Charging for wi-fi access is just plain selfish unlesss that is all you offer as a business. For example: Starbucks makes so much money selling drinks and other crap, they could easily give it away. Don't even give me that crap that people would sit all day and surf. Some would, but they would be in the vast minority. Most people buy their swill, bs with someone for a few and head into the adjoining bookstore.
The obvious response to this would be to not go to Starbucks. If you don't like that a business will not give you free internet access, don't shop there. This seems pretty brain dead simple to me. Hell, here in Boston there is a Starbucks and an ESR. ESR offers a free and open wi-fi access. Guess which place I buy my coffee from?
If the manager of Starbucks feels that offering free wi-fi will hurt business, then why should he do it? If he thinks he can make extra by charging for wi-fi, why not? If you don't like it, go some where else.
I don't disagree, but that still doesn't change the fact that the Statue of Liberty of the Super Bowl are still high ranking targets. You can't possibly defend the local night club, but you certainly can make efforts to defend obvious targets.
Obviously, there is a point of diminishing returns. Searching people as they come into some place like the Super Bowl and throwing around a few bomb sniffing dogs nets some big returns. You make it very hard to get through security with any confidence. For the price you pay, you get a pretty big reward. The same is said for cameras. Cameras are relatively cheap. True, the reward might be diminished, but so is the cost. Strip searching everyone on the other hand isn't worthwhile. Sure, you would make it almost impossible to smuggle a bomb in through the front gates, the price you would pay in time, personal, and good will would be astronomical. My point is that reasonable security measures should be taken.
Now, as to your larger point, I actually agree with you. I am completely surprised that no terrorist group has smuggled in a dozen guys, bought some guns, then roamed the country side killing isolated families at random in the night. It certainly would do a fair amount to terrorize the population. The only good reason I can think of why they have failed to do this is because we have made it too damn hard for these people to travel across borders in this hemisphere. Getting a group of ex-Taliban or Iraqi Jihadist in country, then supply them a place to live and weapons without arousing suspicion must simply be damn hard. I honestly can't think of any other reason why this has not happened. Clearly there are people out there willing to merrily blow themselves up in a group of children or at a Mosque simply because they are Shiites and not Sunni. If they are willing to go that far, I can't imagine them having any issues with killing a bunch of random Americans in a similar fashion.
That may be true, but you're assuming that a target has to be big and gleaming to be effective. If you're a terrorist, you want to make ordinary people feel vulnerable and frightened, every day. You don't want anybody feeling safe just because they're not at the Super Bowl. So, you hit ordinary targets in ordinary kinds of places, and let the media do the rest.
Someone should have explained this to the 9/11 terrorist, as I recall they went after the Twin Towers, Pentagon, and White House. Hrm, those would be the largest symbols of economic power, military power, and political power respectivly. They are going for impact. The best way to impact a population when you stand absolutely no hope of offering up any real threat to their lives is to go after grand symbolic targets that are worth more then the sum of the lives that are taken. In this regards, the Super Bowl is a prime target. If you want to effect Americans in a very shocking and profound way, have them watch the Super Bowl turn into a blood bath on live television is a damn good way to do it.
The Super Bowl gets extra protection for the same reason why the Statue of Liberty gets more protection then the local diner. A suicide bomber probably could kill more people at the local diner when it is packed, but the Statue of Liberty is a far more likely target.
You can't stop all attacks everywhere. You can make the most likely targets more of a pain in the ass to hit. The Super Bowl is a big obvious target. It is an iconic American event. It has nothing to do with the advertising space and everything to do with how many eyes are watching. If you wanted to get the attention of the American people, blowing up something during the live airing the Super Bowl is a damn good place to start.
Terrorist are not after body count. Terrorist are after coverage and impact. Terrorist probably could have killed more people if they had simply plowed airplanes into the largest New York apartment complex at night time when everyone was at home. Instead, they went after symbolic targets; the twin towers, the Pentagon, and the Whitehouse. Body count was a side effect. Symbolism was what they were really aiming for.
So yes, blowing up during any other random sporting event will probably net you roughly the same body count. However, taking out the Holy Grail of American sporting events, like nailing the Pentagon, Twin Towers, or White House, is far more shocking and symbolic. The Super Bowl is a likely target that is probably worth the extra security. All the other sports events on the other hand are much less likely targets and thus less worthy of spending the same amount of time an effort defending.
Your description of the Superbowl as a 'target' belies the extent to which you have swallowed hook line and sinker the philosophy of defensive fear. If "terrorists" want to do the Superbowl then they will do the Superbowl, and it will happen by some hideously clever, unexpected and audacious method that no amount of vigillance could have prevented. You and I and every other intelligent man and woman alive know this to be a truth.
Your description of the Superbowl as a 'target' belies the extent to which you have swallowed hook line and sinker the philosophy of defensive fear. If "terrorists" want to do the Superbowl then they will do the Superbowl, and it will happen by some hideously clever, unexpected and audacious method that no amount of vigillance could have prevented. You and I and every other intelligent man and woman alive know this to be a truth.
This same argument could be used to point to all policing as being worthless. Why bother having police when you and I both know to be truth that the criminals will find some way to avoid the police?
It is a bullshit argument.
There is a will out there by someone to blow something up in the Super Bowl. If you think your average Iraq insurgent who is more then willing to blow himself up in a crowd of Iraqi Shiites praying in a Mosque wouldn't think twice about blowing himself up in the middle of the Super Bowl, you are delusional. This isn't paranoia, this is a simple reality. There are those out there that would inflict harm upon US civilians (rightly or wrongly) if they had the means. The point is that they don't have the means. Simply crossing from Iraq to the US undetected with explosives enough to do damage puts this well out of the capacity of most insurgents. If there was no security set up to prevent such things, they would simply send a crate of explosives, jump in an air plane, and fly over. It isn't good morality that keeps these people from doing so. They just simply don't have the means to cross between countries armed without raising red flags.
In order to prevent such attacks, you need to make the means of attacking as difficult as possible. Certainly you can't stop everything, but you can set the bar so high as to turn off all but the most dedicated and will organized. The means of making such an attack improbable starts at monitering the people and material that enter the nation. The final obstacle of course is Super Bowl security.
Now, that isn't to say that there is NO means of attack, simply that the means of attack has been made exponentially harder. Instead of shipping over explosive via freight and people via airplane, loading everyone up with a suicide vest, and simply walking in, they need to devise an increasingly more complex and risky plan. They need to some how illicitly get people and materials into the nation. Once inside the nation, they need to find a method of delivery to get it past security. At each barrier erected, they need to take more extreme actions to achieve their ends. In this case, they probably would not ship explosives in as the barrier to shipping in explosives is too high, to traceable, and too risky. They might try and make a homemade bomb. For that they would need to ship in a bomb expert and potentially raise red flags buying materials. They would then need a delivery method. Simply walking in is a near impossibility, especially if they want live television coverage. They might instead opt to rent a light plain to deliver the explosives. In doing this they need to forge identities, learn to fly, load the explosives, take off without arousing suspicion, and enter restricted air space. Finally, they need to devise some method of detonation that might or might not work. Further, this attack would be less effective because of the limited amount of explosives they could deliver. If they were simply allowed to ship people from wherever they wanted and enter into the stadium as they pleased, they could merrily bring over dozens of armed people.
A security presence DOES have an effect on saving lives. If they just threw the doors open I would bet money some idiot with a bomb (domestic or foriegn) would go blow something up. Bomb sniffing dogs, security check points, bag searchers, all of these things absolutely decrease the risk of a bomb going off.
As to cameras, they serve two roles. First, they do serve as an extra set of eyes. If someone drops a bag and a camera spots a bag just sitting there, they can send security over to investigate.
...that an icon of the engine of the mass entertainment and distraction that has rendered public discourse pureile is being monitored by the kinds of devices that public discourse, if it existed, would profoundly reject.
You think if the average person knew that they were using hologram like TVs to moniter the Super Bowl they would reject its use? That is down right silly. The Super Bowl is a big and obvious target. It is a target being attended by thousands and watched by hundreds of millions. Any terrorist worth his salt would hit the Super Bowl if they had the ability.
We accept cameras in banks because they are obvious targets for criminals. You honestly believe that people would not accept monitoring an even larger target with a significantly higher capacity for the loss of human life?
Really people. Just think before you post something silly like this. I imagine that everyone walking into the Super Bowl realizes that they are going to be on a camera, and I imagine that a super majority of them are glad that police, cameras, and all other manner of monitoring devices are trying to pick through the crowd to find the one crazy nut job with a bomb and a need to get some air time. If you believe otherwise, you are deeply out of touch with reality.
It is a fucking high porfile ball game with tens of thousands of people attending it and being watched by hundreds millions of people. If you want to kill a lot of people and have it seen live on TV around the world, the Super Bowl is the place to do it. You couldn't pick a better target in terms of mass death and live coverage. They are not protecting it because they love football. They are protecting it because it is a big gleeming target with a bulls eye on it.
The issue is not about poking holes in the current theory. The issue is taking a lack of evidence as being evidence of a non-theory. ID is just a "God of holes" philosophy. 500 years ago ID would have argued that physics is too mysterious to have come about naturally. Today they rightfully stay the fuck away from physics because our explanations are too good and getting too close to a unified theory. The remaining 'holes' in physics while certainly there, are small counter intuitive ones.
Evolution his its issues. Much like physics of a few hundred years ago there are some gaping holes where things do not add up. Thankfully, most scientists do not throw their hands up and say, "Fuck it, this shit is hard. Lets just say god did it and call it a day".
Honestly, ID wouldn't even make the news if it didn't try and shove itself into a class room. The people who advocated the big bang before it was fashionable never went to court to stuff it into a school system. They diligently took criticism of their theory, conducted experiments, and over time developed a body of evidence to show that they were correct. Over time people began to accept the big bang theory. Finally, once it was an accepted theory it was naturally integrated into school teaching. This is the way it should work. This crap where a few religious zealots try and stuff a philosophy into the science class room that has not a single piece of peer reviewed material on it is just religiously minded bull shit, pure and simple.
Hell, ID isn't even a theory. A theory has the ability to make predictions. ID has no such power. ID is a religious philosophy and nothing more.
This guy was an idiot, pure and simple. This guy make the person working for the IP company and told the media that she breaks laws she doesn't like look like a frigging rocket scientist.
Let me just sum up his post: 1) Our product is going to suck. 2) The console we are going to put our product on is going to suck.
Yup. That will get you fired. Not only did he whip his dick out and piss on the NDA, but he then went ahead and bad mouthed his product AND a business partner. If that won't get you fired, I have no idea what the hells else will. Short of rampaging through the office with a hammer destroying everything you can, I don't think you could do anything else more stupid.
This guy is an idiot. The only scary thing about this whole situation is that some company was unable to see what a moron this guy was and hired him in the first place.
They do not hold the same power as the government. I am sure she can get a job as a prosecutor, small business with similar ethics, EFF, a university, or any number of firms that don't deal in defending IP law. Did she shoot herself in the foot my declaring to the media that she breaks IP laws at will when she disagrees with them? Hell yes. Now she needs to take responsibility for her stupid actions. If she was a defense lawyer and told the media that she thought her client was guilty, she would have been flat our disbarred and prevent from ever practicing law again.
The simple fact of the matter is that she violated the trust that she was given working in a law firm. Law firms should be leery about taking her on, and rightfully so. If she can't stand to protect and maintain that trust, she picked the wrong profession.
When you go into law, you enter a relationship of deep trust. This relationship of trust is absolutely essential of a society to function by rule by law. Violating this trust that is held to almost sacred levels is a damn good way to make your life in that industry difficult.
What she did was stupid, plan and simple. Hopefully she learned a lesson from it about the responsibility that one takes on when they enter the field of law.
I doubt the US would ever risk testing a missile defense system against a nuclear armed state. The chances of the US invading a nuclear armed nation are miniscule to the point of being not worthy of being considered. The only type of warfare that can be conducted against a nuclear armed state is nuclear warfare. You hit them as hard and as fast as you can, and hope to hell that you take out their missiles. No sane nation plays that game, and the US is no exception.
The case of North Korea is even more extreme. An attack on North Korea would result in the near total destruction of South Korea via chemical and biological weapons. You need to keep in mind that chemically armed artillery is WELL within range of the South Korean capital. We would never preemptively invade North Korea simply because we could never protect South Korea.
The real danger from North Korea and Iran is that an irrational leader rises to power. No rational leader would preemptively use nuclear weapons against another nuclear armed state unless they were certain a nuclear attack was imminent. The problem with North Korea and Iran is that they are both nations that are either nuclear armed or close to being nuclear armed. They are either have unstable political systems, or political systems that allow irrational leaders to come to power. A religious fanatic or a brain washed North Korean might find it within themselves to order a suicide attack by deluding themselves into what the consequences are or not fearing the consequences. These nations are a threat because their political system might allow such a person to rise to power.
All of that said, I think the danger is low enough or distance enough to that clobbering together a half-assed and expensive defense system really isn't worth it at this point. I would rather see the money dumped into diplomacy and spying which at this point are much more effective at preventing a nuclear strike.
Russia really is not the problem. If Russia decides it wants to nuke the US, the US is getting nuked. End of story. Sure, a missile defense system might blunt the blow a little, but the truth is there is no good way to stop a few thousand nukes. If Russia bites, it is going to hurt. Both nations are going to end in a nuclear cloud.
The real danger is that North Korea or Iran scraps something together that can just barely make it to the US. Then, through political instability, fanaticism, or provocation they lob a few nukes at the US. Such nukes would probably just barely be able to reach the US, and certainly would not have any fancy zig-zagging capabilities. In such a case a missile defense shield would be a damn nice thing to have, even if it can't stop a full Russian assault.
The real issue is cost / benefit. What are the chances that a nation is going to develop such fanatical fever that it thinks nuking the US and promptly getting glassed over in response is a good idea? The US position on nukes is pretty clear. Nuke us, and we are going to glass you, so it isn't like they are going to be confused by the response.
It would be nice to throw a few dollars at it and have technology waiting in the wings should we need it or should it ever become cost effective. If I could get an effective ballistics defense system for the cost of an aircraft carrier, I would merrily be all over that. If it is going to cost a fleet of air craft carriers, I am far less enthusiastic. A defensive weapon in the arsenal is nice, but not if it takes Apollo like time and effort to achieve it.
I would like to see low level funding of a ballistics defense system. I do not want to kludge together a half-working system at massive expense. Work towards getting the technology ready should it be needed, but don't go all out building an elaborate defense system that is massively expensive and only kinda-sorta works until there is a clear threat.
We need a new reaffirmation of our human rights under corporate rule. But that's exactly what Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas will NOT rule for. They will rule that a company can fire whom it likes, and the constitution is not applicable.
I sure as hell hope they don't make up new laws based upon their own concept of social justice. That isn't their purpose. I want them to judge claims based upon the rule of law. In this case, this is NOT a violation of any law. You are free to say whatever you believe, but to claim that private individuals can't judge you on what you say is absolutely silly. What is the purpose of speech if you can't act on it?
The idea, you see, is not that they would fire hire for wrongthought, but that you should be outraged that private free speech is forbidden if you want a paycheck.
This guy was an idiot, pure and simple. Don't work for an IP law firm and tell a reporter that you break laws that you disagree with. Telling people that you intentionally break the law is a damn good way to convince someone that you are NOT to be trusted with defending a client whom you might disagree with. If you can't stand defending someone whom you disagree with and keeping silent about your descent in public, DON'T BE A DEFENSE LAWYER.
This isn't an alien concept. If you walk into a job interview and express personal opinions that clearly are not compatible with the company you are trying to work for, they are not going to hire your. Once you get in the foot in the door that suddenly doesn't give you a free run of the mill to do whatever you want; that goes double and triple if you tell a law firm you think it is okay to break laws you disagree with.
No business should have the power to deny individual liberties guaranteed under the constitution and under "natural law". Period.
No one is being denied liberty here. He is free to hold whatever personal opinions he wants. He can tell the world about his opinions. He just shouldn't expect to not be fired. In the same way I can kick you off of my property if you come to my house and start insulting me, a company can kick you off the payroll if you are stupid enough to make remarks that are clearly not compatible with being an employee there.
He just needs to find a law firm that isn't going to be nervous about a guy who gives interviews telling reporters about how he breaks laws he disagree with.
The important point is that freedom of speech doesn't give you a free pass against people judging you on your speech. If you say something stupid, people can decide they don't want deal with you. That is exactly what happened in this case. This guy said something stupid, and the company he worked for decided that they didn't want to work with him any more. Welcome to adulthood and responsibility.
We must imagine that it is not an easy job being a police officer - very stressful and all that. Also, they deal with an inordinate number of scum bags on a daily basis - that has to have some impact on their perspective, to say the least. Also, we must remember that we, the citizens, hire police to keep our streets safe. They are not our enemy.
The 7/11 clerk has a tough job too. In fact, he is more likely to die a violent death on the job then a police officer is. He doesn't get the right to trounce civil liberties either.
A police officer is not by definition the enemy, but he sure as hell as a lot of potential to become one. This is combated with constant vigilance on the part of the citizenry. It is our responsibility as citizens to use the legal process to police the officers. It is our duty to weed out the corrupt non-law-abiding police officers. The only way to weed out such people is to firmly assert your rights and demand that they follow the law in the same manner that you are expected to.
I am not saying you need to give the police a hard time. If a detective showed up at my door tomorrow asking about a crime that happened next door, I would invite him in, answer his questions, and give him some tea even though I could merrily tell him to go fuck off. On the other hand, if he asked if it was okay to search my house, I would tell him to fuck off. If he searched it anyways, I would call a lawyer without a seconds hesitation.
In the case where a police officer is giving some photographer who has yet to break the law crap, the correct response is NOT to comply. It is your duty as a citizen who is breaking no law to assert your rights. If your nation's laws prohibit search and seizure without a cause, it is your duty to make it damn clear that every step of the way you do not consent to what is happening. Doing other wise simply encourages more abuses of your civil liberties.
If you are ever in such a situation, the thing to do is to clearly state that you do not consent to the actions taking place, and to follow the police officers instructions only after he makes it clear that it is an order and not a request. Then you go home, call a lawyer, and do your duty as a citizen to police such violations of the concept of rule by law.
A police officer can draw his gun and shoot you at any time for no reason other then that he doesn't like your face. Hell, I can shoot you at any time. Neither is legal. Certainly people have been arrested unlawfully. Hell, my original post talked about in instance where a police officer illegally beat the piss out of someone. The larger point is that such actions are illegal. In fact, if you read that story you would notice that the ACLU is in fact taking issue with what happened and has initiated a legal resolution.
People will break the law. As long as police officers are people, they are going to break the law too. What is important is that there is an actual law broken and that civil institutions help to expose these breaches of the public trust. I think that the story you cite is an example of how the system is working, not failing.
I don't want to take the steps necessary to prevent all laws from being broken, regardless if it is by police officers or civilians. There are not steps you could possibly take to achieve such a thing. I don't care what society you live in, people (police officers and civilians) will break the law. What I do want is a legal system and civil institutions that seek legal remedies when laws are broken. This is exactly what is happening the case you cited. Reading in the news of an instance where the ACLU has stepped in to represent someone who was subject to an illegal search, seizure, and arrest is a good thing.
They lend a helping hand to what they are interested in.
Err, your point?
The NRA lends a helping hand when they are interested too. If I have a problem with my gun rights, I'll call the NRA. If I have a problem with my freedom of speech or illegal search and seizure, I'll call the ACLU. If I want a pizza, I will call Dominoes (actually, I just walk over to the pizza shop next door, they are much better).
What exactly is your point? That the ACLU isn't all things to everyone? Oh, okay. One point for you. Is the ACLU the go to place for freedom of speech and illegal search and seizure issues? Absolutely. One point for me.
Oh look, we would have tied if we were playing the same game.
A Republican who doesn't like at least a little bit of what ACLU stands for isn't a real Republican.
To be fair, I don't like some things the ACLU does. For instance, I am pretty adamantly against letting publicly funded intuitions discriminating applicants for jobs and colleges based upon race.
That said, if you dislike the ACLU across the board you get a big fat Stalinist authoritarian stamp across your forehead in my book. The ACLU's fanatical devotion to the first amendment more then makes up for whatever other policies they advocate that I disagree with. The ACLU is an absolutely indispensable American institution. Organizations like the ACLU form the fourth leg of checks and balances in American government.
People don't recognize how important civil institutions are. A great deal of the health of the American and European democracies can be attributed to these organizations. One of the hardest things to set up in an emerging democracy are local groups like this. Hell, I bet you could pretty effectiveness rate the health of a democracy based purely on how many private civil institutions it has per capita.
One day I got lost at night and so walked up and down a block a few times trying to figure out where in the hell I was. A police officer stopped me. He asked me if I knew why he stopped me. I told him no. He said I was "walking suspiciously". I blinked at him like he was an idiot and asked him if he was going to arrest me for "walking suspiciously".
At that point I think he realize that he was being a complete fucking idiot, as I wasn't breaking any law and he sure as hell couldn't arrest me for anything. He muttered some vague threat about "keeping an eye on me" and then waddled off to eat donuts, go bust an underage drinking party, or confiscate marijuana from college students and cancer patients.
My point? Australia might be different, but at least in the US, they can't drag you off without a charge. Hell, a street officer can't even search you without some justifiable suspicion that a law has been broken. If there is no law in the books against taking pictures of whatever, you can take pictures of whatever. If the police are really giving you a problem, go grab your Australian ACLU equivalent and bring a member with you. Let the police do something stupid, then tack their balls to the wall and make an example out of them.
People don't realize how eager the ACLU is to throw in a helping hand. When I was young, we had a local guy get the beat up by the town sheriff for insulting him. The ACLU was down before weeks end. They had a trial that ended with the Sheriff losing his badge and paying restitution. I would be amazed to learn that there exist first world democracies without an ACLU equivalent. Honestly, if you are really having problems, just give them a friendly call. If nothing else they will give you some good advice and inform you on the legal limits of your position.
I don't know about you, but if I could take a pill to get rid of my need to sleep with minimal side effects, I wouldn't think twice.
I don't hunt for my food. I don't make my own clothes. I use birth control. I have central heating. I shower every day. I take allergy medicine. I get flu shots and vaccines. I take pain killers when I hurt. I brush my teeth and go to the dentist. If my teeth fell out, I would get fake ones. If my arm was cut off, I would get a prosthetic. If I stepped on a rusty nail, I would get a tetanus shot. If my wife was to get pregnant, I would merrily take her to the doctors to have the kid delivered. I am more then happy to live 80+ years while my tribal ancestors were damn lucky to live even half of that.
There are "natural" thing I have absolutely no desire to do. Why not throw another one onto the list? Yeah, I know it is fun to play new-age hippie and decry modern life all the while being snug in your central heated or cooled apartment eating fruits and vegitables from the far corners of the earth. If natural is what you want, you have already failed. So why the hell not just run with it?
If I could get away with eating like crap without taking years off my life, I would be as enthusiastic about it as I am getting vaccines. I eat healthy because I have to, not because I get off on eating a pile of veggies and ignoring the perfectly good pizza shop next door. If popping a pill then slamming down a whole double cheese pizza and a liter of cola doesn't appeal to you, you have my utmost sympathy.
Don't make the mistake that this is a negotiation. It is not. Those people will do the things you say, or they will die. It's as simple as that. Mother Nature does not negotiate. Politicians cannot spin the laws of physics, and stupid humans who cry "but it's not fair!" and refuse to change their ways will die all the same.
Yes, we are about to throw more wrenches at the climates inner workings. No, this does not mean that the world is going to end or that people have to change their ways. Simply put, people will not change their ways drastically enough. Impoverished people will not accept being locked out of a higher standard of living. If left unchecked, this might very well lead to chaos and death. That said, it is hardly a foregone conclusion. Mankind is exceptional in his ability to manipulate the environment to suit his own needs. New York City is a hunk of land that absolutely was never meant to hold even a tenth of a percent of the people it holds today, yet it does. If 500 years ago you had told a Native American that some day they would need to fit a few million people in the New York city area, he would have claimed the sky was falling too.
The sky might be falling, but that is hardly a reason to rolling over and accept it or make demands on humanity that it will never give in to. The solution is to harness technology to solve our problems, both from the angle of reducing polution output, and developing methods to counteract the effects of the polution that we do output. I ardently refuse to believe that through technology we can accidently muck up the weather systems, but can't possibly right them by intentionally tyring to fix them.
Certainly there is no promise that we can correct what we might have done in time, but there is no reason to cling to the belief that it is too late.
Many of the climate models you put so much stock in say that it's a runaway reaction once started. If you truly believe the models you refer to in step 3 of your plan, you should throw away step 1.
There are many models. Some say change is going to happen right now, like it or not. Some say that there is a tipping point that we might or might not have reached. Others are not so trendy and say that there is no tipping point. Clearly, our climate models suck. I don't put a lot of stock in them. That said, until there is a conclusion, it seem sensible to try and delay. True, it might be too late, might it also might not be. Taking sensible precautions and not deciding that it is free game on green house gases is a minimal price to pay. I am not advocating drastic reductions as it is foolish to advocate something that will never happen. I just advocate sensible reductions or at least slowing the rate of increase in the dumping in so far as much as it is possible.
As a modeler, we cannot say with any certainty that our climate models are good enough. In any model with complex feedback cycles, neglecting a single factor can render all of your predictions wildly inaccurate. We know a lot, but we need to know just about everything to get it right if we're planning on being proactive.
Of course there is no certainty in modeling. We can't even agree on a model yet, muchless be sure of its accuracy. That doesn't mean that modelers and scientist can't start probing ways through modeling and lab work as to how to reduce the current trend short of demanding something that humanity as a whole will refuse to do. The idea is to start now and impliment solutions later. In the same way a slow consenus has formed to agree that something is happening, a slow consenus could begin to form as to what to do next that is compatable with a few billion people living first world life styles in nations with only a fraction of the efficency.
Parent is absolutely right. The "summary" couldn't be any more wrong then it is.
First, this guy was not a 'hacker'. He downloaded the source from a P2P program. My mother could do that.
Second, if anyone had bothered to read the actual article, they would see there was absolutely no entrapment here. He downloaded the software and offered it up for sale on his website. The only 'entrapment' was that an agent bought what he was already offering. This guy was an idiot. He wasn't pushed by the authorities into doing anything illegal. Hell, he was the only one to be indited even though everyone and their dog has thsi source code because he was the only one stupid enough to try and sell what was freely avaliable. Not only that, but he already had a rap sheet.
I really wish that we would search for solutions outside of prevention. Breaks are nice, but if they fail, I would like a seatbelt, an air bag, a crumple zone, and a roll cage. The simple fact of the matter is that I honestly don't think that the world has the will to slow its green house gas output.
The US is not going to relocate its populace into central locations and build a massive public transport project. China (or any other developing nation for the matter) is not going to tell 1.3 billion people that are always on the verge of a violent revolution to come out of poverty slowly so that they don't dump green house gases with their inefficient industries. Hell, even the modest targets set up by Kyoto are going to be a struggle for most nations to reach. Simply put, the world is addicted and the addiction isn't going to stop. If the threat truly is sever and looming, hitting the breaks as hard as we can muster is a nice first step, but it sure as hell shouldn't be the last.
Billions of people are coming out of poverty and starting to really consume for the first time. These people simply well not accept being told they can't live like the people in first world nations do. Older first world nations like the US are already built on an infrastructure that is both physical and political that precludes massive societal alterations to truly reduce green house gas output. Even the EU has limits as to how far they can cut back. Combine these factors and it is pretty clear we can't back peddle. We can slow and delay which are good first steps, but with 3-4 billion or so people coming out of poverty, that is about all we can do.
I think we need a three fold strategy.
First, we need to delay. Reducing output and gathering climate data is something that has already been initiated. This is a trend that needs to continue in so much as far is possible, but it can't be the only thing that is done.
Second, we need alternative technologies to that can maintain our standard of living while reducing emissions. Perhaps more importantly, we need to have these technologies in place such that they can be transferred to rising third world nations. 1.3 billion Chinese can not live like Europeans, much less Americans, and have the same inefficiency that they suffer with now. Fusion, fissions, clean coal technology, hybrids, all of these things are steps in the right direction.
Third, we should seriously consider the possibility that the first two steps are not going to work and seriously consider methods to terraform Earth to maintain the status quo, or at least to blunt serious and dramatic changes. If we can say with some level of certainty that our climate models are good enough to link humans to global warming and foresee serious consequences in the future, we need to take those same models and predict ways to offset those changes. I find it hard to believe that we have enough power to warm the planet, yet lack the power to cool it. If this really is a grave concern, money should start being funneled into global climate control now. An international treaty organization should begin hammering out the framework for altering the global weather in a manner that is agreeable to as many as possible.
In my opinion, it isn't enough to simply demand the insane and expect 3-4 billion poor to rise out of poverty, but do it such that they do it without creating a global impact. The wave is coming. If we truly have convinced ourselves that it is upon us, we need to recognize the fact that 3-4 billion people going through an industrial revolution is messy at best, and prepare in ways that recognize that environmentalism alone isn't enough to stop what is coming.
Slashdot Mirror
Charging for wi-fi access is just plain selfish unlesss that is all you offer as a business. For example: Starbucks makes so much money selling drinks and other crap, they could easily give it away. Don't even give me that crap that people would sit all day and surf. Some would, but they would be in the vast minority. Most people buy their swill, bs with someone for a few and head into the adjoining bookstore.
The obvious response to this would be to not go to Starbucks. If you don't like that a business will not give you free internet access, don't shop there. This seems pretty brain dead simple to me. Hell, here in Boston there is a Starbucks and an ESR. ESR offers a free and open wi-fi access. Guess which place I buy my coffee from?
If the manager of Starbucks feels that offering free wi-fi will hurt business, then why should he do it? If he thinks he can make extra by charging for wi-fi, why not? If you don't like it, go some where else.
I'm sorry, maybe I am late to the conversation, but are we arguing about wether it is better to be bought or abuducted into slavery?
I don't disagree, but that still doesn't change the fact that the Statue of Liberty of the Super Bowl are still high ranking targets. You can't possibly defend the local night club, but you certainly can make efforts to defend obvious targets.
Obviously, there is a point of diminishing returns. Searching people as they come into some place like the Super Bowl and throwing around a few bomb sniffing dogs nets some big returns. You make it very hard to get through security with any confidence. For the price you pay, you get a pretty big reward. The same is said for cameras. Cameras are relatively cheap. True, the reward might be diminished, but so is the cost. Strip searching everyone on the other hand isn't worthwhile. Sure, you would make it almost impossible to smuggle a bomb in through the front gates, the price you would pay in time, personal, and good will would be astronomical. My point is that reasonable security measures should be taken.
Now, as to your larger point, I actually agree with you. I am completely surprised that no terrorist group has smuggled in a dozen guys, bought some guns, then roamed the country side killing isolated families at random in the night. It certainly would do a fair amount to terrorize the population. The only good reason I can think of why they have failed to do this is because we have made it too damn hard for these people to travel across borders in this hemisphere. Getting a group of ex-Taliban or Iraqi Jihadist in country, then supply them a place to live and weapons without arousing suspicion must simply be damn hard. I honestly can't think of any other reason why this has not happened. Clearly there are people out there willing to merrily blow themselves up in a group of children or at a Mosque simply because they are Shiites and not Sunni. If they are willing to go that far, I can't imagine them having any issues with killing a bunch of random Americans in a similar fashion.
That may be true, but you're assuming that a target has to be big and gleaming to be effective. If you're a terrorist, you want to make ordinary people feel vulnerable and frightened, every day. You don't want anybody feeling safe just because they're not at the Super Bowl. So, you hit ordinary targets in ordinary kinds of places, and let the media do the rest.
Someone should have explained this to the 9/11 terrorist, as I recall they went after the Twin Towers, Pentagon, and White House. Hrm, those would be the largest symbols of economic power, military power, and political power respectivly. They are going for impact. The best way to impact a population when you stand absolutely no hope of offering up any real threat to their lives is to go after grand symbolic targets that are worth more then the sum of the lives that are taken. In this regards, the Super Bowl is a prime target. If you want to effect Americans in a very shocking and profound way, have them watch the Super Bowl turn into a blood bath on live television is a damn good way to do it.
The Super Bowl gets extra protection for the same reason why the Statue of Liberty gets more protection then the local diner. A suicide bomber probably could kill more people at the local diner when it is packed, but the Statue of Liberty is a far more likely target.
You can't stop all attacks everywhere. You can make the most likely targets more of a pain in the ass to hit. The Super Bowl is a big obvious target. It is an iconic American event. It has nothing to do with the advertising space and everything to do with how many eyes are watching. If you wanted to get the attention of the American people, blowing up something during the live airing the Super Bowl is a damn good place to start.
Terrorist are not after body count. Terrorist are after coverage and impact. Terrorist probably could have killed more people if they had simply plowed airplanes into the largest New York apartment complex at night time when everyone was at home. Instead, they went after symbolic targets; the twin towers, the Pentagon, and the Whitehouse. Body count was a side effect. Symbolism was what they were really aiming for.
So yes, blowing up during any other random sporting event will probably net you roughly the same body count. However, taking out the Holy Grail of American sporting events, like nailing the Pentagon, Twin Towers, or White House, is far more shocking and symbolic. The Super Bowl is a likely target that is probably worth the extra security. All the other sports events on the other hand are much less likely targets and thus less worthy of spending the same amount of time an effort defending.
Your description of the Superbowl as a 'target' belies the extent to which you have swallowed hook line and sinker the philosophy of defensive fear. If "terrorists" want to do the Superbowl then they will do the Superbowl, and it will happen by some hideously clever, unexpected and audacious method that no amount of vigillance could have prevented. You and I and every other intelligent man and woman alive know this to be a truth.
Your description of the Superbowl as a 'target' belies the extent to which you have swallowed hook line and sinker the philosophy of defensive fear. If "terrorists" want to do the Superbowl then they will do the Superbowl, and it will happen by some hideously clever, unexpected and audacious method that no amount of vigillance could have prevented. You and I and every other intelligent man and woman alive know this to be a truth.
This same argument could be used to point to all policing as being worthless. Why bother having police when you and I both know to be truth that the criminals will find some way to avoid the police?
It is a bullshit argument.
There is a will out there by someone to blow something up in the Super Bowl. If you think your average Iraq insurgent who is more then willing to blow himself up in a crowd of Iraqi Shiites praying in a Mosque wouldn't think twice about blowing himself up in the middle of the Super Bowl, you are delusional. This isn't paranoia, this is a simple reality. There are those out there that would inflict harm upon US civilians (rightly or wrongly) if they had the means. The point is that they don't have the means. Simply crossing from Iraq to the US undetected with explosives enough to do damage puts this well out of the capacity of most insurgents. If there was no security set up to prevent such things, they would simply send a crate of explosives, jump in an air plane, and fly over. It isn't good morality that keeps these people from doing so. They just simply don't have the means to cross between countries armed without raising red flags.
In order to prevent such attacks, you need to make the means of attacking as difficult as possible. Certainly you can't stop everything, but you can set the bar so high as to turn off all but the most dedicated and will organized. The means of making such an attack improbable starts at monitering the people and material that enter the nation. The final obstacle of course is Super Bowl security.
Now, that isn't to say that there is NO means of attack, simply that the means of attack has been made exponentially harder. Instead of shipping over explosive via freight and people via airplane, loading everyone up with a suicide vest, and simply walking in, they need to devise an increasingly more complex and risky plan. They need to some how illicitly get people and materials into the nation. Once inside the nation, they need to find a method of delivery to get it past security. At each barrier erected, they need to take more extreme actions to achieve their ends. In this case, they probably would not ship explosives in as the barrier to shipping in explosives is too high, to traceable, and too risky. They might try and make a homemade bomb. For that they would need to ship in a bomb expert and potentially raise red flags buying materials. They would then need a delivery method. Simply walking in is a near impossibility, especially if they want live television coverage. They might instead opt to rent a light plain to deliver the explosives. In doing this they need to forge identities, learn to fly, load the explosives, take off without arousing suspicion, and enter restricted air space. Finally, they need to devise some method of detonation that might or might not work. Further, this attack would be less effective because of the limited amount of explosives they could deliver. If they were simply allowed to ship people from wherever they wanted and enter into the stadium as they pleased, they could merrily bring over dozens of armed people.
A security presence DOES have an effect on saving lives. If they just threw the doors open I would bet money some idiot with a bomb (domestic or foriegn) would go blow something up. Bomb sniffing dogs, security check points, bag searchers, all of these things absolutely decrease the risk of a bomb going off.
As to cameras, they serve two roles. First, they do serve as an extra set of eyes. If someone drops a bag and a camera spots a bag just sitting there, they can send security over to investigate.
...that an icon of the engine of the mass entertainment and distraction that has rendered public discourse pureile is being monitored by the kinds of devices that public discourse, if it existed, would profoundly reject.
You think if the average person knew that they were using hologram like TVs to moniter the Super Bowl they would reject its use? That is down right silly. The Super Bowl is a big and obvious target. It is a target being attended by thousands and watched by hundreds of millions. Any terrorist worth his salt would hit the Super Bowl if they had the ability.
We accept cameras in banks because they are obvious targets for criminals. You honestly believe that people would not accept monitoring an even larger target with a significantly higher capacity for the loss of human life?
Really people. Just think before you post something silly like this. I imagine that everyone walking into the Super Bowl realizes that they are going to be on a camera, and I imagine that a super majority of them are glad that police, cameras, and all other manner of monitoring devices are trying to pick through the crowd to find the one crazy nut job with a bomb and a need to get some air time. If you believe otherwise, you are deeply out of touch with reality.
It is a fucking high porfile ball game with tens of thousands of people attending it and being watched by hundreds millions of people. If you want to kill a lot of people and have it seen live on TV around the world, the Super Bowl is the place to do it. You couldn't pick a better target in terms of mass death and live coverage. They are not protecting it because they love football. They are protecting it because it is a big gleeming target with a bulls eye on it.
The issue is not about poking holes in the current theory. The issue is taking a lack of evidence as being evidence of a non-theory. ID is just a "God of holes" philosophy. 500 years ago ID would have argued that physics is too mysterious to have come about naturally. Today they rightfully stay the fuck away from physics because our explanations are too good and getting too close to a unified theory. The remaining 'holes' in physics while certainly there, are small counter intuitive ones.
Evolution his its issues. Much like physics of a few hundred years ago there are some gaping holes where things do not add up. Thankfully, most scientists do not throw their hands up and say, "Fuck it, this shit is hard. Lets just say god did it and call it a day".
Honestly, ID wouldn't even make the news if it didn't try and shove itself into a class room. The people who advocated the big bang before it was fashionable never went to court to stuff it into a school system. They diligently took criticism of their theory, conducted experiments, and over time developed a body of evidence to show that they were correct. Over time people began to accept the big bang theory. Finally, once it was an accepted theory it was naturally integrated into school teaching. This is the way it should work. This crap where a few religious zealots try and stuff a philosophy into the science class room that has not a single piece of peer reviewed material on it is just religiously minded bull shit, pure and simple.
Hell, ID isn't even a theory. A theory has the ability to make predictions. ID has no such power. ID is a religious philosophy and nothing more.
This guy was an idiot, pure and simple. This guy make the person working for the IP company and told the media that she breaks laws she doesn't like look like a frigging rocket scientist.
Let me just sum up his post:
1) Our product is going to suck.
2) The console we are going to put our product on is going to suck.
Yup. That will get you fired. Not only did he whip his dick out and piss on the NDA, but he then went ahead and bad mouthed his product AND a business partner. If that won't get you fired, I have no idea what the hells else will. Short of rampaging through the office with a hammer destroying everything you can, I don't think you could do anything else more stupid.
This guy is an idiot. The only scary thing about this whole situation is that some company was unable to see what a moron this guy was and hired him in the first place.
They do not hold the same power as the government. I am sure she can get a job as a prosecutor, small business with similar ethics, EFF, a university, or any number of firms that don't deal in defending IP law. Did she shoot herself in the foot my declaring to the media that she breaks IP laws at will when she disagrees with them? Hell yes. Now she needs to take responsibility for her stupid actions. If she was a defense lawyer and told the media that she thought her client was guilty, she would have been flat our disbarred and prevent from ever practicing law again.
The simple fact of the matter is that she violated the trust that she was given working in a law firm. Law firms should be leery about taking her on, and rightfully so. If she can't stand to protect and maintain that trust, she picked the wrong profession.
When you go into law, you enter a relationship of deep trust. This relationship of trust is absolutely essential of a society to function by rule by law. Violating this trust that is held to almost sacred levels is a damn good way to make your life in that industry difficult.
What she did was stupid, plan and simple. Hopefully she learned a lesson from it about the responsibility that one takes on when they enter the field of law.
I doubt the US would ever risk testing a missile defense system against a nuclear armed state. The chances of the US invading a nuclear armed nation are miniscule to the point of being not worthy of being considered. The only type of warfare that can be conducted against a nuclear armed state is nuclear warfare. You hit them as hard and as fast as you can, and hope to hell that you take out their missiles. No sane nation plays that game, and the US is no exception.
The case of North Korea is even more extreme. An attack on North Korea would result in the near total destruction of South Korea via chemical and biological weapons. You need to keep in mind that chemically armed artillery is WELL within range of the South Korean capital. We would never preemptively invade North Korea simply because we could never protect South Korea.
The real danger from North Korea and Iran is that an irrational leader rises to power. No rational leader would preemptively use nuclear weapons against another nuclear armed state unless they were certain a nuclear attack was imminent. The problem with North Korea and Iran is that they are both nations that are either nuclear armed or close to being nuclear armed. They are either have unstable political systems, or political systems that allow irrational leaders to come to power. A religious fanatic or a brain washed North Korean might find it within themselves to order a suicide attack by deluding themselves into what the consequences are or not fearing the consequences. These nations are a threat because their political system might allow such a person to rise to power.
All of that said, I think the danger is low enough or distance enough to that clobbering together a half-assed and expensive defense system really isn't worth it at this point. I would rather see the money dumped into diplomacy and spying which at this point are much more effective at preventing a nuclear strike.
Russia really is not the problem. If Russia decides it wants to nuke the US, the US is getting nuked. End of story. Sure, a missile defense system might blunt the blow a little, but the truth is there is no good way to stop a few thousand nukes. If Russia bites, it is going to hurt. Both nations are going to end in a nuclear cloud.
The real danger is that North Korea or Iran scraps something together that can just barely make it to the US. Then, through political instability, fanaticism, or provocation they lob a few nukes at the US. Such nukes would probably just barely be able to reach the US, and certainly would not have any fancy zig-zagging capabilities. In such a case a missile defense shield would be a damn nice thing to have, even if it can't stop a full Russian assault.
The real issue is cost / benefit. What are the chances that a nation is going to develop such fanatical fever that it thinks nuking the US and promptly getting glassed over in response is a good idea? The US position on nukes is pretty clear. Nuke us, and we are going to glass you, so it isn't like they are going to be confused by the response.
It would be nice to throw a few dollars at it and have technology waiting in the wings should we need it or should it ever become cost effective. If I could get an effective ballistics defense system for the cost of an aircraft carrier, I would merrily be all over that. If it is going to cost a fleet of air craft carriers, I am far less enthusiastic. A defensive weapon in the arsenal is nice, but not if it takes Apollo like time and effort to achieve it.
I would like to see low level funding of a ballistics defense system. I do not want to kludge together a half-working system at massive expense. Work towards getting the technology ready should it be needed, but don't go all out building an elaborate defense system that is massively expensive and only kinda-sorta works until there is a clear threat.
We need a new reaffirmation of our human rights under corporate rule. But that's exactly what Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas will NOT rule for. They will rule that a company can fire whom it likes, and the constitution is not applicable.
I sure as hell hope they don't make up new laws based upon their own concept of social justice. That isn't their purpose. I want them to judge claims based upon the rule of law. In this case, this is NOT a violation of any law. You are free to say whatever you believe, but to claim that private individuals can't judge you on what you say is absolutely silly. What is the purpose of speech if you can't act on it?
The idea, you see, is not that they would fire hire for wrongthought, but that you should be outraged that private free speech is forbidden if you want a paycheck.
This guy was an idiot, pure and simple. Don't work for an IP law firm and tell a reporter that you break laws that you disagree with. Telling people that you intentionally break the law is a damn good way to convince someone that you are NOT to be trusted with defending a client whom you might disagree with. If you can't stand defending someone whom you disagree with and keeping silent about your descent in public, DON'T BE A DEFENSE LAWYER.
This isn't an alien concept. If you walk into a job interview and express personal opinions that clearly are not compatible with the company you are trying to work for, they are not going to hire your. Once you get in the foot in the door that suddenly doesn't give you a free run of the mill to do whatever you want; that goes double and triple if you tell a law firm you think it is okay to break laws you disagree with.
No business should have the power to deny individual liberties guaranteed under the constitution and under "natural law". Period.
No one is being denied liberty here. He is free to hold whatever personal opinions he wants. He can tell the world about his opinions. He just shouldn't expect to not be fired. In the same way I can kick you off of my property if you come to my house and start insulting me, a company can kick you off the payroll if you are stupid enough to make remarks that are clearly not compatible with being an employee there.
He just needs to find a law firm that isn't going to be nervous about a guy who gives interviews telling reporters about how he breaks laws he disagree with.
The important point is that freedom of speech doesn't give you a free pass against people judging you on your speech. If you say something stupid, people can decide they don't want deal with you. That is exactly what happened in this case. This guy said something stupid, and the company he worked for decided that they didn't want to work with him any more. Welcome to adulthood and responsibility.
We must imagine that it is not an easy job being a police officer - very stressful and all that. Also, they deal with an inordinate number of scum bags on a daily basis - that has to have some impact on their perspective, to say the least. Also, we must remember that we, the citizens, hire police to keep our streets safe. They are not our enemy.
The 7/11 clerk has a tough job too. In fact, he is more likely to die a violent death on the job then a police officer is. He doesn't get the right to trounce civil liberties either.
A police officer is not by definition the enemy, but he sure as hell as a lot of potential to become one. This is combated with constant vigilance on the part of the citizenry. It is our responsibility as citizens to use the legal process to police the officers. It is our duty to weed out the corrupt non-law-abiding police officers. The only way to weed out such people is to firmly assert your rights and demand that they follow the law in the same manner that you are expected to.
I am not saying you need to give the police a hard time. If a detective showed up at my door tomorrow asking about a crime that happened next door, I would invite him in, answer his questions, and give him some tea even though I could merrily tell him to go fuck off. On the other hand, if he asked if it was okay to search my house, I would tell him to fuck off. If he searched it anyways, I would call a lawyer without a seconds hesitation.
In the case where a police officer is giving some photographer who has yet to break the law crap, the correct response is NOT to comply. It is your duty as a citizen who is breaking no law to assert your rights. If your nation's laws prohibit search and seizure without a cause, it is your duty to make it damn clear that every step of the way you do not consent to what is happening. Doing other wise simply encourages more abuses of your civil liberties.
If you are ever in such a situation, the thing to do is to clearly state that you do not consent to the actions taking place, and to follow the police officers instructions only after he makes it clear that it is an order and not a request. Then you go home, call a lawyer, and do your duty as a citizen to police such violations of the concept of rule by law.
A police officer can draw his gun and shoot you at any time for no reason other then that he doesn't like your face. Hell, I can shoot you at any time. Neither is legal. Certainly people have been arrested unlawfully. Hell, my original post talked about in instance where a police officer illegally beat the piss out of someone. The larger point is that such actions are illegal. In fact, if you read that story you would notice that the ACLU is in fact taking issue with what happened and has initiated a legal resolution.
People will break the law. As long as police officers are people, they are going to break the law too. What is important is that there is an actual law broken and that civil institutions help to expose these breaches of the public trust. I think that the story you cite is an example of how the system is working, not failing.
I don't want to take the steps necessary to prevent all laws from being broken, regardless if it is by police officers or civilians. There are not steps you could possibly take to achieve such a thing. I don't care what society you live in, people (police officers and civilians) will break the law. What I do want is a legal system and civil institutions that seek legal remedies when laws are broken. This is exactly what is happening the case you cited. Reading in the news of an instance where the ACLU has stepped in to represent someone who was subject to an illegal search, seizure, and arrest is a good thing.
They lend a helping hand to what they are interested in.
Err, your point?
The NRA lends a helping hand when they are interested too. If I have a problem with my gun rights, I'll call the NRA. If I have a problem with my freedom of speech or illegal search and seizure, I'll call the ACLU. If I want a pizza, I will call Dominoes (actually, I just walk over to the pizza shop next door, they are much better).
What exactly is your point? That the ACLU isn't all things to everyone? Oh, okay. One point for you. Is the ACLU the go to place for freedom of speech and illegal search and seizure issues? Absolutely. One point for me.
Oh look, we would have tied if we were playing the same game.
A Republican who doesn't like at least a little bit of what ACLU stands for isn't a real Republican.
To be fair, I don't like some things the ACLU does. For instance, I am pretty adamantly against letting publicly funded intuitions discriminating applicants for jobs and colleges based upon race.
That said, if you dislike the ACLU across the board you get a big fat Stalinist authoritarian stamp across your forehead in my book. The ACLU's fanatical devotion to the first amendment more then makes up for whatever other policies they advocate that I disagree with. The ACLU is an absolutely indispensable American institution. Organizations like the ACLU form the fourth leg of checks and balances in American government.
People don't recognize how important civil institutions are. A great deal of the health of the American and European democracies can be attributed to these organizations. One of the hardest things to set up in an emerging democracy are local groups like this. Hell, I bet you could pretty effectiveness rate the health of a democracy based purely on how many private civil institutions it has per capita.
One day I got lost at night and so walked up and down a block a few times trying to figure out where in the hell I was. A police officer stopped me. He asked me if I knew why he stopped me. I told him no. He said I was "walking suspiciously". I blinked at him like he was an idiot and asked him if he was going to arrest me for "walking suspiciously".
At that point I think he realize that he was being a complete fucking idiot, as I wasn't breaking any law and he sure as hell couldn't arrest me for anything. He muttered some vague threat about "keeping an eye on me" and then waddled off to eat donuts, go bust an underage drinking party, or confiscate marijuana from college students and cancer patients.
My point? Australia might be different, but at least in the US, they can't drag you off without a charge. Hell, a street officer can't even search you without some justifiable suspicion that a law has been broken. If there is no law in the books against taking pictures of whatever, you can take pictures of whatever. If the police are really giving you a problem, go grab your Australian ACLU equivalent and bring a member with you. Let the police do something stupid, then tack their balls to the wall and make an example out of them.
People don't realize how eager the ACLU is to throw in a helping hand. When I was young, we had a local guy get the beat up by the town sheriff for insulting him. The ACLU was down before weeks end. They had a trial that ended with the Sheriff losing his badge and paying restitution. I would be amazed to learn that there exist first world democracies without an ACLU equivalent. Honestly, if you are really having problems, just give them a friendly call. If nothing else they will give you some good advice and inform you on the legal limits of your position.
I don't know about you, but if I could take a pill to get rid of my need to sleep with minimal side effects, I wouldn't think twice.
I don't hunt for my food. I don't make my own clothes. I use birth control. I have central heating. I shower every day. I take allergy medicine. I get flu shots and vaccines. I take pain killers when I hurt. I brush my teeth and go to the dentist. If my teeth fell out, I would get fake ones. If my arm was cut off, I would get a prosthetic. If I stepped on a rusty nail, I would get a tetanus shot. If my wife was to get pregnant, I would merrily take her to the doctors to have the kid delivered. I am more then happy to live 80+ years while my tribal ancestors were damn lucky to live even half of that.
There are "natural" thing I have absolutely no desire to do. Why not throw another one onto the list? Yeah, I know it is fun to play new-age hippie and decry modern life all the while being snug in your central heated or cooled apartment eating fruits and vegitables from the far corners of the earth. If natural is what you want, you have already failed. So why the hell not just run with it?
If I could get away with eating like crap without taking years off my life, I would be as enthusiastic about it as I am getting vaccines. I eat healthy because I have to, not because I get off on eating a pile of veggies and ignoring the perfectly good pizza shop next door. If popping a pill then slamming down a whole double cheese pizza and a liter of cola doesn't appeal to you, you have my utmost sympathy.
Don't make the mistake that this is a negotiation. It is not. Those people will do the things you say, or they will die. It's as simple as that. Mother Nature does not negotiate. Politicians cannot spin the laws of physics, and stupid humans who cry "but it's not fair!" and refuse to change their ways will die all the same.
Yes, we are about to throw more wrenches at the climates inner workings. No, this does not mean that the world is going to end or that people have to change their ways. Simply put, people will not change their ways drastically enough. Impoverished people will not accept being locked out of a higher standard of living. If left unchecked, this might very well lead to chaos and death. That said, it is hardly a foregone conclusion. Mankind is exceptional in his ability to manipulate the environment to suit his own needs. New York City is a hunk of land that absolutely was never meant to hold even a tenth of a percent of the people it holds today, yet it does. If 500 years ago you had told a Native American that some day they would need to fit a few million people in the New York city area, he would have claimed the sky was falling too.
The sky might be falling, but that is hardly a reason to rolling over and accept it or make demands on humanity that it will never give in to. The solution is to harness technology to solve our problems, both from the angle of reducing polution output, and developing methods to counteract the effects of the polution that we do output. I ardently refuse to believe that through technology we can accidently muck up the weather systems, but can't possibly right them by intentionally tyring to fix them.
Certainly there is no promise that we can correct what we might have done in time, but there is no reason to cling to the belief that it is too late.
Many of the climate models you put so much stock in say that it's a runaway reaction once started. If you truly believe the models you refer to in step 3 of your plan, you should throw away step 1.
There are many models. Some say change is going to happen right now, like it or not. Some say that there is a tipping point that we might or might not have reached. Others are not so trendy and say that there is no tipping point. Clearly, our climate models suck. I don't put a lot of stock in them. That said, until there is a conclusion, it seem sensible to try and delay. True, it might be too late, might it also might not be. Taking sensible precautions and not deciding that it is free game on green house gases is a minimal price to pay. I am not advocating drastic reductions as it is foolish to advocate something that will never happen. I just advocate sensible reductions or at least slowing the rate of increase in the dumping in so far as much as it is possible.
As a modeler, we cannot say with any certainty that our climate models are good enough. In any model with complex feedback cycles, neglecting a single factor can render all of your predictions wildly inaccurate. We know a lot, but we need to know just about everything to get it right if we're planning on being proactive.
Of course there is no certainty in modeling. We can't even agree on a model yet, muchless be sure of its accuracy. That doesn't mean that modelers and scientist can't start probing ways through modeling and lab work as to how to reduce the current trend short of demanding something that humanity as a whole will refuse to do. The idea is to start now and impliment solutions later. In the same way a slow consenus has formed to agree that something is happening, a slow consenus could begin to form as to what to do next that is compatable with a few billion people living first world life styles in nations with only a fraction of the efficency.
Parent is absolutely right. The "summary" couldn't be any more wrong then it is.
First, this guy was not a 'hacker'. He downloaded the source from a P2P program. My mother could do that.
Second, if anyone had bothered to read the actual article, they would see there was absolutely no entrapment here. He downloaded the software and offered it up for sale on his website. The only 'entrapment' was that an agent bought what he was already offering. This guy was an idiot. He wasn't pushed by the authorities into doing anything illegal. Hell, he was the only one to be indited even though everyone and their dog has thsi source code because he was the only one stupid enough to try and sell what was freely avaliable. Not only that, but he already had a rap sheet.
This guy was just a moron, pure and simple.
I really wish that we would search for solutions outside of prevention. Breaks are nice, but if they fail, I would like a seatbelt, an air bag, a crumple zone, and a roll cage. The simple fact of the matter is that I honestly don't think that the world has the will to slow its green house gas output.
The US is not going to relocate its populace into central locations and build a massive public transport project. China (or any other developing nation for the matter) is not going to tell 1.3 billion people that are always on the verge of a violent revolution to come out of poverty slowly so that they don't dump green house gases with their inefficient industries. Hell, even the modest targets set up by Kyoto are going to be a struggle for most nations to reach. Simply put, the world is addicted and the addiction isn't going to stop. If the threat truly is sever and looming, hitting the breaks as hard as we can muster is a nice first step, but it sure as hell shouldn't be the last.
Billions of people are coming out of poverty and starting to really consume for the first time. These people simply well not accept being told they can't live like the people in first world nations do. Older first world nations like the US are already built on an infrastructure that is both physical and political that precludes massive societal alterations to truly reduce green house gas output. Even the EU has limits as to how far they can cut back. Combine these factors and it is pretty clear we can't back peddle. We can slow and delay which are good first steps, but with 3-4 billion or so people coming out of poverty, that is about all we can do.
I think we need a three fold strategy.
First, we need to delay. Reducing output and gathering climate data is something that has already been initiated. This is a trend that needs to continue in so much as far is possible, but it can't be the only thing that is done.
Second, we need alternative technologies to that can maintain our standard of living while reducing emissions. Perhaps more importantly, we need to have these technologies in place such that they can be transferred to rising third world nations. 1.3 billion Chinese can not live like Europeans, much less Americans, and have the same inefficiency that they suffer with now. Fusion, fissions, clean coal technology, hybrids, all of these things are steps in the right direction.
Third, we should seriously consider the possibility that the first two steps are not going to work and seriously consider methods to terraform Earth to maintain the status quo, or at least to blunt serious and dramatic changes. If we can say with some level of certainty that our climate models are good enough to link humans to global warming and foresee serious consequences in the future, we need to take those same models and predict ways to offset those changes. I find it hard to believe that we have enough power to warm the planet, yet lack the power to cool it. If this really is a grave concern, money should start being funneled into global climate control now. An international treaty organization should begin hammering out the framework for altering the global weather in a manner that is agreeable to as many as possible.
In my opinion, it isn't enough to simply demand the insane and expect 3-4 billion poor to rise out of poverty, but do it such that they do it without creating a global impact. The wave is coming. If we truly have convinced ourselves that it is upon us, we need to recognize the fact that 3-4 billion people going through an industrial revolution is messy at best, and prepare in ways that recognize that environmentalism alone isn't enough to stop what is coming.