Right like all those folks in the 70's who were predicting a massive iceage... oh wait they moved onto golbal warming, than to global 'climate change' (something that always happens), and next to?
"Before humans, was there ever an atomic explosion on the surface of this planet?"
Volcano's and Asteroids have put *way* more heat out than the atomic explosions we humans have set off.
"Before humans, was there a way for animals on the opposite end of the planet to communicate with each other?"
thats like saying Before flying animals could creatures go higher in the atmosphere to breath out their CO2?
"So why is it so hard to believe that humans could be raising the average temperature of the planet by a few degrees every year?"
A few degrees every year? we would all be dead. The fact is the 'rapid' temperature curve we were on is petering off and reversing
" During 2006, the doomsters were predicting that 2007 would be the hottest year on record, so why have we seen no reports about this?
The answer is simple - 2007 turned out to be the coolest year for 30 years. It is also the case that there has been no global warming since 1998. In fact, since 1998, there has been steady cooling.
Even more dramatic is the fact that the most recent computer model predictions indicate that there will be no more global warming for the next ten years. But the doomsters say that, after this ten-year period, global warming will come back with a vengeance. Why?
Certainly, mankind's production of carbon dioxide (CO2) has continued to increase since 1998 and will continue to increase, particularly since countries such as China and India say that their economic growth comes first, so they do not intend worrying too much about CO2 production."
Except this rather symbolic move did not effect non partisan staff
"he pay freeze, first reported by The Associated Press, would hold salaries at their current levels for the roughly 100 White House employees who make over $100,000 a year. "Families are tightening their belts, and so should Washington," said the new president, taking office amid startlingly bad economic times that many fear will grow worse.
Those affected by the freeze include the high-profile jobs of White House chief of staff, national security adviser and press secretary. Other aides who work in relative anonymity also would fit into that cap if Obama follows a structure similar to the one George W. Bush set up."
"You do understand that if that content is intercepted during transit that it doesn't magically disappear from the interceptors hard drive once it is received right?"
Dude how are you *not* getting this... Lets assume, for the moment, the mail is not intercepted in transit... There is now a second vector with which to get the mail to read it and, just like if you picked it up with snort, the end user will be none the wiser..
"Now, now... so far he didn't have too much time to hold his words, did he? At least he didn't turn around and break every single promise made, that alone counts as a plus these days..."
Umm he has nominated lobbyist to his administration after making it a central part of his platform not to do so... He did not even wait to get into office to start breaking promises...
Really? why the hell do companies bother to put mail servers behind firewalls then... oh year because after transit you have the content sitting on the server. You do understand that having any data (mail, file, db) sit on a third parties equipment is pretty damn irresponsible, especially a third party whos TOS says:
"You acknowledge and agree that Subsidiaries and Affiliates will be entitled to provide the Services to you."
"you acknowledge and agree that Google may stop (permanently or temporarily) providing the Services (or any features within the Services) to you or to users generally at Google's sole discretion, without prior notice to you."
"You acknowledge and agree that if Google disables access to your account, you may be prevented from accessing the Services, your account details or any files or other content which is contained in your account."
"YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT YOUR USE OF THE SERVICES IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK AND THAT THE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND "AS AVAILABLE.""
Its easy to do nice things quickly after all lets not forget , no matter how much the democrats want, that bush worked tightly with Ted Kennedy early in his admin to forge No Child Left Behind but FYI:
* Freedom of Information Act - Nice change but all it does is add review *not* in and of itself release info. If he follows through and controversial material is released (about his admin) I will be impressed.
* Pay Freeze - All hat no horse. He hires someone Jan 20th at a salary of 130,000 and implements a pay freeze if this freeze last less than a year what actual impact does it have? I did not get a raise within the first year at my current job am I under a freeze?
* Transparency and Open Government - Again its easy to say and hard to do, Im going to stay at my default position on all politicians until I see action and not words.
This is not about a technical protocol being more secure this is about an organization.
How many employees does google have world wide? how many have been screened to the same level that folks in the federal government have? You are putting mail from executive employees onto a mail server read by people not vetted to be/not to be security threats from more than a half dozen nations...
"Without that, merely saying that they are "legally different" is a giant non-sequitur."
Actually given the fact the number one cry against protecting their identities is 'we dont do the for people who commit other crimes' distinguishing that there is a different legal code to look at totally follows..
"When the charge is "torture", being "at war" is not a mitigating circumstance."
For a soldier at war just about *anything* is mitigating the Military has its own legal code. Lets not forget there was a real debate as to what was and was not torture at the time and before we release the identities of these soldiers that needs to be hashed out.
"If anything that just adds War Crime charges on top of the Human Rights Violations."
Human Rights is *not* a legal term its a political one. Legally speaking Rape is not a HRV nor is torture. Throwing around terms like HRV is more a way to deal with policies than it is to deal with specific violations of the law.
Acts committed by soldiers at war are legally different than civil actions. That's why we have different codes to dictate behavior to treat this like a mugging or rape spits in the face of the fact we have had to establish both National and International laws regarding the conduct of soldiers.
"We don't deny public information because someone in a murderer's family might be murdered out of vendetta. What makes torture any different? Because you said terrorist? That's nonsense."
Reality makes it different.
These are soldiers who were following orders and while they can and should be imprisoned if they tortured the mitigating circumstances of being *at war* can not be ignored especially as our current 'war' is not with a nation state but rather an international organization.
"Protect them from who? For torturing someone, they should be quite protected in prison."
Vigilante justice either from their victims or from other people who might do harm before a trial can be conducted. Lets say Bill really was in a terrorist group and Sam tortured him and got info. When Bills higher ups get Sams ID his family and friends might not be safe. This is something to consider *especially* when Sam has not yet had a trial..
There might be a real reason not to release the raw info on this to the public.
1) Protect the folks who may have given up information under torture from retaliation 2) Protect Soldiers who under orders committed torture from retaliation
While some of this stuff needs to be released the equivalent of a words being blacked out is appropriate. For the victims and for the soldiers (who should be tried in court (military or civil) before their identities are relaeased.
I'm going to disagree with Obama more than I will agree with him but one should give credit where it is due... Open information is *critical* to nurture an informed populace and an informed populace is needed to care for a representative government.
I've posted it already in numerous spots but the law is specific...
Section (C)
Affirmative Defense.-- It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating paragraph (4) of subsection (a) that the defendant-- (1) possessed less than three matters containing any visual depiction proscribed by that paragraph; and (2) promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to access any visual depiction or copy thereof-- (A) took reasonable steps to destroy each such visual depiction; or (B) reported the matter to a law enforcement agency and afforded that agency access to each such visual depiction.
Firstly if we are talking less than three images its not a case, secondly the promptly and in good faith without retaining reported the matter to law enforcement... They followed the law..
As to 'betting money' demanding such things online is terrible form and any wise person would not engage in online bets unless it was a legitimate betting service or someone they knew personally. So as it stands no, I wont bet money online with a total stranger over a/. thread..
Slashdot Mirror
So disagreeing is now trolling? I see the only reasonable folks are the ones who agree with you..
"since 1998, there has been steady cooling." is a troll? The fact is we are getting cooler over the past half decade (or more)..
Right like all those folks in the 70's who were predicting a massive iceage... oh wait they moved onto golbal warming, than to global 'climate change' (something that always happens), and next to?
This is /. you dont need to worry too much about people making babies..
"Before humans, was there ever an atomic explosion on the surface of this planet?"
Volcano's and Asteroids have put *way* more heat out than the atomic explosions we humans have set off.
"Before humans, was there a way for animals on the opposite end of the planet to communicate with each other?"
thats like saying Before flying animals could creatures go higher in the atmosphere to breath out their CO2?
"So why is it so hard to believe that humans could be raising the average temperature of the planet by a few degrees every year?"
A few degrees every year? we would all be dead. The fact is the 'rapid' temperature curve we were on is petering off and reversing
" During 2006, the doomsters were predicting that 2007 would be the hottest year on record, so why have we seen no reports about this?
The answer is simple - 2007 turned out to be the coolest year for 30 years. It is also the case that there has been no global warming since 1998. In fact, since 1998, there has been steady cooling.
Even more dramatic is the fact that the most recent computer model predictions indicate that there will be no more global warming for the next ten years. But the doomsters say that, after this ten-year period, global warming will come back with a vengeance. Why?
Certainly, mankind's production of carbon dioxide (CO2) has continued to increase since 1998 and will continue to increase, particularly since countries such as China and India say that their economic growth comes first, so they do not intend worrying too much about CO2 production."
http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/there-is-no-evidence-man-made-co2-causes-climate-change-2008-07-04
Except this rather symbolic move did not effect non partisan staff
"he pay freeze, first reported by The Associated Press, would hold salaries at their current levels for the roughly 100 White House employees who make over $100,000 a year. "Families are tightening their belts, and so should Washington," said the new president, taking office amid startlingly bad economic times that many fear will grow worse.
Those affected by the freeze include the high-profile jobs of White House chief of staff, national security adviser and press secretary. Other aides who work in relative anonymity also would fit into that cap if Obama follows a structure similar to the one George W. Bush set up."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090121/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_executive_pay
"You do understand that if that content is intercepted during transit that it doesn't magically disappear from the interceptors hard drive once it is received right?"
Dude how are you *not* getting this... Lets assume, for the moment, the mail is not intercepted in transit... There is now a second vector with which to get the mail to read it and, just like if you picked it up with snort, the end user will be none the wiser..
Russia to make national distribution... Red Flag beat you to that game..
"Now, now... so far he didn't have too much time to hold his words, did he? At least he didn't turn around and break every single promise made, that alone counts as a plus these days..."
Umm he has nominated lobbyist to his administration after making it a central part of his platform not to do so... He did not even wait to get into office to start breaking promises...
I'm not, I had two crap choices this year voted third party with no expectation of them winning. My guy did not win in 2004 either.
Really? why the hell do companies bother to put mail servers behind firewalls then... oh year because after transit you have the content sitting on the server. You do understand that having any data (mail, file, db) sit on a third parties equipment is pretty damn irresponsible, especially a third party whos TOS says:
"You acknowledge and agree that Subsidiaries and Affiliates will be entitled to provide the Services to you."
"you acknowledge and agree that Google may stop (permanently or temporarily) providing the Services (or any features within the Services) to you or to users generally at Google's sole discretion, without prior notice to you."
"You acknowledge and agree that if Google disables access to your account, you may be prevented from accessing the Services, your account details or any files or other content which is contained in your account."
"YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT YOUR USE OF THE SERVICES IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK AND THAT THE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND "AS AVAILABLE.""
Its easy to do nice things quickly after all lets not forget , no matter how much the democrats want, that bush worked tightly with Ted Kennedy early in his admin to forge No Child Left Behind but FYI:
* Freedom of Information Act - Nice change but all it does is add review *not* in and of itself release info. If he follows through and controversial material is released (about his admin) I will be impressed.
* Pay Freeze - All hat no horse. He hires someone Jan 20th at a salary of 130,000 and implements a pay freeze if this freeze last less than a year what actual impact does it have? I did not get a raise within the first year at my current job am I under a freeze?
* Transparency and Open Government - Again its easy to say and hard to do, Im going to stay at my default position on all politicians until I see action and not words.
they are using google docs for collaboration...
that was the real problem, you missed it...
This is not about a technical protocol being more secure this is about an organization.
How many employees does google have world wide? how many have been screened to the same level that folks in the federal government have? You are putting mail from executive employees onto a mail server read by people not vetted to be/not to be security threats from more than a half dozen nations...
"Thirdly, Obama has already made it clear that this White House is going to be much more transparant. Finally"
And Bill Clinton Promised to be the 'most ethical administration in history', W promised to 'change the partisan tone', ..., ...
Its frightening that you take a politician *especially one from the Chicago political machine* at his word..
I am saying to protect them until the time if/when a trial happens..
"Without that, merely saying that they are "legally different" is a giant non-sequitur."
Actually given the fact the number one cry against protecting their identities is 'we dont do the for people who commit other crimes' distinguishing that there is a different legal code to look at totally follows..
"When the charge is "torture", being "at war" is not a mitigating circumstance."
For a soldier at war just about *anything* is mitigating the Military has its own legal code. Lets not forget there was a real debate as to what was and was not torture at the time and before we release the identities of these soldiers that needs to be hashed out.
"If anything that just adds War Crime charges on top of the Human Rights Violations."
Human Rights is *not* a legal term its a political one. Legally speaking Rape is not a HRV nor is torture. Throwing around terms like HRV is more a way to deal with policies than it is to deal with specific violations of the law.
Acts committed by soldiers at war are legally different than civil actions. That's why we have different codes to dictate behavior to treat this like a mugging or rape spits in the face of the fact we have had to establish both National and International laws regarding the conduct of soldiers.
I never said with hold info I said edit.. Distort appearances and voices.
"We don't deny public information because someone in a murderer's family might be murdered out of vendetta. What makes torture any different? Because you said terrorist? That's nonsense."
Reality makes it different.
These are soldiers who were following orders and while they can and should be imprisoned if they tortured the mitigating circumstances of being *at war* can not be ignored especially as our current 'war' is not with a nation state but rather an international organization.
Thanks, thats kind of what I was getting at.. You said it better than I..
"Protect them from who? For torturing someone, they should be quite protected in prison."
Vigilante justice either from their victims or from other people who might do harm before a trial can be conducted. Lets say Bill really was in a terrorist group and Sam tortured him and got info. When Bills higher ups get Sams ID his family and friends might not be safe. This is something to consider *especially* when Sam has not yet had a trial..
There might be a real reason not to release the raw info on this to the public.
1) Protect the folks who may have given up information under torture from retaliation
2) Protect Soldiers who under orders committed torture from retaliation
While some of this stuff needs to be released the equivalent of a words being blacked out is appropriate. For the victims and for the soldiers (who should be tried in court (military or civil) before their identities are relaeased.
I'm going to disagree with Obama more than I will agree with him but one should give credit where it is due... Open information is *critical* to nurture an informed populace and an informed populace is needed to care for a representative government.
I've posted it already in numerous spots but the law is specific...
Section (C)
Affirmative Defense.-- It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating paragraph (4) of subsection (a) that the defendant--
(1) possessed less than three matters containing any visual depiction proscribed by that paragraph; and
(2) promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to access any visual depiction or copy thereof--
(A) took reasonable steps to destroy each such visual depiction; or
(B) reported the matter to a law enforcement agency and afforded that agency access to each such visual depiction.
Firstly if we are talking less than three images its not a case, secondly the promptly and in good faith without retaining reported the matter to law enforcement... They followed the law..
As to 'betting money' demanding such things online is terrible form and any wise person would not engage in online bets unless it was a legitimate betting service or someone they knew personally. So as it stands no, I wont bet money online with a total stranger over a /. thread..