They certainly shouted then when they caught moles 'red handed' (pun intended).
They did when they caught some but not others. Otherwise, as far as I remember there were occasional diplomatic expulsions on one side or the other, or both at the same time. But that was the tip of the iceberg. There's so much we don't know and probably never will.
No, they might well have. You don't know. They might still have "assets" in play, spies, moles, whatever. The same goes for the IRA, by the way and to an extent, I inform my opinions on this based on what we got up to in the Cold War. So many people born after the fall of the Berlin Wall don't understand how these games are played.
But that's not my substantive point. Actually I'm not sure what my substantive point is, apart from a general feeling of unease about the whole thing.
Well, they're not going to tell you about the 1,000 conspiracies to commit terrorist acts they're currently investigating, are they. Besides, the actual technical detail here isn't what bothers me. It's what right the Guardian or Snowden or Assange have to make these judgements. This is a question that's currently unresolved in my mind. Who are these people accountable to? Yes, I'm not sure who the security services are accountable to either these days, but there's too little questioning of motives on the other side (5th estate) here at Slashdot. There needs to be more.
I don't think it's a false dilemma, no. You see it makes ***** all difference to my life if GCHQ are storing my Twitter feed somewhere. But it makes a big difference to my life if some petty Napoleon is sitting around waiting for me to accidentally drop some litter before swooping down to fine me £100.
Are you asking us which secret-that-nobody-knows-about terrorist attacks were thwarted by MI5? By definition that question is unanswerable. Besides, this is lunacy. The UK is covered in video cameras. Yet people are whining about GCHQ aggregating their Facebook and Twitter feeds, as if people go online and use social media in order to be somehow private citizens? A better target for the Guardian is the surveillance society in general, not MI5; it's council busy-bodies snooping with town centre cameras and things like that, not what the intelligence services are getting up to.
He's not wrong really. It's a question of interpretation. What the OP's are measuring is de-coherence, not "collapse". I mean every time you take a measurement you're measuring "collapse" from a set of probabilities to an actual state, so that's not a particularly interesting thing to do in this context.
A $10,000,000,000 programme based on the hunch that a Human brain can be "modelled" with a digital computer? There's a reason I resent paying my taxes.
Listen, here's the deal: You lost. Your narrative of catastrophic climate change due to man emitting Co2 into the atmosphere is a busted flush. Get over it.
You missed the bit below that about overall mass. Not that I give a crap of course, because it tells you NOTHING except that "things" vary. It's useful to say it's shrinking to fit your world view and political narrative of course, which secures a lot of government funding particularly for the scientists who enjoy junkets to far flung places, Nobel Prizes for doing absolutely fuck all and research grants so they can pay their mortgages.
No it isn't. Please don't use the hilariously named "skeptical science" as your source. It's a bit like using Pravda as a reference for global events during the cold war. It shows you up to be a crude propagandist, not interested in actual reality.
A paper published today in The Cryosphere finds Antarctica has been gaining surface ice and snow accumulation over the past 150+ years, and finds acceleration in some areas noting, “a clear increase in accumulation of more than 10% has occurred in high Surface Mass Balance coastal regions and over the highest part of the East Antarctic ice divide since the 1960s.
You bleeding heart bullshitters really get on my tits. On the one hand you abhor Western action against the dictatorships in the region who's disenfranchisement of the people is an effective recruitment tool for the extremists and you also complain about Western action to take out (KILL) the Islamists. Worse, when we do nothing you complain still that not enough is being done and that it's all the West's fault. Case in point, there was a moderate opposition in Syria 18 months ago. Since we did nothing (heeding the whiny bollocks people like you promote in the media and on the internet), they've been crushed by Assad on one side and the Jihadis on the other.
Of course they were only 7% in 2001. It takes time to ramp up supply/get investors to put their money into schemes. It doesn't happen over night. Clinton's changes made it easier but you choose to use the word efficient to make it sound benign. It wasn't, was it.
$180 billion not helping your budget situation? No wonder your country is in such a mess financially. How many other "it's not going to help our budget situation" policies are out there that add up to the entire deficit? Do some math.
Slashdot Mirror
But surely that's a sign of success, not failure? Whatever they're doing in terms of security is clearly working.
They did when they caught some but not others. Otherwise, as far as I remember there were occasional diplomatic expulsions on one side or the other, or both at the same time. But that was the tip of the iceberg. There's so much we don't know and probably never will.
No, they might well have. You don't know. They might still have "assets" in play, spies, moles, whatever. The same goes for the IRA, by the way and to an extent, I inform my opinions on this based on what we got up to in the Cold War. So many people born after the fall of the Berlin Wall don't understand how these games are played.
But that's not my substantive point. Actually I'm not sure what my substantive point is, apart from a general feeling of unease about the whole thing.
Well, they're not going to tell you about the 1,000 conspiracies to commit terrorist acts they're currently investigating, are they. Besides, the actual technical detail here isn't what bothers me. It's what right the Guardian or Snowden or Assange have to make these judgements. This is a question that's currently unresolved in my mind. Who are these people accountable to? Yes, I'm not sure who the security services are accountable to either these days, but there's too little questioning of motives on the other side (5th estate) here at Slashdot. There needs to be more.
I don't think it's a false dilemma, no. You see it makes ***** all difference to my life if GCHQ are storing my Twitter feed somewhere. But it makes a big difference to my life if some petty Napoleon is sitting around waiting for me to accidentally drop some litter before swooping down to fine me £100.
Are you asking us which secret-that-nobody-knows-about terrorist attacks were thwarted by MI5? By definition that question is unanswerable. Besides, this is lunacy. The UK is covered in video cameras. Yet people are whining about GCHQ aggregating their Facebook and Twitter feeds, as if people go online and use social media in order to be somehow private citizens? A better target for the Guardian is the surveillance society in general, not MI5; it's council busy-bodies snooping with town centre cameras and things like that, not what the intelligence services are getting up to.
He's not wrong really. It's a question of interpretation. What the OP's are measuring is de-coherence, not "collapse". I mean every time you take a measurement you're measuring "collapse" from a set of probabilities to an actual state, so that's not a particularly interesting thing to do in this context.
The question you need to ask yourself is what he sold to the Russians. Presumably he'll keep that a secret.
Neither of these things are money well spent.
A $10,000,000,000 programme based on the hunch that a Human brain can be "modelled" with a digital computer? There's a reason I resent paying my taxes.
You need to attract grants to hold a job in the first place. The system is corrupt.
What a load of utter tripe. Antarctic ice sheet gains exceed losses. I would link to NASA but due to budget difficulties, their website appears to be down.
Listen, here's the deal: You lost. Your narrative of catastrophic climate change due to man emitting Co2 into the atmosphere is a busted flush. Get over it.
You missed the bit below that about overall mass. Not that I give a crap of course, because it tells you NOTHING except that "things" vary. It's useful to say it's shrinking to fit your world view and political narrative of course, which secures a lot of government funding particularly for the scientists who enjoy junkets to far flung places, Nobel Prizes for doing absolutely fuck all and research grants so they can pay their mortgages.
The seas aren't warming up. Antarctic sea ice is growing. The BBC are warmist shills.
You bleeding heart bullshitters really get on my tits. On the one hand you abhor Western action against the dictatorships in the region who's disenfranchisement of the people is an effective recruitment tool for the extremists and you also complain about Western action to take out (KILL) the Islamists. Worse, when we do nothing you complain still that not enough is being done and that it's all the West's fault. Case in point, there was a moderate opposition in Syria 18 months ago. Since we did nothing (heeding the whiny bollocks people like you promote in the media and on the internet), they've been crushed by Assad on one side and the Jihadis on the other.
Way to go, dumbass.
Of course it is. SO WHAT? I want the West to protect and defend itself against malign regimes, like those in China, Russia and elsewhere.
What is wrong with you?
It's more to do with the fact that China is running massive corporate, scientific, industrial and military espionage operations against the West, particularly the US (but Europe is also badly affected). I wouldn't let the Chinese within 10 miles of the place.
If my employer ran a deficit for 25 years we'd all have been fired years ago.
Yes, that was my point.
Of course they were only 7% in 2001. It takes time to ramp up supply/get investors to put their money into schemes. It doesn't happen over night. Clinton's changes made it easier but you choose to use the word efficient to make it sound benign. It wasn't, was it.
$180 billion not helping your budget situation? No wonder your country is in such a mess financially. How many other "it's not going to help our budget situation" policies are out there that add up to the entire deficit? Do some math.
Did it? No, I don't think it did.
Yes. It was a group effort.
Clinton repealed Glass Steagall, didn't he.