The guy who runs GoDaddy is a rabid rightwinger. Any surprise he's gaming the system to make maximum money, though it shuts down free speech (by stealing its name)?
Jason Calacanis was one of the worst dot-com pimps to crawl from Silicon Alley during the Bubble. Anyone spending money on what he says deserves to lose it all.
So what? They're all black, these pots and kettles. Just because the black pot calls the kettle black, that doesn't change the kettle's color.
There's lots of English language folk wisdom that covers this: live by the sword, die by the sword. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. Creating a monster. No honor among thieves.
Why would committing abuse mean that you aren't an expert in it?
The Economist is just part of the propaganda war hustling Los Alamos out of California's management and into the Texas Empire. When Ken Lay was convicted after Enron robbed over $8BILLION from California on the way down, it looked like the CA/TX war was going better for California. But superior Congressional firepower is trending towards Texas again.
Who cares whether you take me seriously? After the public whipping I gave you last year, I didn't expect you to stick your snout back into the way of my foot again. But since you demand it, I'll school you again. It's easy to out you Greenhouse deniers.
Your post is the typical fascist projection. You start off with "Talk about propaganda.", then you proceed to do nothing but. "Greenhouse deniers", and the rest of my post, is perfectly grammatical - and true. "Greenhouse deniers" is exactly what those people are: they're denying the Greenhouse their paid keepers are creating. And so are you, lamely trying to challenge me with a ridiculous response with no substance except where you're exactly wrong. You're defending the Greenhouse deniers, and are one of their disgusting ranks.
Now go back to whatever frozen hell you haunt when you're not bothering the adults talking about something important. You might get hammered to a tree.
You claimed "geology" as your field in your post. You also call yourself "Prof" in your userID, but so what? Don't quibble with me about whether you're a "geologist" or not because you don't have your degree or your first business card. That might be the reason you're unqualified to talk about even geology with any authority, but the reason just underscores the reality.
The article claimed those people were reliable, relevant scientists, while they are not. You too are weighing in on this debate as if you have any credibility, but you do not. I have not claimed to be a scientist, so your comment about me is also totally irrelevant. After you called my post "moronic", and refered to one of my orifices as its origin, your comments about my "tact" are as bullshit as your science.
Why would I pay any attention to your uneducated, unqualified ramblings about climate? Since you've failed to understand any of these messages, I'll spell it out: you are full of shit, spewing gibberish about climate that you don't understand, then denying not only the Greenhouse, but also your own bad behavior. Go tell it to a rock - I'm bored with your pointless correspondence.
It's the newspaper term for the "lead", as in the initial point, fact, quote or statement that "leads" the article. They spell it differently from the original English word to distinguish it from the soft metal (lead, Pb) used by newspapers to complete typography with metal type elements. There was enough confusion that they needed to distinguish to avoid mistakes in the publishing process.
The organizational term has survived the technology, as it was the more commonly used term than the mechanical one, which disappeared from competition. Newspapers still use the term "journalism", though they long ago left "journals", especially daily entries, behind. As well as "journalism" itself, some say, and now newspapers, too. Even "news" of stories that aren't new.
With all those words meaning nothing or less, I'm not sure why anyone expects any quality at all from these publications.
They said they wouldn't say whether humans are making global warming, then they did. As I mentioned in my reply. That makes the poster a liar, and a Greenhouse denier. And you're letting something else get in the way of your "open mind" not to notice such obvious facts in such simple posts.
There are degrees of openness. Just releasing a DRM'd binary is more open than a purely hosted service. And many GPL projects don't allow anonymous write access to their CVS. "FSF kosher" is extremely open.
The software's openness is governed by its license. We now have several standard licenses defining degrees of openness. I'd like to see one for each possible degree, with a trademarked name and logo (eg OSS-0, OSS-19) backed by tests in court. But we'd also need standard definitions of open projects, not just the software they produce, to be complete. Eventually we'll have them, once openness is the norm, and closedness is the exception.
You're some lousy scientist who can read "mostly" and argue against "all".
You say you won't proclaim to know the answer to "is man making global warming", but you do insist that "the changes in climate that we have been experiencing are noting out of the norm". You're not a climatologist, you're not a good scientist - if you are at all, beyond your claim in your post, which is belied by your terrible use of "sciencey" tools like logical consistency and honesty.
You're a liar and a Greenhouse denier. If you're not getting a check from Exxon, you're a moron, too.
The bottom line is that our science shows that if we cut our Greenhouse emissions (CO2, CO, CH4, NO2, O3, etc) significantly, we can mitigate the increasing Greenhouse effect and at least buy time. Time to learn more, time to find better mitigations, time to live.
There is little scientific doubt about whether humans are generating climate change. There is essentially none that we can slow or stop it. And that if we don't, we're doomed.
That's why the Greenhouse deniers don't get into arguing about the benefits of mitigation. Because that argument has absolutely nothing going for the species, and there's a lot of money in the mitigation industry. Just not for the oil companies and their paid deniers.
FTFA: "Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts [...] Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field."
An adjunct professor (who doesn't even rate a page at the school, for publications, research areas, or anything else) is not "highly" qualified, even if he does actually "work in the climate field", which isn't even apparent from his infinitesimal resume.
A geologist doesn't actually "work in the climate field", unless you call lying to government panels for the petrofuel lobby that kind of work.
By the article's own lede, its "experts" are immaterial, if you just spend a minute checking their "bias and unqualifications. The article is absolutely obviously a mass media troll for the petrofuel polluters who would lie to their own grandmother if it would get her to liqueify for their SUV's gas tank.
Which is absolutely clear to anyone sane, even with any kind of bias. The bias for money, for lying, for destruction of our environment can convert that realization into Greenhouse denial lies. My argument is perfectly sound, though your obvious bias in begging for more Greenhouse pollution and the lies that cloud it is insane. Unless the denial industry is sending you a check. Do you work for Exxon?
My judgement hiring and firing people on qualifications hasn't only made many people rich, without regard to mere credentials like the crap that buys those Greenhouse deniers credibility in your propaganda post. All they have is that piece of paper, and probably not even that - with the number of people outed with fake mailorder diplomas in the Bush administration, there's no reason to believe they even graduated from night school, especially taking the faithbased position that the climate isn't changing, or that we can't do something to protect ourselves from it.
Hiring and firing real people has also helped me spot fakes like them, and like you.
What they said. If not, then yes, unprofessional laymen - with a stutter, eyepatch, parrot, pegleg and pirate drawl. Outing them is easy, but too many people are too stupid to notice until they're already kidnapped and walked over the plank.
If they were real "Conservatives" they would conserve the system, especially where it represents "values". They're radicals and corporatists like the rest of the fake "Conservatives" who exploit the name to fool voters. Like the "Progressive Conservative Party", the most obviously fake corporatist party ever.
Of the hundreds of comments attached to this story, yours is by far the most insightful and informative. I disagree with your polite "none very impressive", and think you're wrong about "none in global warming" and "unqualified scientist". That panel is composed of professional Greenhouse deniers. They are "impressive" and "qualified" to testify before a Canadian fake "Conservative" government that's hired by polluters to protect Canada's giant fossil fuel exports to the US (our #1 supplier). And probably dreams of a "warm Canada" their vast real estate holdings can finally cash in on as people "migrate" from uninhabitable regions to the south, while finally getting a year-round passage between East and West hemispheres across the Arctic.
Just look at their actual resumes, of course not quoted by "Canada's Fastest Growing Independent News Source", probably also funded by the Canadian Greenhouse industry and their global Murdoch partners.
Tim Patterson is a geologist, not a climate scientist - exactly the kind of scientist the BS article excludes to fake its conclusion that most Greenhouse scientists aren't qualified. Boris Winterhalter is also a geologist, not a climatologist. Geologists mostly work for the oil business, which is where most of the money for the entire science comes from, their peers who review, their "next gig pool".
These people are professional Greenhouse deniers. That Canadian panel and its Canadian tabloid (an obvious rightwing rag, just looking at its front page) are cheap fronts for the polluters responsible for the Greenhouse. They're not even trying to hide it more than a couple of googles and clicks deep, they hate us so much. And judging from the hundreds of posts in this story falling for it, we are that stupid.
You can't compare that unidirectional model to the actual Internet. AT&T's backbone is the resource the other networks/gateways pay to access. Even where AT&T pays to connect to other networks, it doesn't pay as much as other networks pay to connect to it.
That's the whole point. AT&T gets both UCom and GCom to pay AT&T for access to the same traffic. If anything, AT&T is getting paid twice already, and wants to get paid again for the triplecharge.
If I left anything out of my simple description, it's AT&T's plans to charge not only Google for traffic GCom is alreay paying AT&T to carry, but also plans to charge users for carrying Google's traffic to them. For a quadruplecharge. Then charging for the requests in the other direction, for a sextuplecharge. I think that's probably the limit, but only because they run out of names to call these insane charges, not because they don't want them or have the political muscle to grab them.
OK, I did expect the 700 Club Inquisition. That makes my post TrollModBait, not flamebait. The ChrisTaliban are the flamers, except where redefined by Constitutional amendment.
I don't post on Slashdot to make friends, though it does seem to happen anyway:).
Geeks used to have a pretty safe community, resisting the bullshit of the outside world through an unconscious strategy of alienation and antisocial habits. But since HTML dropped the barriers to entry to geek culture while making geek subjects some of the most powerful and valuable in the world, geekery has been flooded with unprecedented bullshit.
I've been lucky to grow up in geek culture since it wasn't for kids. And to have learned a great deal working in business and politics. And though I've gotten around, I'm a New Yorker. Telling other people they're wrong is the NYC national pastime.
Thanks for noticing. Even more fun is when people who agree expand on my post with their own facts, references, logic. Then we're all flushing the bullshit together.
Slashdot Mirror
The bullshit is that it won't be used just to spy on people, then shoot at them, without a human with a conscience in the loop.
"This technology could be used to find missing children, search for lost hikers, or survey a fire zone,"
Does anyone believe that bullshit? Oh, right - LA - some people there will believe anything... it's their job.
(Score:1, Troll)
Moderation 0
30% Insightful
30% Interesting
20% Flamebait
Let the fascist TrollMod games begin!
The guy who runs GoDaddy is a rabid rightwinger. Any surprise he's gaming the system to make maximum money, though it shuts down free speech (by stealing its name)?
Jason Calacanis was one of the worst dot-com pimps to crawl from Silicon Alley during the Bubble. Anyone spending money on what he says deserves to lose it all.
Moderation -1
100% Flamebait
Well, now it's clear that we've got government TrollMods patrolling Slashdot. How pathetic and weak.
If the government is bad, what's wrong with an anti-government news item? Unless you're the government...
So what? They're all black, these pots and kettles. Just because the black pot calls the kettle black, that doesn't change the kettle's color.
There's lots of English language folk wisdom that covers this: live by the sword, die by the sword. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. Creating a monster. No honor among thieves.
Why would committing abuse mean that you aren't an expert in it?
Moderation -1
100% Troll
You missed, TrollMod! Zombies have lousy aim.
The Economist is just part of the propaganda war hustling Los Alamos out of California's management and into the Texas Empire. When Ken Lay was convicted after Enron robbed over $8BILLION from California on the way down, it looked like the CA/TX war was going better for California. But superior Congressional firepower is trending towards Texas again.
Who cares whether you take me seriously? After the public whipping I gave you last year, I didn't expect you to stick your snout back into the way of my foot again. But since you demand it, I'll school you again. It's easy to out you Greenhouse deniers.
Your post is the typical fascist projection. You start off with "Talk about propaganda.", then you proceed to do nothing but. "Greenhouse deniers", and the rest of my post, is perfectly grammatical - and true. "Greenhouse deniers" is exactly what those people are: they're denying the Greenhouse their paid keepers are creating. And so are you, lamely trying to challenge me with a ridiculous response with no substance except where you're exactly wrong. You're defending the Greenhouse deniers, and are one of their disgusting ranks.
Now go back to whatever frozen hell you haunt when you're not bothering the adults talking about something important. You might get hammered to a tree.
You claimed "geology" as your field in your post. You also call yourself "Prof" in your userID, but so what? Don't quibble with me about whether you're a "geologist" or not because you don't have your degree or your first business card. That might be the reason you're unqualified to talk about even geology with any authority, but the reason just underscores the reality.
The article claimed those people were reliable, relevant scientists, while they are not. You too are weighing in on this debate as if you have any credibility, but you do not. I have not claimed to be a scientist, so your comment about me is also totally irrelevant. After you called my post "moronic", and refered to one of my orifices as its origin, your comments about my "tact" are as bullshit as your science.
Why would I pay any attention to your uneducated, unqualified ramblings about climate? Since you've failed to understand any of these messages, I'll spell it out: you are full of shit, spewing gibberish about climate that you don't understand, then denying not only the Greenhouse, but also your own bad behavior. Go tell it to a rock - I'm bored with your pointless correspondence.
It's the newspaper term for the "lead", as in the initial point, fact, quote or statement that "leads" the article. They spell it differently from the original English word to distinguish it from the soft metal (lead, Pb) used by newspapers to complete typography with metal type elements. There was enough confusion that they needed to distinguish to avoid mistakes in the publishing process.
The organizational term has survived the technology, as it was the more commonly used term than the mechanical one, which disappeared from competition. Newspapers still use the term "journalism", though they long ago left "journals", especially daily entries, behind. As well as "journalism" itself, some say, and now newspapers, too. Even "news" of stories that aren't new.
With all those words meaning nothing or less, I'm not sure why anyone expects any quality at all from these publications.
They said they wouldn't say whether humans are making global warming, then they did. As I mentioned in my reply. That makes the poster a liar, and a Greenhouse denier. And you're letting something else get in the way of your "open mind" not to notice such obvious facts in such simple posts.
There are degrees of openness. Just releasing a DRM'd binary is more open than a purely hosted service. And many GPL projects don't allow anonymous write access to their CVS. "FSF kosher" is extremely open.
The software's openness is governed by its license. We now have several standard licenses defining degrees of openness. I'd like to see one for each possible degree, with a trademarked name and logo (eg OSS-0, OSS-19) backed by tests in court. But we'd also need standard definitions of open projects, not just the software they produce, to be complete. Eventually we'll have them, once openness is the norm, and closedness is the exception.
You're some lousy scientist who can read "mostly" and argue against "all".
You say you won't proclaim to know the answer to "is man making global warming", but you do insist that "the changes in climate that we have been experiencing are noting out of the norm". You're not a climatologist, you're not a good scientist - if you are at all, beyond your claim in your post, which is belied by your terrible use of "sciencey" tools like logical consistency and honesty.
You're a liar and a Greenhouse denier. If you're not getting a check from Exxon, you're a moron, too.
The bottom line is that our science shows that if we cut our Greenhouse emissions (CO2, CO, CH4, NO2, O3, etc) significantly, we can mitigate the increasing Greenhouse effect and at least buy time. Time to learn more, time to find better mitigations, time to live.
There is little scientific doubt about whether humans are generating climate change. There is essentially none that we can slow or stop it. And that if we don't, we're doomed.
That's why the Greenhouse deniers don't get into arguing about the benefits of mitigation. Because that argument has absolutely nothing going for the species, and there's a lot of money in the mitigation industry. Just not for the oil companies and their paid deniers.
FTFA:
"Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts
[...]
Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field."
An adjunct professor (who doesn't even rate a page at the school, for publications, research areas, or anything else) is not "highly" qualified, even if he does actually "work in the climate field", which isn't even apparent from his infinitesimal resume.
A geologist doesn't actually "work in the climate field", unless you call lying to government panels for the petrofuel lobby that kind of work.
By the article's own lede, its "experts" are immaterial, if you just spend a minute checking their "bias and unqualifications. The article is absolutely obviously a mass media troll for the petrofuel polluters who would lie to their own grandmother if it would get her to liqueify for their SUV's gas tank.
Which is absolutely clear to anyone sane, even with any kind of bias. The bias for money, for lying, for destruction of our environment can convert that realization into Greenhouse denial lies. My argument is perfectly sound, though your obvious bias in begging for more Greenhouse pollution and the lies that cloud it is insane. Unless the denial industry is sending you a check. Do you work for Exxon?
My judgement hiring and firing people on qualifications hasn't only made many people rich, without regard to mere credentials like the crap that buys those Greenhouse deniers credibility in your propaganda post. All they have is that piece of paper, and probably not even that - with the number of people outed with fake mailorder diplomas in the Bush administration, there's no reason to believe they even graduated from night school, especially taking the faithbased position that the climate isn't changing, or that we can't do something to protect ourselves from it.
Hiring and firing real people has also helped me spot fakes like them, and like you.
What they said. If not, then yes, unprofessional laymen - with a stutter, eyepatch, parrot, pegleg and pirate drawl. Outing them is easy, but too many people are too stupid to notice until they're already kidnapped and walked over the plank.
If they were real "Conservatives" they would conserve the system, especially where it represents "values". They're radicals and corporatists like the rest of the fake "Conservatives" who exploit the name to fool voters. Like the "Progressive Conservative Party", the most obviously fake corporatist party ever.
Of the hundreds of comments attached to this story, yours is by far the most insightful and informative. I disagree with your polite "none very impressive", and think you're wrong about "none in global warming" and "unqualified scientist". That panel is composed of professional Greenhouse deniers. They are "impressive" and "qualified" to testify before a Canadian fake "Conservative" government that's hired by polluters to protect Canada's giant fossil fuel exports to the US (our #1 supplier). And probably dreams of a "warm Canada" their vast real estate holdings can finally cash in on as people "migrate" from uninhabitable regions to the south, while finally getting a year-round passage between East and West hemispheres across the Arctic.
Just look at their actual resumes, of course not quoted by "Canada's Fastest Growing Independent News Source", probably also funded by the Canadian Greenhouse industry and their global Murdoch partners.
Tim Patterson is a geologist, not a climate scientist - exactly the kind of scientist the BS article excludes to fake its conclusion that most Greenhouse scientists aren't qualified.
Boris Winterhalter is also a geologist, not a climatologist.
Geologists mostly work for the oil business, which is where most of the money for the entire science comes from, their peers who review, their "next gig pool".
Bob Carter doesn't even rate a page at his tiny Australian department where he's just an "Adjunct" professor.
Timothy Ball's "EnviroTruth" org is a division of the National Center for Public Policy Research, an front for Exxon Greenhouse denial propaganda and other Vast RightWing Conspiracy players.
Wibjörn Karlén's research supports Gore, but he signs the BS letter anyway.
Dick Morgan doesn't have an Exeter page, nor does he have ">any recorded association with the World Meteorological Association, so he has no credentials whatsoever, apart from lying.
These people are professional Greenhouse deniers. That Canadian panel and its Canadian tabloid (an obvious rightwing rag, just looking at its front page) are cheap fronts for the polluters responsible for the Greenhouse. They're not even trying to hide it more than a couple of googles and clicks deep, they hate us so much. And judging from the hundreds of posts in this story falling for it, we are that stupid.
You can't compare that unidirectional model to the actual Internet. AT&T's backbone is the resource the other networks/gateways pay to access. Even where AT&T pays to connect to other networks, it doesn't pay as much as other networks pay to connect to it.
That's the whole point. AT&T gets both UCom and GCom to pay AT&T for access to the same traffic. If anything, AT&T is getting paid twice already, and wants to get paid again for the triplecharge.
If I left anything out of my simple description, it's AT&T's plans to charge not only Google for traffic GCom is alreay paying AT&T to carry, but also plans to charge users for carrying Google's traffic to them. For a quadruplecharge. Then charging for the requests in the other direction, for a sextuplecharge. I think that's probably the limit, but only because they run out of names to call these insane charges, not because they don't want them or have the political muscle to grab them.
Moderation -1
100% Flamebait
OK, I did expect the 700 Club Inquisition. That makes my post TrollModBait, not flamebait. The ChrisTaliban are the flamers, except where redefined by Constitutional amendment.
Moderation 0
50% Flamebait
50% Underrated
All the Moonie zombie TrollMod horde can muster is 50%? Moon's astroturf budget must be shrinking.
I don't post on Slashdot to make friends, though it does seem to happen anyway :).
Geeks used to have a pretty safe community, resisting the bullshit of the outside world through an unconscious strategy of alienation and antisocial habits. But since HTML dropped the barriers to entry to geek culture while making geek subjects some of the most powerful and valuable in the world, geekery has been flooded with unprecedented bullshit.
I've been lucky to grow up in geek culture since it wasn't for kids. And to have learned a great deal working in business and politics. And though I've gotten around, I'm a New Yorker. Telling other people they're wrong is the NYC national pastime.
Thanks for noticing. Even more fun is when people who agree expand on my post with their own facts, references, logic. Then we're all flushing the bullshit together.