I'm an Indian. And I don't think the loss of privacy is worth the few lives that terrorism takes. The chance of me dying in a terrorist attack is lower than me being struck by lightning. To answer your post, there are some sacrifices that are worth it. And this is one.
The whole idea of wikileaks is that you don't have a damned choice about what's released or what isn't. Be grateful he's redacting something instead of complaining he's not doing enough! Assange isn't doing this to please you or get your approval.
What motive do scientists have to deceive us? We don't take Einstein's General Theory of Relativity with a grain of salt do we? (At least only qualified people can meaningfully criticize it if at all.)
Here's the main point. Unless you're a climate scientist, you're not qualified in any way to engage in a "fact based debate." There's too much data here and it requires specialists to see all of it as a homogeneous whole and draw conclusions.
From TFA. He starts with a car analogy (so far so good)
But then, you entered my front yard, climbed into the front seat and drove it away.....Yet, when it comes to copyrighted material some people think they can not only look at it, but also steal it. And they do. They essentially step into the front yard and drive that content away.
What am I reading here? How can you "drive away" content? After "driving away" with your car, is your car still in place? Unharmed? Ready for you to use? Or sell if you want? Not making a point here. I'm just saying that comparing copyright infringement to driving away a car is beyond silly.
Do you even know what's happened? Just visit the google.cn page will ya? The whole thing's a bit button that takes you to an uncensored site.
Bowing to censorship my ass! If that's bowing to censorship, then more of us need to do the same!
and since censorship was no longer profitable for them, they decided to become "good citizens.
If this was so cut and dry, why the hell are other companies like Bing and Yahoo! still censoring in China? Are the rules of business somehow different for Bing and Yahoo! ? If it's profitable for Google to become "good citizens" as you put it, are you implying that Bing and Yahoo! are bad citizens, and that they're doing it even if it's unprofitable?
Slashdot Mirror
You would think this, but since you have no idea about me, this is sheer speculation on your part.
There are worse things that can happen than losing a bit of your privacy to a government you cant trust.
And what reason do I have to trust the government here?
I don't. I'm against it. Read my reply carefully.
I'm an Indian. And I don't think the loss of privacy is worth the few lives that terrorism takes. The chance of me dying in a terrorist attack is lower than me being struck by lightning. To answer your post, there are some sacrifices that are worth it. And this is one.
English is logical now? When did this happen?
Doesn't treason usually mean that someone's betraying their own country? Why do you assume that Assange should be loyal to the US??
The whole idea of wikileaks is that you don't have a damned choice about what's released or what isn't. Be grateful he's redacting something instead of complaining he's not doing enough! Assange isn't doing this to please you or get your approval.
They report you on Facebook? Whatever happened to anonymous tattling?
The privacy of Indian citizens is much more important than saving a few lives
So every single scientist in every organization, in every country in the world is lying to us?
This may be true if just one scientist was saying it. To support your theory you have to show that every single scientist in the world is dishonest.
The thing here is that there are no "two expert opinions" on Climate change. All the scientists agree on what's happening.
Science is not a democratic process!
I agree. Which is why you don't get to vote.
What motive do scientists have to deceive us? We don't take Einstein's General Theory of Relativity with a grain of salt do we? (At least only qualified people can meaningfully criticize it if at all.)
I finally get it now. You're comparing Climate science to Astrology...
Here's the main point. Unless you're a climate scientist, you're not qualified in any way to engage in a "fact based debate." There's too much data here and it requires specialists to see all of it as a homogeneous whole and draw conclusions.
Predicting the weather is one thing. Predicting climate is another thing and is easier.
For example, I predict that Africa will be hotter than the US on average for the next five years. There! I made a prediction.
The predictions on Global warming are climactic predictions. They don't tell you what temperature Moscow will be at 3:00 pm tomorrow.
Why is this guy modded "Troll?"
My guess is that someone didn't read the entire comment!
But then, you entered my front yard, climbed into the front seat and drove it away. ....Yet, when it comes to copyrighted material some people think they can not only look at it, but also steal it. And they do. They essentially step into the front yard and drive that content away.
What am I reading here? How can you "drive away" content? After "driving away" with your car, is your car still in place? Unharmed? Ready for you to use? Or sell if you want? Not making a point here. I'm just saying that comparing copyright infringement to driving away a car is beyond silly.
Do you even know what's happened? Just visit the google.cn page will ya? The whole thing's a bit button that takes you to an uncensored site.
Bowing to censorship my ass! If that's bowing to censorship, then more of us need to do the same!
Hotmail has millions of users?
and since censorship was no longer profitable for them, they decided to become "good citizens.
If this was so cut and dry, why the hell are other companies like Bing and Yahoo! still censoring in China? Are the rules of business somehow different for Bing and Yahoo! ? If it's profitable for Google to become "good citizens" as you put it, are you implying that Bing and Yahoo! are bad citizens, and that they're doing it even if it's unprofitable?
Read that sentence again
Nobody buys the idea that it's a scam anymore...
If you read the article, you would see that they polled the top 200 climate scientists based on the number of papers published. There wasn't any bias.
What was your objection again?