Nobody said conspiracy, just plain crappy code. You don't need a conspiracy if you are "trying to prove" something, your crappy code spits out what you want to see and you run with it. You just need plain old incompetence.
The reason people are skeptical of the science of global warming and IPCC is because it is not science.
From Wikipedia "scientific method".
Sometimes experimenters may make systematic errors during their experiments, unconsciously veer from a scientific method (Pathological science) for various reasons, or, in rare cases, deliberately falsify their results. Consequently, it is a common practice for other scientists to attempt to repeat the experiments in order to duplicate the results, thus further validating the hypothesis.
Opinion:
Mann, Jones and their cronies have done everything possible to hide the data they used to produce their theories. They have actively set out to destroy documentation and raw data in order to deny anyone who many disagree with them the opportunity to review their work (their words, not mine). Even if they were correct, their theory cannot be taken on their honor alone. If their results were reproducible or maybe even if they publicized their methods that would bring them closer to actual science. But they do not and will not, viz. what they are up to is not science.
Are you too cool to read the interview that Daily Mail did with Dr Murari Lal, the author of the IPCC section in question? He is quoted heavily in the article. Maybe you are implying that Dr. Murari Lal is lying to discredit himself? Actually, I'm not sure what you're implying. It's an interview with the actual author, not an opinion piece. Maybe you could offer up an actual critique of the article or what Dr. Murari said. It is really not enough to declare all reporting from Daily Mail invalid.
The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report's chapter on Asia, said: 'It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
'It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.'
"But he [Rajenda Pachauri (Head of the IPCC)] admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report, and said that he was considering whether to take action against those responsible."...
"A table below says that between 1845 and 1965, the Pindari Glacier shrank by 2,840m -- a rate of 135.2m a year. The actual rate is only 23.5m a year."...
"I [Professor Hasnain] was keeping quiet as I was working here," he said. "My job is not to point out mistakes. And you know the might of the IPCC. What about all the other glaciologists around the world who did not speak out?"
My opinion:
This is the only section of the IPCC under critical review right now. Do you really think are not "other errors" elsewhere in the report that make "innocent mistakes" that mischaracterize actual observations to the tune of x10-x100 the actual observations that always seem to error on the side of promoting AGW? Billions of dollars of funding are awarded to scientists substantiate the theories that their political check writers want, this is the poison in the science! After all, this error was not until recently 'pointed out' by Prof. Hasnain because he was afraid of the "might of the IPCC". Still think it's not a house of cards? Just wait until public opinion shifts enough for scientists to speak critically of the report without the threat of losing their job and/or funding.
Can anyone show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the government can force you to buy health insurance? On this basis alone this bill should never have come to fruition. We have this thing call enumerated powers in our Constitution and nowhere does it say the government can compel anyone to buy health insurance just because they are alive.
My big problem with all this behavior legislation is that I want a black sports car because it makes me happy, and I'm willing to pay a lot of extra money in order to get it. The government of a free country should not stop that pursuit. The stupid car is supposed to get poor MPG! It's a damn race car! And it's black because black is the best color and I'll keep driving black race cars until they make a darker color race car. It costs me more money not you. So stay the hell outa my business!
These guys have some nerve, they have "borrowed" more hardware and software from other people than any other major computer manufacture, and all done with a wink and a nod to their fans (oh ya Intel sucks, huh Apple).
Would it not follow that FreeBSD should tell Apple that their OSx has "duplicated functionality" to gnome/KDE and ask them to remove it from the BSD OS they so graciously borrowed? Or perhaps the PC industry can politely ask Apple to quit putting their off white boxes around their damn hardware and slapping Apple stickers on them, because they are just "duplicated functionality" of a PC.
The argument: "because there are other applications that compete with our application you can't install them" is preposterous. Can you imagine if MS said you can only install IE now? Only Apple can get away with this because they have droves of lunatic fanatics (in the media and elsewhere) that would gladly throw their bodies on top of any critical message of Apple to try and drown out the sound of the growing number of critics of the absurd policies that Apple makes. What happened to equal protection under the law in this country? If MS did anything near this they would already be coughing up blood from the PR beating they would take, Apple doesn't even have a scratch. They contradict publicly filed FCC documents, and expect everyone to believe their insane argument of "duplicated functionality". Well guess what Apple, you have duplicated the functionality of a jackass and the jackass asks that you cease and desist immediately.
Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism.
Your claim that I am a murder was just made up, and I could actually sue you for libel in this country (USA), so you have proven yourself to be a complete jack ass. I never said "Hey I murdered someone", Vivek, on the other hand, did say he has a bio degree that seems to have vanished. And that's why Vivek can never sue for the question being raised.
Your problem is you believe it to be the responsibility of the person refuting the unsubstantiated claim to prove his case. When someone makes a claim, in this case Vivek claimed he has a bio degree, it is up to Vivek not the person saying "Ok, show us the degree." to produce evidence of the degree. It is not enough that Vivek has redacted the information in previous resumes! If this guy is a liar, and he got caught lying, he should be fired on those grounds alone. Vivek will continue to ignore many of the other serious claims laid against him, which will only make the people questioning him grow louder.
Who's the troll? There are legitimate questions about the man, you have put to rest one of the many problems with his past, already pointed out by Dvorak in the article I linked to, and somehow the rest of the problems are supposed to just vanish now? Sorry, Vivek will have to answer for each of the accusations put forth, not just one of the many and the rest go away.
Here's the stuff that Vivek has yet to resolve, from Dvorak's article. And I think they are major issues. Hell, any honest person thinks that falsifying credentials is a major issue.
But his degree in biology has yet to appear as his record shows a degree from College Park Campus for Psychology and nothing more.
The most ridiculous is his assertion that he was formerly a CEO of Creostar. While records for this company are hard to come by a small Dun & Bradstreet service did turn up the following information: there was indeed a Creostar in Arlington, VA. It was founded in 2004 with the contact being Vivek Kundra. The last record for the company (online) showed sales of $67,000 with one employee - apparently Kundra, the CEO.
Most revealing is a bio of Kundra that was redacted from the Washington, DC municipal site....
...He finishes with "He received his master's in information technology and his bachelor's in psychology and biology from the University of Maryland." The biology bachelor's comes and goes from his bio, but the University has no record of his biology degree either.
So what have we got so far from this person? Well, for starters we are looking at the Recovery.gov website that will cost the taxpayers around $18 million. This news was released recently. What websites costs $18 million? And that's with no warrantee.
There is more of course, but you can read the damn article yourself! If there was nothing to hide why have your bio redacted? Why not just show all these degrees that you claim to have? Why not just explain yourself to your growing number of critics?
XLR isn't about the stereo or the speakers, it's all about recording the sound. Once you have the sound on your computer/amp/mixer whatever when you output it to the speakers it's a simple 2 conductor operation (banana plug, bare wire,1/4" cable etc.) To get started with XLR you need:
1. Mic that uses XLR connector, a really good mic is the SURE 57. (about $100)
2. Mic preamp. Almost all preamps use XLR, some mixers have preamps built into them. (another $50 at least)
3. Something to record on. I'm guessing you're using a computer.
There are specialized sound cards made just for recording, they start pretty cheap ($100 e.g.: emu), but you won't get an XLR input on a sound card for less than $200, if you're happy using your mic preamp and going into the balanced 1/4" a $100 card you can still get a very good recording, but really you should have XLR inputs on the card itself so it's "XLR" ([sic]eXtremly Low Resistance) all the way to the card. And then there's the software. I like Sonar. Some people like cubebase, even others like fruity loops and if you have a mac there is the ubiquitous pro tools. Really you're looking at spending about $300 for the whole setup, and then you can finally get rid of that stupid hum. Don't forget, if you have an electric guitar/bass that you will need to shield the pickups using some a-foil around the wires pots and any crossovers etc. that may be contain electrical pathways. Also, make sure you've attached your bridge to the ground wire so it grounds on your fingers.
Here are some low cost pro sound cards: http://www.emu.com/ http://www.m-audio.com/index.php?ID=recording&do=products.family
FEL are a bunch of counter-revolutionary hacks. You can't seriously surround yourself with those loons! On the other hand, the People's Front for Earth Liberation, now that's a movement!
And that's why you should always use XLR. XLR is low resistance and balanced (so the floor does not move around and cause AC hum), they can even deliver 78v power along two of the lines on demand to mics that require phantom power. All quality mics and amps are XLR. But most importantly XLR has very good SNR to kill that RF you're talking about. Some buzzing is from RF true, but mostly it is from the ground being on a different level on the different pieces of equipment you're using. If it was just RF you could solve that with a little a-foil. However the AC hum from dissimilar grounds is a little more difficult to get away from. If you must use two pieces of equipment and plug them into each other make sure you're using the same circuit, different circuits will for sure give you a different ground level. Also, if you're recording what is coming out of your amp, consider recording the amp by micing the amp, most pros use this method as they want to capture the unique sound of the amp and room as well as the little diddle on the 6 string, and you get rid of your little AC hum problem. (If you got the XLR mic, mic pre and blah blah blah)
Thanks for helping with my characterization of AGW and its supporters. Here's what you've said:
I'm not sure whether you're unintelligent
Ahh, let's see, that matches my "anyone who does not believe us or pokes holes in our data or logic is a stupid AGW denier "
Ok next:
Simply compare historically recorded temperature and rainfall averages for the last ten years, with virtually any period in recorded history before the last decade.
Seems just like "We may not have all the data, we don't even know if the data we have is valid, in fact we know we don't have all the data, and what we do have is invalid or at the very best incomplete"
Global warming is not theoretical, and it is not controversial. It is very real. If you doubt that, it is very easy to verify.
Ahh, global warming is theoretical and is controversial! And you know both of these things to be the absolute truth! Even the proponents of AGW call it a damn theory. Why would you make such an obvious false statement? I can only assume that you've gotten excited and forgot that it is just a theory, and the theory is controversial. I mean, we are arguing about it at length with millions of other people, if that's not controversy I don't know what is.
The governance of this planet by the aforementioned corporations
ahh, what corporations control the U.S government? Or the EPA? Do you really think corporations control the EPA?!?! What, do they get kicks by outlawing their own industries?! What on earth are you talking about? TFA is about AGW on trial, are there going to be corporations controlling the trial? Is the judiciary infiltrated by dow chemical? What this really comes down to is the government, the "we're going to war if you like it or not government", imposing regulations on C02. Get that fucking ball rolling and see where it goes, right into your lungs and your car and your electrical generation, once you give the government, which I'm sure you have complete confidence in, the control over C02 there is no end to how they can regulate your life. Too much jet travel, can't fly anymore this year, or how about that car of yours it emits C02, and you seem to be using your FAN too much and it's COSTING THE COMUNITY TOO MUCH MONEY FOR YOU TO PASS AIR OVER YOUR BODY.
I live in Melbourne, Australia. We've just had our hottest Summer on record, with temperatures reaching 46.5 degrees C. Last Summer was also host to some of the most devastating bushfires our country has ever had, as well. We're also currently experiencing our warmest Winter on record.
Very sad about the deaths in brush fires, however the death is due more to your government not allowing people to cut plants away from their houses (which grow even more due to increased C02 levels). Brush fires and high temperature have always been a part of life in AU, but I'm sure you already know that. There were brush fire long before man, and there were high temperatures long before man. If you like complete records look at geological rock strata. Fires and high temperatures do not AGW make.
The continuation of any life on Earth, and the continuation of the existence of the Corporation, as a very concept, in contemporary terms, are mutually exclusive. For one of these two things to continue to exist, the other must be entirely destroyed. This, honestly without exaggeration or hyperbole, is the situation we currently face.
I guess you must be one of those truly thoughtful individuals who thinks that the "community" or the "workers" need to control the means of production versus say a cooperation owned by stock holders or individuals. Sound a lot like communism. Here's what happens whe
How is any part of what I said contradicted by your message?
We have very real data that shows average temperatures are warming, and at a much faster rate than we are aware of in our planet's history.
As I said in my statement, you don't have all the data, and what data you do have is incomplete or false, but you're willing to blow the livelihoods of millions of people (yes, Pnuema, that "billions of dollars" = individual people's time here on earth!) on an untested and thus far demonstrably false theory, then you're the one with logical fallacy not I. And if you're perfectly willing to throw your money on that fire, I'm sure Al Gore has a program that will save the earth if only he can get a hold of your money. Apparently the Bank of Mother Earth won't turn off the front burner till Al clears that check. I'm quite sure I got modded "informative" then modded "troll" because this really is the AGW argument, also funny how all the people replying have yet to contradict my characterization of AGW.
Really, if all you're doing is reinforcing what I already stated to be the case, why even comment? What I'm saying here is supported by the facts, and all you have is "undeniable" theory, which is sort of a contradiction in and of itself. Oh the warming is "undeniable"? Well that works both ways, because the "cooling" for the last decade is also undeniable, and that does not fit into any theory on AGW.
But please, before you reply, please work out for me where my characterization of AGW is wrong. You say it's wrong earlier but go on to say the same things I said, even if it is in a more litigious manner.
C02, something we exhale with every breath you take. Without this gas life on earth would not be possible. Plants require this gas to live, indeed when this gas is abundant plants thrive. This gas is given off by all animals. A gas that is turned back into O2 by the plants, plants which we require to survive. All these things are well established facts, as valid as the earth is round.
Now a group of people (they are just people after all, not gods) come along and literally say "We may not have all the data, we don't even know if the data we have is valid, in fact we know we don't have all the data, and what we do have is invalid or at the very best incomplete, and even if we did have all the data we haven't a clue how this "weather" thing works anyway, but we put this partial and incorrect data into this computer (apparently called deus ex machina) and it says that C02 is actually bad for the environment because we predict it will alter the weather! Even though our predictions thus far are incorrect, just take our word for it. And anyone who does not believe us or pokes holes in our data or logic is a stupid AGW denier that also believes the earth is flat."
Anyone want to explain why I should believe someone who would say such a thing? If that isn't the AGW argument, perhaps someone can explain what part is inconsistent with the AGW argument. And now the government and politicians wants to grab the helm of this out of control religion (after all it does require a degree of faith) and start telling people what they can and can't do "because of global warming" while they (the politicians) make millions of dollars by robbing us blind. This whole thing stinks! And if that really is the AGW argument, why on earth would anyone, without some ulterior motive, believe such a thing.
I don't really know where to start, but I'll get the low hanging fruit first.
Quoting Wikipedia does your case little to no good really. A credible source would be better. (-:
This is the statement of a coward. Please find a link to refute the information I provided. Wikipedia is an excellent source of information about political spectrum, and a load of other things. Please find another place you find more credible if you wish to dispute the information. Is there some part you want to refute? Is the entry incorrect somewhere? Oh, you can't be bothered to write what you thought was incorrect can you? To any reasonable person the definition is correct and stands.
By any sensible standards-even US ones-he is not [a Marxist]
Why not read what Marxism is all about before you say someone IS or ISN'T a Marxist. Since Marx is the father of socialism it's not a stretch of any sort to call a socialist a Marxist.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating state, public or common worker (e.g. through cooperatives) ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation.
Sounds like social security, Medicare, Medicaid. Most recently GM, AIG, Fanny and Freddy were already government owned and controlled, I mean the list goes on and on - I don't know what you would call those programs, but they sure fit the definition above for me! So yes, advancing the socialist programs and ideas in this country will get you labeled a socialist and yes, even if you wish it weren't so: socialist = Marxist. It's like calling a Libertarian a Conservative or a Communist a Liberal or a Catholic a Christian or a Sunni a Muslim, I can think of more examples but you get the point I think.
I just designed a better fighter than the F22 Raptor on the back of an envelope.
The F-22 was actually made by a private company. And Obama shit canned the project so now we only have a few dozen F-22 (whatever was in production) calling it "wasteful government spending" meanwhile we bailed out AIG for more than 7700 billion dollers, wow that would buy us (138M/77000M=557) 557 new F-22's!!!! Oh, and the money we gave AIG is all gone! but don't worry, every one of those IOU's is good.
Was not the previous US administration the most statist in living memory, you remember Bush don't you? I thought he was a bit right wing what?
He was not considered a bit right wing, he wasn't considered right wing at all! GWB is off to the left of JFK! My god man, Bush spent more on the African AIDS fight and federal education than all his predisesors put together. He signed off on the $700B TARP legislation. Bush is not "right wing" by any strech of the imagination. Maybe you can point out something he did that you consider "right wing" before you go throwing the statement around. The only people who considered him "right wing" are people who are so far out on the lunatic fringe of the left that Ted Kennedy looks "right wing".
In just a few minutes I could have saved the allies heaps of effort and resources by doing the entire Manhattan project in my kitchen.
The right and left spectrums in other countries are unrelated to the right left spectrum in this country. I'll prove it for you real quick so there is no confusion.
Right in the U.S.A.:
Opposes growing government
Right in any other country:
Promotes growing government
The confusion is in the birth of the nation. The "right" or the "old guard" in this country is inherently anti-government, so to be a true "patriot", as in a member of the "old guard" or the right, you would also be very wary of your government and not promote a large one, but rather a small one with limited and enumerated powers. But to be on the "left" or the "new guard" you would need to be the opposite of whatever it is the "old guard" stands for.
In every country, even France, the left is anti-government and the right is pro-government. So in France, as an example, to be patriotic you would be pro-government.
The whole "new guard" vs. "old guard" actually came from France, and means just that, "left" vs. "right" in reference to the side they sat on of the room where they met to govern. The meaning changes from country to country, so it's more useful to use the following comparison gauging political spectrum in the U.S.A.
Right = Focus on the individual liberty Left = Focus on the community needs
The community being the state, and the state being the federal government, so leftist = statist = socialist, not my definition, that just what a statist is. Characterizing Obama as right or left in another country is like comparing apples and oranges. Obama is however a statist, factually speaking he is the most statist member of his party. As a matter of principle he believes that the state can accomplish anything, and do it better than any individual.
And that's all fine and dandy, but there are no (as in zero) examples of the state actually doing better than the individual so I think his whole philosophy is bunk. That last little part is just my opinion, the rest is verifiable fact.
My theory is that security experts (and novices like myself) feel totally... betrayed, flummoxed, frustrated, whatever, that we are still using security algorithms that have been compromised. I know you need a supercomputer to crack SHA-1, however last I checked there are quite a few of those, and you can basically make a mini-supercomputer with a dozen or so quad core computers or even a few PS3's. Not to mention all the other various "in the wild" security vulnerabilities that people don't care to fix.
Here's another HUGE problem that's being glossed over: SPAM. All you need to do in some cases is turn on an email client to be compromised because some jerk didn't feel like fixing that buffer issue in their handling of GIF images, and you didn't even know it was an issue because the manufacture was keeping the vulnerability a secret, and what would you do about it anyway? "Sorry Dan, you can't turn on your email client until this vulnerability is patched". That shit is just not in the cards. What do you do? Ignore the problem? So many security issues read EXACTLY like this. Eventually you have to say "Sorry we can't fix it, and you can't stop working so let's just pretend there is no problem."
This huge unspoken problem is gnawing away at my subconscious when I try and tighten security. In the back of your head there's a little FreeBSD daemon saying "Hey, it really doesn't matter if you update that port, the Chinese can crack it anyway." Or "What's it matter? There is some vulnerability that you are not privy to that is going to take the whole system down, so why mess with patching?" Of course you try and ignore the voice and patch anyway. However, that does not make the voice go away.
And maybe that time I did update it, but maybe next time I'll say "what's it matter, it's been compromised and nobody is interested in fixing it, I certainly can't fix it. So why should I care?". I think the attitude trickles down from the IT Sec. guys into the regular IT guys and then into the non IT guys until everyone has this cavalier attitude about security: "No matter how hard I try someone will always be able to break in, so fuck it. "
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody said conspiracy, just plain crappy code. You don't need a conspiracy if you are "trying to prove" something, your crappy code spits out what you want to see and you run with it. You just need plain old incompetence.
"Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it"
-Prof. Jones CRU
-Prof. Jones CRU
The reason people are skeptical of the science of global warming and IPCC is because it is not science. From Wikipedia "scientific method".
Opinion:
Mann, Jones and their cronies have done everything possible to hide the data they used to produce their theories. They have actively set out to destroy documentation and raw data in order to deny anyone who many disagree with them the opportunity to review their work (their words, not mine). Even if they were correct, their theory cannot be taken on their honor alone. If their results were reproducible or maybe even if they publicized their methods that would bring them closer to actual science. But they do not and will not, viz. what they are up to is not science.
Are you too cool to read the interview that Daily Mail did with Dr Murari Lal, the author of the IPCC section in question? He is quoted heavily in the article. Maybe you are implying that Dr. Murari Lal is lying to discredit himself? Actually, I'm not sure what you're implying. It's an interview with the actual author, not an opinion piece. Maybe you could offer up an actual critique of the article or what Dr. Murari said. It is really not enough to declare all reporting from Daily Mail invalid.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html
My opinion: This is the only section of the IPCC under critical review right now. Do you really think are not "other errors" elsewhere in the report that make "innocent mistakes" that mischaracterize actual observations to the tune of x10-x100 the actual observations that always seem to error on the side of promoting AGW? Billions of dollars of funding are awarded to scientists substantiate the theories that their political check writers want, this is the poison in the science! After all, this error was not until recently 'pointed out' by Prof. Hasnain because he was afraid of the "might of the IPCC". Still think it's not a house of cards? Just wait until public opinion shifts enough for scientists to speak critically of the report without the threat of losing their job and/or funding.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece
So the FCC can't rule by fiat? They should ask the EPA how they get to rule by fiat! Only seems fair.
Can anyone show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the government can force you to buy health insurance? On this basis alone this bill should never have come to fruition. We have this thing call enumerated powers in our Constitution and nowhere does it say the government can compel anyone to buy health insurance just because they are alive.
They're already talking about banning dark color cars: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/26/AR2009032603316.html
While at the same time mandating that we only use darker color paints: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cool-paints/draft_regs_coolcars_032709.pdf
My big problem with all this behavior legislation is that I want a black sports car because it makes me happy, and I'm willing to pay a lot of extra money in order to get it. The government of a free country should not stop that pursuit. The stupid car is supposed to get poor MPG! It's a damn race car! And it's black because black is the best color and I'll keep driving black race cars until they make a darker color race car. It costs me more money not you. So stay the hell outa my business!
It seems everyone realized at once.
We can trust Henry! HE IS Nostrildomus http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&resnum=0&q=henry%20waxman&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
These guys have some nerve, they have "borrowed" more hardware and software from other people than any other major computer manufacture, and all done with a wink and a nod to their fans (oh ya Intel sucks, huh Apple).
Would it not follow that FreeBSD should tell Apple that their OSx has "duplicated functionality" to gnome/KDE and ask them to remove it from the BSD OS they so graciously borrowed? Or perhaps the PC industry can politely ask Apple to quit putting their off white boxes around their damn hardware and slapping Apple stickers on them, because they are just "duplicated functionality" of a PC.
The argument: "because there are other applications that compete with our application you can't install them" is preposterous. Can you imagine if MS said you can only install IE now? Only Apple can get away with this because they have droves of lunatic fanatics (in the media and elsewhere) that would gladly throw their bodies on top of any critical message of Apple to try and drown out the sound of the growing number of critics of the absurd policies that Apple makes. What happened to equal protection under the law in this country? If MS did anything near this they would already be coughing up blood from the PR beating they would take, Apple doesn't even have a scratch. They contradict publicly filed FCC documents, and expect everyone to believe their insane argument of "duplicated functionality". Well guess what Apple, you have duplicated the functionality of a jackass and the jackass asks that you cease and desist immediately.
Your claim that I am a murder was just made up, and I could actually sue you for libel in this country (USA), so you have proven yourself to be a complete jack ass. I never said "Hey I murdered someone", Vivek, on the other hand, did say he has a bio degree that seems to have vanished. And that's why Vivek can never sue for the question being raised.
Your problem is you believe it to be the responsibility of the person refuting the unsubstantiated claim to prove his case. When someone makes a claim, in this case Vivek claimed he has a bio degree, it is up to Vivek not the person saying "Ok, show us the degree." to produce evidence of the degree. It is not enough that Vivek has redacted the information in previous resumes! If this guy is a liar, and he got caught lying, he should be fired on those grounds alone. Vivek will continue to ignore many of the other serious claims laid against him, which will only make the people questioning him grow louder.
Here's the stuff that Vivek has yet to resolve, from Dvorak's article. And I think they are major issues. Hell, any honest person thinks that falsifying credentials is a major issue.
There is more of course, but you can read the damn article yourself! If there was nothing to hide why have your bio redacted? Why not just show all these degrees that you claim to have? Why not just explain yourself to your growing number of critics?
Please, Vivek, explain away:
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/12/special-report-is-us-chief-information-officer-cio-vivek-kundra-a-phony/
XLR isn't about the stereo or the speakers, it's all about recording the sound. Once you have the sound on your computer/amp/mixer whatever when you output it to the speakers it's a simple 2 conductor operation (banana plug, bare wire,1/4" cable etc.) To get started with XLR you need:
1. Mic that uses XLR connector, a really good mic is the SURE 57. (about $100)
2. Mic preamp. Almost all preamps use XLR, some mixers have preamps built into them. (another $50 at least)
3. Something to record on. I'm guessing you're using a computer.
There are specialized sound cards made just for recording, they start pretty cheap ($100 e.g.: emu), but you won't get an XLR input on a sound card for less than $200, if you're happy using your mic preamp and going into the balanced 1/4" a $100 card you can still get a very good recording, but really you should have XLR inputs on the card itself so it's "XLR" ([sic]eXtremly Low Resistance) all the way to the card. And then there's the software. I like Sonar. Some people like cubebase, even others like fruity loops and if you have a mac there is the ubiquitous pro tools. Really you're looking at spending about $300 for the whole setup, and then you can finally get rid of that stupid hum. Don't forget, if you have an electric guitar/bass that you will need to shield the pickups using some a-foil around the wires pots and any crossovers etc. that may be contain electrical pathways. Also, make sure you've attached your bridge to the ground wire so it grounds on your fingers.
Here are some low cost pro sound cards:
http://www.emu.com/
http://www.m-audio.com/index.php?ID=recording&do=products.family
FEL are a bunch of counter-revolutionary hacks. You can't seriously surround yourself with those loons! On the other hand, the People's Front for Earth Liberation, now that's a movement!
And that's why you should always use XLR. XLR is low resistance and balanced (so the floor does not move around and cause AC hum), they can even deliver 78v power along two of the lines on demand to mics that require phantom power. All quality mics and amps are XLR. But most importantly XLR has very good SNR to kill that RF you're talking about. Some buzzing is from RF true, but mostly it is from the ground being on a different level on the different pieces of equipment you're using. If it was just RF you could solve that with a little a-foil. However the AC hum from dissimilar grounds is a little more difficult to get away from. If you must use two pieces of equipment and plug them into each other make sure you're using the same circuit, different circuits will for sure give you a different ground level. Also, if you're recording what is coming out of your amp, consider recording the amp by micing the amp, most pros use this method as they want to capture the unique sound of the amp and room as well as the little diddle on the 6 string, and you get rid of your little AC hum problem. (If you got the XLR mic, mic pre and blah blah blah)
Ahh, let's see, that matches my "anyone who does not believe us or pokes holes in our data or logic is a stupid AGW denier "
Ok next:
Seems just like "We may not have all the data, we don't even know if the data we have is valid, in fact we know we don't have all the data, and what we do have is invalid or at the very best incomplete"
Ahh, global warming is theoretical and is controversial! And you know both of these things to be the absolute truth! Even the proponents of AGW call it a damn theory. Why would you make such an obvious false statement? I can only assume that you've gotten excited and forgot that it is just a theory, and the theory is controversial. I mean, we are arguing about it at length with millions of other people, if that's not controversy I don't know what is.
ahh, what corporations control the U.S government? Or the EPA? Do you really think corporations control the EPA?!?! What, do they get kicks by outlawing their own industries?! What on earth are you talking about? TFA is about AGW on trial, are there going to be corporations controlling the trial? Is the judiciary infiltrated by dow chemical? What this really comes down to is the government, the "we're going to war if you like it or not government", imposing regulations on C02. Get that fucking ball rolling and see where it goes, right into your lungs and your car and your electrical generation, once you give the government, which I'm sure you have complete confidence in, the control over C02 there is no end to how they can regulate your life. Too much jet travel, can't fly anymore this year, or how about that car of yours it emits C02, and you seem to be using your FAN too much and it's COSTING THE COMUNITY TOO MUCH MONEY FOR YOU TO PASS AIR OVER YOUR BODY.
Very sad about the deaths in brush fires, however the death is due more to your government not allowing people to cut plants away from their houses (which grow even more due to increased C02 levels). Brush fires and high temperature have always been a part of life in AU, but I'm sure you already know that. There were brush fire long before man, and there were high temperatures long before man. If you like complete records look at geological rock strata. Fires and high temperatures do not AGW make.
I guess you must be one of those truly thoughtful individuals who thinks that the "community" or the "workers" need to control the means of production versus say a cooperation owned by stock holders or individuals. Sound a lot like communism. Here's what happens whe
As I said in my statement, you don't have all the data , and what data you do have is incomplete or false, but you're willing to blow the livelihoods of millions of people (yes, Pnuema, that "billions of dollars" = individual people's time here on earth!) on an untested and thus far demonstrably false theory, then you're the one with logical fallacy not I. And if you're perfectly willing to throw your money on that fire, I'm sure Al Gore has a program that will save the earth if only he can get a hold of your money. Apparently the Bank of Mother Earth won't turn off the front burner till Al clears that check. I'm quite sure I got modded "informative" then modded "troll" because this really is the AGW argument, also funny how all the people replying have yet to contradict my characterization of AGW.
Really, if all you're doing is reinforcing what I already stated to be the case, why even comment? What I'm saying here is supported by the facts, and all you have is "undeniable" theory, which is sort of a contradiction in and of itself. Oh the warming is "undeniable"? Well that works both ways, because the "cooling" for the last decade is also undeniable, and that does not fit into any theory on AGW.
But please, before you reply, please work out for me where my characterization of AGW is wrong. You say it's wrong earlier but go on to say the same things I said, even if it is in a more litigious manner.
C02, something we exhale with every breath you take. Without this gas life on earth would not be possible. Plants require this gas to live, indeed when this gas is abundant plants thrive. This gas is given off by all animals. A gas that is turned back into O2 by the plants, plants which we require to survive. All these things are well established facts, as valid as the earth is round.
Now a group of people (they are just people after all, not gods) come along and literally say "We may not have all the data, we don't even know if the data we have is valid, in fact we know we don't have all the data, and what we do have is invalid or at the very best incomplete, and even if we did have all the data we haven't a clue how this "weather" thing works anyway, but we put this partial and incorrect data into this computer (apparently called deus ex machina) and it says that C02 is actually bad for the environment because we predict it will alter the weather! Even though our predictions thus far are incorrect, just take our word for it. And anyone who does not believe us or pokes holes in our data or logic is a stupid AGW denier that also believes the earth is flat."
Anyone want to explain why I should believe someone who would say such a thing? If that isn't the AGW argument, perhaps someone can explain what part is inconsistent with the AGW argument. And now the government and politicians wants to grab the helm of this out of control religion (after all it does require a degree of faith) and start telling people what they can and can't do "because of global warming" while they (the politicians) make millions of dollars by robbing us blind. This whole thing stinks! And if that really is the AGW argument, why on earth would anyone, without some ulterior motive, believe such a thing.
This is the statement of a coward. Please find a link to refute the information I provided. Wikipedia is an excellent source of information about political spectrum, and a load of other things. Please find another place you find more credible if you wish to dispute the information. Is there some part you want to refute? Is the entry incorrect somewhere? Oh, you can't be bothered to write what you thought was incorrect can you? To any reasonable person the definition is correct and stands.
Why not read what Marxism is all about before you say someone IS or ISN'T a Marxist. Since Marx is the father of socialism it's not a stretch of any sort to call a socialist a Marxist. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Sounds like social security, Medicare, Medicaid. Most recently GM, AIG, Fanny and Freddy were already government owned and controlled, I mean the list goes on and on - I don't know what you would call those programs, but they sure fit the definition above for me! So yes, advancing the socialist programs and ideas in this country will get you labeled a socialist and yes, even if you wish it weren't so: socialist = Marxist. It's like calling a Libertarian a Conservative or a Communist a Liberal or a Catholic a Christian or a Sunni a Muslim, I can think of more examples but you get the point I think.
The F-22 was actually made by a private company. And Obama shit canned the project so now we only have a few dozen F-22 (whatever was in production) calling it "wasteful government spending" meanwhile we bailed out AIG for more than 7700 billion dollers, wow that would buy us (138M/77000M=557) 557 new F-22's!!!! Oh, and the money we gave AIG is all gone! but don't worry, every one of those IOU's is good.
He was not considered a bit right wing, he wasn't considered right wing at all! GWB is off to the left of JFK! My god man, Bush spent more on the African AIDS fight and federal education than all his predisesors put together. He signed off on the $700B TARP legislation. Bush is not "right wing" by any strech of the imagination. Maybe you can point out something he did that you consider "right wing" before you go throwing the statement around. The only people who considered him "right wing" are people who are so far out on the lunatic fringe of the left that Ted Kennedy looks "right wing".
That's
The right and left spectrums in other countries are unrelated to the right left spectrum in this country. I'll prove it for you real quick so there is no confusion.
Right in the U.S.A.: Opposes growing government
Right in any other country: Promotes growing government
The confusion is in the birth of the nation. The "right" or the "old guard" in this country is inherently anti-government, so to be a true "patriot", as in a member of the "old guard" or the right, you would also be very wary of your government and not promote a large one, but rather a small one with limited and enumerated powers. But to be on the "left" or the "new guard" you would need to be the opposite of whatever it is the "old guard" stands for.
In every country, even France, the left is anti-government and the right is pro-government. So in France, as an example, to be patriotic you would be pro-government.
The whole "new guard" vs. "old guard" actually came from France, and means just that, "left" vs. "right" in reference to the side they sat on of the room where they met to govern. The meaning changes from country to country, so it's more useful to use the following comparison gauging political spectrum in the U.S.A.
Right = Focus on the individual liberty
Left = Focus on the community needs
The community being the state, and the state being the federal government, so leftist = statist = socialist, not my definition, that just what a statist is. Characterizing Obama as right or left in another country is like comparing apples and oranges. Obama is however a statist, factually speaking he is the most statist member of his party. As a matter of principle he believes that the state can accomplish anything, and do it better than any individual.
And that's all fine and dandy, but there are no (as in zero) examples of the state actually doing better than the individual so I think his whole philosophy is bunk. That last little part is just my opinion, the rest is verifiable fact.
It seems that everyone is ignoring the 800lb gorilla in the room.
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/19/1424201&tid=93&tid=172&tid=218
My theory is that security experts (and novices like myself) feel totally... betrayed, flummoxed, frustrated, whatever, that we are still using security algorithms that have been compromised. I know you need a supercomputer to crack SHA-1, however last I checked there are quite a few of those, and you can basically make a mini-supercomputer with a dozen or so quad core computers or even a few PS3's. Not to mention all the other various "in the wild" security vulnerabilities that people don't care to fix.
Here's another HUGE problem that's being glossed over: SPAM. All you need to do in some cases is turn on an email client to be compromised because some jerk didn't feel like fixing that buffer issue in their handling of GIF images, and you didn't even know it was an issue because the manufacture was keeping the vulnerability a secret, and what would you do about it anyway? "Sorry Dan, you can't turn on your email client until this vulnerability is patched". That shit is just not in the cards. What do you do? Ignore the problem? So many security issues read EXACTLY like this. Eventually you have to say "Sorry we can't fix it, and you can't stop working so let's just pretend there is no problem."
This huge unspoken problem is gnawing away at my subconscious when I try and tighten security. In the back of your head there's a little FreeBSD daemon saying "Hey, it really doesn't matter if you update that port, the Chinese can crack it anyway." Or "What's it matter? There is some vulnerability that you are not privy to that is going to take the whole system down, so why mess with patching?" Of course you try and ignore the voice and patch anyway. However, that does not make the voice go away.
And maybe that time I did update it, but maybe next time I'll say "what's it matter, it's been compromised and nobody is interested in fixing it, I certainly can't fix it. So why should I care?". I think the attitude trickles down from the IT Sec. guys into the regular IT guys and then into the non IT guys until everyone has this cavalier attitude about security: "No matter how hard I try someone will always be able to break in, so fuck it. "
Car dealer: 'If they can't administer a program like this, I'd be a little concerned about my health insurance'...
Is this a warning sign?