Slashdot Mirror

Anyone interested in watching a person being confronted with the first bits of evidence of malfeasance and totally being guilty is here: http://www.theguardian.com/new... .
Icelandic PM walks out of interview

Where did you hear this?

Are you not familiar with Chinese society?

China's preference for sons stretches back for centuries. Infanticide, the abandonment of girl babies and favourable treatment of boys in terms of food and health has long produced a surplus of men. In the past two decades, the gap at birth has soared: the advent of ultrasound scans has allowed people to abort female foetuses, even though sex-selective abortion is illegal.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/02/chinas-great-gender-crisis/

The Icelandic president has just gone. Who next?

so your arguement falls flat on its face hard
Why does it? I don't get it.

Well, if you really think a little harder, the GP has pointed out that the "lawyers" you are talking about and/or trust them to do the work cause the whole leak issue. Thus, you wasted money on them and they couldn't do the job right.

And $1000 is worth A LOT for many families around the world. Many of them do NOT own a house. Also, many who own a home pay less than $3000 or NONE for their property taxes (in some countries, you pay for the house and land once, and you do NOT pay taxes on the property again). These amounts may be a peanut to you, but they are NOT to many others. Thus, not everybody can do it because they are "too lazy to do the paperwork" as you claimed. Some others who replied to you earlier have already pointed out reasons of why many others can't do. You are using your self as a standard in your answer, and that is a very bad sample.

Per a link -- http://www.theguardian.com/new... -- which is linked by TFA, "Are all people who use offshore structures crooks?" and the answer is NO because there are other legitimate (non-abuse) reasons to do so. "Are some people who use offshore structures crooks?" and the answer is YES. A simple way to explain it for me is that these some people know how to abuse the system and they do.

Very simple, they have their money in Delaware, and because when they put your money there, they didn't have to go through some Panama based company, and hence, they are not on the list.

No riots. No boycotts. No calls for resignations. People are too busy worrying about their next meal - not what it will be but IF it will be - to protest.

The Icelanders don't agree.

Captcha: active

Really> What percentage of those people receiving benefits are cheats? Go on, provide the statistics.

Here's a couple. By the UK government's own figures 0.7% of the entire welfare budget is accounted for by fraud. That's less even than the amount due to clerical errors by the Department of Work and Pensions, which comes to 0.9% of the total budget.

Better yet, there is good evidence that the welfare system is effectively subsidising large companies, like Tesco and fashion chain Next, who are paying employees on or below the poverty line and letting the welfare system pick up the pieces. Of course you will never see wealthy companies (or their wealthy executives and shareholders) called "benefit cheats"; they are merely "optimising their cash flow".

Really> What percentage of those people receiving benefits are cheats? Go on, provide the statistics.

Here's a couple. By the UK government's own figures 0.7% of the entire welfare budget is accounted for by fraud. That's less even than the amount due to clerical errors by the Department of Work and Pensions, which comes to 0.9% of the total budget.

Better yet, there is good evidence that the welfare system is effectively subsidising large companies, like Tesco and fashion chain Next, who are paying employees on or below the poverty line and letting the welfare system pick up the pieces. Of course you will never see wealthy companies (or their wealthy executives and shareholders) called "benefit cheats"; they are merely "optimising their cash flow".

http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

A guy who once left [grapevine.is] in the middle of a parliamentary session while answering questions because he had a craving for chocolate cake?

Leaving seems to be a thing with him: he apparently walked out of an interview when they asked him about his off shore accounts. Perhaps there was some more cake on offer.

And now to find out they are probably throwing money through these tax schemes on top?

So you're basically just ranting with no actual facts, just blind ignorance.

Made more ironic that it's been known for years that Cameron's family fortune was in fact made through tax havens:
http://www.theguardian.com/pol...

Try and be a little more informed, a little less blinkered and a fuckload less bloody stupid.

The man who once ran Putin's campaign to take over all independent media in Russia was found bludgeoned to death in a Washington, D.C. hotel room. He would have been privy to all kinds of insider information, including money Putin has stolen from the Russian people. Take note of the NY Times article where, before an investigation had even begun, the Russia state media was already lying about what happened to Lesin: he had a heart attack.

But this wasn't the first Russian who had inside knowledge of Putin's thefts, and who met a similar fate. Considering the billions Putin has squirreled away overseas, it's understandable people such as Lesin would need to be liquidated, especially, if the reports are true, they are giving inside information to the U.S. or others.

This other article from the Guardian appears to be more in depth, detailing how Putin and his oligarchs have amassed personal fortunes worth anywhere from hundreds of millions of dollars to billions of dollars, all stolen via the endemic corruption of Russian business. Bank Rossiya is essentially Putin's personal bank from which he doles out billions to those who please him. To those who fall out of favor, they have to watch their backs or face the same fate as Lesin.

I'm sure there will be denials about all the facts, but since there is no word for truth in Russian, it's understandable. After all, how can a report about someone's death being from a heart attack come out when the investigation hadn't even begun if you don't want the truth to be known?

The man who once ran Putin's campaign to take over all independent media in Russia was found bludgeoned to death in a Washington, D.C. hotel room. He would have been privy to all kinds of insider information, including money Putin has stolen from the Russian people. Take note of the NY Times article where, before an investigation had even begun, the Russia state media was already lying about what happened to Lesin: he had a heart attack.

But this wasn't the first Russian who had inside knowledge of Putin's thefts, and who met a similar fate. Considering the billions Putin has squirreled away overseas, it's understandable people such as Lesin would need to be liquidated, especially, if the reports are true, they are giving inside information to the U.S. or others.

This other article from the Guardian appears to be more in depth, detailing how Putin and his oligarchs have amassed personal fortunes worth anywhere from hundreds of millions of dollars to billions of dollars, all stolen via the endemic corruption of Russian business. Bank Rossiya is essentially Putin's personal bank from which he doles out billions to those who please him. To those who fall out of favor, they have to watch their backs or face the same fate as Lesin.

I'm sure there will be denials about all the facts, but since there is no word for truth in Russian, it's understandable. After all, how can a report about someone's death being from a heart attack come out when the investigation hadn't even begun if you don't want the truth to be known?

People who deliberately promote agnotology for commercial or selfish gain are causing great harm to our civilization, economically, socially, and morally. They cause our society to make incorrect decisions that will make all of us worse off. Let's consider some other people who cause harm in our society.

Drug dealers lure vulnerable people onto a path that usually leads to ruin. But their damage is limited to a relatively small number of people. Pimps also lure vulnerable young people onto a path of abuse and degradation. They often purposely addict their victims to drugs so that they will be more controllable. They in essence destroy the lives of these young people for profit. Although the damage done by pimps and drug dealers is obvious and clear, their impact is relatively small on society, since they impact so few people.

Contrast the above examples of unambiguous evil with those who worked to confuse society over the dangers of smoking. Even today, smoking kills millions of people each year worldwide. Anyone who worked confuse smokers and potential smokers about the potential dangers of smoking is complicit in the deaths of those who succumb. Dying of lung cancer is pretty much like dying of suffocation over a period of weeks or months. It is an excruciating way to die.

Thus, I see equivalence between consciously trying to confuse people about smoking, and being a drug dealer and/or a pimp. Except that those who try to sow confusion about the dangers of smoking are far worse, because in the end they will be associated with the deaths of far more people.

As for global warming, I think that consciously sowing confusion about the science is morally far worse than any of the above examples I mentioned. The near term consequences of global warming have been/will be higher food prices. For us in the western world, we will find ways of dealing with this, even though it will cause economic harm. But for those of live in North Africa, the consequences are far worse. Political unrest, for example during the "Arab Spring" can be tightly associated with the price of wheat. For those who spend most of their income on food, having the price of wheat go up even by 30% can be devastating. And if high wheat prices were associated with the Arab Spring, they are also indirectly associated with the Syrian war (as is an ongoing water shortage). These conflicts have resulted in many deaths, and have created countless homeless refugees.

To summarize, I believe that those who deliberately sow confusion about important issues are morally complicit in the deaths that will result from the agnotology they helped induce. I hold such people beneath drug dealers and pimps. If you are too stupid to understand science, well I guess it really isn't your fault. But those who know what they are doing, or worse are paid to sow ignorance and confusion are in my opinion amongst the worst scum of humanity.

Let's not forget, either, that Apple's most visible growth period -- after Jobs' return, the introduction of the iMac, later the iPhone -- was also a period in which Apple was saving production costs by using suppliers that employed child labor.

Just like everyfuckingbody else, you dickhead. Hell Microsoft grinded children into their xBox. Not to mention that the US produce you consume is made with child labour - legally.

The Sabu debacle is quite well documented. And I'm not posting as an AC.

Well who the fuck are you, and what proves the FBI is directing Anonymous?

The Sabu debacle is quite well documented. And I'm not posting as an AC.

"Facebook" occulous rift.. wtf did that happen..

July, 2014

https://games.slashdot.org/sto...
https://www.facebook.com/zuck/...
http://www.theguardian.com/tec...

Let's not forget, either, that Apple's most visible growth period -- after Jobs' return, the introduction of the iMac, later the iPhone -- was also a period in which Apple was saving production costs by using suppliers that employed child labor. That article is from 2013; there are still investigations -- and potential charges -- going on now.

Just keep that in mind when you fawn over Stev Jobs as some rogue market-disrupting genius: he made his billions with the help of child labor, indentured labor, conflict minerals, and relentless wage pressure on the workers who made his products. And we, upstanding people that we are, we ratified all of it, and celebrated him for doing it, by buying all his shit and then singing his praises in glossy magazine profiles.

Right. So, they should buy that. I mean it. Al Jazeera seems to be in trouble, and could be up for grabs...

It would be reversible...if the money stayed in the destination account.

That rather depends on the jurisdiction where the bank's located. In England & Wales it's certainly not the case that you can automatically issue an "undo".

http://www.theguardian.com/mon...

In China, Vanuatu or some mailbox on a rock in the Caribbean ... anybody's guess. Probably depends how friendly the account holder is with the local officials.

I'll admit he is showing signs of developing alzheimer's, (No matter how much I explain, he still thinks "Foxfire" is his operating system) but windows update automatically downloading windows 10 in the background has been repeatedly posted on / and seems to be a pretty common issue:

http://www.cio.com/article/304...

http://winsupersite.com/window...

http://www.howtogeek.com/22855...

  http://www.theguardian.com/tec...

The Guardian has been running a live counter of people killed by police in the US. The site is pretty haunting... showing a picture of the deceased as a normal smiling person before they died. While statistics can be projected so as to further any agenda, even a racist one as you rightly state, the raw data - without any biased analysis or interpretation - speaks for itself: 1145 people were killed by police in the US last year, and if you were black, you were 2.5 times as likely to be killed by the police as a white person.

But this is only part of the story... the Guardian counter allows you to click a link in the image of each person killed by the police to read about the circumstances under which they were killed, and it is clear that the vast majority of these people (regardless of race, ethnicity or sex) were out looking for trouble when they met their demise - criminal intent knows no racial or genetic boundaries - and maybe many of these people got what they deserved.

I think that the issue that many people take umbrage of is the clear disparity in which police handled the 226 unarmed people they killed in 2015. Once again, many of these so-called unarmed people were not innocent in their endeavours at the time they had their untimely encounter with the police. However, what the facts tell us is that if you were an unarmed black person and had a violent encounter with the police in 2015, you were 3.8 times as likely to be killed by the police as a white person. This includes people such as Keith Childress who failed to drop an object in his hand when instructed to do so by the police - the object turned out to be his cell phone, and one might understand why he might have hesitated flinging that onto the floor - as well as Leroy Browning who allegedly reached for a deputy's firearm during a physical struggle, prompting officers to open fire; Keith did not deserve to die while Leroy probably got what he deserved.

The Guardian has been running a live counter of people killed by police in the US. The site is pretty haunting... showing a picture of the deceased as a normal smiling person before they died. While statistics can be projected so as to further any agenda, even a racist one as you rightly state, the raw data - without any biased analysis or interpretation - speaks for itself: 1145 people were killed by police in the US last year, and if you were black, you were 2.5 times as likely to be killed by the police as a white person.

But this is only part of the story... the Guardian counter allows you to click a link in the image of each person killed by the police to read about the circumstances under which they were killed, and it is clear that the vast majority of these people (regardless of race, ethnicity or sex) were out looking for trouble when they met their demise - criminal intent knows no racial or genetic boundaries - and maybe many of these people got what they deserved.

I think that the issue that many people take umbrage of is the clear disparity in which police handled the 226 unarmed people they killed in 2015. Once again, many of these so-called unarmed people were not innocent in their endeavours at the time they had their untimely encounter with the police. However, what the facts tell us is that if you were an unarmed black person and had a violent encounter with the police in 2015, you were 3.8 times as likely to be killed by the police as a white person. This includes people such as Keith Childress who failed to drop an object in his hand when instructed to do so by the police - the object turned out to be his cell phone, and one might understand why he might have hesitated flinging that onto the floor - as well as Leroy Browning who allegedly reached for a deputy's firearm during a physical struggle, prompting officers to open fire; Keith did not deserve to die while Leroy probably got what he deserved.

a practice also done by previous secretaries of state (including ones working for Bush)

No, no previous secretary of state has ever run their own email server.

UPI: Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice got classified email on private accounts
Guardian: Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice used private accounts for classified emails
NBC: Condoleezza Rice Aides, Colin Powell Also Got Classified Info on Personal Emails

Here's a quote: "Powell, who served as secretary from 2001 to 2005, said he used a personal email account because State's email system was slow and cumbersome. Powell is credited with modernizing State's computer infrastructure, which did not at the time allow each employee to have the internet at their desks. "State's system at the time was inadequate," he said."

...The practice was illegal at the time that Hillary started as SofS.

Wrong again.

Addressing the Federal Records Act, NPR's Scott Horsley reported last month on the question of whether Clinton's exclusive reliance on a private email account violated it. Here's some of what he reported: "A State Department spokeswoman says Hillary Clinton did not break any rules by relying solely on her personal email account. Federal law allows government officials to use personal email so long as relevant documents are preserved for history." The law was amended in late 2014 to require that personal emails be transferred to government servers within 20 days. But that was after Clinton left office. Watchdog groups conceded that she may not have violated the text of the law, but they argue she violated the spirit of it.

and that some e-mails on that server were later reclassified as classified information.

No, HUMINT is classified as TOP SECRET//HCS from the source, and is at no time permitted to be UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO.

Sorry. The emails in question were classified later. In fact, the .gov address wouldn't have been secure, either. Here's probably the best discussion: http://www.politifact.com/trut...
"To send classified information electronically, the State Department has a secure, closed system. So even if Clinton had used a state.gov email address, this would not have been secure enough to transmit classified information. Procedurally, emails would get a label marking them as containing classified information. Clinton has said she viewed classified information in hard copy in her office. If she was traveling, she used other secure channels. Some of the emails released this month actually show Clinton’s team talking about how they can’t email each other classified information."

Incidentially, that is what happened with Rice's aide's and Powell's email accounts: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us...

https://www.google.com/search?... (pick whatever source you don't disbelieve..)

Wow, pages of links to blogs and unreliable sources that contain speculation but no real information. Scrolling down to the first one I found that even comes close t

It's a Chinese law so it's a bit different than a police force just saying "give me access."

http://betanews.com/2015/12/27...

Apple said that the FBI was asking for more than even China has asked for.
http://www.theguardian.com/tec...

There is no software on the planet that is more scrutinised and more meticulously developed than software for spacecraft

There's at least one. Software for US nuclear weapons systems. I once watched a USAF nuclear safety audit over the course of a few years. I was thoroughly impressed with the quality of the work.

...and then, as an added assurance to make sure that nothing would slow down the ability to launch missiles, the code to launch missiles was set to all zeros, and never changed.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/...

we do not really know how to defend ourselves against what is happening, not without turning into savages ourselves

Of course, we do:

• Enforce your visa laws.
• Do not provide governmental assistance and deport those, who sneak in despite your efforts

There is nothing "savage" about either of the two measures. Whoever feels sympathetic to the people displaced by war or any other kind of disaster, is welcome to help them in any way they choose directly.

The current situation makes no sense at all. Ukraine, for example — itself a European country with customs quite similar to those of EU members — has been struggling to obtain a visa-free status with EU for years. Meanwhile, folks with completely different ideas of how to live (and dress and pray) are allowed to immigrate en masse.

The US is different, but no less bizarre. For example, while the government actively prosecutes rich folks coming to US to give birth, who pay for it themselves and go back, the poor folks who can't afford healthcare themselves are effectively encouraged to come (illegally), give birth and stay . South Americans cross into the US daily while the Border Control intercepts only about 61%.

To America's credit, we seem to be better at dealing with the "wonderful tapestry of diversity", but there is nothing "savage" about wanting less of it — diversity is not strength, it is an expensive luxury.

We know how to do it and there is nothing "savage" about saying "no". But our current elites just would not do it — whether due to some misplaced compassion or desire for cheaper gardeners and cherry-pickers.

He'll probably write a couple of books in the months to come.

i my iphone was curved before it was cool. ;)

If India wants to get rid of pollution, maybe they should start first with their sewage problem.

Whether it is from increased temperature or acidification, I don't really know.

Well, it could also be from nitrogen run off, or other local factors separate from temperature or a slight change in pH.

http://www.reefresilience.org/...

That all being said, coral bleaching isn't an unprecedented phenomenon, and in fact, corals regularly recover from such events:

http://www.theguardian.com/env...

The key statement you've got here is "you don't know", and if you can hold that thought in your head, you'll do yourself a favor :)

we expect that at the poleward ends of the Hadley cells to generally get drier.

Pure speculation - we've got a sparse dataset polluted by modeled data that is purely imaginary:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/p...

"The NCEP/ NCAR reanalysis data is not a purely observed data set. It is a mix of real observations with model simulations using the method of temporal and spatial assimilation in an atmospheric general circulation model (AGCM). Insofar as different data platforms have been used in construction of the reanalysis, long-term trends calculated from it may be non-physical."

We have programmed a model that hard codes generally drier poleward ends of Hadley cells - we don't have sufficient observational data to state that this has already happened, or will happen in the future, under any conditions.

It's our inability to accurately predict the consequences that is most worrying. Uncertainty is not our friend.

Agreed - and we must admit that we have the same inability to predict the consequences of increased human CO2 emissions as we have the consequences of dramatically reducing human CO2 emissions. Uncertainty is not our friend, but it is our constant companion, and all of our choices, even the ones we prefer, are subject to its whims.

Nearly everybody has a driver's license.

No, actually, large numbers of people don't. Many Americans don't drive. I know that many middle-class suburban Americans are shocked to learn that other Americans live differently, but it's true. in fact some Americans are entirely unable to obtain government issued IDs.

If the ISP or email provider host the domain that your email is at, is it really that much of a problem?

Actually, it is. The NSA tapped Google's communication lines with the help of Big Mother Bell (AT&T), and the NSA and anyone they decided to let see the data could read everyone's emails.
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

Due process should matter to everyone.

Warrant? We don't need no stinking Warrant!

It is perhaps even stranger considering the gender disparity in tech, where engineering teams tend to be mostly male. It seems like yet another example of female-voiced AI servitude, except this time she's turned into a sex slave thanks to the people using her on Twitter.

Really, that is what the writer is going with, that the male researchers just wanted to develop another female sex slave program? Instead of the real reason which is that the internet is full of assholes and the developers should anticipate them and not allow random people to have her repeat what they said. These articles from Ars Technica and the Guardian gives a much better explanation of the issues, namely many people used Tay's "repeat after me" programming to have it spout racist rhetoric. The other organic responses were the result of people attempting to game the AI learning, something Microsoft should have anticipated but was again not an intended result. Honestly the telegraph should be ashamed of their article, they attempted to use projection and bias instead of honest reporting in order to generate more readers.

I get your point, but some further perspective is warranted. The paper explores three methods. One of those is model based but two are observation based. We can hope for the best, but we are heading into uncertain territory and I believe it is good for someone to express the extent of the issue we may be facing. Many different paths are discussed in the paper and it is worth reviewing all of them - not just the most severe. At this point though we should expect the unexpected. For instance no one had anticipated this: https://www.theguardian.com/sc...

Considering its origins and funding?
US government increases funding for Tor, giving $1.8m in 2013
http://www.theguardian.com/tec...
How is this securing government backed users and their tasks globally?
The need to communicate with network promoting color revolutions vs the role of US federal law enforcement to track back to an original ip.
Secure enough to still offer communications to shape, direct and project US foreign policy, still able to be trackable by federal US law enforcement...
For all that to work a growing, larger user base in needed to offer cover for the more important communications to the backers of say a color revolution or well funding international NGO pushing for another regime change.

ISIS claimed responsibility for the attacks. So spot on... Why you were moderated as funny...

Can we send the catholic terrorists who have been killing Europeans for decades over there as well, or do you only have a problem with terrorism if the perpetrator is someone who looks different from you.

This is a hugely dickish move by the BBC. The Pi is already solidly and explicitly established as the reincarnation of the ideas behind the BBC Micro, and the BBC should have just got on board and supported it. While there's a case to be made that a tiny embedded board like this doesn't compete with a Pi in hardware terms, it does compete with it for class time, attention and support.

Like most older Brits, I have a lot of affection for the BBC, but in the last 10 - 15 years, it has lost its way both for technology and TV output.

Assange likely has very little to do with this, although the Russians will probably be delighted if people think so. If it is the case that the attacks originated from Russia, then this is likely to be just the latest addition in the information warfare campaign that Russia is waging across Europe. It's very much within Russia's interest at the moment to play as much with the migrant crisis and the media as they possibly can to sow political distrust. They've been running their own 'news' channels (Sputnik) with English language content but additionally they're supporting the so called "anti-media" or "underground media" sites which are basically anti-immigration/anti-EU blogs that run hearsay or entirely made up stories mixed in with bits and pieces of actual news.

Russia does not give a flying fuck about Assange, or Snowden for that matter. They might say they do, but again, do you think Russia for example is not doing exactly the same type of surveillance on its people than what Snowden revealed in the US? Hell, this is the country in which people have recently been jailed both for being openly atheist as well as for criticizing the invasion of Crimea or calling for a change of leadership.

So what are the odds that this country launches a cyber attack against a north-European nation because they care so much about justice and the rights of individuals for a fair trial, or any of that? Slim. Extremely slim.

This is geopolitics, plain and simple. Divide and conquer etc.

Even Eric Schmidt uses a Blackberry, not the Android made by his own company.

The NSA and GCHQ had two options to get to users. Privacy and anonymity could both be made collection friendly or one part could cover for the total loss of the another.
The classic ideas was to gift the world tame, junk crypto standards that would revert to plain text for the NSA but be resistant to any in the middle attacks.
That started to get more tricky into the 1980's. The GCHQ was also trying to collect all communications in and connecting to Ireland and did not want any advancements to network anonymity even if new totally secure crypto was in play.
So the security services allowed strong crypto but ensured their connections with tame telcos and network providers would make anonymity an impossibility.
Enjoy any export grade crypto, import it, design in, the message origin would always be trackable. Once found, traditional methods would get around any bespoke crypto (logging, bugs, cameras, unique malware).
The "Encryption is Bad" was just a useful, busy work, talking point over a decade put out to cover the total loss of network anonymity. Digital users felt safe entering data as the crypto was now really good. The tame networks would always track them down.
The "elite line is drawn" if a person walks into a safe Tempest secure vault to talk about and then sets policy in person. No notes, paper kept to one of one and collected.
ie if reading or allowed to set policy on a computer, that person never made the elite and is under constant security service tracking.
Thats the other side of the "Encryption is Good" for the almost elite part, contractors, leaders who think they made it to the very top, but are under constant watch.
ie if your allowed on a copy and paste GUI onto another computer and sending and getting party political/mil/gov messages from people globally its been watched and your "digital" security clearance is a long term trap. The allowed or given computer is a decades long honey trap for the user and all their international contacts.
That can be seen in the high level German gov crypto phone efforts and EU crypto fax efforts. Leaders and top embassy/political staff are handed digital junk hardware and told its "safe" and been fully tested by their own nations best. Every message then gets mirrored to 5 eye nations for free.
Some reading on the efforts
New NSA leaks show how US is bugging its European allies (1 July 2013)
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
Embassy Espionage: The NSA's Secret Spy Hub in Berlin (October 27, 2013)
http://www.spiegel.de/internat...
That should help with the Elite, Encryption is Good, Encryption is Bad and who gets told what, told a product is secure within their own nation, who tests and signs over what hardware within a nation and what level of leadership then is allowed to "trust" that device or gets a computer system :)

I don't know why the Bank of England needs "cyber security", they just rob savers of £160bn with their seven years and counting, of 0.5% interest rates. They are the biggest robbers and market fixers in the UK, they are the ones who should be in prison.

http://www.theguardian.com/mon...

Election of any RethugliKKKan will mean death of privacy and send a chilling signal to all would-be whistle-blowers.

Oh, wait...

lol

All this assumes the IPCC predictions are correct. Generally they have vastly over predicted warming and sea level rise.

That's not actually correct, the IPCC has over predicted global surface temperatures by a little bit, and for a brief period in 2010, the temperatures actually fell out of the IPCC prediction + 95% confidence interval. However, since then the temperatures have remained in the 95% confidence interval, but are admittedly still below the actual prediction. Sea level rise, however, is a completely different story. The IPCC got it pretty wrong, they underestimated sea level rise by around 60%.

Given they threatened these jobs to undermine democracy and influence the outcome of the Scottish independence referendum at the bidding of their Whitehall masters, it's a bit of a kick in the teeth to shed these jobs anyway.

http://www.theguardian.com/bus...

I know you're just trying to be funny, but when the shit hits the fan the military and law enforcement will be on our side, not the government's.

Which is probably driving interest in the development of automated weaponry:
http://www.bbc.com/future/stor...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.theguardian.com/tec...

I, for one, do not welcome our robotic overlords....

The VAST bulk of these "subsidies" are not real money. No one is paying $400 billion a year to Exxon or BP.

Well I happen to be a certified accountant and the fact that some of these subsidies are not cash money doesn't make them any less real. In cost accounting it's called an externalized cost. Literally a cost someone else pays. There is a very real and measurable cost to that pollution which the companies selling fossil fuels do not have to pay for. That is in effect a subsidy to those companies because it relieves them of having to pay the full cost of the product they sell. It would be no different than a government helping a car maker to sell their car without having to pay for the steel they built the car with. It's no different than cigarette makers not having to pay for the health care costs that smokers incur from using their product. The fact that cash did not change hands directly does not make these costs any less real nor does it mean they are not subsidies.

You can argue about the exact number but that completely misses the point. The point is that there are HUGE externalized costs that we are not forcing oil and gas companies to deal with. That IS a subsidy. AND on top of that we also subsidize them directly to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollar annually worldwide.

Except, it never likely will. The problem with solar is not the cost of the panels, those are already dirt cheap. The cost is in land, labor, and other items needed to build solar out, either utility scale or distributed scale.

The panels are NOT "dirt cheap" though they are getting cheaper. The cost of land is generally not an issue - there is plenty of available land on rooftops or available cheaply in sparsely populated areas. The grid is already built. It needs upgrades but it needs those even if you don't consider solar in the equation.

We really AREN'T subsidizing fossil fuels. No one is paying hundreds of billions of dollars to Exxon to pump more oil.

Nonsense. We absolutely are paying billions to oil companies to pump more oil. It's not even a debate. 20 Seconds on Google would disabuse you of this false notion.