward anthropogenic global warming is above dispute. I read last fall (sorry, I can't find a link atm) that the Sierra Club pulled the grant of someone they hired because his research pointed to humans not causing global warming. The Sierra Club and their ilk have just as much of an agenda, if not even more of one, than the energy companies.

Also, lets not pretend that the government and "big oil" are the only places to get a research grant.

From this Senate report

The alarmists also enjoy a huge financial advantage over the skeptics with numerous foundations funding climate research, University research money and the United Nations endless promotion of the cause.

In addition to that, didn't Branson just offer another $25 million reward for someone to come up with a way to get CO2 out of the air? You're right... there is absolutely no money involved in anthropogenic global warming.

Throw in stuff like the IPCC where they reportedly threw out info that tended to discredit anthropogenic global warming, causing some of the scientists responsible for it to pull their name and support from the report. Throw in Heidi Cullen's call to strip meteorologists of their credentials if they don't toe the line.

Alas, you're right... Big Oil is the only group with any kind of agenda or money here. It's a sad day when science isn't about questioning what we think we know and simply blindly following religious dogma. AGW worshipers aren't any different than creationists.

> How would you suggest that musicians who record music get paid?

According to this artist's Senate testimony from 2002, by selling t-shirts.

Therefore, most artists go into debt to make albums. In twelve years of making records, I have never recouped or received a royalty check, even though many of my records have gone into profit. I discovered early on that there's little money to be made from recording albums, and I learned to place my musical aspirations alongside more practical realities in order to supplement my income. No matter what royalty arrangement I made with a record label or even when I produced my own recordings, I never made a livable income from my recording projects alone. So I wrote songs for other artists, toured extensively, sang as a background singer and instrumentalist for other artists, and marketed merchandise. How ironic that, after years of developing my skills and honing my creativity, I generate greater profits selling T-shirts.

I mean, John Kerry introduced legislation in January to direct the FCC to do this, and the FCC has been issuing rules last year to get this going for WiMax. The TV frequencies turn out to be really helpful for getting signal to mountainous areas. (gee, big surprise why that range was originally selected).

I suspect there's more to the story than a bunch of tech firms saying, "me too!", but the article doesn't cover what that might be.

Give them a break, they already pay for plenty of Americans.

Seriously - why go through C-SPAN?

...please tell Senator Feinstein what you think of the DMCA and her support of it.

http://feinstein.senate.gov/email.html

You're seriously comparing oil extraction's effects on the ANWR (a complex, interdependent ecosystem) with its effects on a man-made corn monoculture, where fertilizers and pesticides are the norm?
Yes, I am. I think it is plainly obvious that the oil extraction does not mean an "instant ecological disaster". The cornfield proves that. But don't take my word for it. Go to California and take a look at the natural beauty there. Take a look at where they drill for oil in California and you will find that they are extracting oil well within the area that ANWR takes up. I challenge you to find organic certified farms that is not within 32000 square miles of an oil platform. I'm no ecologist, but I have common sense. To "Put another way, if ANWR were the size of a page of the Washington Post, and you put something on it about a square quarter inch, that would be about the size of the drilling footprint of ANWR." Again, we are not talking about all of ANWR.

Further, you're seriously asking me to base my opinion on something you once saw driving in Michigan? How does your over-the-dashboard view of this field qualify as a comprehensive ecological study, demonstrating the harmlessness of oil extraction?
Like I said, I have common sense. If oil is being extracted in a cornfield in Northern Lower Michigan, and oil was an ecological disaster, then there wouldn't be pristine wilderness in Northern Lower Michigan, or the Michigan Upper Peninsula (UP). If you've ever been to either place, you'd know what I'm talking about. This is an area that still has wild deer, turkey, brown bears (yes, BEARS!) and other wildlife, all completely unaffected by the energy industry of Michigan. Actually, the corn field causes more eco damage the oil derek, yet I see no one protesting corn fields!

So, you're saying that the oil companies are going to drill ANWR pro bono? That all the pressure to drill ANWR is coming from the Alaskan congressional delegation? That the government never uses its power and influence to funnel money into corporate coffers?
This is not about money, it's about energy independence. And, yes, the "Alaskan congressional delegation" is pressuring for drilling in ANWR.
I never said that no one was going to make money. Have you ever met a roughneck? Have you ever met their families? Have you ever been to their home and had dinner? You'll find that these people are not rich, but yes, they will make money from Alaskan drilling. Do you have a problem with people working for a living? What I said is you are not going to make a Jed Clampet style fat-cat from drilling in ANWR. (We all know how much Democrats hate to see people making money!)
As to corporate coffers, do you have a 401k? That, my friend is a corporate coffer. I think it says a lot that you have such disdain for private property (yes, corporations are private property). You would think that it would make you happy that ANWR is federal land and no corporation can own it. Yes, it certainly be a large company hired to extract the oil, but if you can find a small business or non-profit organization with the knowhow to extract oil and be environmentally sound, make sure they enter the bidding process.

It sounds to me like you're using some Sean Hannity clone for your talking points.
And you sound like some Karl Marx clone, so what's your point?

If the oil companies weren't going to make a nice fortune off the contract, they wouldn't sign it.
I think you are confusing profit with fortune. (again, do you own a 401k? Even George Soros invests in Haliburton) I mean, really, if you are anti-profit, move to a place that agrees with you. I hear Cuba is nice.

But the longer we avoid reducing our exposure to the risk of oil scarcity, the more likely it is that we'll be unprepared for a sudden, sharp shock. Also, the greater our daily demand compared to the supply, the harder we have

If the bill didn't pass the senate 99-0 and pass the house by a voice vote (most likely near-unanimous)... then you might have a point.

I am still trying to get a hold of someone at Senator Brownback's office that can answer my questions about his new "Truth in Video Game Ratings" act. Everyone should feel free to give his office a call:
http://brownback.senate.gov/

Double standard. Hardly, countries such as Mexico regularly refuse to extradite persons to the US if that persons faces the death penalty. Source 1, Source 2, Source 3. The Wikipedia article also points out that many European countries regularly refuse to extradite their own citizens. The most famous case is that of Roman Polansky, whom France refused to extradite to the US after he fled the country following a conviction on the charge of child rape.

As for you assertion that the US disproportionately denies extradition requests, I would like to see some data to back it up. The only data I could find was published by the Australian government, the country from which the accused was extradited, for the 2004-05 year. Source. According to the document, they did not have a single request denied by the U.S.

Also, just for clarification, the US did not go in and "take" him. The summary clearly points out that the US spend three years in proceedings before the order was finally given to extradite. The following article also clarifies that the accused with in Australia during the entire ordeal. Source. I hardly call that "waltzing over."

In spite of being a slick businessman, he was (as they all were, and still are) short-sighted.

What has changed in the file sharing scene since this event? Not much, at least in principle. People are still sharing, with even more bandwidth and impunity than before. Content producers still lobby for more laws, still rake in profits, and continue to sue those who enjoy illegal downloads/uploads. Sure, P2P networks have gotten more diffuse and sneakier, and iTunes exploded onto the scene. But 2007 looks and smells a lot like 2000 in terms of people getting free music. And you know what? RIAA labels and EMusic are still in business! The industry didn't implode! Maybe money *can* be made even when people download free stuff.

So what was the point of all his hot air, again? He still believed, after the walls of artificial scarcity had fallen, that digital IP still had some sort of monetary value that should be protected. He was wrong.

Face it. Napster let the cat out of the bag, and today we're all benefiting with that cat's many offspring. Metallica's recording of "No Leaf Clover" has no value in and of itself anymore. All revenue should be made from added value. Seeing the song performed live adds value. Buying a CD with lyrics and cover art adds value. Being able to purchase the music file from Emusic and iTunes via a slick, drool-proof interface onto a slick hardware player adds value. AllofMP3 raked in money, and it was essentially charging for bandwidth and indexing. Had my credit card not rejected the authorization on their payment site, I would have spent a fair bet on tracks, but instead I spent my time pulling down crap from spotty torrents.

There's value added to water -- one of the most plentiful things on this entire planet! People get water for free (more or less), yet will still go out an buy bottled shit, whether it's a pint of Evian or a gallon of generic distilled water from Wal Mart. Hell, I've got my own well, and I buy the occasional gallon of distilled water. So don't go telling me that the producers of entertainment cannot make a buck if the stuff gets away from them and is available for free.

But make no mistake, chasing loose MP3s around the 'net makes no money for the producers or performers. It only makes money for the lawyers and those who play catch-up with the P2P scene, such as NetPD and Copyright Control Services (mentioned in the transcript I linked to). I argue that inventing value-add to the music tracks is a more profitable pursuit, as opposed to walking against the tide.

Short. Sighted.

I said that media isn't "reporting" about advancing glaciers. That's not true. They do get reported from time to time, but they're not nearly as sexy as stories about imminent catastrophe. And when they do get reported, it's in terms of controversy.

Here's a quick quote I found on glaciers: "Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why"
http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=257863

p.s. As for the Wikipedia article, what can I say other than the fact that it's Wikipedia. It's indisputable that there are some advancing glaciers in the world today. Yet that article does not list one. Why? Because it's not an article on advancing glaciers! It's like pointing to an article on tall men as evidence that there are no short men. Sheesh.

Apparently the "climate Nuremburg" comment came from one David Roberts of a "humor" site that was making one of those ha-ha-only-serious comments:

Roberts wrote in the online publication on September 19, 2006, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg."

The comment got the attention of Congressional Republicans, here (with more details). Reason Magazine likened such a proposal to an inquisition, here. The Congressional article cited an author criticizing the use of the term "climate change denier," here. That writer's thread from two days later (2006.10.11) asks people to help find the origin of such terms. The first comment there cites a 2001 book review in Nature (big-name scientific journal) making the comparison:

The text [of "The Skeptical Environmentalist"] employs the strategy of those who, for example, argue that gay men aren't dying of AIDS, that Jews weren't singled out by the Nazis for extermination, and so on.

Similarly, a 2001 article in The Ecologist compares denial of global warming -- that is, refusal "to accept our responsibility for a crime of such enormity" with no regard to why -- with "the refusal of many European Jews to recognize their impending extermination."

So, for years there have been explicit comparisons in the media by people who support GW. So, it's true that at least some environmentalists with some influence are using "denial" in a loaded way to demonize their opponents. By the way, your own comment said no, it's not being used that way... and then that "Greenhouse denial can be at least as evil and murderous as Holocaust denial."

The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million reference.

The real point isn't who funds the research, it's the scientific basis on which it's based. I hate when people say, "but look, they're funded by X and therefore are biased so lets not even bother trying to show how they are wrong" instead of what scientists (and others) should be doing, "I'm not interested in personal attacks since that doesn't prove anything, but here is why this is wrong..."

This doesn't only apply to climate change but to things like Microsoft's Get the Facts campaign and so forth. Some people on /. would say, "but it's from Microsoft, don't even bother looking at it", but the smart /.ers would actually point out faults in the papers (such as having sys admins upgrade libc, etc).

Even some congresscritters allow contact through their websites. To be fair, not all of them do it well: http://stevens.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Although that logically makes sense, I'm not sure how 100 hours of gameplay is any different to a video of gameplay - as long as all functional areas of the game are shown. This bill is calling to play through the games - not just a representative section. The real issue is that no matter how much gameplay occurs (1, 100 or n-1 hours) issues such as the "hot coffee mod" where the player had to download a patch to get access to the content, and there was absolutely NO way of accessing the content without the patch. And MMORPGs etc where content is both added or generated by the users - absolutely impossible, as the landscape is continuously changing. Classic example of that is second life (although many would argue it's not a game) - there is some seriously nasty stuff in there, but its all user generated, and none of it was in the initial build deployed by linden labs.

I see this as a way of adding complexity to the process and address the WSTOTC angle (Won't Somebody Think Of The Children!) without actually adressing any of the (already quite well addressed and managed IMHO) problems - classic politicking.

<offtopic> I love this quote from Sen. Brownback "I encourage everyone to visit our nation's capital, and please stop by my office on Thursdays for a visit and some hot coffee.". Why Senator, I didn't know you had the patch installed! </offtopic>

Give me a good reason I should support Hillary Clinton?

She advocates video game censorship, the nanny state, etc.

Plus, remember Bill signed the DMCA.

Nonsense. You go back and read old newspapers. There was a famous Newsweek story about global cooling in 1975, which did not reflect the scientific opinion of the time, and pretty much nothing before that.

"
Here is a quote from the New York Times reporting on fears of an approaching ice age.

"Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again."

That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24, 1895 edition of the New York Times.

Let me repeat. 1895, not 1995.

A front page article in the October 7, 1912 New York Times, just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, declared that a prominent professor "Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age."

The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article warning that the "Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold." An August 10, 1923 Washington Post article declared: "Ice Age Coming Here."

By the 1930's, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming:

"America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise" stated an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933. The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles.

An August 9, 1923 front page article in the Chicago Tribune declared:

"Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada." The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that large parts of Europe and Asia would be "wiped out" and Switzerland would be "entirely obliterated."

A December 29, 1974 New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed "the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade."

The article also warned that unless government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe, "mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence" would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that "A major cooling [was] widely considered to be inevitable." These past predictions of doom have a familiar ring, don't they? They sound strikingly similar to our modern media promotion of former Vice president's brand of climate alarmism.

After more than a century of alternating between global cooling and warming, one would think that this media history would serve a cautionary tale for today's voices in the media and scientific community who are promoting yet another round of eco-doom.

Much of the 100-year media history on climate change that I have documented here today can be found in a publication titled "Fire and Ice" from the Business and Media Institute. http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/200 6/fireandice/fireandice_timeswarns.asp "

From: http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id= 263759

Even if true, it is irrelevant to the point under discussion, which was the fact that the actual funding for climate science does not originate in any significant way from your leftist conspiracy.

1. Having to keep government funding rolling in is a big part of the problem.

2. Once this stuff hits the desk of UN beaurocrats, this BECOMES what it is about.

3. Scientists, like journalists, are prone to bias and activism just like everyone else.

Non sequitur. We were talking about typographical errors in the IPCC AR4. Perhaps you would like to stick to the points being discussed, instead of launching into an irrelevant anti-leftist tirade every time you're proven wrong.

So if I critique the tables and the data, will I be convicted of "injecting confusion in the mix in order to slow policy down" or will I be labelled a "denier," or both?