Maybe marketing types. But I seriously doubt many entomologists or crop scientists were saying that this was the "final solution" to rootworm or any other pests.
In fact, they've been advising using non-bt planted in a certain number of acres near the bt ones to slow down the development of resistance.
Thre is an old usenet era axiom that no instance of ironic humor is so blatant that someone won't take it seriously.
Also, I find that many of those who are quite capable of critical and scientific thought are very prone to the malleable reality trap.
Why? (To blatantly steal a comparison. I forget the original source.)
Behavior is like a cart being drawn by two animals. A smart pony called reason, and an impulsive elephant called emotion and subconscious. Sometimes the pony can guide in calm times, but when emotion gets moving, it will drag behavior and reason along with it whichever way it wants.
I saw a copy of their email. My reaction? Your customers have just been hacked. They're probably checking closely what they click on in any email you send.
Pro Tip:
Using URLs that display as coming from csid.com but when hovered over show up as en25.com is probably not a peachy wonderful idea.
I happen to know that en25.com is eloqua (contact management service) and could check that it was probably legit, but most would figure it was a fishing attack sent out on your compromised email list.
Stratfor may be trying, but they're still doing some seriously newbie things as far as customer contact let alone the glaring errors the initial security of the servers and credit card data that were hacked.
I hopped over to Stratfor's Facebook page and one of the people who posted on it said their credit card info from Stratfor had been used at the well known charity called the Blizzard Store.;)
"it would be good PR for a bank to cover it for the charities"
You don't understand. The smart PR move is to let the charges stand without comment. That way the charities talk about it to their donors when asking for more funds to make up the difference.
The banks are already not well thought of currently. This makes no difference to them.
Net result: A lot of people who had never heard of Anonymous before their favorite charity mentioned them now hate their guts.
I think one of the common definitions in these arguments is if it's written in a notably libertarian source like reason, it's actually republican propaganda.
Similarly, when advanced nuclear power studies or GMOs are mentioned, the reaction is, that's not science, it's just dangerous and evil.
Thus, since those opposing that sort of research are only opposing danger, they are not opposing science. Q.E.D.
(I'm still annoyed they shut down the TRIGA reactor at the university I worked at. Now we can't do neutron activation analysis here. *shrug* Guess that's not really science in the book of some.)
I think you can sum it up simply: Politicians are opposed to any science that they think will lose them votes or that might give results that conflict with their views.
Or even science that might take significant budget amounts away from something that either confirms their views or is likely to give them votes.
This is made worse by having very few scientists in elected positions. Most of those in them are lawyers, a profession where the measure of utility is the effectiveness of the argument rather than effectiveness in agreeing with and predicting reality. (Yeah, there is some of the same in science, but there are more checks on it, usually).
Reality is a very malleable thing when it comes to politics.
I can nearly guarantee that Blackwater has bought first aid kits.
Therefore in AhabsWhale's world, first aid kits must merely be an evil plot to to undermine humanity and commit evil acts. Q.E.D.
I think a couple of books on logic sitting on the bookshelf next to me committed suicide when they got too close to AhabsWhale's post being displayed on my laptop screen.
When there is no membership, anyone who calls themselves a member is one (or even anyone who doesn't). Thus anything done without a named claim of responsibility is the work of "anonymous".
Maybe they killed Jimmy Hoffa. There's no way they can convincingly deny it.;)
And, on the same site the hack info was posted, we have a denial that it was anonymous. Of course, since it's anonymous, there is no way to verify it. And, of course, if you have no membership, how can you say that someone isn't a part of anonymous?
Slashdot Mirror
I think that's the main idea of John Scalzi's "Old Man's War".
Maybe marketing types. But I seriously doubt many entomologists or crop scientists were saying that this was the "final solution" to rootworm or any other pests.
In fact, they've been advising using non-bt planted in a certain number of acres near the bt ones to slow down the development of resistance.
Must have been at the MPR. They do a good bit of radiography testing there. But, it was specifically made as a source for that and making isotopes.
Still not sure from what you're saying what the problem was.
It is true that safety standards vary a lot at research reactors.
I'm not aloof. I'm just an asshole. Get it right!
And get the frack out of my office!
Thre is an old usenet era axiom that no instance of ironic humor is so blatant that someone won't take it seriously.
Also, I find that many of those who are quite capable of critical and scientific thought are very prone to the malleable reality trap.
Why? (To blatantly steal a comparison. I forget the original source.)
Behavior is like a cart being drawn by two animals. A smart pony called reason, and an impulsive elephant called emotion and subconscious. Sometimes the pony can guide in calm times, but when emotion gets moving, it will drag behavior and reason along with it whichever way it wants.
I saw a copy of their email. My reaction? Your customers have just been hacked. They're probably checking closely what they click on in any email you send.
Pro Tip:
Using URLs that display as coming from csid.com but when hovered over show up as en25.com is probably not a peachy wonderful idea.
I happen to know that en25.com is eloqua (contact management service) and could check that it was probably legit, but most would figure it was a fishing attack sent out on your compromised email list.
Stratfor may be trying, but they're still doing some seriously newbie things as far as customer contact let alone the glaring errors the initial security of the servers and credit card data that were hacked.
I hopped over to Stratfor's Facebook page and one of the people who posted on it said their credit card info from Stratfor had been used at the well known charity called the Blizzard Store. ;)
"it would be good PR for a bank to cover it for the charities"
You don't understand. The smart PR move is to let the charges stand without comment. That way the charities talk about it to their donors when asking for more funds to make up the difference.
The banks are already not well thought of currently. This makes no difference to them.
Net result: A lot of people who had never heard of Anonymous before their favorite charity mentioned them now hate their guts.
"this really heavy metal which gets really hot when you put a bunch of it together"
70000 Tons of Metal?
A bunch of metal bands playing for 4 days on a cruise ship out of Miami. Seriously sizzling.
The argument is along the lines of:
The US managed to keep this specific spacecraft secret (ignoring that the manuals to its follow on, the KH11, got sold to the USSR at one point.)
Therefore, The John Dillinger Died for You Society must have been telling the truth!
"as of yet no nuclear disaster "
It's like falling off a 100 foot cliff. Down 99 feet, and so far so good!
(disclaimer for the humor impaired :)
(Sorry for the double post. Hit submit instead of preview before I was finished.)
"I have no problem buying model rocket supplies in the nanny city of Seattle."
Because Tripoli Rocketry and the National Association of Rocketry eventually won a 9 year long lawsuit to have the BATFE restrictions reversed.
The case of more general chemistry is less one sided, as many of the restrictions are related to the drug war. That's fertile ground for both parties.
"The banning of model rockets is not something Democratic Party candidates run on."
But the big driving force behind the changes that limited model rocket propellants being shipped were Schumer and Lautenberg.
See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/30/us/threats-responses-new-regulations-rocket-bill-stirs-debate-potential-for-terror.html
Somehow, I doubt you'd accept your own argument if the parties involved were reversed.
Much of this is definitional.
I think one of the common definitions in these arguments is if it's written in a notably libertarian source like reason, it's actually republican propaganda.
Similarly, when advanced nuclear power studies or GMOs are mentioned, the reaction is, that's not science, it's just dangerous and evil.
Thus, since those opposing that sort of research are only opposing danger, they are not opposing science. Q.E.D.
(I'm still annoyed they shut down the TRIGA reactor at the university I worked at. Now we can't do neutron activation analysis here. *shrug* Guess that's not really science in the book of some.)
Upgrade to what?
I could vaguely mumble something about new generation power, or smart grids and I've told you nothing.
"How are you going to get electricity?"
Don't you know? Electricity comes out of an outlet in the wall. Just like milk comes from a carton.
Thank heavens it has nothing to do with those stinky power plants or ecology drowning hydroelectric dams.
Pshaw, son. Even a 4 year old knows that. (And the average knowledge of infrastructure is little more advanced than that.)
I think you can sum it up simply: Politicians are opposed to any science that they think will lose them votes or that might give results that conflict with their views.
Or even science that might take significant budget amounts away from something that either confirms their views or is likely to give them votes.
This is made worse by having very few scientists in elected positions. Most of those in them are lawyers, a profession where the measure of utility is the effectiveness of the argument rather than effectiveness in agreeing with and predicting reality. (Yeah, there is some of the same in science, but there are more checks on it, usually).
Reality is a very malleable thing when it comes to politics.
"stories from a reliable witness about a reactor in Indonesia"
Which one of the 3? The MPR or one of the TRIGAs?
They're fairly low power research reactors, not power reactors. They only finalized what site to build a power reactor this past year.
"I am the voice of today, the herald of tomorrow... I am the leaden army that conquers the world. I am TYPE." Frederic William Goudy.
"Given that, Stratfor is probably evil but I have no real evidence to back it up."
So, you're admitting you're assuming the conclusion with no real evidence of it and largely ignoring any countering evidence?
I think you just described the mechanisms of religious faith surprisingly well.
Why, I think that's exactly what he's saying.
I can nearly guarantee that Blackwater has bought first aid kits.
Therefore in AhabsWhale's world, first aid kits must merely be an evil plot to to undermine humanity and commit evil acts. Q.E.D.
I think a couple of books on logic sitting on the bookshelf next to me committed suicide when they got too close to AhabsWhale's post being displayed on my laptop screen.
"Fifth Circle: "Less possessions, more
connections!""
No, no. Ambassador G'Kar was Fifth Circle.
He wanted to carve the bones of the Centauri into toy flutes for Narn children and sow their fields with salt.
He calmed down a bit toward the end. Though he did strangle his best friend.
That was pretty much my point.
When there is no membership, anyone who calls themselves a member is one (or even anyone who doesn't). Thus anything done without a named claim of responsibility is the work of "anonymous".
Maybe they killed Jimmy Hoffa. There's no way they can convincingly deny it. ;)
And, on the same site the hack info was posted, we have a denial that it was anonymous. Of course, since it's anonymous, there is no way to verify it. And, of course, if you have no membership, how can you say that someone isn't a part of anonymous?
http://pastebin.com/8yrwyNkt
So, someone says yeah we did it. Someone else says no we didn't it was other people.
Pass the popcorn.
"If you worked in one of those Batman comic factories"
You mean a printer?
"with uncovered vats of toxic waste"
You mean ink?