Slashdot Mirror

-1 flame bait.

The Navy did not try to deny it - they tried to justify it by saying they didn't want risk hitting the captives.

Read what you will into that - but don't lie to make your point.

No denial, only justification.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article6936352.ece?print=yes

"The cells were then incubated in a solution containing nutrients to encourage them to multiply indefinitely. This nutritious “broth” is derived from the blood products of animal foetuses, although the intention is to come up with a synthetic solution."

NASA's budget is already pretty small, 17.2 billion. The current stimulus plan is valued at 135.15 billion.

Which are both dwarfed by the money spent on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not trying to start a fight, I'm just sayin'...

According to this report (pdf) by the Congressional Research Service, the "official" expenditures to date are listed as about $944 Billion, the UK Times estimated (in Feb 08) that including other things, like the cost of veteran's benefits, it has/will cost the US closer to $3 Trillion.

I agree

Some people like to think that sending jobs to China is a great thing (in a very narrow view it is) the marketing departments have done a great job. "globalization" its a great buzzword like synergy... lol Share the wealth? who is saying this? People who have wealth hmm probably the people who own a factory about to be shut down in favor of one opening in China lol.

Competition is great but outsourcing is not competition thats just a competition of who can get to the bottom of the cheap labor barrel first.

Besides its hard to compete with slave labor.... I bet those collage students from the Tienanmen square thing make a nice iPod or Nike shoe, or is it the 12 year old kids who make the shoe's and collage student prisoners who make the iPod's I get confused sometimes... I sometimes wonder how people can sleep at night doing the things they do to each other then I remember that most of these people would sell there own mother into slavery for an extra stock option.

I guess they make bricks too...

http://chinaview.wordpress.com/2007/06/17/modern-slavery-in-china-status-of-chinese-worker/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article1938288.ece

Of course China says they have had no slavery since 1959 !!!

http://news.scotsman.com/world/We-freed-slaves--just.5821498.jp

I guess "competition in the workplace" is marketing for "We need free labor our profit margins could be much higher if it was free to make this stuff"

Under the present circumstances, such methodical research is not possible. A nuclear-powered spaceship, like the one proposed by Russia, would still take months to make the round-trip to and from Mars.

Humankind's only hope is the development of a hyper-drive (a. k. a. warp-drive) engine based on the science discovered by Burkhard Heim. The Pentagon is currently exploring the construction of such an engine.

Yeah right !

I guess being a mechanic doesn't expose you to the aftermath of crashes.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article6931566.ece

Better luck next time.

If they manufactured it in China then the back door is already built in by the factory so the Chinese can read all traffic or interdict it in a crisis.

Remember this ?

If you want the authentic, non-tourist experience, then you must do your best to blend in! For instance, you might pick out some nice attire like this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00276/flag185x_276439a.jpg

And since you already speak English, you may as well dress it up a bit as well. Practice your favorite British accents so that they won't think you're a "Yank." Sometimes it's even useful to create your own blend of British accents so that they won't know exactly where you're from. And never miss an opportunity to say "Guvna!"

Also, taking a page from the "Friends" TV show, it often helps to "get into" the map. The roads and walkways are somewhat tricky I have heard. But failing your ability to get two-dimensional into a map, never be afraid to ask a local. Once again, using your British accent so they will not think you're a Yank and give you bad directions.

From the article:
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-education-innovate-campaign
"""
Now, the students from Oakton High School are going to be demonstrating the "Cougar Cannon," designed to scoop up and toss moon rocks. I am eager to see what they do -- for two reasons. As President, I believe that robotics can inspire young people to pursue science and engineering. And I also want to keep an eye on those robots, in case they try anything. (Laughter.)
"""

Interesting, coming from someone who gave an order within three days of taking office to use killer robots in a way that allegedly killed three children.

From:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5575883.ece
"Missiles fired from suspected US drones killed at least 15 people inside Pakistan today, the first such strikes since Barack Obama became president and a clear sign that the controversial military policy begun by George W Bush has not changed. Security officials said the strikes, which saw up to five missiles slam into houses in separate villages, killed seven "foreigners" - a term that usually means al-Qaeda - but locals also said that three children lost their lives.'

He does put a robots.txt file in his sites. See for example
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/robots.txt
http://www.thesun.co.uk/robots.txt

He's put loads of crawlers on it. Googlebot isn't one of them, because he presumably is happy for it to visit.

China's economy is a fraction of the size of the U.S.

And yet they export more goods than we do. A LOT has changed since 2000, mostly China ramping up production capacity as rapidly as possible. They've been building out manufacturing and power plants at an unprecedented rate. Let's not forget our massive trade imbalance, either.

Actually that was Yahoo that did that, not Google.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article728898.ece

Yup. For those Slashdotters lacking some of the background on Mandelson's suddenly-developed interest in copyright law:

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6797844.ece

(Not that I'm a Times reader or anything, but this story covers the background as well as many others).

The U.S. sold anthrax and bubonic plague to Iraq 1 2 3. It may not be nerve gas itself, but there is plenty of evidence the U.S. supplied Saddam with WMD.

Both the BBC and aussie ABC have been accused of bias. BBC even admitted to being biased in a self-generated report - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1554749/BBC-report-finds-bias-within-corporation.html

    You won't do very well on the dark side, will you?

    If you can raid a ship, you take take a ship. Now we don't have a problem with replacing ships.

    A gun is a gun is a gun. So getting a US Navy deck gun may not be a reasonable idea, but I'm pretty sure there are some eastern europe who would be more than happy to sell you some old soviet tanks and ammo.

    Oh wait, what am I saying... What about the ship that was taken last year. RPG's, Zu-23 anti-aircraft guns, ammunition and ... 30 Soviet T-72 tanks.

    So tell me how ships and weapons are hard to replace?

    As for their size and speed, sure a cruse ship or freighter is slow. A nice size yacht is smaller, faster, and many could hold a couple Zu-23's pretty easily.

    They don't have to go that far right now, because the unarmed crews of these merchant ships may put up a little fight, but will surrender to guys with AK-47's. It only gets nasty when there's an escellation of force.

And yes Americans will fight in hand-to-hand combat using their hunting rifles if that's what it takes. As Churchill said in the last war: "We shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."

Funny thing, Churchill said that in Europe. You should visit a major European city and see how well they're defending, both their own (I mean physically) and their own values. Even Churchill's own London. But France, and specifically Paris. Some days you would say it's under siege (you see the flames burning every night in a whole lot of cities).

I hope you're right, that in the US it's not happening everywhere like in Europe.

I seriously doubt Obama will *let* Americans fight though, he'll set the army on the people defending themselves, not on the enemy. At least if the choice is between pretending nothing's wrong while people die and being politically incorrect.

Anyone spotted him at Fort Hood yet ? No ? Oh but at the celebration of the fall of the Berlin wall then ? No again ? At the remembrance of the ardens offensive then ? No ?

He did, of course, defend, even praise, the "tolerant" lack of judgement and general idiocy that made the army ignore all warning signs for the Fort Hood massacre though. But don't worry, Obama's made sure that we'll see more of that tolerance. You know that tolerance that lead to at least 13 corpses.

And if you think it's unfair that shooting is caused by islam, blame the shooter. He FIRST shouted "allahu akbar", then started killing randomly.

Not that there's any doubt all "progressives" will punish me for saying this. It's funny how people who are supposedly comitted to destroying dogma do that. You know, when it violates their dogma.

Our president loves political correctness more than he loves life. Too many Americans "secretly" (ahem) hate our military and in fact support the killing.

--
"muslims love death more than you love life, and that's why we will win"
Major Nidal Hasan - 2007, Walter Reed Hospital. He was making a presentation about how muslim soldiers in the American military must not be forced to fight other muslims. He included the reason : if they didn't "adverse events would happen" (his words, not mine)

Salient detail : this is a quote that was originally made by the (paedophilic thief and massmurderer) muslim prophet muhammad, in a letter to the emperor of the eastern roman empire. Whatever your beliefs are, in this specific comment, history would prove him right.

>>>good example of how an independent, publicly funded news organisation can work.

Yes. But think of all the stories you DON'T see on the BBC because they conveniently don't discuss them. There are many, many of them, and it's become rather well-known that the BBC is pro-European Union biased. http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC

I'd rather watch both sides of an argument (FOX and MSNBC) rather than assume I can trust a single source.

The budget for the snooping programme was allocated years ago, about £1bn ($1.6bn US) was made public - it was a nice small sounding figure, nothing heard of the scheme again for years. NOW there is an election looming where everything from lying about immigration to the politicians expenses claims have been leaked, they are claiming that the scheme is dead in the water, when the truth is anything but.

If the spies deny it, it is safe to assume they are lying to placate people
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8032367.stm

The UK's electronic intelligence agency has taken the unusual step of issuing a statement to deny it will track all UK internet and online phone use.

Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) said it was developing tracking technology but "only acts when it is necessary" and "does not spy at will".

Known as Deep Packet Inspection equipment, these probes will "steal" the data, analyse and decode the information and then route it direct to a government-run database.

Or http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4882622.ece

Every call you make, every e-mail you send, every website you visit - I'll be watching you. That is the hope of Sir David Pepper who, as the director of GCHQ, the government's secret eavesdropping agency in Cheltenham, is plotting the biggest surveillance system ever created in Britain.

The scope of the project - classified top secret - is said by officials to be so vast that it will dwarf the estimated £5 billion ministers have set aside for the identity cards programme. It is intended to fight terrorism and crime. Civil liberties groups, however, say it poses an unprecedented intrusion into ordinary citizens' lives.

Aimed at placing a "live tap" on every electronic communication in Britain, it will dwarf other "big brother" surveillance projects such as the number plate recognition system and the spread of CCTV.

I will say that the politicians here like to say "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear". Strangely they don't subscribe to this maxim when you are looking into their criminal expenses claims, or government documents that are deeply embarrassing to the current government that were claimed to not exist - but exist, they just didn't want to release them. The UK police don't like the rise of photo and video cameras showing their abuses of the law, so the current corrupt UK government passes a law where is it's crime to photo / record a police officer. http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=839141

Well they have heard of robots.txt
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/robots.txt

They've blocked lots of searchbots, and Google isn't one of them.

However, the section in lawyerspeak might be what they are going at

#Robots.txt File
#Version: 0.7
#Last updated: 28/05/2008
#Timesonline Newspaper
#Site contents Copyright Times Newspapers Ltd
#Please note our terms and conditions
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,497,00.html
#Spidering is not allowed by our terms and conditions
#Authorised spidering is subject to permission
#For authorisation please contact us - see
http://www.nisyndication.com/about_us.html

Well they have heard of robots.txt
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/robots.txt

They've blocked lots of searchbots, and Google isn't one of them.

However, the section in lawyerspeak might be what they are going at

#Robots.txt File
#Version: 0.7
#Last updated: 28/05/2008
#Timesonline Newspaper
#Site contents Copyright Times Newspapers Ltd
#Please note our terms and conditions
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,497,00.html
#Spidering is not allowed by our terms and conditions
#Authorised spidering is subject to permission
#For authorisation please contact us - see
http://www.nisyndication.com/about_us.html

"corporate" in the sense of group not in the sense of corporation

Three guesses what the "C" in "BBC" stands for.

I consider corporate interest of a news media organization to be a subcategory of reporting bias.

WTF?

And I am not mistaken in this consideration.

Wow. Feeling self-confident today, aren't we?

I don't even see the point of making statements like the above. It doesn't matter what they are "required" to do. Being funded by a particular tax introduces a bias in their outlook that can't be removed with a "requirement".

You seem to have a propositional fallacy.

As an aside, I've googled "BBC bias" and have come up (though trivial effort) with several examples of BBC bias, including favoring "political correctness" and "liberal culture", a tendency to assign racists to the right hand side of the political spectrum, and slanting the coverage of some religious groups.

Way to go. You link to an article by News Corp, the largest, most biased media organisation in the world which jumps at every chance to take a stab at the BBC.
Your other links are to a blog that is fixated on the BBCs coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, despite being the only major western news organisation with an extensive network in Palestine.

But if you think about it, everyone employed at the BBC is paid in large part from a tax. Why wouldn't they be so biased?

People will have a personal opinion, but that needn't influence their work. That's more or lesswhat being objective means.

The BBC is indeed biased as you'd expect of a human organization.

Your assumption of inherent bias is dangerous and simply untrue. When senior figures attack their organisation they do indeed give them adequate coverage, as illustrated by the articles linked earlier on in the thread.

You seem to be mistaking reporting bias with corporate interest.

No. I consider corporate interest ("corporate" in the sense of group not in the sense of corporation) of a news media organization to be a subcategory of reporting bias. And I am not mistaken in this consideration.

BBC programs are required to be objective and unbiased, and it seems they live up to that requirement more than most broadcasters.

I don't even see the point of making statements like the above. It doesn't matter what they are "required" to do. Being funded by a particular tax introduces a bias in their outlook that can't be removed with a "requirement". For some reason, I routinely read on Slashdot, smug yet naive boasting about the unbiased nature of the BBC and I just grew tired of it.

As an aside, I've googled "BBC bias" and have come up (though trivial effort) with several examples of BBC bias, including favoring "political correctness" and "liberal culture", a tendency to assign racists to the right hand side of the political spectrum, and slanting the coverage of some religious groups.

This mirrors the stereotypical whining of "liberal bias" often seen in the States. But if you think about it, everyone employed at the BBC is paid in large part from a tax. Why wouldn't they be so biased? Oh yea, that "requirement".

Many of the above cited sources are heavily biased (eg, as you'd expect of a blog that specializes in finding bias, real or otherwise, in the BBC), but they do illustrate the point. The BBC is indeed biased as you'd expect of a human organization. Honestly, the BBC has relatively low bias for a news organization and a government organization, but it is foolish to use the term, "unbiased" and I really wish slashdotters would stop annoying me with that term.

Nope

The bread was discovered on a busbar - an electrical connection inside one of eight buildings above ground on the 17-mile (27km) circuit in the Swiss countryside.

They don't need to invest in roofs, what they really need are doors.

Not sure that's correct either... or there's some pretty impressive flying involved.... or throwing...

From Times Online:

The best guess is that it was dropped by a bird, either that or it was thrown out of a passing aeroplane.

This article gives more information

Further investigation into the failure of a cryogenic cooling plant revealed an unusual impediment. A piece of crusty bread had paralysed a high voltage installation that should have been powering the cooling unit.
[...]
A spokeswoman for CERN confirmed that baguette was responsible for the latest hiatus, but she conceded that mystery surrounded the way it got into the vital power installation, which is protected by high security fences.
“Nobody knows how it got there,” she told The Times. “The best guess is that it was dropped by a bird, either that or it was thrown out of a passing aeroplane.”
“Obviously this was slightly surprising. Within the team there was some amusement once they had relaxed after initial concerns.”
The bread was discovered on a busbar - an electrical connection inside one of eight buildings above ground on the 17-mile (27km) circuit in the Swiss countryside.
The spokeswoman said: “The collider extends over a very large area – you have to have a very comprehensive system to try to avoid problems of this kind. We’re talking about a couple of days down time.”
Scientists hope that the temperature will be restored by around midnight tonight allowing work to continue. The failure of the cooler meant the temperature rose around 5 degrees to the equivalent of about -266C.

A lot of things will drop on sections "of outdoor machinery". It seems that this LHC machine has been designed in such a way that will never get a chance to work.

>>>one of the most respected and most responsible news agencies in the world is the BBC, a government funded news company.

I have no respect for it. It's pro-big-government (and pro-EU) biased. Just read this website for an hour, and you'll see for yourself: http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/

Or this criticism of the BBC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC

Or this official report from the BBC itself: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1942948.ece

Funnily enough, directly opposite Cory Doctorow's column in today's Times is an opinion piece by Hugo Rifkind, saying that the main reason drugs ruin lives is because getting caught will ruin your life.

1) Most of the people involved in drug cartels are brainless thugs or stupid patsies. Not the type of people likely to use a high-tech solution to a problem.

Drug cartels don't use high tech tools? I recall people asking who would have a need for a cellphone unless they deal in drugs. And before cellphones it was pagers. "Paging her dealer?" I bet organized crime syndicates, even Mexicans, use computers.

4) The US Air Force. Do you REALLY think that they will allow foreign UAVs to fly for long in US Airspace?

Yeap, they certainly will. The Air Force certainly shot down that Northwest flight to Minneapolis. And that was high altitude. A UAV can fly at low altitudes evading radar long enough to hop over the border. Smugglers even use submarines, which can carry more drugs and other contraband.

Falcon

1) Most of the people involved in drug cartels are brainless thugs or stupid patsies. Not the type of people likely to use a high-tech solution to a problem.

"Most?" Ok, I guess if you're really smart you get legit work. But the drug cartels are not entirely without clever people.

For instance, they've built a number of near-submarines (photos), and there are rumors of GPS guided ones in the works. (I say "near-submarines" because they float just below the surface and run an air-breathing engine using a snorkel). Seems pretty sophisticated to me.

The protagonist responded it was to which the minster replied "well, that's not what it means".

Would be great if anyone could remember who was involved.

IIRC that was Jack Straw, then Home Secretary.

I also wrote to my MP at the time who basically said "well, yes it may say that but it'll never be enforced in that way, so what's the concern?". My argument to that has always been "if you don't want it enforced in that way, don't write it so it can be".

Lo and behold, we now have councils using this legislation to spy on people for all sorts of petty reasons. The original plan was it would be used to spy on potential benefit cheats (some benefits are administered by local government), but instead we have this:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article4036231.ece

Maybe profits on vaccines aren't really there?

At least, 'investors' think so, resulting in rising stock prices.

CC.

Yes. It was Vaclav Klaus, the Czech president and the rumour was that the Germans were talking about having him impeached for refusing to sign. Some background in the Economist and The Times. Of course, there's history between the Czechs and the Germans as we know...

The hilarious thing is, it appears to be a reprint of this article, the URL of which lacks the 'www'.

If the taxpayer wasn't funding your solar panels, it would be financially unviable.

Sadly, solar power at this level will always be pointless- far better to spend our taxpayers' money on something meaningful (e.g. a good power station) than waste time and money on subsidising PV panels on individual houses.

I wish you well with your payback in 12 years!

I hope governments (US and UK) stop subsidising these panels and let them succeed or fail on their merits, instead of an opaque quasi-benefits system.

Is solar power a viable power option: 1000km x 1000km of Sahara solar power is enough to power the world

A child will be much better off in the end with jack-off, irresponsible parents than if you rip them out of the home and into foster care.

What, like this one?

How much worse could it have been?

According to a startling report just issued by the "New York Times", "senior staff members of the United Nations nuclear agency have concluded in a confidential analysis that Iran has acquired 'sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable' atom bomb." In 2007, American intelligence erroneously concluded that Tehran in 2003 stopped further research into designing [a] nuclear bomb. This [American] conclusion was contradicted by Germany, French, and Israeli intelligence. Recently, London has concluded that the American assessment is incorrect.

So, here we are. The Iranians have the knowledge to build a nuclear bomb and have been working relentlessly to perfect its design. Tehran is now creating the parts (e. g., enriched unranium) that can be assembled into such a weapon.

Meanwhile, Jerusalem is justifiably on the verge of ordering its military to bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities. Will Paris offer military support to the Israelis? A bombing mission against Iran is a difficult military operation and needs the assistance of the French superpower."

Studies have shown your better off drunk than texting. Other studies have shown that hands-free is just as bad as holding the phone to your ear.

There have been many calls for jury trials for complex cases to be dismissed. The problem is that there is no perfect solution. You just end up put the finding of guilt in to the hands of one or more chosen people, rather than a random set of people. As to the complexity of modern trials, The Times had an interesting article about this recently - Does the jury system still work? The comments by QCs and Judges there suggest that it is the job of the court to distill the argument into normal English and make it understandable to the jury. From this perspective, it is a failure of a specific court trial if this doesn't happen, rather than a failure of the system as a whole. As for the prospect of professional judges trying dependents in juryless trials, there is the worrying and high profile case of Al Megrahi, who was convicted in a jury-less trial by three professional judges based upon the flimsiest of evidence.

Any country who's leaders publicly and openly threaten another nation with annihilation have no business with weapons that are capable of human extinction until they prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that such a belief is no longer prevalent.

Iran hasn't done that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#.22Wiped_off_the_map.22_or_.22Vanish_from_the_pages_of_time.22_translation

Funnily though, the US has.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article647188.ece

a law making it illegal to eat an apple whilst driving

Don't need a law for that. Just a cop who thinks he's seen you using a phone and doesn't want to give up on a fine. The police? Backing down or admitting they were wrong? That would be a sign of weakness!

To be honest, I'm rather ambivalent about the constant bickering/fighting/posturing between certain countries and Israel. However, based what I've seen of Israel's reaction to overt threats in the past, I can't imagine that they'll allow this to go on for much longer. I suspect the US has been putting an enormous amount of pressure on them to not conduct an air raid(s) to take out the various facilities. That's not going to be enough to prevent a confrontation for much longer.

Israel gained proof of nuclear plans and then destroyed Syria's nuclear cache with a tactical airstrike. I don't doubt they will do the same thing to Iran.

Actually, if you want to cut accidents, then this is what you want to do rather than adding more obstacles...

The the same should apply for tape/cd players, mp3 players, and radios.
Why stop at just phones and gps devices?

It doesn't even stop there. You could be fined (at least in the UK) for not having both hands on the wheel because you were eating an apple while driving

Lily Allen actually wrote (or had ghost-written, but I'm willing to assume good faith to the extent of regurgitating the labels' position in her own words rather than putting her name to someone else's) a guest column for one of the major British newspapers.

Is rioting an "extreme circumstance"?

It seems the Guardian takes a more positive view on the protesters than other publications (for example, "protesters riot as police used tear gas", which is somewhat skewed for the protesters compared with the Times article I linked). I personally don't believe any politician would have dared to risk his chair for dispersing a violent mob, unless they were stealing and/or murdering locals. You know, they do like power.

When you go that fast, there's no point in being scared of much.

I think Jeremy Clarkson put it well when he wrote the following about the Bugatti Veyron at top speed:

Happily, stopping distances become irrelevant because you won't see the obstacle in the first place. By the time you know it was there, you'll have gone through the windscreen, through the Pearly Gates and be half way across God's breakfast table.

( From: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article596580.ece )

More global citations may include here [longrangeweather.com] or here [wikipedia.org], both of which throw some concern on taking your citation as the ultimate word.

That first graph utterly contradicts all other sources I've seen. I highly doubt its accuracy.

As to the second graph, the scale is so compressed that it's very difficult to see that the current warming trend over the past several decades is an order of magnitude faster than past warming. A warming of a few degrees Celsius over 200 years would appear as a vertical line (literally one pixel wide on that bit-mapped graph!), as opposed to the lines with obvious, albeit steep, slopes.

The bottom line is that the warming we've seen in the past several decades is unprecedented in its rate of change. It's also in line with the warming that was predicted by Arrhenius over 100 years ago and by the Jason committee in 1979.

Um, this is the arctic. When you melt that ice, the sea level will remain unchanged.

When sea ice melts, it does not change the sea level. Obviously, Miller was referring to ice that is on land. There's lots of ice in the Arctic that is on land, for example, in Greenland, Canada, Russia, and Alaska. The sea level has been rising due to melting ice sheets and the thermal expansion of the ocean. Within the next century, rising sea level is predicted to inundate a number of urban areas.

1) the recycleables we send them are for various reasons. .... shredded plastics. Type 1, 2, and 6 plastics are recylced right here, most of which is sent to our local bottling plants and never leaves the state (unless the newly filled bottle does).
http://www.climatechangecorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=6132
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/09/recycling-global-recession-china
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1942906.ece
http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Recycling/Problem-With-Plastics5jun03.htm



It IS carbon nuetral. The CO2 input into the gas is from already expelled CO2. They are not using any stored source of CO2 in the process, so they are not introducing CO2 that would not already have been released. That is the scientific definition of carbon nuetral! The energy in the system is entirely from wind. No additional oil or energy is required, nor does it remove from the economy another product that reqwuires more oil.
Oh, goody. With that logic, then we should be able to shut down the coal and natural gas input stream and get all the electricity as well as hydrocarbons that we want.
The doty process absolutely is NOT carbon neutral. If it was, then you would simply be able to capture it from the air. It depends on Natural gas and Coal being burned and having a relatively pure stream of CO2. What it does is increase the efficiency of the burning of coal/natural gas process. Now, that is not a bad thing. The more so, considering that we sending billions of dollar elsewhere to buy oil in the ground. BUT, to claim that it is carbon neutral is at best a W-level "disingenuous".

I think this guy has prior art: