With the exception of Miller and Risen, none of those people are journalists. (Risen's book about which he was subpoenaed is arguably not journalism, and a quick check didn't show any consequences laid upon him other than the subpoena. He wasn't jailed or anything.)
Kim and Drake are intelligence analysts. Murray was an ambassador. Manning was a Soldier. All these people had good reasons for access to the data they had access too. None of these people would be covered by a shield law.
I thought that Anonymous didn't HAVE members, and that when 4chan was doing something popular (like LOIC) people were "part of" Anonymous and when 4chan was doing something unpopular (like getting raided because of LOIC) people were "not part of" Anonymous.
It seems to me like in this kind of post-group, Mr. Brown could come back when ever he wanted.
Those silly Canadians. If you're in Niagara Falls, why would you build a tunnel for a hydroelectric project under the city instead of under the waterfall?
Thanks for putting 'disappear' in quotes, and thanks for putting words in my mouth. Taxation (and government spending) reduces the amount of investment into the economy because the economy, such as it is, is only a measure of the private sector. It works like that because in a non socialist system (like ours) less taxation means that businesses have more money to hire, and customers have more money to spend. If government gets too big, the whole thing falls down, which is why investors into the economy are skittish about government getting too big.
Because you can ask why a country isn't collecting more than $2.5T to make up the difference, but you can't ask a high school drop out why they aren't making more than 25K a year.
Alternately, you can ask why the high school drop out is spending 43K, just like why you can ask the country why the country is spending 2.5T. Doing it that way will put people back to work, and probably help that drop out we're talking about.
Birthers are stupid and racist. No argument there. Most, but not all, birthers are conservatives. But most conservatives are not stupid and racist. By overrepresenting the stupid and racist conservatives, MSNBC is trying to portray ALL conservatives as stupid and racist, while most of them are not.
Also, MSNBC makes crap up all the time. They did a thing about LOOK AT THOSE RACIST BIRTHERS and showed footage of a guy who brought guns to a Tea Party protest. They carefully shot the tape so that you couldn't see the guy's face or hands, then talked over the footage about how the guy hated the fact that America had a black President. And then it came out that the guy himself was black, and that MSNBC deliberately hid this from their viewers.
Fox News and CNN take drastically different editorial positions. They both managed to devote the same amount of coverage to the topic. If you think Fox is undercovering birthers because it fits their ideology, why is CNN doing so?
Fox News and "talk radio" (both sides, but talk radio is dominated by "conservatives") seem to want to take us back to the "bad old days" where facts don't matter.
I just want to keep this quote around for a second.
And then we have the underhanded "we don't know" reporting about Predident Obama's place of birth. We were long past the point where there was legitmate cause for discussion on that issue long before the election took place. Yet the Fox "News" channel kept that flame burning.
In the lead up to Obama releasing his birth certificate, MSNBC spent twice as much of its airtime covering birthers as Fox did. (If you don't want to click through the link, MSNBC devoted 10% of its airtime to the topic. Fox and CNN each devoted 5%.) Maybe this is coincidence. But maybe MSNBC wants conservatives to look stupid and racist, so they overexpose the birthers. But keep telling yourself that conservatives are the ones who think that facts don't matter. It's clear you've discarded them long ago.
If the billion dollars for education in Afghanistan is from my tax money (and if we're "donating" it, it will be) than roughly half of it has to go towards educating women. Osama, on the other hand, would have wanted the money to go towards terrorist training camps. Are we going to compromise there too?
And even if we get him to agree to one billion for western style education for poor people in Afghanistan, what's stopping him from holding LA hostage for 2 billion?
Once you start paying these guys terroristgeld they have no incentive to ever go away.
Obviously you and I disagree on whether bin Laden declared a fatwa on the US in 1996: I'm not sure how; the fatwa was in the news at the time, even though it did take two years for him to actually carry out an attack against America.
But I want to hear the other part of this argument. You said that we should have compromised with bin Laden. What the hell concessions would you make?
Good negotiation technique: Bid high, with a plan to lower your bid to something reasonable.
Bad negotiation technique: Crash airplanes into buildings.
Seriously. Where should we, as America, start compromising on Sharia law? Should we abolish the Constitution? Should we stone adulterers? Ban alcohol? Abolish religious freedom? (Or from a moral standpoint, Osama wasn't a US citizen. I am, and I don't get to demand any of that shit. Why should my government listen to this guy and not me?)
I'm not a fan of Obama, but I agree with the counterproposal he used in the negotiation with bin Laden. You know, the proposal that was most likely 5.56 mm wide and delivered at about 3500 feet per second by a SEAL "negotiation team."
Separation of powers? Like the fact that the Chief Executive is also the Commander in Chief of the military, and can therefore order military operations (yes, even ones that kill people) against an enemy that declared war on us in 1996? Especially one who Congress voted for an Authorization for the Use of Force against?
I'm not a huge fan of the current President, but come on. The judiciary has no place in the process of making war. Two Presidents and six Congresses did this by the books.
The reason for the "trick" was because they were using tree ring data when the tree ring data proved their point, and switched to observed data when that supported their point. Scientists aren't allowed to cherry pick data to prove their point. Doing otherwise is fraud.
OP picked a Fox News story contemporaneous with the beginning part of the Iraq war to point out something that it's now clear is false. Fox News doesn't have weapons inspectors, they, and all the other news sources, rely on what other people said to bring out the news. ABC and NBC had similar stories to this at the time, but OP picked Fox News to prove some kind of point, probably that Fox News was biased, and excusing President Bush for being wrong about something.
Similarly, MSNBC didn't investigate the Climategate claims themselves; this story quotes a report conducted by the university that the Climategate researchers worked for. (It also quotes authors of the report talking about the report.) The report says that the researchers did all the things that their opponents say that they did as far as the "Nature Trick" and threatening publications that would print research showing conclusions opposite theirs, but doing all of those things isn't actually that bad, and thus, there was no fraud, which is why the headline declares the researchers "vindicated."
I have no problem with this kind of story, where the news organization (which presumably does not employ experts on the scientific method) has a story based on a report about scientific fraud/not quite fraud but still bad. I picked MSNBC because they're generally not trustworthy in the opposite sense that OP is claiming that Fox News is generally not trustworthy. But in any case, the MSNBC story got something right here. The CRU researchers committed the things the report says they committed, and were discovered. But according to MSNBC (and, in fairness, everyone else), they were NOT discredited for life.
Global warming is a lot closer to wholly political than a lot of people would like you to believe.
I am admittedly very hazy on the whole hacker terminology thing, but isn't the difference between a white hat and a black hat not what they hack, but what they do with the results? So did Geohot actually _do_ anything nasty with the hacked student IDs?
He was selling hacked IDs so people could break into locked rooms.
As a parting shot, Hotz has some advice for the PSN hacker, who is currently being pursued by both Sony and law enforcement agencies: "To the perpetrator, two things. You are clearly talented and will have plenty of money (or a jail sentence and bankruptcy) coming to you in the future. Don't be a dick and sell people's information."
George Hotz was suspended and possibly expelled for "hacking" the student IDs, which were also used as access cards to unlock rooms on campus. I'm not saying he broke into PSN, but to call the guy a white hat is laughable.
Slashdot Mirror
Kim and Drake are intelligence analysts. Murray was an ambassador. Manning was a Soldier. All these people had good reasons for access to the data they had access too. None of these people would be covered by a shield law.
It seems to me like in this kind of post-group, Mr. Brown could come back when ever he wanted.
Those silly Canadians. If you're in Niagara Falls, why would you build a tunnel for a hydroelectric project under the city instead of under the waterfall?
Thanks for putting 'disappear' in quotes, and thanks for putting words in my mouth. Taxation (and government spending) reduces the amount of investment into the economy because the economy, such as it is, is only a measure of the private sector. It works like that because in a non socialist system (like ours) less taxation means that businesses have more money to hire, and customers have more money to spend. If government gets too big, the whole thing falls down, which is why investors into the economy are skittish about government getting too big.
Because you can ask why a country isn't collecting more than $2.5T to make up the difference, but you can't ask a high school drop out why they aren't making more than 25K a year.
Alternately, you can ask why the high school drop out is spending 43K, just like why you can ask the country why the country is spending 2.5T. Doing it that way will put people back to work, and probably help that drop out we're talking about.
Also, MSNBC makes crap up all the time. They did a thing about LOOK AT THOSE RACIST BIRTHERS and showed footage of a guy who brought guns to a Tea Party protest. They carefully shot the tape so that you couldn't see the guy's face or hands, then talked over the footage about how the guy hated the fact that America had a black President. And then it came out that the guy himself was black, and that MSNBC deliberately hid this from their viewers.
Fox News and CNN take drastically different editorial positions. They both managed to devote the same amount of coverage to the topic. If you think Fox is undercovering birthers because it fits their ideology, why is CNN doing so?
Fox News and "talk radio" (both sides, but talk radio is dominated by "conservatives") seem to want to take us back to the "bad old days" where facts don't matter.
I just want to keep this quote around for a second.
And then we have the underhanded "we don't know" reporting about Predident Obama's place of birth. We were long past the point where there was legitmate cause for discussion on that issue long before the election took place. Yet the Fox "News" channel kept that flame burning.
In the lead up to Obama releasing his birth certificate, MSNBC spent twice as much of its airtime covering birthers as Fox did. (If you don't want to click through the link, MSNBC devoted 10% of its airtime to the topic. Fox and CNN each devoted 5%.) Maybe this is coincidence. But maybe MSNBC wants conservatives to look stupid and racist, so they overexpose the birthers. But keep telling yourself that conservatives are the ones who think that facts don't matter. It's clear you've discarded them long ago.
if it is not independently testable, it is not science!
Good point. The problem is that we're talking about global warming.
And even if we get him to agree to one billion for western style education for poor people in Afghanistan, what's stopping him from holding LA hostage for 2 billion?
Once you start paying these guys terroristgeld they have no incentive to ever go away.
But I want to hear the other part of this argument. You said that we should have compromised with bin Laden. What the hell concessions would you make?
Seriously. Where should we, as America, start compromising on Sharia law? Should we abolish the Constitution? Should we stone adulterers? Ban alcohol? Abolish religious freedom? (Or from a moral standpoint, Osama wasn't a US citizen. I am, and I don't get to demand any of that shit. Why should my government listen to this guy and not me?)
I'm not a fan of Obama, but I agree with the counterproposal he used in the negotiation with bin Laden. You know, the proposal that was most likely 5.56 mm wide and delivered at about 3500 feet per second by a SEAL "negotiation team."
I'm not a huge fan of the current President, but come on. The judiciary has no place in the process of making war. Two Presidents and six Congresses did this by the books.
And of course, obviously, China.
What? In China, your religion has to be state endorsed atheism if you want to get anywhere in government.
I'm going to wave the bullshit flag on this one. The tax cuts Walker enacted in Wisconsin take effect next year. He had a budget shortfall this year. Ergo, Walker's tax cuts did not cause the budget shortfall.
However, due entirely to Sony's fuckwitted lack of security concerning sensitive data, I have had to take measures to protect my identity.
Like the Post Anonymously button?
Even now, years later, with many more different proxies added, the original "hockey stick" is still valid.
Clearly my original point (that Global Warming supporters support bad science because it agrees with them) has been proven. My work here is done.
The reason for the "trick" was because they were using tree ring data when the tree ring data proved their point, and switched to observed data when that supported their point. Scientists aren't allowed to cherry pick data to prove their point. Doing otherwise is fraud.
OP picked a Fox News story contemporaneous with the beginning part of the Iraq war to point out something that it's now clear is false. Fox News doesn't have weapons inspectors, they, and all the other news sources, rely on what other people said to bring out the news. ABC and NBC had similar stories to this at the time, but OP picked Fox News to prove some kind of point, probably that Fox News was biased, and excusing President Bush for being wrong about something.
Similarly, MSNBC didn't investigate the Climategate claims themselves; this story quotes a report conducted by the university that the Climategate researchers worked for. (It also quotes authors of the report talking about the report.) The report says that the researchers did all the things that their opponents say that they did as far as the "Nature Trick" and threatening publications that would print research showing conclusions opposite theirs, but doing all of those things isn't actually that bad, and thus, there was no fraud, which is why the headline declares the researchers "vindicated."
I have no problem with this kind of story, where the news organization (which presumably does not employ experts on the scientific method) has a story based on a report about scientific fraud/not quite fraud but still bad. I picked MSNBC because they're generally not trustworthy in the opposite sense that OP is claiming that Fox News is generally not trustworthy. But in any case, the MSNBC story got something right here. The CRU researchers committed the things the report says they committed, and were discovered. But according to MSNBC (and, in fairness, everyone else), they were NOT discredited for life.
Global warming is a lot closer to wholly political than a lot of people would like you to believe.
When a scientist commits fraud and is discovered, he's discredited for life.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38127084/ns/us_news-environment/
Apparently not.
Rochester Institute of Technology, where he enrolled as a freshman in the fall of 2007.
I am admittedly very hazy on the whole hacker terminology thing, but isn't the difference between a white hat and a black hat not what they hack, but what they do with the results? So did Geohot actually _do_ anything nasty with the hacked student IDs?
He was selling hacked IDs so people could break into locked rooms.
George Hotz was suspended and possibly expelled for "hacking" the student IDs, which were also used as access cards to unlock rooms on campus. I'm not saying he broke into PSN, but to call the guy a white hat is laughable.
Now they have somewhere to upload all that iPhone tracking data.
Posting to undo a crappy accidental moderation.
But you can have an operating systems that displays windows. And you can call them windows. You just can't call your operating system that.