Putin's invasions of foreign nations have all been of neighboring or nearly so territories
So, Putin is allowed to meddle in Ukraine (the ousted President, for example, would never have gotten elected in the first place, where it not for Russian support both overt and covert) because his fiefdom happens to be geographically close to it? Nice. Should I ask about Syria — which is two seas apart from Russia — now, or would that be impolite?
we had no business backing the revolutionaries
Oh yeah? What happened to “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”? We defend Taiwan from China, South Korea from the North. Israel — from its mad neighbors. We kept USSR at bay throughout the Cold War — why is Ukraine less worthy of American help today than France or Germany was in 1970-ies?
How do think Obama would react if Russia backed a coup in Mexico and replaced the government with one openly hostile to the US?
Ukraine's new government was not "openly hostile" to Russia — what made them so was the invasion into Crimea. To answer your question, given Obama's actions towards Cuba, he'd welcome a Lefist coup in Mexico and apologize for America's past misdeeds (such as resisting Santa Anna and Pancho Villa).
I am not saying I like Putin's behavior but I am saying its quite understandable
"To understand is to forgive" — you, obviously do like Putin's behavior better, than you like that of American governments.
There is one stark and undeniable difference remaining, though — when the US invades, it is never to steal land — our last acquisition was Hawaii. We had multiple opportunities since (such as Philippines, but didn't use them). Putin's invasion into Crimea — ostensibly to "defend Russian-speakers" against the imaginary threat of the imaginary "nazist junta" — was nothing but a land-grab.
And yet, you and other like you — Snowden included — prefer Russia to the US...
post cold war American foreign policy that is responsible for the state the world is in today for the most part
Our responsibility derives simply from our victory. Russia's share of responsibility, which you seek to diminish, derives from the evils of the USSR (such as fostering and bolstering the "house of Assad" for a more relevant example). I'll take the US — warts and all — any day of the week. You are welcome to join Snowden in Russia (or in Hell).
No matter what Russia does or does not do to its people, that in no way makes the NSA's behavior lessor or more virtuous.
Snowden traded the US for Russia. This is what made comparisons between the two countries and the practices of their intelligence agencies valid and on-topic.
We are loosing our government by and FOR the people in drips and drabs and the NSA's behavior is a drop in that bucket.
No. As I argue in the neighbouring thread, the primary danger to our freedoms is the increasingly common belief, that it is acceptable — and even noble — to vote other people's monies to the "less fortunate" including, as so often happens, the voter himself.
It is this belief, that not only robs the productive members of society of what's rightfully theirs, but also attracts the worst kind of people into government to both perform the robbery and to divide the spoils. And it will be these assholes, who will one day misuse NSA's awesome powers to entrench their control and suppress opposition the way they already use the IRS to the same end.
The NSA is a tool which can, and has been, used for bad as well as good.
I agree, that they are dangerous, but I'm not aware of anybody actually suffering because of them without deserving it. In stark contrast with the KGB, whom our hero is implicitly supporting every day he is there...
NSA data used in parallel construction allowing fabrication of data to arrest people. Data shared with all levels of law enforcement including state, city, county.
I don't think, you worded it right — NSA data is used for capturing criminals. "Parallel construction" is then used to hide NSA's involvement. But it has not been used to frame innocent people. Nor can it — "parallel construction" helps police lie about how they knew of the accused's wrong-doing, but the target must be engaged in some criminality in the first place.
cops always being in force exactly where needed to disperse people well before a gathering.
If the particular demonstration is, indeed, illegal, cops being there — whether it is with the NSA's help or not — is a good thing. Unlike the IRS audits, such police actions do not target ideas — merely enforce local ordinances.
NSA data used to mark US citizens as dangerous because they support the wrong party or organization
No need to use NSA for that — Ron Paul is out in the open and the IRS is demanding (and getting) lists of "haters" from Conservative organisations by itself.
Think bigger, because the people in power do.
Sure. And yet, I remain convinced, that the belief of the voters, that it is Ok to vote other people's money to their own benefit, is the main source of danger. Not only does it actually rob those other people of what's rightfully theirs, it also attracts the worst kind folk into government to do the robbing and to divide the spoils. It is these assholes, who will eventually misuse the NSA in the manner you are predicting too.
He's not an employee or agent of the Russian government, or doing anything that annoys them. In fact, having him there basically lets Putin thumb his nose at the US, so he's welcome there.
Of course, he is welcome there — as long as he cooperates with the nose-thumbing and, as you put it, does not annoy Putin (such as, for example, by saying something supportive of Ukraine).
you're probably fairly safe, as long as you don't get on the wrong side of anyone who's too powerful.
That non-committal statement is true about any country, including even North Korea.
If Snowden believes he was "holding Putin accountable" that demonstrates some major league naivety
Oh, he may have wisen up by now. But that's what happens when young people — even the brighter among them — are raised by the teachers, who seriously equate Beria with McCarthy and Castro with Pinochet. And by now it is increasingly harder to blame even those teachers — when their own professors are "former" terrorists themselves.
If you really want to speak out against the abuses of the Medici, you're going to need the protection of the Borgias first
The far more apt comparison would be of Beria (responsible for millions dead) vs. McCarthy (responsible for dozens laid off). Quantity transcending into quality and all that...
Nice. Except our country's freedoms are not endangered by the NSA. They are endangered by the dangerous ideas, that it is Ok — noble even — to vote somebody else's money towards "the less fortunate" (including, of course, the voter in question personally).
Compared to that threat, the grave-sounding terms like "police state" and "pervasive surveillance" are nothing more than sad scarecrows in the rain — with straw sticking out of them and the crows nesting in their heads.
Nor is the NSA a threat to the rest of the world — far worse surveillance has always been accepted as given in the USSR and in Russia, for example. And in China. And, despite the curious lack of world-wide mass-protests against him, Putin is a far worse threat to the world peace, than Obama or Bush before him.
Neah, he is safe in Russia. You know, the nice free country, were renegade government employees are never tortured — merely given tea with radioactive poison in it.
No, I'm too lazy to hand you everything on a silver platter.
I've seen this movie before. Now you'll make 5-10 more posts explaining your "laziness" and/or "lack of time" — instead of simply furnishing the list as requested in one go.
Because you can not. And are too dishonest (or stubborn?) to admit it... But even I were to accept this one example — where are the others? Certainly, an established (and settled) scientific discipline should have more than one successful prediction to its name by now...
Laughable. The techniques, methods, and protocols as well as the areas covered have all changed vastly over the 100 years. The amount of "normalization", "tuning", "calibration" and "adjustment" gone into it was immense — all perfectly justifiable. Or almost all. For the 0.6F rise it would've been enough — for an overzealous individual (or group) — to skew the "calibration" just a tiny bit.
0.6F — what, I wonder, is the observational error of even today's measuring devices?
So now that the question of successful predictions is settled
What? You are yet to provide the "list of pairs of links: one link in each pair leading to a prediction, the other — to its confirmation a 3 or 50 years later..." You've given me a chart claiming to show half-a-degree rise — did anyone predict it in 1880? What model did they use back then — and how does that model explain temperatures going down in the first half of the chart? Why have they stopped growing at the end of period covered?
surely a confirmed prediction is enough to convince you
One would not be enough — not to validate a scientific theory. Recall, how I am always asking for a list of prediction-confirmation pairs. Certainly, the list ought to have more than one element. Even more than 3... And we are yet to see even 1.
The predictions cited were published in 2001 and 2007
If so, you'd have had no problem providing separate links: one link in each pair leading to a prediction, the other — to its confirmation a 3 or 50 years later...
If you reject that out of hand because it doesn't rigidly fit your required format
No, I reject it for a different reason — the "predictions" cited weren't published ahead of time.
If I were a Climate Science professor with, say, 10 graduate students in my care, I could ask each of them to make a prediction about temperature 10 years from now covering the span from, say, -5F to +5F of the current average with 1 degree apart from each other. Then, 10 years later, I'd pull the "winning" one — whatever it is — and celebrate its success.
So, to be acceptable for my list, the prediction must have been published years before materializing. Strangely enough, no such predictions have been put forth here, despite repeated requests.
Newspapers and magazines publish such predictions daily, it seems — just today New York Times' front page cited anonymous scientists predicting a 6F rise of global temperatures within unspecified time, because the "climate talks" in Washington weren't good enough. How come it is so difficult for you to point at a successful prediction published 20, 15, 10, or 5 years ago?
I hate to tell you this but there are a LOT of people living in the American midwest
Don't be no hater, use fewer cliches, and tell me, what is the population density in America East of Las Vegas and West of Pittsburgh... Note, that in Bay Area the density exceeds 1000 people per square mile, while Iowa has less than 55.
If you think you can have America produce food [...]
I really don't care, where food is produced, as long as it is produced. America is currently using only about 44% of its land for agriculture.
You can fit a hundred of Bay Areas (about 100 square miles each) into Iowa's 55 thousand square miles — and still have plenty of room left for corn.
It's not my fault if you're too stupid to understand the examples I gave you 6 month ago.
You never did, honey. Putting them together in an unambiguous format I asked for proved too difficult for you. You claimed it was "too difficult" and made about 5 more posts explaining, how you are too busy to do it in the form requested...
Except the burden of proof is on you — not on the sceptics. You want the rest of us to change our ways, so it is on you to prove, that such changes are necessary.
That the list I'm asking for is yet to materialize suggests, Climate Science is not really as "settled" as the alarmists would like us to believe.
Don't argue with me — just put the list together. Two or three pairs of links would do nicely...
That would be good, yes. Can you cite an actual prediction of such a rise — and a confirmation of the temperatures actually rising to a level within, say, 20% of the predicted value?
Oh, hi! How is the quest for materialized predictions coming along? Finding any?
If, as TFA implies, the wise scientists have been seeing AGW for over 50 years, how come it is so difficult to find actual predictions made by them since then, that have actually materialized already?
Some months ago you attempted to come up with a list of falsifiable statements published by Climate Science, that have not ended up falsified, but gave up... Care to try again?
Given the costs one has to pay in "karma" for posts of this nature (notice, how many posts are made by ACs), I will not be able to post in this thread again — not until I see the list of pairs of links: one link in each pair leading to a prediction, the other — to its confirmation a 3 or 50 years later...
(Attempts to sidestep the challenge by blaming my own "intellectual laziness" or other personal flaws shall be returned unopened.)
I live in the "Canadian woods." There are people here. American Midwest? Been there. People. Australian Outback and Sahara, ditto. I haven't been to Siberia or the Antarctic, but I know people who have
Sure, there are people there. Even in Antarctica there are people.
But, with population density hovering below one decifinger per 100 square miles, the lands remain unsettled. Just as putting a single person on Mars' surface does not make it colonized...
Moon colonies are more interesting right now. If we set up a water, fuel and mining infrastructure, a permanent moon base might plausibly be able to do interesting things, from building and running giant far side telescopes to vacuum industry.
This may very well be interesting for a private venture — with people risking their own monies hoping for a profit.
But for governments to spend taxpayers' money on it, there must be a compelling force majore reason. Rules are (or ought to be!) different for funds collected at gunpoint...
So, whenever someone states or implies, that humanity is running out of room, I make a point to remind them, how much more room we still have right here on Earth. And then the truth quickly comes out — the real motivation of such fear-mongers is their fascination with space-travel and other planets. The fascination I happen to share, actually...
Once again, I'd like to pour cold water — and ice — on the plans to colonize other planet. Before those become sensible, the vast unsettled areas of Earth should be colonized:
Siberia
American Midwest
Canadian woods
Australian Outback
Sahara and other deserts
Antarctica!
Yes, they remain unsettled for a reason, but are still much more hospitable, than any other body of the Solar system. And the Internet latency will not suck.
Oh, and almost forgot, there is also ocean floor — roughly 2/3rds of the planet's surface... Today's 7 billion humans can grow to 40 or 60 before we really should start spending serious efforts to spilling over to another rock...
I bought Purify and have been happy with it. Hopefully they remain true to blocking all ads and trackers.
I too was once reasonably happy with Purify, but what does it have to do with ad-blocking escapes me... Maybe, things have changed since I switched to valgrind...
Slashdot Mirror
So, Putin is allowed to meddle in Ukraine (the ousted President, for example, would never have gotten elected in the first place, where it not for Russian support both overt and covert) because his fiefdom happens to be geographically close to it? Nice. Should I ask about Syria — which is two seas apart from Russia — now, or would that be impolite?
Oh yeah? What happened to “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”? We defend Taiwan from China, South Korea from the North. Israel — from its mad neighbors. We kept USSR at bay throughout the Cold War — why is Ukraine less worthy of American help today than France or Germany was in 1970-ies?
Ukraine's new government was not "openly hostile" to Russia — what made them so was the invasion into Crimea. To answer your question, given Obama's actions towards Cuba, he'd welcome a Lefist coup in Mexico and apologize for America's past misdeeds (such as resisting Santa Anna and Pancho Villa).
"To understand is to forgive" — you, obviously do like Putin's behavior better, than you like that of American governments.
There is one stark and undeniable difference remaining, though — when the US invades, it is never to steal land — our last acquisition was Hawaii. We had multiple opportunities since (such as Philippines, but didn't use them). Putin's invasion into Crimea — ostensibly to "defend Russian-speakers" against the imaginary threat of the imaginary "nazist junta" — was nothing but a land-grab.
And yet, you and other like you — Snowden included — prefer Russia to the US...
Our responsibility derives simply from our victory. Russia's share of responsibility, which you seek to diminish, derives from the evils of the USSR (such as fostering and bolstering the "house of Assad" for a more relevant example). I'll take the US — warts and all — any day of the week. You are welcome to join Snowden in Russia (or in Hell).
Snowden traded the US for Russia. This is what made comparisons between the two countries and the practices of their intelligence agencies valid and on-topic.
No. As I argue in the neighbouring thread, the primary danger to our freedoms is the increasingly common belief, that it is acceptable — and even noble — to vote other people's monies to the "less fortunate" including, as so often happens, the voter himself.
It is this belief, that not only robs the productive members of society of what's rightfully theirs, but also attracts the worst kind of people into government to both perform the robbery and to divide the spoils. And it will be these assholes, who will one day misuse NSA's awesome powers to entrench their control and suppress opposition the way they already use the IRS to the same end.
I agree, that they are dangerous, but I'm not aware of anybody actually suffering because of them without deserving it. In stark contrast with the KGB, whom our hero is implicitly supporting every day he is there...
I don't think, you worded it right — NSA data is used for capturing criminals. "Parallel construction" is then used to hide NSA's involvement. But it has not been used to frame innocent people. Nor can it — "parallel construction" helps police lie about how they knew of the accused's wrong-doing, but the target must be engaged in some criminality in the first place.
I think, you meant the IRS here.
If the particular demonstration is, indeed, illegal, cops being there — whether it is with the NSA's help or not — is a good thing. Unlike the IRS audits, such police actions do not target ideas — merely enforce local ordinances.
No need to use NSA for that — Ron Paul is out in the open and the IRS is demanding (and getting) lists of "haters" from Conservative organisations by itself.
Sure. And yet, I remain convinced, that the belief of the voters, that it is Ok to vote other people's money to their own benefit, is the main source of danger. Not only does it actually rob those other people of what's rightfully theirs, it also attracts the worst kind folk into government to do the robbing and to divide the spoils. It is these assholes, who will eventually misuse the NSA in the manner you are predicting too.
Like Japan and Germany? Or Ukraine? Or Afhganistan? Or Czechoslovakia?
Of course, he is welcome there — as long as he cooperates with the nose-thumbing and, as you put it, does not annoy Putin (such as, for example, by saying something supportive of Ukraine).
That non-committal statement is true about any country, including even North Korea.
Oh, he may have wisen up by now. But that's what happens when young people — even the brighter among them — are raised by the teachers, who seriously equate Beria with McCarthy and Castro with Pinochet. And by now it is increasingly harder to blame even those teachers — when their own professors are "former" terrorists themselves.
The far more apt comparison would be of Beria (responsible for millions dead) vs. McCarthy (responsible for dozens laid off). Quantity transcending into quality and all that...
Nice. Except our country's freedoms are not endangered by the NSA. They are endangered by the dangerous ideas, that it is Ok — noble even — to vote somebody else's money towards "the less fortunate" (including, of course, the voter in question personally).
Compared to that threat, the grave-sounding terms like "police state" and "pervasive surveillance" are nothing more than sad scarecrows in the rain — with straw sticking out of them and the crows nesting in their heads.
Nor is the NSA a threat to the rest of the world — far worse surveillance has always been accepted as given in the USSR and in Russia, for example. And in China. And, despite the curious lack of world-wide mass-protests against him, Putin is a far worse threat to the world peace, than Obama or Bush before him.
Neah, he is safe in Russia. You know, the nice free country, were renegade government employees are never tortured — merely given tea with radioactive poison in it.
Khm, I wonder, why he is not following Kremlin's accounts. Just to, you know, hold Putin accountable...
I've seen this movie before. Now you'll make 5-10 more posts explaining your "laziness" and/or "lack of time" — instead of simply furnishing the list as requested in one go.
Because you can not. And are too dishonest (or stubborn?) to admit it... But even I were to accept this one example — where are the others? Certainly, an established (and settled) scientific discipline should have more than one successful prediction to its name by now...
Fuck you, asshole. How is that for a civilized discourse? Please, don't hate.
This is why we must elect a young, smart, well-educated politician with multi-cultural background and compelling life-story to Presidency. Someone, who knows, how to use a computer himself. Who is not beholden to KKKorporate interests. Someone loved and respected overseas. Someone, who cares... Someone, who thrills men and whom women can imagine finding in their showers and be excited, rather than frightened. Someone, who is serious about ending Washington's culture of corruption !
Yes we can!
Laughable. The techniques, methods, and protocols as well as the areas covered have all changed vastly over the 100 years. The amount of "normalization", "tuning", "calibration" and "adjustment" gone into it was immense — all perfectly justifiable. Or almost all. For the 0.6F rise it would've been enough — for an overzealous individual (or group) — to skew the "calibration" just a tiny bit.
0.6F — what, I wonder, is the observational error of even today's measuring devices?
What? You are yet to provide the "list of pairs of links: one link in each pair leading to a prediction, the other — to its confirmation a 3 or 50 years later..." You've given me a chart claiming to show half-a-degree rise — did anyone predict it in 1880? What model did they use back then — and how does that model explain temperatures going down in the first half of the chart? Why have they stopped growing at the end of period covered?
One would not be enough — not to validate a scientific theory. Recall, how I am always asking for a list of prediction-confirmation pairs. Certainly, the list ought to have more than one element. Even more than 3... And we are yet to see even 1.
If so, you'd have had no problem providing separate links: one link in each pair leading to a prediction, the other — to its confirmation a 3 or 50 years later...
list of pairs of links: one link in each pair leading to a prediction, the other — to its confirmation a 3 or 50 years later...
No, I reject it for a different reason — the "predictions" cited weren't published ahead of time.
If I were a Climate Science professor with, say, 10 graduate students in my care, I could ask each of them to make a prediction about temperature 10 years from now covering the span from, say, -5F to +5F of the current average with 1 degree apart from each other. Then, 10 years later, I'd pull the "winning" one — whatever it is — and celebrate its success.
So, to be acceptable for my list, the prediction must have been published years before materializing. Strangely enough, no such predictions have been put forth here, despite repeated requests.
Newspapers and magazines publish such predictions daily, it seems — just today New York Times' front page cited anonymous scientists predicting a 6F rise of global temperatures within unspecified time, because the "climate talks" in Washington weren't good enough. How come it is so difficult for you to point at a successful prediction published 20, 15, 10, or 5 years ago?
Don't be no hater, use fewer cliches, and tell me, what is the population density in America East of Las Vegas and West of Pittsburgh... Note, that in Bay Area the density exceeds 1000 people per square mile, while Iowa has less than 55.
I really don't care, where food is produced, as long as it is produced. America is currently using only about 44% of its land for agriculture.
You can fit a hundred of Bay Areas (about 100 square miles each) into Iowa's 55 thousand square miles — and still have plenty of room left for corn.
You never did, honey. Putting them together in an unambiguous format I asked for proved too difficult for you. You claimed it was "too difficult" and made about 5 more posts explaining, how you are too busy to do it in the form requested...
Except the burden of proof is on you — not on the sceptics. You want the rest of us to change our ways, so it is on you to prove, that such changes are necessary.
That the list I'm asking for is yet to materialize suggests, Climate Science is not really as "settled" as the alarmists would like us to believe.
Don't argue with me — just put the list together. Two or three pairs of links would do nicely...
That would be good, yes. Can you cite an actual prediction of such a rise — and a confirmation of the temperatures actually rising to a level within, say, 20% of the predicted value?
Oh, hi! How is the quest for materialized predictions coming along? Finding any?
If, as TFA implies, the wise scientists have been seeing AGW for over 50 years, how come it is so difficult to find actual predictions made by them since then, that have actually materialized already?
Some months ago you attempted to come up with a list of falsifiable statements published by Climate Science, that have not ended up falsified, but gave up... Care to try again?
Given the costs one has to pay in "karma" for posts of this nature (notice, how many posts are made by ACs), I will not be able to post in this thread again — not until I see the list of pairs of links: one link in each pair leading to a prediction, the other — to its confirmation a 3 or 50 years later...
(Attempts to sidestep the challenge by blaming my own "intellectual laziness" or other personal flaws shall be returned unopened.)
Sure, there are people there. Even in Antarctica there are people.
But, with population density hovering below one decifinger per 100 square miles, the lands remain unsettled. Just as putting a single person on Mars' surface does not make it colonized...
This may very well be interesting for a private venture — with people risking their own monies hoping for a profit.
But for governments to spend taxpayers' money on it, there must be a compelling force majore reason. Rules are (or ought to be!) different for funds collected at gunpoint...
So, whenever someone states or implies, that humanity is running out of room, I make a point to remind them, how much more room we still have right here on Earth. And then the truth quickly comes out — the real motivation of such fear-mongers is their fascination with space-travel and other planets. The fascination I happen to share, actually...
Yes, they remain unsettled for a reason, but are still much more hospitable, than any other body of the Solar system. And the Internet latency will not suck.
Oh, and almost forgot, there is also ocean floor — roughly 2/3rds of the planet's surface... Today's 7 billion humans can grow to 40 or 60 before we really should start spending serious efforts to spilling over to another rock...
I too was once reasonably happy with Purify, but what does it have to do with ad-blocking escapes me... Maybe, things have changed since I switched to valgrind...