I hadn't noticed that [that climate scientists work for governments -mi]. Do you have a source on these two facts?
Dear, I don't have a source, that the sky is blue. Are you going to deny it until I find one? There are no privately-owned employers for "climate scientists" studying "global warming" — they employed by governments, or government-funded universities.
Florida's not a very large sample space.
Florida is a very large portion of the Atlantic coast, that gets hurricanes at all.
The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes... globalchange.gov
That link of yours is remarkably lacking in actual data (as in numbers, rather than words). If that's the best you could find, you should start asking yourself some questions...
What do you think needs to be discarded.
The people, who — 10 years ago — predicted the rise of hurricane activity need to be fired from their tax-funded jobs. They failed us and we don't want to keep paying them.
The fact that burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric CO2 concentration?
Plants love CO2. Maybe, the problem — if it is a problem — is not in burning too much fuel, but in not having enough forests to process it?
The fact that increasing the atmospheric concentration of a greenhouse gas will increase the greenhouse effect? You're talking like these aren't well proven points with a century of optics and thermodynamics behind them.
It is even better "proven", that by jumping, I push the rest of Earth in the opposite direction. Is there any danger in our planet changing its orbit from humanity's jumping up and down? Should we be working on reducing such jumping world-wide?
The CO2 did keep increasing for the last 10 years. Yet, no growth in hurricanes materialized and the entire "global warming" is now considered "on hold". Probably, because other — much greater — factors affect climate...
But I intend to stick around for another 10 years. We can continue this discussion then...
It's is a scientific paper about a change to ocean circulation 2.7 million years ago. It doesn't affect your tax dollars.
I was going to say, scientific papers are a dime a dozen, but, unfortunately, they are a lot more expensive.
Since "climate scientists" produce nothing tangibly useful, no private interest would hire them — they are all in government's employ. We, the taxpayers, fund it, but we don't get to decide, whether we want the practice to continue.
And these folk realize — even if just instinctively — that for them to remain employed, they need bigger government. Consequently, any and all measures proposed to fight the climate will lead to the further expansion of government.
As for how these "scientists" actually help, here is one funny tidbit for you... Ten years ago it was in-vogue to predict nor just the sea-water rising by an inch, but also increased hurricane activity. Why, this very site featured a "scientific article" about the matter with "insightful" posts like yours under it. It was all very scientific and convincing — but real life demonstrated the exact opposite to the prediction.
In real science, a theory gets discarded, when its predictions fail to materialize. If only "climate science" were real...
I believe there is a right to anonymous speech, but when you're paying someone else to speak for you, and you're trying to influence the political process, that may be different.
As declared by the Supreme Court several times, money — spent on politics — is speech. "It may be different" as you say — as much as one person's speech may differ from that of another.
Anonymous speech online (or elsewhere) generally doesn't carry with it an air of credibility that advocacy groups and think tanks try to project.
I don't accept, that concerns such as "air of credibility" are valid arguments against anonymity, Grant.
You are making a common mistake in violating (or calling for a violation of) a sound principle, while it serves your cause — not realizing, the violation, once deemed legitimate, will soon be used by your opponents (and enemies) against you too. This is how the worst things come into and stay in existence...
Generally, groups in favor of net neutrality got better transparency grades, but we looked at both. We weren't targeting one side, and a handful of pro-net neutrality groups received mid-level or lower grades.
Considering the obvious sympathies of both you and the rest of this forum, I'll take your "grades" with a dollop of salt, thank you very much. Not that it matters — if anonymity is a right for "poor" Anonymous Cowards, it is also a right for the "rich" astroturfers.
Finally, our reporting, while taking a lot of work, didn't really unmask or shame anyone.
That's good to hear. It may even be true in letter. But reading the write-up or TFA — it does not seem to be true in spirit. You do deem the actions shameful and you are mere half a step away from suggesting a law to make them illegal too.
lack of funding transparency for advocacy groups and think tanks, which critics say subverts the political process.
Wouldn't "critics say" that about a discussion of any other idea as well?
I also seem to recall, that the Slashdot crowd generally supports anonymous speech — indeed, the consensus is, we have a right to remain anonymous, while speaking...
Why wouldn't that same right extend to people talking (and spending money, which is the same thing) in opposition to "net neutrality"? Why must they be unmasked (and shamed) with prejudice, while those talking on other matters enjoy all the anonymity they care to maintain?
It is not Islam-specific. The equivocal attitude the US displayed during the Kargil conflict — when India was clearly the injured party — is not entirely unlike the attitude displayed this year towards Ukraine (where what few Muslims reside, all strongly resent the invader).
Though Obama (as Clinton back in 1999) talks the talk of supporting the invaded victim, the US would only help with "non-lethal" supplies — and only after a significant delay.
Why would you bring terrorism into this? I made no mention of it... FBI's ability to decrypt private electronics would make it easier for them to prosecute all sorts of criminals — from terrorists to corrupt policemen. At the expense of privacy of the rest of us, of course.
You should be careful about uncritically accepting the way a culture likes to present itself
That's the point. We like to present ourselves as Individuals — and that's why concerns for personal privacy ought to trump those of collective safety, however valid the latter might be.
That we don't always act the way — a significant part of the population thinks, they can force others to be as (and even more) charitable as they are, for example — but that's of no account. Not in this conversation...
In the full quote — in all its different permutations — the given up freedom (liberty) must be essential and the security gained — temporary. With such qualifiers, it becomes a little less obvious, does not it? For example, if the security gained is permanent (as long as device-makers cooperate with authorities), is it worth an essential liberty? Franklin didn't leave any guidance for such case...
I'll take my chance and live life, rather than cower in some hole.
Fortunately, no one — certainly not the FBI — are forcing you into "some hole". Excluded middle much?
That said, I like your spirit, because I too prefer the Individual over Collective...
His blitz continues today with a speech that says encryption will hurt public safety.
I suspect, he is right — it will hurt public safety.
But it will improve individual privacy and America has always valued the cantankerous Individual above the glorious Collective, that other cultures prefer...
Seriously, this is a half-measure. If we really want to help women stay in the workforce, we ought to develop incubators. Facebook and Apple may have the monies to fund the necessary research and pilot programs.
Neither the herbicide, nor the TCDD, nor the pharmaceuticals and metabolites you mention have anything to do with genetic modifications — however despicable they may (or may not) be otherwise.
Do you honestly believe that someone would be allowed to run for president of the USA who wasn't in big media's pocket?
I honestly believe, that if your (cynical) point of view was connected to reality, we wouldn't have seen the sort of media bias on display in the last two elections.
One method is to implant spider genes into silkworms, which then act as spider-silk factories.
There are people out there, who are sincerely concerned about whether vitamin-C they are offered was "genetically modified"... How are you going to sell such GMO silk to them?
The rest of us believe that telecom is, was, and (for the foreseeable future) always will be a *natural* monopoly
Natural monopoly is a myth. A myth very convenient for and thus perpetuated by the government officials of various levels as it gives them undue power, but a myth nonetheless.
You can't have meaningful competition for building roads and sewers and power grids
Yes, you can. Tokyo has competing subway lines — why can't New York City? Your GPS is likely to show you several options for any route of appreciable lengths — why can't those different roads be privately-owned and compete?
For example, to leave New York you have many options (most of them requiring payment on top of the taxes) — why can't those bridges and tunnels be privately owned and compete with each other? Maybe, their new owners will consider high traffic a profit opportunity, rather than a burdensome nuisance — and seek to attract more drivers by innovation of both toll-collection and road-maintenance... I dunno, it works for supermarkets... Heck, some private (and disgustingly profit-driven) concern may even undertake building a new tunnel (or a bridge)...
it will always be vastly more efficient for a single entity to install and manage that physical data network, at least at the local level
Really? Why not? In the 20ie we had competing telephone companies — each running its own wires to buildings. Today Google is laying down its own fiber — to much rejoicing on this very site — and AT&T is planning its own alternative, despite your claims of it being "inefficient". Various markets have competing coax-cable providers already. The actual cable-laying is just a (small) part of providing Internet service... Though in theory a monopoly ought to be easier — and thus cheaper — to operate (in any market), in practice any benefit is quickly consumed by the inevitable arrogance of such providers and the concomitant drop of quality and rising end-user prices (any wins in the monopoly provider's costs are compensated for by their fattening up the profit-margins).
We should have made this transition decades ago, but for a variety of reasons didn't
Once they have competition, they'll just form a cartel to collectively screw us all over.
Does not happen with restaurateurs, car-makers, nor even the cellular-service providers. Why would it happen with the ISPs?
I don't believe for a moment they're ever going to be anything except for self serving douchebags. Competition won't change that.
People will be looking out for themselves, that much is true. Competition, however, will make providing better service the most profitable course of action.
You guys who think the free market solves problems are pretty fucking deluded.
For all the problems with the free market, nothing humanity has tried works better...
Oh, I am voting for such people alright. But the last couple of elections I was overruled by the inane majority, who consider the color of a candidate's skin more important, than his qualifications.
The right "to be forgotten" does not exist — you have no right to affect the contents of other people's brains, notebooks, and databases.
Sure, Google is a "KKKorporation", but you have no more right to demand, they forget about you, than you can you force your ex to forget the good times you've once had together. And, yes, wiping out individual's memories — selectively — is already possible.
the prohibition on using the same dish for meat and dairy
The point was, there is no such prohibition.
The only thing the scripture actually proscribes is what I quoted: "cooking lamb in the milk of its mother". That's all — all other rules are derived from that. That they have been expanded to cover all dairy and all meat — even those derived from different species — is the phenomenon I used as an illustration.
What part of "well fucking regulated" don't you understand?
Which part of "petitioning the government for redress of grievances" don't you understand, citizen?
By your own logic, you don't have a right to any other speech — not to advertise anything, not to produce pornography, not to organize boycotts. Not even political campaign speeches are a right under your reading of the Bill of Rights — unless they are addressed to the sitting government as a form of a petition. If, of course, your thinking is self-consistent, and you are reading the First Amendment with the same literal strictness you are applying to the Second.
And by the logic of others of your kind, your Constitutionally-protected speech is limited to the means available in the 18th century too — even if you are merely petitioning the government, you don't have a right to do that via the Internet, TV, or radio.
Wow, I don't often explicitly admit to being sarcastic, but this particular post had attracted so much sincere hate from both responders and moderators, that I had to come clean... I would've thought, the term "KKKorporation" was a give-away, but no...
But then, of course, I have no proof, all of the hatred observed is really sincere either. Oh, well...
Slashdot Mirror
Dear, I don't have a source, that the sky is blue. Are you going to deny it until I find one? There are no privately-owned employers for "climate scientists" studying "global warming" — they employed by governments, or government-funded universities.
Florida is a very large portion of the Atlantic coast, that gets hurricanes at all.
That link of yours is remarkably lacking in actual data (as in numbers, rather than words). If that's the best you could find, you should start asking yourself some questions...
The people, who — 10 years ago — predicted the rise of hurricane activity need to be fired from their tax-funded jobs. They failed us and we don't want to keep paying them.
Plants love CO2. Maybe, the problem — if it is a problem — is not in burning too much fuel, but in not having enough forests to process it?
It is even better "proven", that by jumping, I push the rest of Earth in the opposite direction. Is there any danger in our planet changing its orbit from humanity's jumping up and down? Should we be working on reducing such jumping world-wide?
The CO2 did keep increasing for the last 10 years. Yet, no growth in hurricanes materialized and the entire "global warming" is now considered "on hold". Probably, because other — much greater — factors affect climate...
But I intend to stick around for another 10 years. We can continue this discussion then...
I was going to say, scientific papers are a dime a dozen, but, unfortunately, they are a lot more expensive.
Since "climate scientists" produce nothing tangibly useful, no private interest would hire them — they are all in government's employ. We, the taxpayers, fund it, but we don't get to decide, whether we want the practice to continue.
And these folk realize — even if just instinctively — that for them to remain employed, they need bigger government. Consequently, any and all measures proposed to fight the climate will lead to the further expansion of government.
As for how these "scientists" actually help, here is one funny tidbit for you... Ten years ago it was in-vogue to predict nor just the sea-water rising by an inch, but also increased hurricane activity. Why, this very site featured a "scientific article" about the matter with "insightful" posts like yours under it. It was all very scientific and convincing — but real life demonstrated the exact opposite to the prediction.
In real science, a theory gets discarded, when its predictions fail to materialize. If only "climate science" were real...
As declared by the Supreme Court several times, money — spent on politics — is speech. "It may be different" as you say — as much as one person's speech may differ from that of another.
I don't accept, that concerns such as "air of credibility" are valid arguments against anonymity, Grant.
You are making a common mistake in violating (or calling for a violation of) a sound principle, while it serves your cause — not realizing, the violation, once deemed legitimate, will soon be used by your opponents (and enemies) against you too. This is how the worst things come into and stay in existence...
WTF happened to you, libertines? Where is the spirit of "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."? Unlike Voltaire (or his biographer), you are ready — indeed, anxious — to suppress the opponent's speech (or, at least, his anonymity)... ACLU was not like that even a short time ago — what happened to the new generation?
Considering the obvious sympathies of both you and the rest of this forum, I'll take your "grades" with a dollop of salt, thank you very much. Not that it matters — if anonymity is a right for "poor" Anonymous Cowards, it is also a right for the "rich" astroturfers.
That's good to hear. It may even be true in letter. But reading the write-up or TFA — it does not seem to be true in spirit. You do deem the actions shameful and you are mere half a step away from suggesting a law to make them illegal too.
Wouldn't "critics say" that about a discussion of any other idea as well?
I also seem to recall, that the Slashdot crowd generally supports anonymous speech — indeed, the consensus is, we have a right to remain anonymous, while speaking...
Why wouldn't that same right extend to people talking (and spending money, which is the same thing) in opposition to "net neutrality"? Why must they be unmasked (and shamed) with prejudice, while those talking on other matters enjoy all the anonymity they care to maintain?
It is not Islam-specific. The equivocal attitude the US displayed during the Kargil conflict — when India was clearly the injured party — is not entirely unlike the attitude displayed this year towards Ukraine (where what few Muslims reside, all strongly resent the invader).
Though Obama (as Clinton back in 1999) talks the talk of supporting the invaded victim, the US would only help with "non-lethal" supplies — and only after a significant delay.
If it were to suck so badly, yes. But it does not have to...
That said, the paranoid cynic in me suspects, it is — and will be — recoverable already. And the government simply wants us to believe otherwise...
Why would you bring terrorism into this? I made no mention of it... FBI's ability to decrypt private electronics would make it easier for them to prosecute all sorts of criminals — from terrorists to corrupt policemen. At the expense of privacy of the rest of us, of course.
That's the point. We like to present ourselves as Individuals — and that's why concerns for personal privacy ought to trump those of collective safety, however valid the latter might be.
That we don't always act the way — a significant part of the population thinks, they can force others to be as (and even more) charitable as they are, for example — but that's of no account. Not in this conversation...
In the full quote — in all its different permutations — the given up freedom (liberty) must be essential and the security gained — temporary. With such qualifiers, it becomes a little less obvious, does not it? For example, if the security gained is permanent (as long as device-makers cooperate with authorities), is it worth an essential liberty? Franklin didn't leave any guidance for such case...
Fortunately, no one — certainly not the FBI — are forcing you into "some hole". Excluded middle much?
That said, I like your spirit, because I too prefer the Individual over Collective...
A variety of new businesses offer a new way of doing things — to the chagrin of the incumbents already profiting from the old way.
Nice to see Tesla having full support of /., which Uber and other taxi-replacements, for some reason, do not get...
I suspect, he is right — it will hurt public safety.
But it will improve individual privacy and America has always valued the cantankerous Individual above the glorious Collective, that other cultures prefer...
The effects on the babies (and mothers) be damned...
Seriously, this is a half-measure. If we really want to help women stay in the workforce, we ought to develop incubators. Facebook and Apple may have the monies to fund the necessary research and pilot programs.
Neither the herbicide, nor the TCDD, nor the pharmaceuticals and metabolites you mention have anything to do with genetic modifications — however despicable they may (or may not) be otherwise.
Off-topic much?
That's certainly true — whether the contaminants are genetically modified, or not...
I honestly believe, that if your (cynical) point of view was connected to reality, we wouldn't have seen the sort of media bias on display in the last two elections.
There are people out there, who are sincerely concerned about whether vitamin-C they are offered was "genetically modified"... How are you going to sell such GMO silk to them?
Natural monopoly is a myth. A myth very convenient for and thus perpetuated by the government officials of various levels as it gives them undue power, but a myth nonetheless.
Yes, you can. Tokyo has competing subway lines — why can't New York City? Your GPS is likely to show you several options for any route of appreciable lengths — why can't those different roads be privately-owned and compete?
For example, to leave New York you have many options (most of them requiring payment on top of the taxes) — why can't those bridges and tunnels be privately owned and compete with each other? Maybe, their new owners will consider high traffic a profit opportunity, rather than a burdensome nuisance — and seek to attract more drivers by innovation of both toll-collection and road-maintenance... I dunno, it works for supermarkets... Heck, some private (and disgustingly profit-driven) concern may even undertake building a new tunnel (or a bridge)...
Really? Why not? In the 20ie we had competing telephone companies — each running its own wires to buildings. Today Google is laying down its own fiber — to much rejoicing on this very site — and AT&T is planning its own alternative, despite your claims of it being "inefficient". Various markets have competing coax-cable providers already. The actual cable-laying is just a (small) part of providing Internet service... Though in theory a monopoly ought to be easier — and thus cheaper — to operate (in any market), in practice any benefit is quickly consumed by the inevitable arrogance of such providers and the concomitant drop of quality and rising end-user prices (any wins in the monopoly provider's costs are compensated for by their fattening up the profit-margins).
Oh, it is not a "variety" of reasons — but a single one: our government followed that myth of "natural monopolies" and granted cable-TV providers monopoly rights in their respective markets. That law was rescinded in the mid-1990ies, but the damage was done...
Does not happen with restaurateurs, car-makers, nor even the cellular-service providers. Why would it happen with the ISPs?
People will be looking out for themselves, that much is true. Competition, however, will make providing better service the most profitable course of action.
For all the problems with the free market, nothing humanity has tried works better...
Oh, I am voting for such people alright. But the last couple of elections I was overruled by the inane majority, who consider the color of a candidate's skin more important, than his qualifications.
Our "affirmative action" President plays golf with big cable CEO(s), and the rest of his party is in the big media's pocket as well.
Meanwhile, the rank-and-file partisans are encouraged to hate the Kochs brothers...
As long as the ISPs retain monopoly positions, they will be able to do as they please (or as the NSA pleases to make them do).
And once there is healthy competition among them, there will be no need for the rest of us to legislate every minutiae of their behavior.
The right "to be forgotten" does not exist — you have no right to affect the contents of other people's brains, notebooks, and databases.
Sure, Google is a "KKKorporation", but you have no more right to demand, they forget about you, than you can you force your ex to forget the good times you've once had together. And, yes, wiping out individual's memories — selectively — is already possible.
The point was, there is no such prohibition.
The only thing the scripture actually proscribes is what I quoted: "cooking lamb in the milk of its mother". That's all — all other rules are derived from that. That they have been expanded to cover all dairy and all meat — even those derived from different species — is the phenomenon I used as an illustration.
Which part of "petitioning the government for redress of grievances" don't you understand, citizen?
By your own logic, you don't have a right to any other speech — not to advertise anything, not to produce pornography, not to organize boycotts. Not even political campaign speeches are a right under your reading of the Bill of Rights — unless they are addressed to the sitting government as a form of a petition. If, of course, your thinking is self-consistent, and you are reading the First Amendment with the same literal strictness you are applying to the Second.
And by the logic of others of your kind, your Constitutionally-protected speech is limited to the means available in the 18th century too — even if you are merely petitioning the government, you don't have a right to do that via the Internet, TV, or radio.
Wow, I don't often explicitly admit to being sarcastic, but this particular post had attracted so much sincere hate from both responders and moderators, that I had to come clean... I would've thought, the term "KKKorporation" was a give-away, but no...
But then, of course, I have no proof, all of the hatred observed is really sincere either. Oh, well...
Of course, it is the same concept! And it is exactly the mixture of the units, that I find hilarious — however understandable the origins may be.