"Why not?" should never be the standard for anything that enhances government power and/or limits individual liberty.
How does a national ID standard limit liberty any more that the existing standard set by the state of Maine or any of the other 49 states? How does an ID database with your name prevent you from doing anything that you can do today. (not to mention that you are already in a Federal database, probably several like Social Security, IRS and so on)
I hate put on my pointy hat, but in this day and age anything that takes away one shred of my privacy, I don't want to do. It could also be argued that privacy=liberty.
The standard should be "Why should we?".
Because it will be harder for Abu Mohammed to fake.
I don't buy this argument. Given enough time and resources ANY document can be faked. And with a single ID standard, in order to update the protection scheme, I have to update 300,000,000 or so IDs
And no, "We have to keep you safe." is not an adequate reason.
Uh, yeah it is. We have speed limits to keep me safe. I have to wear a seatbelt to keep me safe. I can't drink and drive to keep me (and you) safe... How is this any different?
I think you are mistaken here as well. The federally bribed speed limits were actually put in place to reduce pollution. Seatbelt laws are designed to save states money by reducing injuries for people who do not have insurance. DWI is a different story, there is a great potential to injure someone other than you self. They are not trying to protect you in this case. They are trying to protect people from you.
English is not my first language, sometimes I get the tone wrong.
What is your first language? I am just curious. My definition of Global warming was contextual, not factual. You have provided the factual definition. The problem is that you are defining a disease solely by its symptoms. This is a dangerous thing to do in general. If I say I am tired and thirsty all of the time, you might ask if I am drinking enough, while the problem could be diabetes, or a litany of other problem. The point would be that you have to do more research. I know, I know there has been a ton of research, there is evidence to support you position. But there is other evidence as well.
Are you confusing sea-level increase with my claimed rise in average sea-temperature? The rise in sea temperature (and acidity) has also been observed and documented. I was actually, I obviously didn't read what you wrote.
I miss the point here. It seems to me that you are disputing global warming as a theory, but acknowledging my list of observations as fact. Am I correct? With the mentioned exceptions you are correct. The things that are scientifically verifiable, I am ok with. It is the extrapolations that I have a problem with. As I am trying to avoid making assumptions on your behalf, sometimes I must, given the asynchronous nature of Slashdot. If my assumptions are wrong, then you can put forward your position/ideas. The issue I have with your proposed hypotheses is exactly why I included the reference to Occam's razor. The popular interpretation of Occam's razor is "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." (Wikipedia). The Global warming theory is the simplest theory that explains a multitude of global phenomenon is a single framework. It would require hundreds of disjoint hypotheses to account for all the (factual) observations made over the past century. From a scientific point of view these disjoint hypotheses don't hold up. I am familiar with Occam's razor. But it only applies when we have all of the information. In the 1400s the simplest explanation for disease was witchcraft. Occam would have told you to kill all of the witches. The current policy of the US regarding the 'war on terror' and the 'war on drugs' are absolutely not worldwide accepted policies. One can read Al-Jazheera for example to get a different view on the 'war on terror'. Any European newssite will basically do regarding the 'war on drugs'. Only the US feels the need to have a 'war on drugs', Europeans in general treat drug addicts as sick people, not criminals. Being from America I tend to think of the west as the whole world. This is my problem. The "War on Drugs" does cover most places. West, Eastern Europe, Middle East, and Far East. Western Europe does seem to be the exception, and in my opinion they have the correct attitude. As for the war on terror, I really meant the clamp down on civil liberties, and general governmental stupidy, to combat the phantom that is terrorism. This is a problem everywhere and for everyone. Including our Arab brothers. Especially our Arab brothers. Let me draw a parallel with cod fishing on the grand banks. Scientist warned for collapsing cod-stock for a number of years. Fishermen reported bumber crops for the same number of years. Result now: no cod and a total collapse of the fishing industry there. The proof in this case was over the long-term. The nay-sayers observed only the short term... While I agree that the discussion on global warming is sometimes rather shrill, it does not take away from the reality of the observations. The earth is warming up and what are we going to do about it? You point is a good one but cod is a simple system and is easily, and accurately measurable in a discreet boundary. If you were to draw the conclusion that cod were disappearing from Alaska, because they are disappearing from the Grand Banks, you would be on the same road as global
Ok, I'll bite. You have at least are registered, not some AC.
I don't troll. I don't AC.
Let me dissect your post a little, and vary between philosophy and science...
condescension? Let me first define 'Global warming' : global warming is a theory, supported by the majority of the scientific community.
I couldn't find your definition anywhere so I will go with Wiki's. It is essentially the same as every other source I found. Global warming is a term used to describe an increase over time of the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans. The things you list above are not a definition, they are symptoms of some unknown or as yet unproven process. But let's take a look at your list: - Ice caps and glaciers are becoming smaller.
Absolutely true.
- The Tree-line is creeping , north and upwards.
Again true.
The perma frost line is going north.
True - The artic and antartic ice-caps are getting smaller
You left out Greenland, which is also melting. And the Antarctic is probably not.
- The Sahel (region below the Sahara) is getting dryer (average annual rain fall).
I am afraid I don't know anything about sub-Saharan Africa
year over year averages of weather stations show an increase in average temperature (since 1830).
Most weather stations are (and always have been) near cities, the population and density of cities has increase significantly since 1830. Research the heat island effect. This might have a significant effect on any averages.
- year over year averages of sea-water temperature are going up.
This may be true. It may not. It is very difficult to tell. The sea level is up in some places and down in others. Determining the average is not possible. If it is rising, it might be directly attributable to Greenland.
The theory explains these observations as the result of human activity. Specifically the increase in CO2 and Methane which have been identified as so called 'greenhouse' gasses.
Global warming does explain those observations. So does idiopathic current changes in the North Atlantic. So do volcanic vent under the arctic. I am sure there a hundred things that explain them that no one has bothered to look into, because they are so happy to have funding. People don't get funding for trying to disprove global warming. Science is supposed to be two sided.
So back to 'But Global warming is far from fact.' What is your statement here, do you deny the observations or do you deny the proposed theory?
I don't necessarily deny either. What I deny is that these things are facts. They are theories. Theories are explanations of an event with supporting evidence (my definition). But they are not facts. Because they are not facts they can be disputed.
Ie. Heliocentrism was a theory that put the sun at the center of the universe. There was plenty of evidence to back it up. Nice scientific calculations, charts, measurements. It was generally accepted by the entire scientific community. But now with the advent of technology we know for a fact the sun is not the center of the universe.
Let me assume that you deny the link between CO2 and other greenhouse gasses as causes of increasing temperatures. Would you be so kind as to propose an alternative theory that explains these phenomenon? Please use of Occam's razor.
Please don't make assumptions on my behalf. Please see above for several hypotheses for what might explain the observations above. I honestly am not willing to pretend like I know, which seems to be untrue of the majority of people.
The 'war on drugs' and 'war of terror' are artifacts of American policies, they only live in the US (but with devastating global effects).
Artifact might not be the word you are looking for.
I haven't read or seen An Inconvenient Truth, so I won't comment on it specifically. But Global warming is far from fact. It is fact in the same way that the war on drugs and the war on terrorism are fact. They are a creation by some entity to gain power and take money.
There are a lot of specious claims about what the truth is, but no one knows for sure. The scientific evidence is cobbled together from disparate sources and mostly taken completely out of context, by someone who already has an opinion. This is the opposite of the way science is supposed to work. There are more than a few studies that endorse global warming. There are just as many (though not as well publicized or funded) that dispute it. Just for giggles let's assume that the average temperature of the entire earth is actually rising. There is no proof, but let's pretend. There is no proof of the cause. It might be green house gases, but green house gases were much higher during the last ice age. It also might be changes in the Atlantic currents, but the Atlantic currents have moved around since there was an Atlantic to have currents. It might be the decrease in pirates since the 1800s, nobody knows.
The earth has been heating up an cooling down since the beginning. As evidenced by the preface to every global warming report I have ever seen: This year is the warmest since (insert any random year here).
If you would like to read a well researched and footnoted fiction (yes fiction) about the science behind global warming, try State of Fear by Michael Crichton. If might be a lot of tripe, I don't really know, but just like all of the global warming stuff, there is evidence to support his position.
Is there a conspiracy to steal our votes or is this just a case of public servants being too lazy to properly do their jobs. If it is a conspiracy; who, if anyone is leading it?
Universal chaos without universal annihilation proves order. I never said anything about understanding the proof or the order, and ignorance does not and idiot make.
Umm....I can program in perl, C++, TSQL, and C#. I do 99% of my programming in C#/TSQL/ASP.NET. The reason is simple. It is the quickest way to get the job done. I like C# so much, that if I were going to do UNIX work (and I am qualified to), I would probably use mono. I enjoy bashing microsoft as much as the next guy, but they do some things right.
Being a former law enforcement officer, always resist away from the officer. Resisting arrest is not USUALLY a stand alone offense. Resisting arrest toward the officer, better known as assault on an officer, is always a stand alone offense.
Police don't have anymore power than an ordinary citizen. They are not some kind of super citizen. What police do have is organization and prosecutorial immunity for things done in the line of duty. "Super Citizenship" is a myth perpetrated by those who want to influence people's perception of power. They have no MORE right to privacy than you do. They actually have less right to privacy while on duty. If what the story says is true, the guy should walk in to the DA's office and file criminal charges for false arrest, criminal trespass, simple assault and kidnapping. Because the cop broke the law in a way that was not consistent with his duties, the DA would have to have him arrested. This is exactly the same thing he would do if his neighbor grabbed him of the street, and dragged him down to the police station for no reason.
Seems like everyone here over reacted. The school district should have welcomed him back to school contigent on his parents beating his ass until he was unable to sit for the rest of the semester.
Last time I checked presidents (in the US) could not declare war. At least that's what my constitution says. Congress has not declared war. Any power has to execute hostilities comes from his power as Commander and Chief of the armed forces. Because of Posse Comitatus these powers can not apply to US citizens. So saying the president can not do anything illegal is ludicrous, and SCOTUS obviously agrees with me.
You know it's sad. I now have to teach my kids that cops aren't always the good guys. I teach them that under no circumstances are they allowed to say anything other than "Call my parents." I tell my wife not to pull over for cops with out calling 911 or finding a populated well lit area. I used to be in law enforcement, and I understand the vast majority of cops are good people. But it only takes one megalomaniacal idiot to ruin it for the whole crowd. Hooray for this lady. It's always nice when someone does the right thing instead of the easy thing.
It is not against the law to passively conceal evidence. Not telling someone what you know is not illegal. Lying about what you know or activily concealling avidence is obstruction of justice. So the key to this is just to keep you mouth shut.
You certainly can yell Fire in a crowded theater.....If there is a Fire. This is not an abridgement of the freedom of speech. It is against the law to incite that kind of pandemonium. This is the most quoted and one of the least relevant arguments against absolute Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech is; or at least should be absolute. Just a hint; anywhere the constitution says "Congress shall make no law" or "Shall not be abridged" is not a suggestion. Anytime congress makes a law or abridges, they are breaking the law, regardless of what the Supreme Court says.
What do you mean by "Who stands to benefit?" There is and entire economic and political dogma related to Global Warming. Billions of dollars are spent scaring people. Billions of dollars === Big benefit. Entire political parties are base on it. Political parties ==== Power.
As far as the Cold War. The fear made the Cold War real not the other way around.
And this is not a choice of cutting of your arm or dying. This is trying to cut off your arm before you check to see if you can dig your arm out instead.
I think it is generally accepted that global warming is happening (very slowly). However, there is no convincing (undisputable) proof that anthropic global warming is a real or preventable phenomenon. Like every other fear mongering cause, it is being used to justify taking your money or your freedom.
Let's make a short recent list:
The Cold War The War on Drugs The War on Terrorism Global Warming
I have had 15/2 for about a year now. I have no technical conplaints. I have not had any outages. Billing was a little dicey in the beginning because I don't use verizon phone services, but everything else is wonderful. And they actually mean 15/2.
Slashdot Mirror
"Why not?" should never be the standard for anything that enhances government power and/or limits individual liberty. How does a national ID standard limit liberty any more that the existing standard set by the state of Maine or any of the other 49 states? How does an ID database with your name prevent you from doing anything that you can do today. (not to mention that you are already in a Federal database, probably several like Social Security, IRS and so on)
I hate put on my pointy hat, but in this day and age anything that takes away one shred of my privacy, I don't want to do. It could also be argued that privacy=liberty.
The standard should be "Why should we?". Because it will be harder for Abu Mohammed to fake.
I don't buy this argument. Given enough time and resources ANY document can be faked. And with a single ID standard, in order to update the protection scheme, I have to update 300,000,000 or so IDs
And no, "We have to keep you safe." is not an adequate reason. Uh, yeah it is. We have speed limits to keep me safe. I have to wear a seatbelt to keep me safe. I can't drink and drive to keep me (and you) safe... How is this any different?
I think you are mistaken here as well. The federally bribed speed limits were actually put in place to reduce pollution. Seatbelt laws are designed to save states money by reducing injuries for people who do not have insurance. DWI is a different story, there is a great potential to injure someone other than you self. They are not trying to protect you in this case. They are trying to protect people from you.
English is not my first language, sometimes I get the tone wrong.
What is your first language? I am just curious.
My definition of Global warming was contextual, not factual. You have provided the factual definition.
The problem is that you are defining a disease solely by its symptoms. This is a dangerous thing to do in general. If I say I am tired and thirsty all of the time, you might ask if I am drinking enough, while the problem could be diabetes, or a litany of other problem. The point would be that you have to do more research. I know, I know there has been a ton of research, there is evidence to support you position. But there is other evidence as well.
Are you confusing sea-level increase with my claimed rise in average sea-temperature? The rise in sea temperature (and acidity) has also been observed and documented.
I was actually, I obviously didn't read what you wrote.
I miss the point here. It seems to me that you are disputing global warming as a theory, but acknowledging my list of observations as fact. Am I correct?
With the mentioned exceptions you are correct. The things that are scientifically verifiable, I am ok with. It is the extrapolations that I have a problem with.
As I am trying to avoid making assumptions on your behalf, sometimes I must, given the asynchronous nature of Slashdot. If my assumptions are wrong, then you can put forward your position/ideas. The issue I have with your proposed hypotheses is exactly why I included the reference to Occam's razor. The popular interpretation of Occam's razor is "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." (Wikipedia). The Global warming theory is the simplest theory that explains a multitude of global phenomenon is a single framework. It would require hundreds of disjoint hypotheses to account for all the (factual) observations made over the past century. From a scientific point of view these disjoint hypotheses don't hold up.
I am familiar with Occam's razor. But it only applies when we have all of the information. In the 1400s the simplest explanation for disease was witchcraft. Occam would have told you to kill all of the witches.
The current policy of the US regarding the 'war on terror' and the 'war on drugs' are absolutely not worldwide accepted policies. One can read Al-Jazheera for example to get a different view on the 'war on terror'. Any European newssite will basically do regarding the 'war on drugs'. Only the US feels the need to have a 'war on drugs', Europeans in general treat drug addicts as sick people, not criminals.
Being from America I tend to think of the west as the whole world. This is my problem. The "War on Drugs" does cover most places. West, Eastern Europe, Middle East, and Far East. Western Europe does seem to be the exception, and in my opinion they have the correct attitude.
As for the war on terror, I really meant the clamp down on civil liberties, and general governmental stupidy, to combat the phantom that is terrorism. This is a problem everywhere and for everyone. Including our Arab brothers. Especially our Arab brothers.
Let me draw a parallel with cod fishing on the grand banks. Scientist warned for collapsing cod-stock for a number of years. Fishermen reported bumber crops for the same number of years. Result now: no cod and a total collapse of the fishing industry there. The proof in this case was over the long-term. The nay-sayers observed only the short term... While I agree that the discussion on global warming is sometimes rather shrill, it does not take away from the reality of the observations. The earth is warming up and what are we going to do about it?
You point is a good one but cod is a simple system and is easily, and accurately measurable in a discreet boundary. If you were to draw the conclusion that cod were disappearing from Alaska, because they are disappearing from the Grand Banks, you would be on the same road as global
Ok, I'll bite. You have at least are registered, not some AC.
I don't troll. I don't AC.
Let me dissect your post a little, and vary between philosophy and science...
condescension?
Let me first define 'Global warming' : global warming is a theory, supported by the majority of the scientific community.
I couldn't find your definition anywhere so I will go with Wiki's. It is essentially the same as every other source I found.
Global warming is a term used to describe an increase over time of the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans. The things you list above are not a definition, they are symptoms of some unknown or as yet unproven process. But let's take a look at your list:
- Ice caps and glaciers are becoming smaller.
Absolutely true.
- The Tree-line is creeping , north and upwards.
Again true.
The perma frost line is going north.
True
- The artic and antartic ice-caps are getting smaller
You left out Greenland, which is also melting. And the Antarctic is probably not.
- The Sahel (region below the Sahara) is getting dryer (average annual rain fall).
I am afraid I don't know anything about sub-Saharan Africa
year over year averages of weather stations show an increase in average temperature (since 1830).
Most weather stations are (and always have been) near cities, the population and density of cities has increase significantly since 1830. Research the heat island effect. This might have a significant effect on any averages.
- year over year averages of sea-water temperature are going up.
This may be true. It may not. It is very difficult to tell. The sea level is up in some places and down in others. Determining the average is not possible. If it is rising, it might be directly attributable to Greenland.
The theory explains these observations as the result of human activity. Specifically the increase in CO2 and Methane which have been identified as so called 'greenhouse' gasses.
Global warming does explain those observations. So does idiopathic current changes in the North Atlantic. So do volcanic vent under the arctic. I am sure there a hundred things that explain them that no one has bothered to look into, because they are so happy to have funding. People don't get funding for trying to disprove global warming. Science is supposed to be two sided.
So back to 'But Global warming is far from fact.' What is your statement here, do you deny the observations or do you deny the proposed theory?
I don't necessarily deny either. What I deny is that these things are facts. They are theories. Theories are explanations of an event with supporting evidence (my definition). But they are not facts. Because they are not facts they can be disputed.
Ie. Heliocentrism was a theory that put the sun at the center of the universe. There was plenty of evidence to back it up. Nice scientific calculations, charts, measurements. It was generally accepted by the entire scientific community. But now with the advent of technology we know for a fact the sun is not the center of the universe.
Let me assume that you deny the link between CO2 and other greenhouse gasses as causes of increasing temperatures. Would you be so kind as to propose an alternative theory that explains these phenomenon? Please use of Occam's razor.
Please don't make assumptions on my behalf. Please see above for several hypotheses for what might explain the observations above. I honestly am not willing to pretend like I know, which seems to be untrue of the majority of people.
The 'war on drugs' and 'war of terror' are artifacts of American policies, they only live in the US (but with devastating global effects).
Artifact might not be the word you are looking for.
I don't troll.
I haven't read or seen An Inconvenient Truth, so I won't comment on it specifically. But Global warming is far from fact. It is fact in the same way that the war on drugs and the war on terrorism are fact. They are a creation by some entity to gain power and take money. There are a lot of specious claims about what the truth is, but no one knows for sure. The scientific evidence is cobbled together from disparate sources and mostly taken completely out of context, by someone who already has an opinion. This is the opposite of the way science is supposed to work. There are more than a few studies that endorse global warming. There are just as many (though not as well publicized or funded) that dispute it. Just for giggles let's assume that the average temperature of the entire earth is actually rising. There is no proof, but let's pretend. There is no proof of the cause. It might be green house gases, but green house gases were much higher during the last ice age. It also might be changes in the Atlantic currents, but the Atlantic currents have moved around since there was an Atlantic to have currents. It might be the decrease in pirates since the 1800s, nobody knows. The earth has been heating up an cooling down since the beginning. As evidenced by the preface to every global warming report I have ever seen: This year is the warmest since (insert any random year here). If you would like to read a well researched and footnoted fiction (yes fiction) about the science behind global warming, try State of Fear by Michael Crichton. If might be a lot of tripe, I don't really know, but just like all of the global warming stuff, there is evidence to support his position.
We have the second left? Really?!
Is there a conspiracy to steal our votes or is this just a case of public servants being too lazy to properly do their jobs. If it is a conspiracy; who, if anyone is leading it?
Universal chaos without universal annihilation proves order. I never said anything about understanding the proof or the order, and ignorance does not and idiot make.
The real proof that there is order to the universe.
Umm....I can program in perl, C++, TSQL, and C#. I do 99% of my programming in C#/TSQL/ASP.NET. The reason is simple. It is the quickest way to get the job done. I like C# so much, that if I were going to do UNIX work (and I am qualified to), I would probably use mono. I enjoy bashing microsoft as much as the next guy, but they do some things right.
Five minutes after the product release, someone will have figured out how to turn the sound off, regardless of microsofts wishes.
Being a former law enforcement officer, always resist away from the officer. Resisting arrest is not USUALLY a stand alone offense. Resisting arrest toward the officer, better known as assault on an officer, is always a stand alone offense.
Police don't have anymore power than an ordinary citizen. They are not some kind of super citizen. What police do have is organization and prosecutorial immunity for things done in the line of duty. "Super Citizenship" is a myth perpetrated by those who want to influence people's perception of power. They have no MORE right to privacy than you do. They actually have less right to privacy while on duty. If what the story says is true, the guy should walk in to the DA's office and file criminal charges for false arrest, criminal trespass, simple assault and kidnapping. Because the cop broke the law in a way that was not consistent with his duties, the DA would have to have him arrested. This is exactly the same thing he would do if his neighbor grabbed him of the street, and dragged him down to the police station for no reason.
I wish I could argue, but you couldn't be more right.
Seems like everyone here over reacted. The school district should have welcomed him back to school contigent on his parents beating his ass until he was unable to sit for the rest of the semester.
Last time I checked presidents (in the US) could not declare war. At least that's what my constitution says. Congress has not declared war. Any power has to execute hostilities comes from his power as Commander and Chief of the armed forces. Because of Posse Comitatus these powers can not apply to US citizens. So saying the president can not do anything illegal is ludicrous, and SCOTUS obviously agrees with me.
You know it's sad. I now have to teach my kids that cops aren't always the good guys. I teach them that under no circumstances are they allowed to say anything other than "Call my parents." I tell my wife not to pull over for cops with out calling 911 or finding a populated well lit area. I used to be in law enforcement, and I understand the vast majority of cops are good people. But it only takes one megalomaniacal idiot to ruin it for the whole crowd. Hooray for this lady. It's always nice when someone does the right thing instead of the easy thing.
Seems to me like the government is not even attempting to pretend that this is legal. They have truly just started making shit up.
It is not against the law to passively conceal evidence. Not telling someone what you know is not illegal. Lying about what you know or activily concealling avidence is obstruction of justice. So the key to this is just to keep you mouth shut.
You certainly can yell Fire in a crowded theater.....If there is a Fire. This is not an abridgement of the freedom of speech. It is against the law to incite that kind of pandemonium. This is the most quoted and one of the least relevant arguments against absolute Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech is; or at least should be absolute. Just a hint; anywhere the constitution says "Congress shall make no law" or "Shall not be abridged" is not a suggestion. Anytime congress makes a law or abridges, they are breaking the law, regardless of what the Supreme Court says.
What do you mean by "Who stands to benefit?" There is and entire economic and political dogma related to Global Warming. Billions of dollars are spent scaring people. Billions of dollars === Big benefit. Entire political parties are base on it. Political parties ==== Power.
As far as the Cold War. The fear made the Cold War real not the other way around.
And this is not a choice of cutting of your arm or dying. This is trying to cut off your arm before you check to see if you can dig your arm out instead.
I think it is generally accepted that global warming is happening (very slowly). However, there is no convincing (undisputable) proof that anthropic global warming is a real or preventable phenomenon. Like every other fear mongering cause, it is being used to justify taking your money or your freedom.
Let's make a short recent list:
The Cold War
The War on Drugs
The War on Terrorism
Global Warming
was it so warm 1200 years ago?
What's this "Dial Up" thing you keep talking about. I can't say I have ever heard of it.
I have had 15/2 for about a year now. I have no technical conplaints. I have not had any outages. Billing was a little dicey in the beginning because I don't use verizon phone services, but everything else is wonderful.
And they actually mean 15/2.