Yes, we do. We do not have to watch channels that have tactics we do not like. We can circumvent advertising with digital recorders. We have a lot of power over this
.
Which is all done in your house without any feedback back to the producers and broadcasters of the commercials. The money has already changed hands. The economic effect is done. Unless you're a Nielsen family, you have no power because you have no feedback. The Networks don't know you exist.
Regulation is good, especially in monopolistic situations
Regulation is bad. Period.
How very axiomatic of you! How dare anyone correct a market inefficiency!
, or if it is that no one knew that Eisenhower was actually a Republican. My guess is most people here didn't know he was a Republican since he sounds so different than the current breed.
Well there's a reason for that. Eisenhower came from the era when the military had no political affiliation, and didn't vote. Not because they couldn't, but considered it an affront to civilian control. Because of this, Eisenhower was actually heavily lobbied by BOTH political parties to be their nominee for president. As this Life Magazine article from April 12, 1948 entitled "The Democratic Plan to Draft Eisenhower", says, "With this fact also generally accepted most of the important Democrats of all factions, even within the White House, last week agreed on a thrid fact: the one man who can unite the party and take it to victory is General Dwight D. Eisenhower."
Also, the Republican party went off the tracks back in the 60s with Nixon and the Southern Strategy that primarily is based on southern racism, militarism, and evangelical Christianity.
And when you look for the last time both of those messages really took hold, you get Europe in the early 20th century.
Good Europe embraced lazzie faire capitalism and crushed unions, because otherwise think where their working economies, trade surpluses, top tier educational and healthcare system, and six weeks paid vacations would get them? Oh wait...
2) band together with the other exploited workers to put a stop to oppressive management. Workers of the world, unite! In short, communism.
That word, "communism", keeps being thrown around these days, but it doesn't mean what you think it does. No, what you're talking about it is "unionization," also known as "free association," also known as "bargaining." Funny how the same people that go on and on about "freedom" and the need for businesses to band together, don't want individual contractors that enable the businesses to function to exercise that same right. No, instead they are to remain resources for exploitation. They are to know their place, and not tot speak ill of their betters, and be grateful that only half the scraps they were given were taken away, but by no means exercise collective power.
New Rule: Anyone invoking "communism" or "socialism" into an argument, pulled a Godwin.
Here's yet another spin. Something bad happens and corrective action is urged. In fact it's so bad, that corrective action must be mandated because of the scale involved. The powers of the wealthy status quo don't want corrective action because they perceive it as cutting into their whiskey and Thai sex tour money. So they spend their money to create front groups to stall and question the there really is anything bad happening at all. They spend their money on politicians and talking heads to create "controversy," and spreading hokum about how that the bad thing is actually good, and how the people that want to stop the bad thing actually just want to steal all your money, piss on your Bible, round your family up into the UN mandated concentration camps, make you dig your own grave, and then machine gun you to death. Predictably the bad thing gets worse, and because of the unwarranted delay will take more effort now to not to prevent (since at this point we've passed well beyond the tipping point) but rather to just mitigate compared to the amount of effort required at the very beginning. So now the status quo proclaims that the bad thing must not have been so bad, because now the opposition doesn't want to stop it, just slow it, and anyway now they want more money, so obviously it must have been a fraud in the first place. Meanwhile the status quo forces continue to rake in the cash.
But no. This doesn't make sense because right-wing motivations are always pure as the driven snow, and only when those who I politically oppose argue for something that I already believe, are their motivations pure and conclusions correct, because I'm Right(tm). I know I'm right, because it's in my name, and I'm right. I'm a winner, and winners aren't wrong, so I'm right. If I was wrong, I'd have to change, but change is for losers, and I'm a winner, so I don't have to change, and because I don't have to change I'm right.
You can bet that if a left-winger says that global warming is so bad that he wants nuclear power, he's sincere about it. If he says that global warming is so bad that he wants taxes and regulation, he could be sincere, but might be using the global warming as an excuse, since he wants those things anyway.
Clearly you have never heard of James Lovelock and have no knowledge of the modern environmental and anti-climate change movement beyond what Glenn Beck tells you, since your "insight" is little more than a simplistic maligned caricature. But I'm sure you sleep well at night because it never enters your mind that you're premisses, let alone your conclusions, just might be wrong.
Ahh Iran-Contra, which among other things thrusted Fox News Personality Oliver North into the spotlight, and led to his conviction of accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents.
The short story. Some Americans were taken hostage in Beirut along with other westerners by Islamic Jihad (Hezbollah), an Iranian backed terrorist group. (FYI: This group not only bombed the US embassy, but also 11 hostages, including a CIA bureau chief, and a Marine colonel.) Meanwhile, Reagan and the Republicans wanted to send money to the Contra rebels in Nicaragua, a group of right wing nominally anti-communist death squads to opposed to the Nicaraguan government backed Sandinistas, a bunch of nominally communist death squads. However, Congress passed a law making it illegal to fund the Contras.
Not to be deterred, Ronald Reagan illegally sold weapons to a terrorist regime, Ayatollah Khomenni's Iran, for money and the ransom of hostages. This money was then illegally funneled to the Contras.
During the investigation we got Reagan's famous quote, "That I don't recall," to independent counsel questionings about what he knew about the illegal sales.
Defense Secretary Capser Weinberger was indicted for lying to the independent counsel, but was pardoned by George H W Bush prior to trial "even though he committed no crime."
High ranking officials that were involved in this illegal transaction, and negotiating with known terrorists, that later got jobs in George W Bush's regime include:
Elliott Abrams: the Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs; in Iran-Contra, pleaded guilty on two counts of unlawfully withholding information, pardoned.
Otto Reich: head of the Office of Public Diplomacy under Reagan.
John Negroponte: under Bush, served as the Ambassador to Iraq, the National Intelligence Director, and the Deputy Secretary of State.
Admiral John Poindexter: Director of the Information Awareness Office; in Iran-Contra, found guilty of multiple felony counts for conspiracy, obstruction of justice, lying to Congress, defrauding the government, and the alteration and destruction of evidence, convictions reversed.
It's left as an exercise for the reader to find the members of Richard Nixon's Watergate administration that found a job in George W Bush's regime. I'll start you out. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
Given the number of high ranking officials found guilty of obstruction of justice, and illegally selling weapons to terrorist regimes, draw your own conclusions on which party is takes national security seriously.
If so, that makes even less sense, since it was a broad based popular rebellion that brought down the Shah. In light of that, the only thing that could have possibly stopped it would have been military invasion, and lethal force against civilians, in order to prop up an unpopular, undemocratic, and throughly reprehensible regime.
Not that Khomeni and the Islamic Republic isn't, nor at the time wasn't (except for popularity.)
The F-14 was developed in 1970 and was approved to be sold the CIA backed Shah of Iran in November of 1973. That would be on Richard Nixon's watch, as Carter wouldn't take office for another three years.
For the record, Iran bought 80, but only 79 were delivered. Of these only about 50 still exist, and 30 of these are active.
There was for example here in Norway just recently about a 16 year old who got the biggest insurance payout ever after a traffic accident - 11.6 MNOK = 2.08 million USD. Still not much when he's probably got another 60 years to live and will need special care for the rest of his life.
Yeah, but at least you have universal health care. The US still doesn't. That would be communist-socialist-nazi-facism didn't you know? (That's why Hitler and Stalin were such great buds.)
It is true that anything can be used as a weapon, but we've had times where guns were pervasive, name Ye Olde West, and it simply wasn't that safe. People carried guns, because the law simply didn't exist there, and even then there was stringent gun laws in some towns, including no pistols allowed.
A recent study that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun. I haven't read the article, and obviously there's some demographics issues that need to determined. For instance, how often do the shooting victims have a history of crime, and so on. (e.g. to control for bad drug deals and the like), so I'll put this up to a "maybe."
But at the same time, I think some criminal I saw on Gangland or something that said, "If I think they have a gun, I'm going to shoot them first, then rob them."
You aren't allowed to have a gun in a bar. At least not in Florida. Generally speaking, you aren't allowed to be drunk and carrying a weapon either, even if you have a CCW.
You're not allowed to drive drunk either, but it still happens. I pose that it's less likely for a drunk to have gun, if the person didn't have the gun with them before they had one too many.
Now excuse me, I need to get back to making reloads and cleaning my AR-15 as their is a match this weekend:)
Real men show how virile they are with a mini gun. (Which I must admit, looks pretty damn fun.);)
Source, please. Pagers use a radio broadcast, IIRC it is not illegal to snoop them, especially considering there is no security barrier to break. Plus no warrant is required for law enforcement to snoop them either, which lends credence to the idea that they are public broadcasts.
It is illegal to record pager messages, as it constitutes a wiretap. A cellular phone is also a radio, but that doesn't mean that's a radio station. The difference is that a a radio station is intended for a wide audience, while a cellular phone call is a private conversation. It was also illegal to listen into the old unencrypted analog cordless phones that operated in the Mhz range and so could be picked up on police scanners.
You're simply mistaken to believe pagers taps don't require a warrant. It's a search, and was held as a wiretap as recently as 2008 by the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Quon v. Arch Wireless Oper. 2008.. Even EPIC lists "pagers" as one of the things they track in wiretap statistics.
Yes, but if you've ever met a Swiss, you'd know they don't carry their army issued rifle, and they don't even like having one, because it's too much of a hassle to go to mandatory recertification.
Mandatory ownership, let alone mandatory carrying, is not freedom.
3: require all men to own and carry a firearm in public. 4: require all women to own and carry a firearm in public (this will also reduce the rate of sexual assault).
Isn't that also just as terrifying, if not more terrifying than a police state? Why should I have to worry about every time I walk into a bar, and there's some drunk asshole picking a fight with another drunk, that lead is going to start flying? I always thought a gun was a like condom, you don't bring one unless you plan on using it.
Whenever I hear about people arguing that everyone to start carrying guns, I think back to this incident in Texas back in the early aughts, where two suburban soccer moms with concealed carry guns starting shooting at each other during a road rage incident.
Random crime just doesn't happen all that often, and it always seems to me that people that want more guns, more "protection" are overly scared to walk outside their house.
Climate science isn't computer science. There only a few temp datasets and 'collecting' a new one isn't an option. If you want a century of records you either use an existing set or wait on i/o for about a century.
Of course you can collect another temperature dataset. They were collected in the first place. The historical records are typically held by a library, not by some hoarding researcher in a lab, if for no other reason they're expensive and contrary to public perception, scientists don't have money. If you want, you can get them. You just have to go the library and get them. Even if you can get the ship's log from the HMS Haberdasher, you can get the ship's log from HNLMS Scheef.
Gathering tree ring data, ice core data, and all the other proxy records are recoverable. You just have to go and get them.
My point is that there are always other sources for comparable data. It's not impossible. It requires leg work, that's it. And if you think the data was collected in a biased manner, then you have to collect it yourself anyway.
As the leaked data now makes clear, access to the raw data would have scuttled these idiots. The data was dodgy enough it wouldn't have withstood even the most cursory review. The temp data is full of gaps they averaged over and did even worse to.
First, it's email that was stolen, not data. Second, the were was years of investigation into the MBH98 methods and conclusions after MM03 was published. Not just peer review, but a full audit, by climatologists, statisticians, politicians, and whoever else wanted to get into the game. And you know what? After all that investigation, the conclusions held up. Even as Edward Wegman of the American Statistical Association put it, "Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science."
You seem to really really want these emails to be some sort of smoking gun, but they just aren't. The "explosive" conclusion from 1998, that northern hemisphere temperatures have risen to unprecedented levels, has repeatedly held up to analysis.
One of the more referenced tree ring studies ends up being based on a grand total of twelve cores. Twelve samples!
And what was the confidence level? What was the confidence interval? What was the geographic range of the samples? What was the geographic range of the conclusions? 12 samples by itself doesn't say anything. Without this information, your objection about the sample size simply isn't meaningful. No more so than someone that doesn't like the latest national poll and loudly proclaims, "But they only asked 600 people!", because they don't understand how statistical sampling works.
Several problems with that statement. One, had source been required for publication there is a very non-zero chance the problems would have been caught in peer review.
Well I can assure you that while that probability of detecting an error maybe non-zero, it would remain asymptotically zero. No one is going to read the code. Tons of bugs get through formal code reviews in industry, and that's by people that understand what the code is doing. It almost certainly not going to happen when the "code" isn't actually one program, but a smattering of perl scripts that may or may not still exist, some random pieces of matlab, and maybe some scipy thrown in.
Second, peer review is not, nor has it ever been an audit. It's a reading of a a tersely worded 10 page paper. You read the paper, looking for errors in methodology, unexpected results, unsupported conclusions, and above all novelty. At no point has it ever involved replicating the experiments presented. There isn't enough time, the cost-benefit ratio is just way too low, and even if it was possible, no one wants to do that.
I'm not an expert but from reading about the case the flaw wasn't exactly obfusca
I don't know what the rules are on your world, but on mine it isn't science if the work can't be peer reviewed, published and duplicated. If you basing results on datasets that can't be released none of that is possible. Seriously, how would you peer review a paper based on data you can't look at?
Well at least in computer science, this happens all the time. This is how it works. A paper is written and it uses some dataset, which may or not be widely available. Typically, there are at least two datasets, maybe three. One of which may be widely available but not originally intended for the purpose at hand. What is important, is that the proprietary datasets are explained. How they were gathered, and how the data is statistically distributed. If it looks like it was gathered correctly, then it's fine.
You are simply never going to get the exact same data. All you can do is gather similar data. For example, a paper may say, "We gathered CIFS traces from 150 desktops connected to 10 servers from the engineering department at a major corporation. The traces were sampled ever second for a month." You're not going to get that data. You will never get that data. What you can do is apply the techniques presented to another similar dataset. The data is irrelevant, how it's gathered is. You compare different techniques to the same dataset, but you don't necessarily share data.
You also never get the code that run. You get the algorithm, but you don't get the implementation. Why not? Because it doesn't matter. It's the algorithm. If you have the algorithm, or more precisely the interesting part of the algorithm explained, then it just doesn't matter.
Even with these emails data access was always a canard. Anyone could gather the exact same data if they wanted. It just involves go there and taking some samples. In fact, if you think the data was biased, then you're obligated to gather it yourself in attempt to get unbiased data. Simply having access to a biased dataset, does not magically make it unbiased.
This is doubly frustrating, because the big allegations against Mann's 98 "hockey stick" paper was never about the data gathering. It was about the mathematics presented about analyzing of the data. Would have access have made it easier for McIntyre to write the 2005 paper complaining about MBH98? Yes, but the fact is that it didn't matter. McIntyre didn't have the all data, yet was able to still write detect the bias, write the paper, and get it accepted, shows that it obviously wasn't a deal breaker.
If you work in hospitality, you could be a bellhop, a cleaner or a hotel manager.
But you wouldn't call the hotel manager a "maid" would you?
That's the problem here. There's a difference between writing code for the product (i.e. "engineering") and reinstalling windows on the secretary's computer and rebooting some server (i.e. "IT"). Both jobs need done, and as an engineering guy, I'm glad there's an IT department. I do not enjoy sysadmining. I hate it. I'd rather get a tooth pulled. I'm glad there are people that do that, but they're different jobs that require different skill sets, and typically have different titles.
So what? They live here. They spend their money here. They have kids here. They're immigrants, just like every other group of immigrants throughout our history, and that makes them quintessentially all American.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, we do. We do not have to watch channels that have tactics we do not like.
We can circumvent advertising with digital recorders.
We have a lot of power over this
.
Which is all done in your house without any feedback back to the producers and broadcasters of the commercials. The money has already changed hands. The economic effect is done. Unless you're a Nielsen family, you have no power because you have no feedback. The Networks don't know you exist.
Regulation is good, especially in monopolistic situations
Regulation is bad. Period.
How very axiomatic of you! How dare anyone correct a market inefficiency!
, or if it is that no one knew that Eisenhower was actually a Republican. My guess is most people here didn't know he was a Republican since he sounds so different than the current breed.
Well there's a reason for that. Eisenhower came from the era when the military had no political affiliation, and didn't vote. Not because they couldn't, but considered it an affront to civilian control. Because of this, Eisenhower was actually heavily lobbied by BOTH political parties to be their nominee for president. As this Life Magazine article from April 12, 1948 entitled "The Democratic Plan to Draft Eisenhower", says, "With this fact also generally accepted most of the important Democrats of all factions, even within the White House, last week agreed on a thrid fact: the one man who can unite the party and take it to victory is General Dwight D. Eisenhower."
Also, the Republican party went off the tracks back in the 60s with Nixon and the Southern Strategy that primarily is based on southern racism, militarism, and evangelical Christianity.
Why? Who said?
Don't even try to pull that "lifeboat" crap unless you can find some Eisenhower quote backing that up.
And when you look for the last time both of those messages really took hold, you get Europe in the early 20th century.
Good Europe embraced lazzie faire capitalism and crushed unions, because otherwise think where their working economies, trade surpluses, top tier educational and healthcare system, and six weeks paid vacations would get them? Oh wait...
2) band together with the other exploited workers to put a stop to oppressive management. Workers of the world, unite! In short, communism.
That word, "communism", keeps being thrown around these days, but it doesn't mean what you think it does.
No, what you're talking about it is "unionization," also known as "free association," also known as "bargaining." Funny how the same people that go on and on about "freedom" and the need for businesses to band together, don't want individual contractors that enable the businesses to function to exercise that same right. No, instead they are to remain resources for exploitation. They are to know their place, and not tot speak ill of their betters, and be grateful that only half the scraps they were given were taken away, but by no means exercise collective power.
New Rule: Anyone invoking "communism" or "socialism" into an argument, pulled a Godwin.
Here's yet another spin. Something bad happens and corrective action is urged. In fact it's so bad, that corrective action must be mandated because of the scale involved. The powers of the wealthy status quo don't want corrective action because they perceive it as cutting into their whiskey and Thai sex tour money. So they spend their money to create front groups to stall and question the there really is anything bad happening at all. They spend their money on politicians and talking heads to create "controversy," and spreading hokum about how that the bad thing is actually good, and how the people that want to stop the bad thing actually just want to steal all your money, piss on your Bible, round your family up into the UN mandated concentration camps, make you dig your own grave, and then machine gun you to death. Predictably the bad thing gets worse, and because of the unwarranted delay will take more effort now to not to prevent (since at this point we've passed well beyond the tipping point) but rather to just mitigate compared to the amount of effort required at the very beginning. So now the status quo proclaims that the bad thing must not have been so bad, because now the opposition doesn't want to stop it, just slow it, and anyway now they want more money, so obviously it must have been a fraud in the first place. Meanwhile the status quo forces continue to rake in the cash.
But no. This doesn't make sense because right-wing motivations are always pure as the driven snow, and only when those who I politically oppose argue for something that I already believe, are their motivations pure and conclusions correct, because I'm Right(tm). I know I'm right, because it's in my name, and I'm right. I'm a winner, and winners aren't wrong, so I'm right. If I was wrong, I'd have to change, but change is for losers, and I'm a winner, so I don't have to change, and because I don't have to change I'm right.
You can bet that if a left-winger says that global warming is so bad that he wants nuclear power, he's sincere about it. If he says that global warming is so bad that he wants taxes and regulation, he could be sincere, but might be using the global warming as an excuse, since he wants those things anyway.
Clearly you have never heard of James Lovelock and have no knowledge of the modern environmental and anti-climate change movement beyond what Glenn Beck tells you, since your "insight" is little more than a simplistic maligned caricature. But I'm sure you sleep well at night because it never enters your mind that you're premisses, let alone your conclusions, just might be wrong.
Ahh Iran-Contra, which among other things thrusted Fox News Personality Oliver North into the spotlight, and led to his conviction of accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents.
The short story. Some Americans were taken hostage in Beirut along with other westerners by Islamic Jihad (Hezbollah), an Iranian backed terrorist group. (FYI: This group not only bombed the US embassy, but also 11 hostages, including a CIA bureau chief, and a Marine colonel.) Meanwhile, Reagan and the Republicans wanted to send money to the Contra rebels in Nicaragua, a group of right wing nominally anti-communist death squads to opposed to the Nicaraguan government backed Sandinistas, a bunch of nominally communist death squads. However, Congress passed a law making it illegal to fund the Contras.
Not to be deterred, Ronald Reagan illegally sold weapons to a terrorist regime, Ayatollah Khomenni's Iran, for money and the ransom of hostages. This money was then illegally funneled to the Contras.
During the investigation we got Reagan's famous quote, "That I don't recall," to independent counsel questionings about what he knew about the illegal sales.
Defense Secretary Capser Weinberger was indicted for lying to the independent counsel, but was pardoned by George H W Bush prior to trial "even though he committed no crime."
High ranking officials that were involved in this illegal transaction, and negotiating with known terrorists, that later got jobs in George W Bush's regime include:
Elliott Abrams: the Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs; in Iran-Contra, pleaded guilty on two counts of unlawfully withholding information, pardoned.
Otto Reich: head of the Office of Public Diplomacy under Reagan.
John Negroponte: under Bush, served as the Ambassador to Iraq, the National Intelligence Director, and the Deputy Secretary of State.
Admiral John Poindexter: Director of the Information Awareness Office; in Iran-Contra, found guilty of multiple felony counts for conspiracy, obstruction of justice, lying to Congress, defrauding the government, and the alteration and destruction of evidence, convictions reversed.
It's left as an exercise for the reader to find the members of Richard Nixon's Watergate administration that found a job in George W Bush's regime. I'll start you out. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
Given the number of high ranking officials found guilty of obstruction of justice, and illegally selling weapons to terrorist regimes, draw your own conclusions on which party is takes national security seriously.
If so, that makes even less sense, since it was a broad based popular rebellion that brought down the Shah. In light of that, the only thing that could have possibly stopped it would have been military invasion, and lethal force against civilians, in order to prop up an unpopular, undemocratic, and throughly reprehensible regime.
Not that Khomeni and the Islamic Republic isn't, nor at the time wasn't (except for popularity.)
Reagan sold TOW and Hawk missiles to Ayatollah Khomeni. Nixon approved the sale of the F-14s to the CIA backed Shah.
Iran=yes (F-14s, thank you Jimmy Carter), MiG 29
Nice try.
The F-14 was developed in 1970 and was approved to be sold the CIA backed Shah of Iran in November of 1973. That would be on Richard Nixon's watch, as Carter wouldn't take office for another three years.
For the record, Iran bought 80, but only 79 were delivered. Of these only about 50 still exist, and 30 of these are active.
There was for example here in Norway just recently about a 16 year old who got the biggest insurance payout ever after a traffic accident - 11.6 MNOK = 2.08 million USD. Still not much when he's probably got another 60 years to live and will need special care for the rest of his life.
Yeah, but at least you have universal health care. The US still doesn't. That would be communist-socialist-nazi-facism didn't you know? (That's why Hitler and Stalin were such great buds.)
Ah the loud proclamations of the Internet troll that flunked grade school biology.
http://urbanforestry.blogspot.com/2005/11/abiotic-factors-affecting-tree-growth.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendroclimatology
It is true that anything can be used as a weapon, but we've had times where guns were pervasive, name Ye Olde West, and it simply wasn't that safe. People carried guns, because the law simply didn't exist there, and even then there was stringent gun laws in some towns, including no pistols allowed.
A recent study that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun. I haven't read the article, and obviously there's some demographics issues that need to determined. For instance, how often do the shooting victims have a history of crime, and so on. (e.g. to control for bad drug deals and the like), so I'll put this up to a "maybe."
But at the same time, I think some criminal I saw on Gangland or something that said, "If I think they have a gun, I'm going to shoot them first, then rob them."
But violent crime is at an all time low, it's just not worth it.
And this is coming from someone that grew up in the boondocks with the county sheriff being at least 30 minutes away. (No. We never owned a gun.)
You aren't allowed to have a gun in a bar. At least not in Florida. Generally speaking, you aren't allowed to be drunk and carrying a weapon either, even if you have a CCW.
You're not allowed to drive drunk either, but it still happens. I pose that it's less likely for a drunk to have gun, if the person didn't have the gun with them before they had one too many.
Now excuse me, I need to get back to making reloads and cleaning my AR-15 as their is a match this weekend :)
Real men show how virile they are with a mini gun. (Which I must admit, looks pretty damn fun.) ;)
Source, please. Pagers use a radio broadcast, IIRC it is not illegal to snoop them, especially considering there is no security barrier to break. Plus no warrant is required for law enforcement to snoop them either, which lends credence to the idea that they are public broadcasts.
It is illegal to record pager messages, as it constitutes a wiretap. A cellular phone is also a radio, but that doesn't mean that's a radio station. The difference is that a a radio station is intended for a wide audience, while a cellular phone call is a private conversation. It was also illegal to listen into the old unencrypted analog cordless phones that operated in the Mhz range and so could be picked up on police scanners.
You're simply mistaken to believe pagers taps don't require a warrant. It's a search, and was held as a wiretap as recently as 2008 by the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Quon v. Arch Wireless Oper. 2008.. Even EPIC lists "pagers" as one of the things they track in wiretap statistics.
Yes, but if you've ever met a Swiss, you'd know they don't carry their army issued rifle, and they don't even like having one, because it's too much of a hassle to go to mandatory recertification.
Mandatory ownership, let alone mandatory carrying, is not freedom.
3: require all men to own and carry a firearm in public.
4: require all women to own and carry a firearm in public (this will also reduce the rate of sexual assault).
Isn't that also just as terrifying, if not more terrifying than a police state? Why should I have to worry about every time I walk into a bar, and there's some drunk asshole picking a fight with another drunk, that lead is going to start flying? I always thought a gun was a like condom, you don't bring one unless you plan on using it.
Whenever I hear about people arguing that everyone to start carrying guns, I think back to this incident in Texas back in the early aughts, where two suburban soccer moms with concealed carry guns starting shooting at each other during a road rage incident.
Random crime just doesn't happen all that often, and it always seems to me that people that want more guns, more "protection" are overly scared to walk outside their house.
He recently introduced legislation that would grant the Attorney General the right to infringe on your constitutional rights without due process.
would have made sense 2 years ago, but now? He's committing career suicide enabling the Dems in this fashion. Weird.
Unchecked power is dumb every year.
Climate science isn't computer science. There only a few temp datasets and 'collecting' a new one isn't an option. If you want a century of records you either use an existing set or wait on i/o for about a century.
Of course you can collect another temperature dataset. They were collected in the first place. The historical records are typically held by a library, not by some hoarding researcher in a lab, if for no other reason they're expensive and contrary to public perception, scientists don't have money. If you want, you can get them. You just have to go the library and get them. Even if you can get the ship's log from the HMS Haberdasher, you can get the ship's log from HNLMS Scheef.
Gathering tree ring data, ice core data, and all the other proxy records are recoverable. You just have to go and get them.
My point is that there are always other sources for comparable data. It's not impossible. It requires leg work, that's it. And if you think the data was collected in a biased manner, then you have to collect it yourself anyway.
As the leaked data now makes clear, access to the raw data would have scuttled these idiots. The data was dodgy enough it wouldn't have withstood even the most cursory review. The temp data is full of gaps they averaged over and did even worse to.
First, it's email that was stolen, not data. Second, the were was years of investigation into the MBH98 methods and conclusions after MM03 was published. Not just peer review, but a full audit, by climatologists, statisticians, politicians, and whoever else wanted to get into the game. And you know what? After all that investigation, the conclusions held up. Even as Edward Wegman of the American Statistical Association put it, "Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science."
You seem to really really want these emails to be some sort of smoking gun, but they just aren't. The "explosive" conclusion from 1998, that northern hemisphere temperatures have risen to unprecedented levels, has repeatedly held up to analysis.
One of the more referenced tree ring studies ends up being based on a grand total of twelve cores. Twelve samples!
And what was the confidence level? What was the confidence interval? What was the geographic range of the samples? What was the geographic range of the conclusions? 12 samples by itself doesn't say anything. Without this information, your objection about the sample size simply isn't meaningful. No more so than someone that doesn't like the latest national poll and loudly proclaims, "But they only asked 600 people!", because they don't understand how statistical sampling works.
Several problems with that statement. One, had source been required for publication there is a very non-zero chance the problems would have been caught in peer review.
Well I can assure you that while that probability of detecting an error maybe non-zero, it would remain asymptotically zero. No one is going to read the code. Tons of bugs get through formal code reviews in industry, and that's by people that understand what the code is doing. It almost certainly not going to happen when the "code" isn't actually one program, but a smattering of perl scripts that may or may not still exist, some random pieces of matlab, and maybe some scipy thrown in.
Second, peer review is not, nor has it ever been an audit. It's a reading of a a tersely worded 10 page paper. You read the paper, looking for errors in methodology, unexpected results, unsupported conclusions, and above all novelty. At no point has it ever involved replicating the experiments presented. There isn't enough time, the cost-benefit ratio is just way too low, and even if it was possible, no one wants to do that.
I'm not an expert but from reading about the case the flaw wasn't exactly obfusca
I don't know what the rules are on your world, but on mine it isn't science if the work can't be peer reviewed, published and duplicated. If you basing results on datasets that can't be released none of that is possible. Seriously, how would you peer review a paper based on data you can't look at?
Well at least in computer science, this happens all the time. This is how it works. A paper is written and it uses some dataset, which may or not be widely available. Typically, there are at least two datasets, maybe three. One of which may be widely available but not originally intended for the purpose at hand. What is important, is that the proprietary datasets are explained. How they were gathered, and how the data is statistically distributed. If it looks like it was gathered correctly, then it's fine.
You are simply never going to get the exact same data. All you can do is gather similar data. For example, a paper may say, "We gathered CIFS traces from 150 desktops connected to 10 servers from the engineering department at a major corporation. The traces were sampled ever second for a month." You're not going to get that data. You will never get that data. What you can do is apply the techniques presented to another similar dataset. The data is irrelevant, how it's gathered is. You compare different techniques to the same dataset, but you don't necessarily share data.
You also never get the code that run. You get the algorithm, but you don't get the implementation. Why not? Because it doesn't matter. It's the algorithm. If you have the algorithm, or more precisely the interesting part of the algorithm explained, then it just doesn't matter.
Even with these emails data access was always a canard. Anyone could gather the exact same data if they wanted. It just involves go there and taking some samples. In fact, if you think the data was biased, then you're obligated to gather it yourself in attempt to get unbiased data. Simply having access to a biased dataset, does not magically make it unbiased.
This is doubly frustrating, because the big allegations against Mann's 98 "hockey stick" paper was never about the data gathering. It was about the mathematics presented about analyzing of the data. Would have access have made it easier for McIntyre to write the 2005 paper complaining about MBH98? Yes, but the fact is that it didn't matter. McIntyre didn't have the all data, yet was able to still write detect the bias, write the paper, and get it accepted, shows that it obviously wasn't a deal breaker.
If Microsoft and NewsCorp succeed in making the Web a collection of walled gardens, the consumer loses out!
I don't think people would notice anymore. Everyone flocked to Facebook and Twitter, and they're both huge walled gardens.
If you work in hospitality, you could be a bellhop, a cleaner or a hotel manager.
But you wouldn't call the hotel manager a "maid" would you?
That's the problem here. There's a difference between writing code for the product (i.e. "engineering") and reinstalling windows on the secretary's computer and rebooting some server (i.e. "IT"). Both jobs need done, and as an engineering guy, I'm glad there's an IT department. I do not enjoy sysadmining. I hate it. I'd rather get a tooth pulled. I'm glad there are people that do that, but they're different jobs that require different skill sets, and typically have different titles.
So what? They live here. They spend their money here. They have kids here. They're immigrants, just like every other group of immigrants throughout our history, and that makes them quintessentially all American.
Really, I wonder who even buys the "trickle down" nonsense anymore.
Those that vote "pro-buisness."
if the iPod was made in the usa it would cost $750 and break within days. Just like the cars, which are rubbish.
Says the proud owner of a Toyota Camary built in Tennessee.