Pretty sure none of them drove a car into a crowd of American citizens. The Neo-Nazis have proven once again with their actions that they are domestic terrorists.
...by that definition.
The definition given was "Domestic terrorism in the United States consists of incidents confirmed as terrorist acts.... carried out by U.S. citizens or U.S. permanent residents.
So yeah. Pretty obvious definition. If any of those groups commits a confirmed act of terrorism, then yes, they should be considered domestic terrorists.
Are you trying to equate white supremacists with unionists and Jews? They're not the same. The KKK were Americas first domestic terrorist organization.
If the poem had started "First they came from the terrorists..." then it would have ended "...and everyone was pretty happy to have that dealt with."
“We’re moving to a point where a major attack like this is very, very possible,” Antova said. “Once you’re into the control systems -- and you can get into the control systems by hacking into the plant’s regular computer network -- then the basic security mechanisms you’d expect are simply not there.” - https://www.bloomberg.com/news...
The chief suspect is Russia, according to three people familiar with the continuing effort to eject the hackers from the computer networks. One of those networks belongs to an aging nuclear generating facility known as Wolf Creek -- owned by Westar Energy Inc., Great Plains Energy Inc. and Kansas Electric Power Cooperative Inc. -- on a lake shore near Burlington, Kansas.
The possibility of a Russia connection is particularly worrisome, former and current officials say, because Russian hackers have previously taken down parts of the electrical grid in Ukraine and appear to be testing increasingly advanced tools to disrupt power supplies.
The hacks come as international tensions have flared over U.S. intelligence agencies’ conclusion that Russia tried to influence the 2016 presidential election. The U.S., which has several continuing investigations into Russia’s activities, is known to possess digital weapons capable of disrupting the electricity grids of rival nations.
Right. If we are in the midst of a mass extinction then it is already game over. Nothing to do but "go get a case of scotch".
In his 2017 talk he likened a mass extinction event to the "cascade of failures" and "devastating chain reactions" that allowed a power failure in Ohio to escalate to the North American blackout of 2003:
“These are images from the NOAA website of the US blackout in 2003,” he said, pulling up a nighttime satellite picture of the glowing northeastern megalopolis, megawatts afire under the cold dark of space. “This is 20 hours before the blackout. You can see Long Island and New York City.”
“And this is seven hours into the blackout,” he said, pulling up a new map, cloaked in darkness. “New York City is almost dark. The blackout extended all the way up into Toronto, all the way out to Michigan and Ohio. It covered a huge section of both Canada and the United States.”
The question is whether we will recognize it as we push against that tipping point, or only in retrospect.
His comments in 2017 are much more forceful. He now thinks a mass extinction will happen - and as a direct result of our actions, unless we change course.
Ok. Fair point. Hopefully you are also willing to concede that, contrary to your post @01:44PM (#54697987), Doug's views from 2006 ("There is no reason to think that mass extinctions will not happen in the future") are consistent with his views from 2017 (“I think that if we keep things up long enough, we’ll get to a mass extinction")
The good news (according to Doug) is that it's not too late. We still have time to avoid rapid collapse of the ecosystem. He does caution that we'll only know it is happening after we've passed the tipping point. He talks about cascading failures and devastating chain reactions. I'm not sure his words are much comfort, nor do they support the Alfred E. Neuman's of the world.
If his power-grid analogy is correct, then trying to stop a mass extinction after it’s started would be a little like calling for a building’s preservation while it’s imploding.
“I think that if we keep things up long enough, we’ll get to a mass extinction, but we’re not in a mass extinction yet, and I think that’s an optimistic discovery because that means we actually have time to avoid Armageddon,” - Smithsonian paleontologist Doug Erwin - June 13, 2017
"There is no reason to think that mass extinctions will not happen in the future, and, in fact, many biologists believe that we are in the midst of a human-caused mass extinction right now. Our ancestors began killing off many large vertebrates some 12,000 years ago (mammoths, saber-toothed cats, and dire wolves, among others), and we continue by depleting the oceans and destroying habitats for plants and animals. There are lots of other potential causes of mass extinction, including the collision of extra-terrestrial objects into Earth, massive volcanism, and glaciation, but no way of predicting which of them might affect us or when (contrary to some bad Hollywood movies). None of these is very likely to happen soon, so we would be better off worrying about our own effect on the planet." - Smithsonian paleontologist Doug Erwin
Canada's was last used in the '80s against a theatre owner who showed "The life of Brian". Local Crown prosecutors had laid the charge following a complaint by an Anglican vicar. The attorney general moved swiftly to stay the charge.
Maybe they should actually do something productive, then, like support candidates that have that position, and make their voices heard to politicians that don't.
"We will never stop speaking out and engaging the evangelical constituency with these critical issues until humanity’s relationship with God’s creation has truly returned to one of balance and restored relationships, that God intended and the Bible sets out,” they wrote.
That's the Republican response, not the Christian one. And it's not a strawman if they actually think that way.
https://www.usatoday.com/story...
Hence our predicament.
But there is legal jeopardy, because — and his defense lawyer will seize on that — in releasing information to Americans, that the President himself has already disclosed to Putin.
That is not a complete sentence. "There is jeopardy because in releasing information to Americans, that the president himself has already disclosed to Putin"... Because what???
I think what you are trying to say is "I am not a lawyer but I think it would be just fine to share top secret information with the world because the president discussed the information with the Russians."
I think it is good you are not a lawyer.
But, hey, if no one really knows the content, why are we taking such amorphous anonymous accusations of the "leaks" as valid at all?
"This was unconfirmed officially until Trump himself seemingly let it slip while speaking in Israel on Monday, ironically while attempting to defend himself on the issue to the media."
You did respond.
I asked you a question. You can infer from this that I was interested in whether you would exhibit cognitive dissonance and how you would attempt to reconcile that. It is thought that the attempt to maintain cognitive consistency in the face of conflicting attitudes can give rise to irrational and sometimes maladaptive behavior. You seem to think that it was just fine for Trump to share top secret information with the Russians. Many thanks for answering the question.
Please don't infer from my lack of further responses that I have any interest in, opinion on, or have even read anything further you may write. Please only infer that I have the answer to my question.
source is already in jeopardy after your publishing the allegation of the fact of the link
Can you show me a source on that one? Sharing with journalists that there was a leak of top secret intel is just as bad as leaking top secret intel? Seems to me the first would get you fired, the second would land you in prison.
You didn't object to that in the slightest, saying instead: "What about Trump?". In any reasonable conversation that is sufficient to conclude, you agreed with my assessment
In the future you may consider that if your points are ignored, possibly it is not worth a response, or just not interesting to the responder. What I was really curious about was whether you applied the standard evenly.
That doesn't protect the source of the leak. I'm certain that Trump's staff are on better legal footing having shared the fact that Trump leaked classified intel than if they had leaked the intel itself.
I think we, as a populous, have a dual responsibility to pay attention to these, but not to assume they are indisputable fact. With that said, there is a difference between a candle and a bonfire. When a lot of leaks from different sources point in a certain direction, you should probably start paying attention.
I agree. Though Trump does himself no favours by initially denying allegations with one story, then another, then another, and then finally admitting to them. This was the case with the Comey firing Messaging of this decision should be very easy if you have nothing to hide. Just tell the truth.
It becomes easier to believe new allegations each time a previously denied one is conceded. Even still, we need wait for the findings of the various investigations, and hope that executive obstruction is kept to a minimum.
First of all, thank you for agreeing/conceding, Snowden and Manning really were traitors. Most refreshing...
I don't remember taking a position on that...
Why would they — after gleefully reprinting WikiLeaks for years — be so reserved all of a sudden? To protect the secret from spreading further? Nope — if Putin knows it already, there is no point in keeping quiet any more.
I would guess that in the wikileak case they are sharing information that is already publicly available. It would land a journalist in jail if they publicly shared code word classified intelligence.
Had they told you the contents, you would've shrugged and lost the outrage
Apparently Israeli intelligence officials were outraged - shouting at their American counterparts in meetings. Israel changed their intelligence sharing with U.S. after Trump disclosed the top secret Israeli intelligence to top Russian officials . That puts American lives at risk. People ought to be outraged.
But Manning, who harmed his country to impress a boyfriend, and Snowden, who did it for some "greater good" (which never materialized), were traitors. The sooner we stop glorifying the two assholes, the sooner the healing will begin.
What about that fellow who leaked classified intel to the Kremlin just to impress his Russian pals? I guess it's as Richard Nixon liked to say, if the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
...by that definition.
The definition given was "Domestic terrorism in the United States consists of incidents confirmed as terrorist acts. ... carried out by U.S. citizens or U.S. permanent residents.
So yeah. Pretty obvious definition. If any of those groups commits a confirmed act of terrorism, then yes, they should be considered domestic terrorists.
Are you trying to equate white supremacists with unionists and Jews? They're not the same. The KKK were Americas first domestic terrorist organization.
If the poem had started "First they came from the terrorists..." then it would have ended "...and everyone was pretty happy to have that dealt with."
“We’re moving to a point where a major attack like this is very, very possible,” Antova said. “Once you’re into the control systems -- and you can get into the control systems by hacking into the plant’s regular computer network -- then the basic security mechanisms you’d expect are simply not there.” - https://www.bloomberg.com/news...
The chief suspect is Russia, according to three people familiar with the continuing effort to eject the hackers from the computer networks. One of those networks belongs to an aging nuclear generating facility known as Wolf Creek -- owned by Westar Energy Inc., Great Plains Energy Inc. and Kansas Electric Power Cooperative Inc. -- on a lake shore near Burlington, Kansas.
The possibility of a Russia connection is particularly worrisome, former and current officials say, because Russian hackers have previously taken down parts of the electrical grid in Ukraine and appear to be testing increasingly advanced tools to disrupt power supplies.
The hacks come as international tensions have flared over U.S. intelligence agencies’ conclusion that Russia tried to influence the 2016 presidential election. The U.S., which has several continuing investigations into Russia’s activities, is known to possess digital weapons capable of disrupting the electricity grids of rival nations.
- https://www.bloomberg.com/news...
Scott Pruitt is the poster child for why we need to get money out of politics. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
The source is Cheng et al., (2017), but it is entirely consistent with any other recent study of ocean warming.
Right. If we are in the midst of a mass extinction then it is already game over. Nothing to do but "go get a case of scotch".
In his 2017 talk he likened a mass extinction event to the "cascade of failures" and "devastating chain reactions" that allowed a power failure in Ohio to escalate to the North American blackout of 2003:
“These are images from the NOAA website of the US blackout in 2003,” he said, pulling up a nighttime satellite picture of the glowing northeastern megalopolis, megawatts afire under the cold dark of space. “This is 20 hours before the blackout. You can see Long Island and New York City.”
“And this is seven hours into the blackout,” he said, pulling up a new map, cloaked in darkness. “New York City is almost dark. The blackout extended all the way up into Toronto, all the way out to Michigan and Ohio. It covered a huge section of both Canada and the United States.”
The question is whether we will recognize it as we push against that tipping point, or only in retrospect.
His comments in 2017 are much more forceful. He now thinks a mass extinction will happen - and as a direct result of our actions, unless we change course.
Ok. Fair point. Hopefully you are also willing to concede that, contrary to your post @01:44PM (#54697987), Doug's views from 2006 ("There is no reason to think that mass extinctions will not happen in the future") are consistent with his views from 2017 (“I think that if we keep things up long enough, we’ll get to a mass extinction")
The good news (according to Doug) is that it's not too late. We still have time to avoid rapid collapse of the ecosystem. He does caution that we'll only know it is happening after we've passed the tipping point. He talks about cascading failures and devastating chain reactions. I'm not sure his words are much comfort, nor do they support the Alfred E. Neuman's of the world.
Mine is from June 13, 2017
If his power-grid analogy is correct, then trying to stop a mass extinction after it’s started would be a little like calling for a building’s preservation while it’s imploding.
“I think that if we keep things up long enough, we’ll get to a mass extinction, but we’re not in a mass extinction yet, and I think that’s an optimistic discovery because that means we actually have time to avoid Armageddon,” - Smithsonian paleontologist Doug Erwin - June 13, 2017
That represents 4761904760 Hiroshima bombs of energy added to the system, or about 3.2 per second. About 4/5ths of that energy accumulated in the top 700 meters. The rate of warming is accelerating, meaning that the top of atmosphere energy imbalance is increasing. The impacts of the warming are already being observed, even at this early stage.
"There is no reason to think that mass extinctions will not happen in the future, and, in fact, many biologists believe that we are in the midst of a human-caused mass extinction right now. Our ancestors began killing off many large vertebrates some 12,000 years ago (mammoths, saber-toothed cats, and dire wolves, among others), and we continue by depleting the oceans and destroying habitats for plants and animals. There are lots of other potential causes of mass extinction, including the collision of extra-terrestrial objects into Earth, massive volcanism, and glaciation, but no way of predicting which of them might affect us or when (contrary to some bad Hollywood movies). None of these is very likely to happen soon, so we would be better off worrying about our own effect on the planet." - Smithsonian paleontologist Doug Erwin
Maybe, but those other events were accompanied by mass extinctions and sea level rise of about 13.5 m in about 290 years...
Not an american but you guys should seriously consider getting rid of the electoral college.
Not likely to happen. Only the winner of an election could change the rules, and no one would change a system that allowed them to win.
Canada's was last used in the '80s against a theatre owner who showed "The life of Brian". Local Crown prosecutors had laid the charge following a complaint by an Anglican vicar. The attorney general moved swiftly to stay the charge.
Canada and Denmark only recently abolished their blasphemy laws. https://www.catholicregister.o...
Maybe they should actually do something productive, then, like support candidates that have that position, and make their voices heard to politicians that don't.
"We will never stop speaking out and engaging the evangelical constituency with these critical issues until humanity’s relationship with God’s creation has truly returned to one of balance and restored relationships, that God intended and the Bible sets out,” they wrote.
That's the Republican response, not the Christian one. And it's not a strawman if they actually think that way. https://www.usatoday.com/story... Hence our predicament.
On the other hand, Not Just Pope Francis: Evangelicals Praise Paris Climate Talks
Here's the original code and data for anyone interested:
http://jerz.setonhill.edu/if/crowther/advdat.77-03-31
http://jerz.setonhill.edu/if/crowther/advf4.77-03-31
But there is legal jeopardy, because — and his defense lawyer will seize on that — in releasing information to Americans, that the President himself has already disclosed to Putin.
That is not a complete sentence. "There is jeopardy because in releasing information to Americans, that the president himself has already disclosed to Putin"... Because what???
I think what you are trying to say is "I am not a lawyer but I think it would be just fine to share top secret information with the world because the president discussed the information with the Russians."
I think it is good you are not a lawyer.
But, hey, if no one really knows the content, why are we taking such amorphous anonymous accusations of the "leaks" as valid at all?
"This was unconfirmed officially until Trump himself seemingly let it slip while speaking in Israel on Monday, ironically while attempting to defend himself on the issue to the media."
You did respond.
I asked you a question. You can infer from this that I was interested in whether you would exhibit cognitive dissonance and how you would attempt to reconcile that. It is thought that the attempt to maintain cognitive consistency in the face of conflicting attitudes can give rise to irrational and sometimes maladaptive behavior. You seem to think that it was just fine for Trump to share top secret information with the Russians. Many thanks for answering the question.
Please don't infer from my lack of further responses that I have any interest in, opinion on, or have even read anything further you may write. Please only infer that I have the answer to my question.
source is already in jeopardy after your publishing the allegation of the fact of the link
Can you show me a source on that one? Sharing with journalists that there was a leak of top secret intel is just as bad as leaking top secret intel? Seems to me the first would get you fired, the second would land you in prison.
You didn't object to that in the slightest, saying instead: "What about Trump?". In any reasonable conversation that is sufficient to conclude, you agreed with my assessment
In the future you may consider that if your points are ignored, possibly it is not worth a response, or just not interesting to the responder. What I was really curious about was whether you applied the standard evenly.
That doesn't protect the source of the leak. I'm certain that Trump's staff are on better legal footing having shared the fact that Trump leaked classified intel than if they had leaked the intel itself.
I think we, as a populous, have a dual responsibility to pay attention to these, but not to assume they are indisputable fact. With that said, there is a difference between a candle and a bonfire. When a lot of leaks from different sources point in a certain direction, you should probably start paying attention.
I agree. Though Trump does himself no favours by initially denying allegations with one story, then another, then another, and then finally admitting to them. This was the case with the Comey firing Messaging of this decision should be very easy if you have nothing to hide. Just tell the truth.
It becomes easier to believe new allegations each time a previously denied one is conceded. Even still, we need wait for the findings of the various investigations, and hope that executive obstruction is kept to a minimum.
First of all, thank you for agreeing/conceding, Snowden and Manning really were traitors. Most refreshing...
I don't remember taking a position on that...
Why would they — after gleefully reprinting WikiLeaks for years — be so reserved all of a sudden? To protect the secret from spreading further? Nope — if Putin knows it already, there is no point in keeping quiet any more.
I would guess that in the wikileak case they are sharing information that is already publicly available. It would land a journalist in jail if they publicly shared code word classified intelligence.
Had they told you the contents, you would've shrugged and lost the outrage
Apparently Israeli intelligence officials were outraged - shouting at their American counterparts in meetings. Israel changed their intelligence sharing with U.S. after Trump disclosed the top secret Israeli intelligence to top Russian officials . That puts American lives at risk. People ought to be outraged.
But Manning, who harmed his country to impress a boyfriend, and Snowden, who did it for some "greater good" (which never materialized), were traitors. The sooner we stop glorifying the two assholes, the sooner the healing will begin.
What about that fellow who leaked classified intel to the Kremlin just to impress his Russian pals? I guess it's as Richard Nixon liked to say, if the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.