Need to keep ahead of them by making mandatory Automatic self-testing with Error memory until serviced by a certified shop And monitoring of line pressure and devices, at least at engine start, periodically when idling or running at low speed, when initially accelerating from a full stop, And Failsafe Interlocks to the automatic braking systems To prevent applying power after an error is detected in the braking system.
If the braking system fails to self-test, or Auto-braking has engaged but accelerator still pushed, then the engine computer will throttle the engine down to Zero and if accelerating after 1 second, kill drive power.
Correct..... and if CR sends Apple too much information such as Logs from test devices, then in some sense their test units become "Invalidated" ----- for all CR would know, Apple quietly pushes out a CR-Only software update which tweaks something to increase battery life or Cap the average system load based on what programs are running..
If I get the new MBP, then I would be running the new version of Safari, naturally, so my MBP would not be providing the advertised battery life If I have this issue!!
It doesn't really matter if the underlying reason is Hardware or Software problem, As long as there exists a problem, then the Unit does not provide the battery life promised, and CR's test results would still be valid, if they show the issue.
A bug in Safari is not a testing methodology error; It's a problem with the product, since Safari is part of MacOS.
Also, a true test of battery life should consider Other things we may do with our computers beside web browsing, which may in fact be a bit more processor intensive.
Things like watching a bunch of 4K Netflix movies or streaming other H.264 encoded files, or playing some DVDs.
Things like composing documents, or using image editing or CAD software to create building layouts/engineering designs.
That is nonsense. From Apple's perspective this IS primarily a PR problem at the moment
Apple wants to cast FUD on CR's testing process, until Apple is able to get a handle on the issue, which is obviously real, and obviously something Apple has missed, but CR's testing may not have yielded enough facts so far for Apple to figure it out.
Or Apple may know very well but can be biding their time for PR purposes.
Why else would Apple publicize them working with CR before they have some concrete information?
They should have spun off a patent troll division and assigned their rights.
You cannot sue large companies for patent infringement while you are a practicing entity that has a Technology product or service
THE OTHER COMPANIES WILL RETALLIATE AGAINST YOU.
Either by filing their own Patent lawsuits Or by interfering with your marketing or your business......... OH yeah, And if you or a company you own partners with them to sell your products, then it's really dumb to sue them.
I think this might be one of the most depressing statements i've heard in quite awhile. I'm going to go have another scotch to drink, and make it a double.
The warming that we are experiencing exceeds the rate that could happen with just natural variance.
AMOUNT or degree of climate change is not capable of establishing that a cause of a change is due to humans. Large volcanic eruptions are completely natural and can have a huge impact for centuries. Could it be that a previous natural variation caused the climate to be colder than it ought to be, and the latest warming is natural restore from a natural variation downwards....
If you want to convince anyone there is no man-made factor to climate change then you will need to....
Nonsense. First of all by default the assumption should not be No man-made factor at all; the assumption should be No major new man-made factor, or No conclusively man-made major influence. Skepticism against some theory which has been inadequately proposed does not require proof. The burden of proof always falls upon those who wish to propose a theory to attribute the climate change (or other phenomenon) to specific causes to show their theory is true. The proponents of the theory must consider every possible reason for doubting the theory, and perform experiments over every facet that can show every way the theory would be false, And the experiments must be conducted honestly, must have conclusive results, and been successfully replicated proving the predictive ability of the theory.
Nothing like that's been approached by climate change theorists.
The simplest explanation remains natural changes including changes related to the sun and earth's orbit, geography, and oceans are primary things affecting the climates.
You also need to explain how it is that all the CO2 that we know we are releasing into the atmosphere and that we know is accumulating there is not having the effect on temperature that the physics says that it will.
They don't have physics on their side. For one; they can't show the CO2 releases are more harmful than natural methane releases. You think that CO2 is the only thing released into the atmosphere, and Humans are the only things affecting the composition of the atmosphere and dissipation of sunlight/energy?
For two; Climate change models are not based on direct calculations that can be shown to be identical to physics. In fact, neither climatologists nor physicists understand the physics of earth's atmosphere well enough, and they've been unable to make reliable predictions.
For all they know, the amount of Roads we're building which absorb heat from the sun are more important than the amount of CO2 humans release.
This is censorship in the same way Slashdot moderation is censorship. While it technically meets the definition, I don't see any harm here.
Censorship that is an Optional choice made by the person buying and consuming the content, Which they pay extra for, Is actually good censorship.
It's censorship in the same way that AdBlock is censorship. It's censorship outside the control and desires of any 3rd party, including without respect to the wishes or the knowledge by the content creators, distributors, government, etc.
Wow. I had considered coming here to joke about whether the anti-science deniers would come out of the woodwork to claim that the magnetic field wasn't changing at all
The magnetic field AND the climate are both changing; It's just not humans that are causing them to change ---- they change plenty on their own without any human intervention.
They don't fall at the same rate. A pound of iron always falls faster than a pound of feather try it.
Actually.... that depends entirely how they are packaged, which affects whether the size of the package and total buoyancy will be different, and whether they are falling in vacuum, or what kind of atmosphere.
There is no need for a DNS hack for that, IP anycast is already great for that.
IP Anycast is controlled by the owner of the destination IP. You're thinking too small........ I'm thinking EVERY ISP would (If they wanted) offer to provide their own copy of the most common included resources, And they would not need any 3rd party's assistance or permission to do so.
They would just need HTML tags that include a SHA256 digest of every remote-included resource, including Scripts, CSS Files, and Image/Picture files.
Also, with the Hash specified the meaning of the "SRC" Tag changes to "Known Mirror" ---- In other words, the mirror URL is a URL of Last Resort if the DNS lookup/Search for http:///. Fails, so a local mirror could not be found.
Another possibility is to drop the SRC= tag mostly and just use the hash
Yeah, well, Oh.... by the way, while they're based in Arizona; California cannot legally encumber Uber's self-driving cars from passing through their state while traveling from another state to a different state, thus, they could still include routes through California in their travel.
If your car is legal to operate in the state that issued its registration, then the constitution causes all states to be required to honor the vehicle's registration and license issued by the home state to operate; In some cases, a state can set additional safety requirements that apply to all vehicles on their roads, But they cannot impose a barrier or require an additional license or permit for your out-of-state vehicle.
So. Pacific Co. v Arizona (1945) --- Challenge to Arizona's law prohibited trains from crossing the state containing more than 70 freight cars. Arizona argued the law was a safety measure designed to minimize the risk of "slack action" accidents to which longer trains are susceptible. The Court applied a test that balanced the state's safety interest against what it saw as the very substantial burden the law imposed on interstate commerce. The law was struck down. The same test was used in 1959 to strike down an Illinois law requiring trucks to have contoured rear fender mudguards rather than the straight mud guard flaps required by most other states (Bibb v Navajo Freight) and in 1978 to invalidate a Wisconsin law that limited truck length to 55 feet at a time when most long haul truck lines had gone to 65 foot trucks (Raymond Motor Transportation v Rice).
Similar to reason your driver's license is valid in all 50 states ---- Not because of the states' consent.
Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. ..”
If you add a rule like this, what about newer versions of the script?
They should be published using a new URL, and yes, the hashcode does change.
Yes, I am saying the person who publishes a website has to be fully responsible for all the code they are executing in visitors' browsers, and No third party should be able to unilaterally change the code being run by a website. This is a responsibility requirement the public needs in order to be able to hold people accountable for their website --- not just its performance, functionality, and working state, But also in case of security issues.
was thinking about how to tell the page that newer versions of the script were ok
Bad idea. Newer versions are likely to bring in new bugs (Including potential for CSS/CSRF security bugs) and unexpected compatibility issues. Webmasters should test their websites across browsers using exactly the code they are publishing. Stable code (not changing without the includer's knowledge) is vital.
A "new version" that is not authentic can bring hidden malware, or popup ads courtesy of the CDN provider, just as easily as it can bring improvements.
A typical remote inclusion URL looks like https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/angularjs/1.5.7/angular.min.js
To use a computer analogy: It's a software problem, not a hardware issue.
Usually we distinguish between the mind and the body, although, technically speaking: the mind is part of the body. The development process is referencing nurture and learned preferences and behaviors, not the body's development programmed by firmware.
It's not necessary to imply a firmware or "body" issue.
Due to some kind of accident made at some point, a configuration file on the disk got accidentally set to load tunings and drivers more suitable for the opposite hardware.
Yes. Multiple browsers support this, however: a couple limitations (1) They don't currently require this as a mandatory pre-requisite for Cross-Site script inclusion, AND (2) There's too much flexibility regarding which hash is used..... As a result, multiple developers could reference the same resource and come up with a different hashcode.
It's not just ads; a lot of websites pull in JS helper scripts from other sources (instead of hosting local copies of their own). And those sources do not always have the best performance.
What we should do is get the web standards updated to add a Rule:
Remotely-loaded scripts (Loading from a different server) must specify a SHA256 sum in the Script tag such as
<script src="https://example.com/mycode.js" integrity="sha256-7d774a8ff0e73f2791c3a12dfc3ef1f9a1a640d470584b9b9222d395e8519fc5">
If the hashcode is not specified, then the script will not be run.
If the hashcode IS specified, then it can be cached by any 3rd party. The URL becomes "Advisory", and Popular hashcodes can be distributed by Amazon, Google, or your local ISP.
There should be a way to have a DNS suffix DNS record to specify local object-caching servers that can be queried by code.
Caching is permanent. An outage of the original source server has no affect.
Persistent transgenderism is a dysphoria/mental anomaly because the body is healthy and contains the sex selected by chromosomes, except in rare cases of abnormal chromosomes, the body is a perfectly healthy body of the sex that the brain developed not wanting to have: the body just doesn't appeal to what the mind came to believe or desire; it's possible an abnormal development caused the mind to develop believing or yearning for something else.
It is just like being born with blond hair and blue eyes and being unable to mentally live with this, since you wanted to be a Red-Haired Brown-eyed person, also, you were dissatisfied with being 1.2 feet taller than average and 50 fewer IQ points than the average person.
Gender just does have higher behavioral and cultural significance than some of those other things.....
It was "so much for that" as soon as that idea started..... We already know from existing research into genetics that people of Male and Female genders have different chromosomes. Also, we can plainly observe different physical body characteristics.
Aafter such obvious visible differences and differences over thousands of years of culture ---- the Burden of Proof has always been on those who would claim a greater similarity or lack of difference to demonstrate that, AND regarding "Gender is a superficial distinction / Both are arbitrary or basically the same"; nobody has ever shown anything like that.
Cool, so who's going to fund my flat earth research?
Who's funding "round earth research" ?
The shape of earth is directly observable via photography from space. Thus its shape is not so much a theory as a direct observation.
Or do you propose there is a phenomenon called Global Flattening, where over time, the earth is becoming less and less round and more and more flat, and this activity may be accelerated by human intervention, such as humans mining precious metals and sucking oil out from the middle, creating a future trend where you predict according to some model that earth's overall surface could tend to cave in like a popped balloon as we continue to suck its middles out?
Billions of dollars of research being flushed down the drain, research that could save billions of lives in a few decades when the effects of global warming become more severe.
If the research is that important, then publish it and get libraries and other 3rd parties archiving it after the data is collected --- this is also a good thing as it means observation datasets can no longer be tampered with in the future to support new models.
I doubt that Trump's team is going to say "delete the research data", anyways. They're just de-funding the continuation of the research, and data ought to be archived.
If you want to see the oppositions disproval, then you Need to fund their research equally, just like the researchers received the massive funding for their work who actually started off with assumption that greenhouse-gas-caused climate change exists and is caused by humans.
The ones who assume work doesn't prove the foundation of their research is true though, they just further developed the theory, which doesn't receive adequate funding for critical truth analysis.
If we can just keep them busy and stifle progress in the middle east for another 50-100 years worldwide oil demand will fall so low the entire region will collapse
Sounds like a good idea..... sounds like we should ban consumer cars which can only be powered by conventional liquid fuels (Gasoline, Diesel, or Ethanol) and require all consumer vehicles made after 2018 and all business trucks manufactured after 2020 able to be powered by charging a battery or alternative fuel, for national security reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
What if the Facebook is a front for an intelligence agency?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Need to keep ahead of them by making mandatory Automatic self-testing with Error memory until serviced by a certified shop And monitoring of line pressure and devices, at least at engine start, periodically when idling or running at low speed, when initially accelerating from a full stop, And Failsafe Interlocks to the automatic braking systems To prevent applying power after an error is detected in the braking system.
If the braking system fails to self-test, or Auto-braking has engaged but accelerator still pushed, then the engine computer will throttle the engine down to Zero and if accelerating after 1 second, kill drive power.
Correct..... and if CR sends Apple too much information such as Logs from test devices, then in some sense their test units become "Invalidated" ----- for all CR would know, Apple quietly pushes out a CR-Only software update which tweaks something to increase battery life or Cap the average system load based on what programs are running..
If I get the new MBP, then I would be running the new version of Safari, naturally, so my MBP would not be providing the advertised battery life If I have this issue!!
It doesn't really matter if the underlying reason is Hardware or Software problem, As long as there exists a problem, then the Unit does not provide the battery life promised, and CR's test results would still be valid, if they show the issue.
A bug in Safari is not a testing methodology error; It's a problem with the product, since Safari is part of MacOS.
Also, a true test of battery life should consider Other things we may do with our computers beside web browsing,
which may in fact be a bit more processor intensive.
Things like watching a bunch of 4K Netflix movies or streaming other H.264 encoded files, or playing some DVDs.
Things like composing documents, or using image editing or CAD software to create building layouts/engineering designs.
The 19.5 hour figure is probably more interesting than the 4.5 hour figure: what happened there? That's almost double the estimates.
19.5 Hours sounds like what you'd expect from a laptop held powered on but in Sleep state, to me....
That is nonsense. From Apple's perspective this IS primarily a PR problem at the moment
Apple wants to cast FUD on CR's testing process, until Apple is able to get a handle on the issue, which is obviously real,
and obviously something Apple has missed, but CR's testing may not have yielded enough facts so far for Apple to figure it out.
Or Apple may know very well but can be biding their time for PR purposes.
Why else would Apple publicize them working with CR before they have some concrete information?
They should have spun off a patent troll division and assigned their rights.
You cannot sue large companies for patent infringement while you are a practicing entity that has a Technology product or service
THE OTHER COMPANIES WILL RETALLIATE AGAINST YOU.
Either by filing their own Patent lawsuits Or by interfering with your marketing or your business.........
OH yeah, And if you or a company you own partners with them to sell your products, then it's really dumb to sue them.
Happiness depends on being delusional.
I think this might be one of the most depressing statements i've heard in quite awhile.
I'm going to go have another scotch to drink, and make it a double.
The warming that we are experiencing exceeds the rate that could happen with just natural variance.
AMOUNT or degree of climate change is not capable of establishing that a cause of a change is due to humans. Large volcanic eruptions are completely natural and can have a huge impact for centuries. Could it be that a previous natural variation caused the climate to be colder than it ought to be, and the latest warming is natural restore from a natural variation downwards....
If you want to convince anyone there is no man-made factor to climate change then you will need to ....
Nonsense. First of all by default the assumption should not be No man-made factor at all; the assumption should be No major new man-made factor, or No conclusively man-made major influence. Skepticism against some theory which has been inadequately proposed does not require proof. The burden of proof always falls upon those who wish to propose a theory to attribute the climate change (or other phenomenon) to specific causes to show their theory is true. The proponents of the theory must consider every possible reason for doubting the theory, and perform experiments over every facet that can show every way the theory would be false, And the experiments must be conducted honestly, must have conclusive results, and been successfully replicated proving the predictive ability of the theory.
Nothing like that's been approached by climate change theorists.
The simplest explanation remains natural changes including changes related to the sun and earth's orbit, geography, and oceans are primary things affecting the climates.
You also need to explain how it is that all the CO2 that we know we are releasing into the atmosphere and that we know is accumulating there is not having the effect on temperature that the physics says that it will.
They don't have physics on their side. For one; they can't show the CO2 releases are more harmful than natural methane releases. You think that CO2 is the only thing released into the atmosphere, and Humans are the only things affecting the composition of the atmosphere and dissipation of sunlight/energy?
For two; Climate change models are not based on direct calculations that can be shown to be identical to physics.
In fact, neither climatologists nor physicists understand the physics of earth's atmosphere well enough, and they've been unable to make reliable predictions.
For all they know, the amount of Roads we're building which absorb heat from the sun are more important than the amount of CO2 humans release.
This is censorship in the same way Slashdot moderation is censorship. While it technically meets the definition, I don't see any harm here.
Censorship that is an Optional choice made by the person buying and consuming the content, Which they pay extra for, Is actually good censorship.
It's censorship in the same way that AdBlock is censorship. It's censorship outside the control and desires of any 3rd party, including without respect to the wishes or the knowledge by the content creators, distributors, government, etc.
Wow. I had considered coming here to joke about whether the anti-science deniers would come out of the woodwork to claim that the magnetic field wasn't changing at all
The magnetic field AND the climate are both changing; It's just not humans that are causing them to change ---- they change plenty on their own without any human intervention.
They don't fall at the same rate. A pound of iron always falls faster than a pound of feather try it.
Actually.... that depends entirely how they are packaged, which affects whether the size of the package and total buoyancy will be different, and whether they are falling in vacuum, or what kind of atmosphere.
There is no need for a DNS hack for that, IP anycast is already great for that.
IP Anycast is controlled by the owner of the destination IP. You're thinking too small........
I'm thinking EVERY ISP would (If they wanted) offer to provide their own copy of the most common included resources, And they would not need any 3rd party's assistance or permission to do so.
They would just need HTML tags that include a SHA256 digest of every remote-included resource, including Scripts, CSS Files, and Image/Picture files.
Also, with the Hash specified the meaning of the "SRC" Tag changes to "Known Mirror" ---- In other words, the mirror URL is a URL of Last Resort if the DNS lookup/Search for http:///. Fails, so a local mirror could not be found.
Another possibility is to drop the SRC= tag mostly and just use the hash
<script src="file1.js" fallbacksuffix="example.com" hashcode="88df34e6d2287f7873039a8e7f60a8fec5505f5ea565d7516b8de34a9825fd5c" >
The fallback URL for this script file would be http:/// 88df34e6d2287f7873039a8e7f60a8fec5505f5ea565d7516b8de34a9825fd5c.example.com/file1.js"
Yeah, well, Oh.... by the way, while they're based in Arizona; California cannot legally encumber Uber's self-driving cars from passing through their state while traveling from another state to a different state, thus, they could still include routes through California in their travel.
If your car is legal to operate in the state that issued its registration, then the constitution causes all states to be required to honor the vehicle's registration and license issued by the home state to operate; In some cases, a state can set additional safety requirements that apply to all vehicles on their roads, But they cannot impose a barrier or require an additional license or permit for your out-of-state vehicle.
So. Pacific Co. v Arizona (1945) --- Challenge to Arizona's law prohibited trains from crossing the state containing more than 70 freight cars.
Arizona argued the law was a safety measure designed to minimize the risk of "slack action" accidents to which longer trains are susceptible. The Court applied a test that balanced the state's safety interest against what it saw as the very substantial burden the law imposed on interstate commerce. The law was struck down. The same test was used in 1959 to strike down an Illinois law requiring trucks to have contoured rear fender mudguards rather than the straight mud guard flaps required by most other states (Bibb v Navajo Freight) and in 1978 to invalidate a Wisconsin law that limited truck length to 55 feet at a time when most long haul truck lines had gone to 65 foot trucks (Raymond Motor Transportation v Rice).
Similar to reason your driver's license is valid in all 50 states ---- Not because of the states' consent.
Caneisha Mills v. D.C. 2009 “The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. . .”
If you add a rule like this, what about newer versions of the script?
They should be published using a new URL, and yes, the hashcode does change.
Yes, I am saying the person who publishes a website has to be fully responsible for all the code they are executing in visitors' browsers, and No third party should be able to unilaterally change the code being run by a website.
This is a responsibility requirement the public needs in order to be able to hold people accountable for their website --- not just its performance, functionality, and working state, But also in case of security issues.
was thinking about how to tell the page that newer versions of the script were ok
Bad idea. Newer versions are likely to bring in new bugs (Including potential for CSS/CSRF security bugs) and unexpected compatibility issues. Webmasters should test their websites across browsers using exactly the code they are publishing. Stable code (not changing without the includer's knowledge) is vital.
A "new version" that is not authentic can bring hidden malware, or popup ads courtesy of the CDN provider, just as easily as it can bring improvements.
A typical remote inclusion URL looks like https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/angularjs/1.5.7/angular.min.js
Hence the body disorder remark, presumably. ;)
To use a computer analogy: It's a software problem, not a hardware issue.
Usually we distinguish between the mind and the body, although, technically speaking:
the mind is part of the body. The development process is referencing nurture and
learned preferences and behaviors, not the body's development programmed by firmware.
It's not necessary to imply a firmware or "body" issue.
Due to some kind of accident made at some point, a configuration file on the disk
got accidentally set to load tunings and drivers more suitable for the opposite hardware.
Yes. Multiple browsers support this, however: a couple limitations
(1) They don't currently require this as a mandatory pre-requisite for Cross-Site script inclusion, AND (2) There's too much flexibility regarding which hash is used..... As a result, multiple developers could reference the same resource and come up with a different hashcode.
It's not just ads; a lot of websites pull in JS helper scripts from other sources (instead of hosting local copies of their own). And those sources do not always have the best performance.
What we should do is get the web standards updated to add a Rule:
Remotely-loaded scripts (Loading from a different server) must specify a SHA256 sum in the Script tag such as
<script src="https://example.com/mycode.js" integrity="sha256-7d774a8ff0e73f2791c3a12dfc3ef1f9a1a640d470584b9b9222d395e8519fc5">
If the hashcode is not specified, then the script will not be run.
If the hashcode IS specified, then it can be cached by any 3rd party.
The URL becomes "Advisory", and Popular hashcodes can be distributed by Amazon, Google, or your local ISP.
There should be a way to have a DNS suffix DNS record to specify local object-caching servers that can be queried by code.
Caching is permanent. An outage of the original source server has no affect.
Persistent transgenderism is a dysphoria/mental anomaly because the body is healthy and contains the sex selected by chromosomes, except in rare cases of abnormal chromosomes, the body is a perfectly healthy body of the sex that the brain developed not wanting to have: the body just doesn't appeal to what the mind came to believe or desire; it's possible an abnormal development caused the mind to develop believing or yearning for something else.
It is just like being born with blond hair and blue eyes and being unable to mentally live with this, since you wanted to be a Red-Haired Brown-eyed person, also, you were dissatisfied with being 1.2 feet taller than average and 50 fewer IQ points than the average person.
Gender just does have higher behavioral and cultural significance than some of those other things.....
It was "so much for that" as soon as that idea started..... We already know from existing research into genetics that people of Male and Female genders have different chromosomes. Also, we can plainly observe different physical body characteristics.
Aafter such obvious visible differences and differences over thousands of years of culture ----
the Burden of Proof has always been on those who would claim a greater similarity or lack of difference to demonstrate that,
AND regarding "Gender is a superficial distinction / Both are arbitrary or basically the same"; nobody has ever shown anything like that.
Cool, so who's going to fund my flat earth research?
Who's funding "round earth research" ?
The shape of earth is directly observable via photography from space.
Thus its shape is not so much a theory as a direct observation.
Or do you propose there is a phenomenon called Global Flattening,
where over time, the earth is becoming less and less round and more and more flat,
and this activity may be accelerated by human intervention, such as humans mining precious metals and sucking oil out from the middle, creating a future trend where you predict according to some model that earth's overall surface could tend to cave in like a popped balloon as we continue to suck its middles out?
Billions of dollars of research being flushed down the drain, research that could save billions of lives in a few decades when the effects of global warming become more severe.
If the research is that important, then publish it and get libraries and other 3rd parties archiving it after the data is collected ---
this is also a good thing as it means observation datasets can no longer be tampered with in the future to support new models.
I doubt that Trump's team is going to say "delete the research data", anyways.
They're just de-funding the continuation of the research, and data ought to be archived.
If you want to see the oppositions disproval, then you Need to fund their research equally, just like the researchers received the massive funding for their work who actually started off with assumption that greenhouse-gas-caused climate change exists and is caused by humans.
The ones who assume work doesn't prove the foundation of their research is true though,
they just further developed the theory, which doesn't receive adequate funding for critical truth analysis.
If we can just keep them busy and stifle progress in the middle east for another 50-100 years worldwide oil demand will fall so low the entire region will collapse
Sounds like a good idea..... sounds like we should ban consumer cars which can only be powered by conventional liquid fuels (Gasoline, Diesel, or Ethanol) and require all consumer vehicles made after 2018 and all business trucks manufactured after 2020 able to be powered by charging a battery or alternative fuel, for national security reasons.