Slashdot Mirror

wow.. were you asleep through the snowden leaks?

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

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ro...

Im sure you will come up with countless excuses as to why this is not really the case, and how .. secretly good old google was being the usual friendly open source mascot and trying to actually undermine the NSA.

That aside even if google was trying to minimally cooperate with the government to fulfil some legal requirement, many people including myself would not trust them. Sorry buddy, the advertising business is dirty and slimy and when you play in that playground you get slime on ya that's hard to shake off.

no

Pedagogy (teaching methods) also make little difference. By far the most significant factors are cultural. Regions that do well in educating their children place a high value on education, and set high expectations.

Give this article a read (re: teaching methods): http://www.theguardian.com/edu...

Finland has some of the highest test scores in the world But don't let that stop your baseless rant.

We're talking about Patrick Moore, not ex-IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri.

Pachauri, 74, is accused of sexually harassing a 29-year-old female researcher from soon after she joined his Delhi-based research group, The Energy and Resources Institute (Teri). The lawyers for the woman, who cannot be named, said the harassment by Pachauri included unwanted emails, text messages and WhatsApp messages.

Not a troll, it's historical fact. Ignoranuses.

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

Defense from who, exactly?

From Russia, you Putinista asshole.

Given that the NSA was caught red-handed injecting spyware into consumer routers there is *every* reason to believe they worked with Microsoft to bake backdoors directly into the Windows basic feature set.

This is not "conspiracy theory" nonsense, this is the NSA doing exactly what its job description says it should do, and what we know as fact that they have already done.

More generally, your level of trust of strangers should be at best inversely proportional to the level of power they have over you. As convenient as it would be if this were not true, history forces this realization upon us.

http://www.theatlantic.com/nat...


http://www.theguardian.com/us-...


http://www.theblaze.com/storie...

I found this article about Homan Square pretty quickly.

Yeah, that's because you looked. Funny how that works.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-...

I found this article about Homan Square pretty quickly.

In the department of removing access to birth control for population reasons. . . .

Iran is ahead of the curve I think

They could save a lot more money by going home and phoning it in which is basically what it appears they do anyways. I mean they sat on their hands watching genocide, they largely didn't raise an eyebrow when Russia invaded the Ukraine. Sure, they have the charters and declarations and public statements like that sound grand, but even in their most recent peace keeping mission, they picked up and left when bullets started flying their way. I guess keeping the peace was not the real objective? And don't get me started on the peace keepers raping and pillaging

Yeah, it doesn't seem like there is much they do well that cannot be done over the phone or in a video conference with modern technology.

The problem is that there is another very negative element too: Collective vengence. The social desire to see those who offend society made to suffer. Worse, this can be counterproductive to the rehabilitation role: Programs aimed at educating prisoners are widely seen as 'soft on crime,' while there is widespread support for any policy that increases the difficulty released prisoners face in finding housing and employment.

As a Norwegian, that seems insane to me. We have some of the nicest prisons in the world, and inmates are given the opportunity to get an education. We also have one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world at around 20%. The authorities have a stated goal to reduce recidivism by providing opportunities for reform in prison. This includes hard criminals like perpetrators of gang-related killings, robbers who have shown willingness to kill police officers in shoot-outs, and drug related crimes, which are among the worst when it comes to recidivism. Although some employers and neighbourhoods frowns on ex-convicts, they generally have lots of opportunities to reinstate themselves in society. You're less likely to be considered for a trusted position, but it even happens that former convicts get one of those with the employers full knowledge of their past (depending on the nature of their crimes and the position).

The punishment constitutes loss of freedom and communication rights - nothing more. The conditions in prisons are good (Halden Prison and Bastøy Prison are some of the "best", but the penal philosophy is the same for all of them), because they're not supposed to make you suffer physically or psychiologically. The political right wing (which even many US Democrats would probably still call liberal bleeding-heart commies) occasionally bleats about reforms to make punishment harsher, but nobody is really serious about it, since the existing system just works too well at turning criminals into productive members of society.

Of course there are a few wackos, like Anders Behring Breivik, for which the regular system doesn't work well. For the likes of him we have 'indefinite detention', our strongest punishment, which is something like life _with_ the possibility of parole. It is still very probable that he'll spend his entire life in prison since an absolute requirement for release is that he's deemed safe by psychologists and other professionals, which doesn't seem likely to happen based on his currently reported statements and behaviour.

The problem is that there is another very negative element too: Collective vengence. The social desire to see those who offend society made to suffer. Worse, this can be counterproductive to the rehabilitation role: Programs aimed at educating prisoners are widely seen as 'soft on crime,' while there is widespread support for any policy that increases the difficulty released prisoners face in finding housing and employment.

As a Norwegian, that seems insane to me. We have some of the nicest prisons in the world, and inmates are given the opportunity to get an education. We also have one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world at around 20%. The authorities have a stated goal to reduce recidivism by providing opportunities for reform in prison. This includes hard criminals like perpetrators of gang-related killings, robbers who have shown willingness to kill police officers in shoot-outs, and drug related crimes, which are among the worst when it comes to recidivism. Although some employers and neighbourhoods frowns on ex-convicts, they generally have lots of opportunities to reinstate themselves in society. You're less likely to be considered for a trusted position, but it even happens that former convicts get one of those with the employers full knowledge of their past (depending on the nature of their crimes and the position).

The punishment constitutes loss of freedom and communication rights - nothing more. The conditions in prisons are good (Halden Prison and Bastøy Prison are some of the "best", but the penal philosophy is the same for all of them), because they're not supposed to make you suffer physically or psychiologically. The political right wing (which even many US Democrats would probably still call liberal bleeding-heart commies) occasionally bleats about reforms to make punishment harsher, but nobody is really serious about it, since the existing system just works too well at turning criminals into productive members of society.

Of course there are a few wackos, like Anders Behring Breivik, for which the regular system doesn't work well. For the likes of him we have 'indefinite detention', our strongest punishment, which is something like life _with_ the possibility of parole. It is still very probable that he'll spend his entire life in prison since an absolute requirement for release is that he's deemed safe by psychologists and other professionals, which doesn't seem likely to happen based on his currently reported statements and behaviour.

10 myths about fossil fuel divestment are put to the sword here: http://www.theguardian.com/env... Yours is #5. "To sell a stock you have to have a buyer. But the amounts being divested are too small to flood the market and cut share prices, so they won’t be going cheap. Also, the buyers of the stock are taking on the risk that the fossil fuel stocks may tank in the future, if the world’s nations fulfil their pledge to keep global warming below 2C by sharply cutting carbon emissions. If these stocks are risky, then the public and value-based institutions primarily targeted by the divestment movement should not be holding them. The argument that owning a stock gives you influence over a company leads us neatly into the next divestment myth."

I said that the US honors its agreements.

And you're wrong. I'm sorry but the US is no different than any other democratic nation in this regard. Public opinion will always limit the options available to American policymakers. We abandoned South Vietnam to an adversary that didn't have the ability to vaporize American cities, simply because of the body politic was tired of the war.

If you'd stop waving the flag for a few moments you could fully absorb what I'm telling you. I did not say that we would definitely not march for the Baltic States. I merely question that it would be as automatic as it would be if say Great Britain, Canada, or Germany were attacked by an outside force. You really think the American public would get behind a war for the Baltic States? You're talking the theory of power, I'm talking reality, the United States is a democracy, and you'd have to sell the people and legislature on the concept.

We are the head of a political and military alliance.

There is no "head" of NATO as such. It operates on consensus. No consensus, no response. As a practical matter, there's not very much the United States could actually do for the Baltic States without involvement by the Western European powers, so now we're talking about the body politic in other democratic countries, countries which are even more risk adverse than the United States. It's easy to man the ramparts as an American, we haven't fought a real war on our soil in over 150 years.

If members of the alliance can be struck without a response from the US then that diminishes our credibility.

You're proceeding from the assumption that the body politic gives a shit about American credibility.

That is one of the reasons Putin's actions were so unbelievably stupid. The US is interested in pulling out of Europe entirely. We want to focus more on east Asia. If Putin had simply kept it in his pants a bit longer, we'd have left and he could work slowly to gain goals.

Of course, claiming territory is only a small part of what he wants. He also needs to bolster his domestic political position. And for that he needed to get the Russians all stirred up with patriotic furvor. And so far apparently the Russians hate America more now than they did during the Cold War. So well done Putin.

No offense, but you don't know as much about Russia or Vladimir Putin as you think you do. In fairness, neither do our policymakers, not in the Executive or in the Congress. Start with this article and branch out from there.

And no, we're not going to meet them in open combat.

I agree that it's unlikely but never say never. If nothing else there is plenty of room for miscalculation. People in the know, who watch both Moscow and Western Europe seem to think it's possible: "Carl Bildt, the former Swedish foreign minister, said a war between Russia and the west was now quite conceivable."

In any case, this whole conversation started because I question your assumption that American policy treats all members of NATO equally. It might appear that way on paper but you've yet to convince me that the American body politic would march for the Baltic States (or the new members in the Balkens, for that matter) as readily as it would march for Western Europe. I'm a student of geopolitics, recognize the dangers in not upholding our treaty commitments, and even I'm not certain that I would be willing to march for them. I'm not sure how old you are but I'm old enough to remember when nuclear weapons were aimed at me; that's a sobering thought that tempers my blind enthusiasm with a healthy dose of reality.

Re "I love the flip-flop from "war is wrong" to "to the winner go the spoils" without the least hint of cognitive dissonance."
Vietnam won its freedom from France, Japan and US backed coups. It can now do what it wants with its own sites and offer deals to any other nation it likes.
Vietnam can now also trade with or accept help from any nation it likes.
Vietnam no longer has a US back junta in power. The US seems just as up set with the UK over the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank issue.
Support for China-led development bank grows despite US opposition (13 mar 2015)
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

Anglesey-born William Jones was the first person to use the Greek letter Ï for the ratio of a circleâ(TM)s circumference to its diameter. But who was this little-known figure? http://www.theguardian.com/sci...

Those fucking Yanks are trying for PATENTABLE DRUGS, not a Nobel prize that literally anybody (warmonger Obama Barrick for example) could get. The patent system rewards drug makers, hospitals push their drugs, and the American consumer gets the hard deep fucking they asked for.
 
Could be worse. If the US blew their entire year's budget on something other than interest payments to the non-Federal "Federal Reserve" - eg. bogus drug Tamiflu - you'd be in the same shoes as Britain. And America wonders why nobody wants (shitty, non-working) vaccines and chemo. Pff.

It is difficult to give exact figures because there are so far few formal studies quantifying the extent of the problem. We know that for example psychology retractions have quadrupled since 1989, a rate higher than the growth in the number of publications in the same period. It is also likely that most scientific misconduct remains uncovered or unacknowledged. It seems that few scientists admit misconduct, but many more know someone else who is committing it:

How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

"an average of 1.97% of scientists admitted to having "fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once – a serious form of misconduct by any standard – and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices." (from http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/sep/13/scientific-research-fraud-bad-practice)

Apple, a Buick-class company, got BMW to answer the phone?

Maybe they heard the rumors of Apple wanting to get in the car business and thought Apple might be interested in buying them. After all, with BMW with a market cap of less than $80 billion, Apple can use part of the $137 billion they have stored off-shore to make an all-cash offer and permanently avoid US taxes on it.

I find this verdict astonishing, TBH. Does anyone understand what the money is supposedly awarded for? "Lost earnings" is clearly not reasonable, for instance. Also, what normally happens about cover versions? Is the money in the verdict based on laws relating to that?

Additional information from The Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-...

This was the the female political activist who is suing the Metropolitan Police for planting an undercover officer in environmental/animal activist groups who formed a sexual relationship with her for two years under a false identity "Mark Kennedy". See previous stories about him here:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/...

Additional information from The Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-...

This was the the female political activist who is suing the Metropolitan Police for planting an undercover officer in environmental/animal activist groups who formed a sexual relationship with her for two years under a false identity "Mark Kennedy". See previous stories about him here:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/...

>You did not "gave" anything...everyone can read physics book.

And some (Israel) would rather steal nuclear secrets, develop nuclear weapons, and flat out deny it and/or lie about it.

See also Mordechai Vanunu

My dear friend, you do not understand how these things work.

You work at NSA, you are always using the latest, newest, biggest, baddest, sweetest technology ever devised by men. You literally have computer companies begging you to buy their stuff. For a lot of these people (heck, that may even include me) that is motivation enough.

AND, if you are discreet about it, you can even be privy to potentially very lucrative a lot of state secrets. Or even personal secrets, who knows?. Obviously, if Snowden gave us something, it is the knowledge that NSA is not very good at information compartmentalization...

But here is the kicker: if you ever decide to leave the NSA, for retirement or otherwise, the private sector (at least the US private sector) will greet you with open arms and pay you a sh*tload of money to work as a consultant or senior manager. And we are talking about a SH*TLOAD of money, conflict of interests be damned. You are now one of the big boys, kid, enjoy your (semi-)retirement.

No need to betray US interests, no need to reveal super secret information: you are NSA. You are above the law. Just leave your morals at the door, please.

At this point I think you need to provide us with an example where it failed with paired links so we have a better idea of what you're looking for.

I am not a particularly involved student of this field, so my links would be of the popular kind, for which I apologize in advance. But here it is:

1. In 2000 Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, predicted that "Children just aren't going to know what snow is". It is now 2015 and there has not been a snow-free winter in the UK since. Some were particularly snowy: 2014-15, 20122010-11.
2. In 2004 there was a prediction, that "Scottish ski industry will cease to exist within 20 years". We are now half-way through that prediction, so it might still come to pass. But in 2014 Scotland had its snowiest winter in 69 years and the skiing industry is striving.
3. In 2007 BBC published a prediction of ice-free Arctic on or before 2013 by an American climate scientist stating (repeated by Al Gore in 2008). 2013 came and went, but there has not been a single ice-free summer in the Arctic ocean.

Now, I'm not prepared to argue the validity of the above claims — all you asked for were samples of what I'm looking for.

Of course, your samples would have to be valid — because you want me (and the rest of humanity) to change our way of life. The burden of proof is thus on you.

Oh wait. Already done. http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

It seems he is getting to be more like General Buck Turgidson or Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper every day. I'm now just waiting for him to start spouting off about a mine shaft gap.

In fact, the evidence points to the opposite.

No, it doesn't. The mainstream predictions are actually doing ok. The simple fact is that you do not understand climate science and thus you assume the experts know nothing about it either.

In fact, the evidence points to the opposite.

No, it doesn't. The mainstream predictions are actually doing ok. The simple fact is that you do not understand climate science and thus you assume the experts know nothing about it either.

no it was hacked
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...

Wrigley says that the pilot can always turn off autopilot if the plane starts making unexpected course changes. If someone did hack into the aircraft and take over the plane using the flight management computer, they would have had no means of keeping that control. "If an aircraft flight management system could be hacked by remote control, it would cause a lot of confusion on the flight deck, but I can't imagine that any pilot would just sit back and watch while the aircraft changed course." In that event surely they would find some way of communicating the problem.

Sounds like the AirAsia crash reports of issues with the flight management computer and the talk of the pilot trying to reset it.

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

I would like to know what the US Gov's real objectives are in funding Tor in the first place. Call me cynical but I have a hard time believing its truly altruistic.

Its already known that the NSA and GCHQ already have found at least partially successful ways to identify Tor users
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
That leak is old, so you can bet they've made progress since then.
Tor is probably still better than nothing but not much. Or is it? maybe just by using Tor at all you are making yourself more likely to be watched/snooped on.
Consequently all Tor can really offer at this point is a false sense of security.

Why have traffic lights when you can have a robocop which has red, yellow, and green lights? They probably went with the robocop traffic lights to save money, as they cost 1/2 to 1/8 what regular traffic lights cost.

Here's some detail on the problem with doing everyday banking when working overseas, from that notorious right-wing scare site, The Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/mon...

The Unibomber said a lot of the same sort of things. His case was kind of strange, but he was right about a small technorati elite controlling a lot of power.

I think some people get carried away and lose sight of the big picture. The world has always been under control by elites who had their secret plots, all the way back to priests being the only ones who talked to gods. What else is a King's court but a place to gather other elites? The military isn't important, it's who directs it that counts. Really, what's under attack is the well armed Militia, or specifically, the local police force with a Local Sheriff that's elected by the citizens. The police are being militarized and increasingly federally controlled to quash dissent (in NY they have an anti-extremist squad roaming about with long rifles and machine guns looking to put down any protests). DHS is a federal police agency -- We don't need it. Protip: Anti-war protesters, civil-rights protesters, and women's rights protesters have all been considered "anti-American extremists" in the past; Never forget COINTELPRO.

The local police is the last line of defense from a hostile dictatorship takeover, asside from picking up pitchforks... Eisenhower saw the writing on the wall, and warned us of everything that has come to pass.

Personally, I can accept the GREAT risk of driving my car. If I'm not afraid to drive to work, then I'm not going to be afraid of Terrorists. I don't think we need all this "anti-terrorist" bullshit, let them come and get their asses kicked; We're such a great nation that terrorists can't even scratch us. 9/11 was 1/200th of the car accidents that we have every year.

Removing the human element from military and law enforcement (red-light cameras, drones, etc) is far more threatening than GPS. Putting more power in the hands of the few means you not only lose less lives due to drones, but it also takes far less people to suppress another group. It means you have to convince less soldiers to go against the constitution and attack their own. The NSA's databases were hacked by a damn contractor, so we pretty much know that China and Russia has spies with access to far more of their systems -- So the National Security Agency has become a big threat to national security itself.

There will always be powerful elites, it's when their power is unchecked that we have problems. Right now the citizens can still keep the governments in check, but as we reduce the number of people required to operate an enforcement detatchment, perhaps through automated systems like drones and vehicles, phones, and PCs that respond to remote kill switches, or even self driving cars (doors lock, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200), the power ballance may shift too far out of the reach of citizenry. Even just having a giant federal agency like the DHS install itself in every facet of life from travel to sports arena security is a reduction of local citizen control.

The 2nd amendment was good enough when the might of our forces came from people with firearms. We're actually long past due for a new amendment: The Right to Bear Technology (including encryption). I really think If we're garaunteed such constitutional rights the Information Age may not destroy the USA. Without said right, as more of our lives are intertwined with computing machines the more erosion of our freedoms will continue. You already can't buy a car without a tracking device "black box" installed... Phones must have remote kill switches... The fork in the road ahead is impossible not to see.

Got Root?

So all these guys need to do is wait for a extreme solar event and they will get what they want. Kind of scary to think about it.

Accusations of this were made several times and denied but someone hacked into the email servers and released a bunch of email showing them discussing withholding the information. Now it is said that the original raw data does not exist any more nor does the methods and processes used to correct irregularities of it.

Interesting, but the first link shows that CRU scientists would be lousy lawyers, and the second is unrelated to CRU completely. And now for a dose of facts about the CRU affair:

The British House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee investigated the matter and concluded: "Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that 'global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity'."

The Independent Climate Change Email Review team investigated the matter and concluded: "On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt. In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments."

Lord Oxburgh’s independent panel investigated the matter and found "absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever"

The US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the matter and stated that they "reviewed every e-mail and found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets. Four other independent reviews came to similar conclusions."

And so on and so on. Should I continue? More or less, the worst thing anyone in possession of facts has to say about the CRU scientists is that they suck at communicating. Bummer, but not an uncommon one.

Now, I know you are a global warming pusher

No, I'm not a global warming pusher, CO2 is a global warming pusher. I have no interest in contributing to global warming.

and have your own beliefs but this is not about you in the slightest.

No, it isn't. It's about you and presumably some other people apparently being unable to grasp basic principles of reasoning. Even if if you found out evidence of gross academic misconduct having happened within CRU (which didn't happen), it still wouldn't prove anything about global warming (or the lack of it). If you find flaws in a study saying "P", it doesn't mean you've proven "not P". All you have at that moment is an empty set of proven claims. And if you have ten independent studies of global warming, all of them saying the Earth is warming, every study having independent data, research, and people involved, and one of the people or teams is found to have made anything invalidating that one study - anything from flawed methodology through measurement errors to even outright scientific fraud, it demonstrates nothing about those other studies. All it demonstrates is that from the one flawed study in question, no conclusion can be made about the subject in either direction. Arguing otherwise would be an argument from fallacy, which is a formal fallacy in its own right.

I think you might be thinking of Qatar where it's been in the news more recently regarding domestic slaves er I mean workers. Employers confiscate the passports, overwork, beat, and or assault the workers, don't pay them, and when they become a issue turn them over to the government to deport. If they try to leave on their own, guess what...they don't have any paperwork so they are just as screwed as if they remained.

http://www.theguardian.com/glo...

Does it even matter who owns a nuclear power company? Those companies are highly regulated, they serve the same group of people that pay taxes (i.e. everybody), and if they are too big to fail, and something goes wrong for them financially, they will be bailed out with tax money anyway. Not to mention massive subsidies, which have been approved recently , just before the new EU commission took over.

There was always that off beat chance the battleship is hiding in some isolated bay, continuing the war, not knowing the war had ended, like some soldiers of the Imperial Army in that part of the world. . This discovery will put many people at ease.

If you've not seen that one before, FWIW it was quite influential:

http://www.metafilter.com/3766...
http://www.theguardian.com/tec...
http://venturebeat.com/2009/07...

I believe this was a reference to an element in the what-if book, not part of the ones posted online. http://www.theguardian.com/lif...

For those that don't know or have forgotten. The British PM made a statement that he wants to ban communication which cannot be intercepted and deciphered by the government. We may as well just send all our communication in plain text ascii.

Preach it brother. Only Jesus has all the answers..

and then the US proceeded to shoot down a satellite after having criticized china for their stunt.

China accuses US of double standards over satellite strike

Your point? Presumably the satellite was about to de-orbit and wold have been a danger due to the fuel. Hydrazine.

Nasty shit, that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

As likely as not, they waited until the thing was close to deorbiting and then took it out. All of that orbiting junk eventually debris. If it is imminent, destroying a potential big hazard that would otherwise fall more or less intact - as far as I know, the hydrazine tank was full as the satellite failed quickly - you'll opt for destroying it at the last moment, and letting the fuel go boom in space.

tell me how we are one iota better off today with the democrat in the White House.

Your justifiable disappointment in both parties leads you to renouncing both of them equally, which is not justifiable in the slightest.

Had a Republican won, we would've still been capturing enemies to be held in Guantanamo — instead of simply killing them. Osama bin Laden would've been on trial, rather than fallen victim to extrajudicial killing .

Putin would not have dared to invade Ukraine. Gaddafi — who has made amends with US after seeing the capture of Saddam Hussein on TV — would've remained in charge of Lybia, instead of that country plunging into chaos. We wouldn't have left Iraq in such haste, which would've kept ISIS in check.

Domestically we would not have had the grossly unpopular Obamacare forced upon us with such vigor, most people — proponents and detractors alike — could not even understand the proposed law before the voting took place.

Republicans and Democrats are an inbred family, sleeping together for the past three generations.

Though the less principled "centrists" or "pragmatists" of the two parties do meet in the middle like stalactites and stalagmites, as those geological phenomena they too come from opposite ends.