So, allowing that Mann is correct, for the sake of argument, then why don't Mann's verifiably true facts trump Steyn's invective?
You may not like Steyn, but he's nothing if not a fair-minded thinker.
Clearly there is some sort of contradiction afoot.
I was making a different point, but not consciously trying to distract from the Snowden revelations. Without getting specific about them, I submit that about our best bet is to drag Bruce Schneier kicking and screaming into public office and heed what he's got to say.
Mr. Edward Snowden is facing a stark future of being on the run all his life.
At a really high level of abstraction, Snowden's acts are kind of like the invasion of Iraq; both Snowden and W undertook decisive acts with tangible historical impacts.
Hero? Goat? Who can say, sooner than a couple of decades?
The quite obvious thing for Snowden to do is get his name on a ballot and win election to Congress. That's tantamount to the voters giving the guy a pardon.
I have a ring that lets me save at +4 vs. misplaced shame.
My remark was more about equating Putin and Obama's behavior toward dissidents than it was about Snowden himself.
You may not like Snowden, but in the broader context of the IRS scandal, and now this indictment against Dinesh D'Souza, the real people who should consider whether they bear any shame are those who re-elected Barack Obama.
Not only do I reject your attempted shaming, I say the buck stops here with trying to pass it on.
Has he been contacted by the entire population of Nigeria about a couple of pallets of exotic goods all gummed up in customs, and could he help liberate said goods for a tidy profit?
If "anonymous reader" actually does embedded C, then I'd envision him running amok if he tried out for the marketingdroid team. Unless you're supplying free Drano.
No, no, these days it's: "The models predict greater variability" when we're setting record cold temperatures.
It is not the case that scientists are engaging in malpractice; some of the discourse seems to tend toward tautology, though.
Newspaper editors for writing catchy headlines,
researchers for writing research that both asks hard questions and lands funding, or
voters for permitting the government to underwrite such research in the first place?
I say blame the voters, who (a) are getting away with way too much these days, and (b) are unlikely to hit back.
Slashdot Mirror
So, allowing that Mann is correct, for the sake of argument, then why don't Mann's verifiably true facts trump Steyn's invective?
You may not like Steyn, but he's nothing if not a fair-minded thinker.
Clearly there is some sort of contradiction afoot.
No, that would make it a vacuum cleaner.
I've been coming to that realization, yes. There will be no reform until demanded by the people.
I was making a different point, but not consciously trying to distract from the Snowden revelations. Without getting specific about them, I submit that about our best bet is to drag Bruce Schneier kicking and screaming into public office and heed what he's got to say.
Nicely played.
If you're not learning calculus from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica in the original Latin, you're just taking shortcuts. Begone with you.
Ah. Good point.
Point taken on the hijacking. But this is /.: are you declaring certain kinds of tomfoolery out of bounds?
With all due respect, follow the links. I was not talking about Putin with respect to Snowden. Rather, Putin WRT to Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
Oh, it's every bit the voter's fault. What are the first three words of the Constitution?
Your understanding of the 22nd Amendment seems incomplete.
Fair point, but I'd like to offer the flaccid excuse that it seemed we could get reform more quickly from the Republicans.
Mr. Edward Snowden is facing a stark future of being on the run all his life.
At a really high level of abstraction, Snowden's acts are kind of like the invasion of Iraq; both Snowden and W undertook decisive acts with tangible historical impacts.
Hero? Goat? Who can say, sooner than a couple of decades?
The quite obvious thing for Snowden to do is get his name on a ballot and win election to Congress. That's tantamount to the voters giving the guy a pardon.
I have a ring that lets me save at +4 vs. misplaced shame.
My remark was more about equating Putin and Obama's behavior toward dissidents than it was about Snowden himself.
You may not like Snowden, but in the broader context of the IRS scandal, and now this indictment against Dinesh D'Souza, the real people who should consider whether they bear any shame are those who re-elected Barack Obama. Not only do I reject your attempted shaming, I say the buck stops here with trying to pass it on.
Snowden had better not do a movie along the lines of 2016, though. Vladimir has his foes show up in a cage.
Has he been contacted by the entire population of Nigeria about a couple of pallets of exotic goods all gummed up in customs, and could he help liberate said goods for a tidy profit?
If "anonymous reader" actually does embedded C, then I'd envision him running amok if he tried out for the marketingdroid team. Unless you're supplying free Drano.
Well, you don't mean the Deep South, like the researchers who were iced in across the Bite in Antarctica, do you?
No, no, these days it's: "The models predict greater variability" when we're setting record cold temperatures.
It is not the case that scientists are engaging in malpractice; some of the discourse seems to tend toward tautology, though.
I should think a wiki, posting all source code for models and associated data for public review, would be an awesome place to start.
Why can't geeks just be geeks, as though they were Aboriginal, or something?
Students who want a pile of boodle get on GitHub and hack out the whole AP exam tomfoolery.
There's your story.
Do you mean http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf
At the risk of demeaning the message due to the messenger, I don't believe a godforsaken word the man utters.
Newspaper editors for writing catchy headlines,
researchers for writing research that both asks hard questions and lands funding, or
voters for permitting the government to underwrite such research in the first place?
I say blame the voters, who (a) are getting away with way too much these days, and (b) are unlikely to hit back.
"Won't someone think of the children?"