You were clearly implying that a bias in favour of what you call alarmism would somehow be related to these scientists' compensation. Many of whom are publicly funded (and therefore typically subject to various kinds of oversight, budgets included). So I just meant to ask you, how do you believe that would even work?
On the other hand, the skeptics are mostly funded privately, or at least that's how it looks -- often donors remain anonymous (I am not saying that is a bad thing per se, but cones with different expectation of accountability). So I guess I see why you would accuse me of conspiracy theorizing. But aligned interests of a very few big hitters paired with some think tank to shovel cash into is really all you need.
There is a big difference, it seems to me, between doing climate research and noticing patterns we now call, for better or worse, AGW, and presupposing that "AGW is what they're doing" and therefore their jobs somehow depend on alarmism.
And yet the AGW models The overwhelming majority of scientists working in fields related to climatology today get paychecks that rely on people being focused on their alarmism
Where are you suggesting these pay checks issue from? What would the UN, say, stand to gain by influencing IPCC research toward alarmism -- or bias in any direction, for that matter? In the other corner, as it were, who is bankrolling the denial camp?
Also I am pretty sure the latest IPCC report made a point of stating more clearly and unambiguously then ever before that climate change is real and man-made. We discussed it here on/. at the time.
If it is BSL-4, even just temporarily, then there are only a handful of labs in the world that can actually work on it. and about 30% of them are in the US
I am not a biologist, so these version numbers are meaningless to me... But that still reads like 70% unused research capacity.
I would guess they'd be making the sequences available upon request to anyone they deemed trustworthy.
I would hope so, but I am not sure who gets to decide trustworthiness.
(Also, points for the Excession sig. A lot of people disfavour it over the others, but it's probably my favourite Culture book.)
Me too, obviously, although it probably shouldn't be the first Culture book to read. RIP, Iain.
It's a national security threat. There are antitoxins to regular botulism. This is something else. Maybe readers will like to see a few million dead? Probably. Readers who think all info should be free are fools.
I see your point, although it is unfair to say that those against censorship on principle will necessarily "like to see a few million dead".
I'm not decided either way on this one, but wanted pointed out that it does work both ways. Withholding this information will also make it less likely for anyone to develop an effective antidote.
There was a really crappy movie called The Profit which was about CoS. Even though the makers denied this, for obvious reasons, it just as obviously really was a biopic about El Ron.
CoS managed to get it banned because they argued it might influence the pending investigation if MacPherson's death, IIRC. Not sure what the status is now, but it goes to show the extent these people will go.
Well said. Besides, even if the Brazilians were doing exactly the same things on a remotely comparable scale, the US government is the one you, if you are a US citizen, could help change -- in theory, at least.
The same federal government? And at least tries to provide an alternative to the email controlled by the US federal government (i.e. all the ones of companies that are US based or have their servers there).
At least for braziians, is the lesser evil, else they will be empowerign the federal government behind overthrowing democratically elected governments all around the world since last century, including the brazilian one, of course.
You were moderated Troll, but you are correct. Come on mods.
If it weren't for notifications I would have missed your late reply... Now I'm guessing you have those enabled as well or you'll miss mine.
I think most of the groups you might mean, like Hezbollah and Hamas, are backed by Iran, which along with Syria happens to be the exception to the regional rule of US-backed dictatorships. Which explains why they are poorly funded, as Iran is crumbling under the sanctions. So while Iran certainly is in their corner, as it were, these organizations end up being funded mostly by their supporters in their respective power bases, Lebanon and Gaza and the occupied West Bank.
But I was talking about places like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Jemen, Egypt. Those are, as far as I can tell, not actually doing that much to harm Israel, or for that matter to support the Palestinians. And are you suggesting, by way of the double quotes, that these regimes are not brutal and outrageously oppressive to their own populations, with tacit US support? And that said populations feel zero resentment towards the US for that state of affairs?
That they're an ally is not disputed but doesn't explain why they were, for decades on end, the largest recipient of "aid". Israel is not a poor country. Lots of other allies, rich and poor alike, get nothing.
It's geopolitical strategy, in other words.
Also you're a bit too quick on the draw with the barbarian rhetoric. Look up "civilization, cradle of". If you are of the persuasion that group A is 100% civilized and group B is 100% barbaric, you're not looking very carefully. In fact it makes me think you're just parroting some talking head with an agenda.
Yes, sure it is more complex than just lobbyists, but I don't think it could have gone so far out of whack without concerted efforts to make it so. Just my opinion, of course.
I don't think it works that way. Much of the resentment felt towards the US throughout the ME is not just because of their one-sided support for Israel, but mostly because of their support for the brutal regimes of their countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc).
No need to exaggerate, the published figures warrant GP's question already.
Since 1985, it has provided nearly $3 billion in grants annually to Israel, with Israel being the largest annual recipient of American aid from 1976 to 2004 and the largest cumulative recipient of aid since World War II.
You have got to wonder why a relatively wealthy and developed nation should be the largest recipient. The same article also answers the question of why this is mostly not being spent on scientists' salaries:
Almost all U.S. aid to Israel is now in the form of military assistance, while in the past it also received significant economic assistance
The interesting question is whether this is really in the best interests of the US citizens, or just the senators and congressman who stand to lose their jobs if they get on the wrong side of AIPAC.
In addition many Individuals in the US are helping finance the bits of Israel which (even) the US government refuses to support officially, viz the illegal settlements (according to international law). They get to do this tax free in many cases though, which the elected government could easily stop if it wanted (and dared) to.
Of course there are lot of reflexive Israel supporters on/. so critical questions get modded down. But established political scientists are starting to ask the same things, see e.g. this.
I always though of "jumped the shark" to mean trying too hard to the point where it becomes obvious to everybody that you're trying too hard.
Same here, but then I am not a native English speaker. According to this article though, GP is correct. It's more about the losing relevance part then about the trying too hard part, as I read it. Apparently it was originally about TV shows.
I basically agree with most of your post, but wanted to point out one mistake -- which is common enough, no offense. W3schools, which you cited, is in no way associated with W3C.
In fact, the information available from their site is often incomplete, inaccurate and sometimes plain wrong. It has been getting better, apparently, thanks in no small part due to these guys.
No, not because they Bush ties. Or not just. But this brutal dictatorship is allowing the US to have military bases within its borders. Which came in handy once or twice in recent history.
The fact that their population is rather pissed about this state of affairs is irrelevant, in the minds of both Saudi and US governments. And not often pointed out in Western media.
Oh dear, forget to check the anonymous checkbox did we? This post is basically word for word the same as countless anon troll posts... So either you have no imagination or, more likely, we have finally identified the fetid feces troll. Idiot.
This was sponsored by the Israeli lobby who didn't want to compete with the Chinese for stealing US technology.
I'm not sure the Israelis are that preoccupied with China in particular.. So maybe that's why you got modded down. On the other hand there are a lot of reflexive apologists on/. where Israel is concerned, so maybe some of them modded you down for pointing out the outrageous influence of AIPAC and ADL and such.
So, basically you're saying that the military spending isn't outrageous, but the GDP is?
Anyway, when you end up comparing military expenditure in practice -- on the battlefield, or what passes for it these days -- it is still one army (etc) against another.
And the US military accounts for 39% of the world total (so not entirely half, I stand corrected.)
Not that they should get what they tried to -- the SSL private keys -- but the summary makes it out to be something different than what happened.
Ah, thank you, that does make it a different story.
Still curious though, because one way or the other the FBI did end up demanding this global key... Wouldn't obtaining an SSL key such as it was apparently positioned in Lavabit's operation be way too non-specific? By which I mean, impossible to request or formulate a legal warrant for?
I know, I know, it's a strictly theoretical question; we've seen what happens in practice.
Slashdot Mirror
You were clearly implying that a bias in favour of what you call alarmism would somehow be related to these scientists' compensation. Many of whom are publicly funded (and therefore typically subject to various kinds of oversight, budgets included). So I just meant to ask you, how do you believe that would even work?
On the other hand, the skeptics are mostly funded privately, or at least that's how it looks -- often donors remain anonymous (I am not saying that is a bad thing per se, but cones with different expectation of accountability). So I guess I see why you would accuse me of conspiracy theorizing. But aligned interests of a very few big hitters paired with some think tank to shovel cash into is really all you need.
There is a big difference, it seems to me, between doing climate research and noticing patterns we now call, for better or worse, AGW, and presupposing that "AGW is what they're doing" and therefore their jobs somehow depend on alarmism.
Are you saying this is all some complicated ploy by communists in their nefarious quest to redistribute wealth?
And yet the AGW models The overwhelming majority of scientists working in fields related to climatology today get paychecks that rely on people being focused on their alarmism
Where are you suggesting these pay checks issue from? What would the UN, say, stand to gain by influencing IPCC research toward alarmism -- or bias in any direction, for that matter? In the other corner, as it were, who is bankrolling the denial camp?
Also I am pretty sure the latest IPCC report made a point of stating more clearly and unambiguously then ever before that climate change is real and man-made. We discussed it here on /. at the time.
If it is BSL-4, even just temporarily, then there are only a handful of labs in the world that can actually work on it. and about 30% of them are in the US
I am not a biologist, so these version numbers are meaningless to me... But that still reads like 70% unused research capacity.
I would guess they'd be making the sequences available upon request to anyone they deemed trustworthy.
I would hope so, but I am not sure who gets to decide trustworthiness.
(Also, points for the Excession sig. A lot of people disfavour it over the others, but it's probably my favourite Culture book.)
Me too, obviously, although it probably shouldn't be the first Culture book to read. RIP, Iain.
It's a national security threat. There are antitoxins to regular botulism. This is something else. Maybe readers will like to see a few million dead? Probably. Readers who think all info should be free are fools.
I see your point, although it is unfair to say that those against censorship on principle will necessarily "like to see a few million dead".
I'm not decided either way on this one, but wanted pointed out that it does work both ways. Withholding this information will also make it less likely for anyone to develop an effective antidote.
There was a really crappy movie called The Profit which was about CoS. Even though the makers denied this, for obvious reasons, it just as obviously really was a biopic about El Ron.
CoS managed to get it banned because they argued it might influence the pending investigation if MacPherson's death, IIRC. Not sure what the status is now, but it goes to show the extent these people will go.
i wonder if there are any high level Scientologists in the NSA?
Of course, they are known as Operating System Thetans.
Well said. Besides, even if the Brazilians were doing exactly the same things on a remotely comparable scale, the US government is the one you, if you are a US citizen, could help change -- in theory, at least.
The same federal government? And at least tries to provide an alternative to the email controlled by the US federal government (i.e. all the ones of companies that are US based or have their servers there).
At least for braziians, is the lesser evil, else they will be empowerign the federal government behind overthrowing democratically elected governments all around the world since last century, including the brazilian one, of course.
You were moderated Troll, but you are correct. Come on mods.
If it weren't for notifications I would have missed your late reply... Now I'm guessing you have those enabled as well or you'll miss mine.
I think most of the groups you might mean, like Hezbollah and Hamas, are backed by Iran, which along with Syria happens to be the exception to the regional rule of US-backed dictatorships. Which explains why they are poorly funded, as Iran is crumbling under the sanctions. So while Iran certainly is in their corner, as it were, these organizations end up being funded mostly by their supporters in their respective power bases, Lebanon and Gaza and the occupied West Bank.
But I was talking about places like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Jemen, Egypt. Those are, as far as I can tell, not actually doing that much to harm Israel, or for that matter to support the Palestinians. And are you suggesting, by way of the double quotes, that these regimes are not brutal and outrageously oppressive to their own populations, with tacit US support? And that said populations feel zero resentment towards the US for that state of affairs?
It's geopolitical strategy, in other words.
Well, we can't have that, I guess.
Not masquerading as "aid", in my opinion, no.
That they're an ally is not disputed but doesn't explain why they were, for decades on end, the largest recipient of "aid". Israel is not a poor country. Lots of other allies, rich and poor alike, get nothing.
It's geopolitical strategy, in other words.
Also you're a bit too quick on the draw with the barbarian rhetoric. Look up "civilization, cradle of". If you are of the persuasion that group A is 100% civilized and group B is 100% barbaric, you're not looking very carefully. In fact it makes me think you're just parroting some talking head with an agenda.
Yes, sure it is more complex than just lobbyists, but I don't think it could have gone so far out of whack without concerted efforts to make it so. Just my opinion, of course.
I don't think it works that way. Much of the resentment felt towards the US throughout the ME is not just because of their one-sided support for Israel, but mostly because of their support for the brutal regimes of their countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc).
No need to exaggerate, the published figures warrant GP's question already.
Since 1985, it has provided nearly $3 billion in grants annually to Israel, with Israel being the largest annual recipient of American aid from 1976 to 2004 and the largest cumulative recipient of aid since World War II.
You have got to wonder why a relatively wealthy and developed nation should be the largest recipient. The same article also answers the question of why this is mostly not being spent on scientists' salaries:
Almost all U.S. aid to Israel is now in the form of military assistance, while in the past it also received significant economic assistance
source
The interesting question is whether this is really in the best interests of the US citizens, or just the senators and congressman who stand to lose their jobs if they get on the wrong side of AIPAC.
In addition many Individuals in the US are helping finance the bits of Israel which (even) the US government refuses to support officially, viz the illegal settlements (according to international law). They get to do this tax free in many cases though, which the elected government could easily stop if it wanted (and dared) to.
Of course there are lot of reflexive Israel supporters on /. so critical questions get modded down. But established political scientists are starting to ask the same things, see e.g. this.
I always though of "jumped the shark" to mean trying too hard to the point where it becomes obvious to everybody that you're trying too hard.
Same here, but then I am not a native English speaker. According to this article though, GP is correct. It's more about the losing relevance part then about the trying too hard part, as I read it. Apparently it was originally about TV shows.
Thanks for the clarification, much appreciated.
You are very welcome, they had me fooled for a good while too :-)
I guess they'll need to amend it to "Trust anyone who has the cash, share with anyone who has enough money."
Amen.
I basically agree with most of your post, but wanted to point out one mistake -- which is common enough, no offense. W3schools, which you cited, is in no way associated with W3C.
In fact, the information available from their site is often incomplete, inaccurate and sometimes plain wrong. It has been getting better, apparently, thanks in no small part due to these guys.
No, not because they Bush ties. Or not just. But this brutal dictatorship is allowing the US to have military bases within its borders. Which came in handy once or twice in recent history.
The fact that their population is rather pissed about this state of affairs is irrelevant, in the minds of both Saudi and US governments. And not often pointed out in Western media.
Oh dear, forget to check the anonymous checkbox did we? This post is basically word for word the same as countless anon troll posts... So either you have no imagination or, more likely, we have finally identified the fetid feces troll. Idiot.
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
All right, let's explain it that way. Let's also make sure that incompetence is punished, while we're at it.
This was sponsored by the Israeli lobby who didn't want to compete with the Chinese for stealing US technology.
I'm not sure the Israelis are that preoccupied with China in particular.. So maybe that's why you got modded down. On the other hand there are a lot of reflexive apologists on /. where Israel is concerned, so maybe some of them modded you down for pointing out the outrageous influence of AIPAC and ADL and such.
You're not wrong about that, but way off topic.
Speaking of new episodes, I for one can't wait to see how Peter Capaldi will work out...
Ladies and gentleman,
The New Doctor
(Note: "strong language" doesn't even begin to cover this bit.)
So, basically you're saying that the military spending isn't outrageous, but the GDP is?
Anyway, when you end up comparing military expenditure in practice -- on the battlefield, or what passes for it these days -- it is still one army (etc) against another.
And the US military accounts for 39% of the world total (so not entirely half, I stand corrected.)
Not that they should get what they tried to -- the SSL private keys -- but the summary makes it out to be something different than what happened.
Ah, thank you, that does make it a different story.
Still curious though, because one way or the other the FBI did end up demanding this global key... Wouldn't obtaining an SSL key such as it was apparently positioned in Lavabit's operation be way too non-specific? By which I mean, impossible to request or formulate a legal warrant for?
I know, I know, it's a strictly theoretical question; we've seen what happens in practice.