And the only conceivable policy response is to empower yet another massive bureaucracy to add even more regulations over every aspect of the world economy.
Oh, right, I'm too stupid to find out about and install NoScript and FlashBlock all by myself. Big Daddy Gummint has to do it for me. Will Big Daddy provide the whitelist for me too?
If you don't think it's about oppressive complicated regulation, you obviously haven't been paying attention to what Congress has been doing lately. They even managed to make banning lead paint in toys into a complicated regulatory nightmare which only benefits huge corporations. Why on earth would anybody believe that they'll do internet regulation any differently?
And just because the government was "involved" in the development of internet technology does not give them some natural right to regulate it.
HAS Comcast said that? Or Verizon? Or Cox? Or Time Warner? What, other than your paranoid fantasies makes you think that they would? Why should we establish YET ANOTHER government bureaucracy with STILL MORE power over us to prevent your fantasies from becoming reality?
The "American soldiers killing Afghan civilians" video turned out to be deceptive, so why should anybody trust THIS leak? Wikileaks' credibility isn't what it used to be. And one of their leakers is being prosecuted. Do they have an axe to grind? Of course they do.
What's interesting is that the mechanism by which eggshell is constructed is now better understood, perhaps well enough to lead to practical applications.
But to call it a solution to the "chicken or the egg" problem is just a really really lame attempt at humor, not to mention almost entirely misleading.
Anybody manage to find the actual dosage which the EPA is proposing as "safe"? I find lots of scary propaganda about finding "pollutants" in infant blood, or adult blood, or whatever, and all sorts of scary propaganda about "1200 times" and "77 times" and even "a hamburger and a milkshake" but NOT ONE hard number. How many quintillionths of a milligram per kilogram dosage levels are they talking about, anyway?
Yawn. Typical alarmist nonsense. All bluster, and no facts. I have read the Russell report, and the others, and I stand behind what I said about them. They did not "independently recreate the research". They don't claim to have done so, because they did not do so. What they did do was to whitewash the problems with the "climategate emails", and to "analyse" some irrelevant issues which do not relate to the problems which skeptics have identified with the CRU's published results.
You would profit greatly from reading some of Pielke's or McIntyre's work, but of course they are "skeptics" and you will simply demonize them so as not to have to deal with their arguments.
Don't make me laugh. A "trial analysis" of cherry-picked data does not "independently" confirm the CRU's results. Now go and shut up until you learn the difference between science and propaganda.
No, they didn't. And I quote from the Muir Russell report, Introduction, paragraph 8:
"It is important to note that we offer no opinion on the validity of their scientific work."
Furthermore, upon re-reading the report, I find nowhere that they indicate that they even attempted to independently analyse or recreate the research done by the CRU.
They don't want the "guilty party" found and punished. They want the controversy to die away without ever having to discuss the material in detail.
The *last* thing they want is an impartial look at the *entire* contents of the data of which the "leak" was only a small extract. Note that the so-called "inquest" never examined the data, nor the processes. Nor did they take testimony from any skeptics, however qualified.
There is absolutely no excuse for not opening their findings, regardless of the environment, and regardless of the nature or motives of any possible skeptics who might want to look at it.
Slashdot Mirror
And the only conceivable policy response is to empower yet another massive bureaucracy to add even more regulations over every aspect of the world economy.
Oh, right, I'm too stupid to find out about and install NoScript and FlashBlock all by myself. Big Daddy Gummint has to do it for me. Will Big Daddy provide the whitelist for me too?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selden_patent
Bureaucratic turf war. Congress could resolve it, but they've all sold out to the lawyers lobby.
If you don't think it's about oppressive complicated regulation, you obviously haven't been paying attention to what Congress has been doing lately. They even managed to make banning lead paint in toys into a complicated regulatory nightmare which only benefits huge corporations. Why on earth would anybody believe that they'll do internet regulation any differently?
And just because the government was "involved" in the development of internet technology does not give them some natural right to regulate it.
HAS Comcast said that? Or Verizon? Or Cox? Or Time Warner?
What, other than your paranoid fantasies makes you think that they would?
Why should we establish YET ANOTHER government bureaucracy with STILL MORE power over us to prevent your fantasies from becoming reality?
The "American soldiers killing Afghan civilians" video turned out to be deceptive, so why should anybody trust THIS leak? Wikileaks' credibility isn't what it used to be. And one of their leakers is being prosecuted. Do they have an axe to grind? Of course they do.
I once smoked an Intel chip, all it did was make me cry. ;)
What's interesting is that the mechanism by which eggshell is constructed is now better understood, perhaps well enough to lead to practical applications.
But to call it a solution to the "chicken or the egg" problem is just a really really lame attempt at humor, not to mention almost entirely misleading.
Anybody manage to find the actual dosage which the EPA is proposing as "safe"? I find lots of scary propaganda about finding "pollutants" in infant blood, or adult blood, or whatever, and all sorts of scary propaganda about "1200 times" and "77 times" and even "a hamburger and a milkshake" but NOT ONE hard number. How many quintillionths of a milligram per kilogram dosage levels are they talking about, anyway?
Yawn. Typical alarmist nonsense. All bluster, and no facts. I have read the Russell report, and the others, and I stand behind what I said about them. They did not "independently recreate the research". They don't claim to have done so, because they did not do so. What they did do was to whitewash the problems with the "climategate emails", and to "analyse" some irrelevant issues which do not relate to the problems which skeptics have identified with the CRU's published results.
You would profit greatly from reading some of Pielke's or McIntyre's work, but of course they are "skeptics" and you will simply demonize them so as not to have to deal with their arguments.
Don't make me laugh. A "trial analysis" of cherry-picked data does not "independently" confirm the CRU's results. Now go and shut up until you learn the difference between science and propaganda.
No, they didn't. And I quote from the Muir Russell report, Introduction, paragraph 8: "It is important to note that we offer no opinion on the validity of their scientific work." Furthermore, upon re-reading the report, I find nowhere that they indicate that they even attempted to independently analyse or recreate the research done by the CRU.
They don't want the "guilty party" found and punished. They want the controversy to die away without ever having to discuss the material in detail. The *last* thing they want is an impartial look at the *entire* contents of the data of which the "leak" was only a small extract. Note that the so-called "inquest" never examined the data, nor the processes. Nor did they take testimony from any skeptics, however qualified. There is absolutely no excuse for not opening their findings, regardless of the environment, and regardless of the nature or motives of any possible skeptics who might want to look at it.
Tar. Feathers. Congressperson. Some assembly required.