Citing inside climate news is like citing the daily mail.
There's any number of sites that have the memo on them. I cited those two because they have the actual scan of the memo on them, not merely the text file, and added the New York Times article, as a mainstream media source, but if you don't like those, I can send you a few dozen otherlinks to the file. Or you could just google it.
By the way, everything you're accusing Exxon of is actually what a group of environmentalists and plaintiff's lawyers decided to do,
I gave a citation and links to three different sources. Where is yours?
Ah, you don't have a citation, you're making that up. Right. That's a trick right out of Göbbels, that "the cleverest trick used in propaganda" is to accuse your enemies of what you yourself are doing.
with funding by various Rockefeller foundations (among others). The main people that would benefit from this case being successful would be the class action attorneys, who would stand to make hundreds of millions if not billions.
Have you fully thought about the fact that the fossil fuel industry is a trillion dollar industry? Mere "hundreds of millions" is less than penny ante to them.
Who is more likely to fund a campaign, an industry that has a trillion dollars at stake, or some random collection of lawyers who say wait, maybe if we believe the science, some time in the far distant future some laws might or might not get written that might or might not allow a new grounds for lawsuit? Oh, wait, we know the answer to that, because we already have the American Petroleum Institute memo laying out their campaign and asking for 2 million dollars in funding... for the first year.
Yes, that's right-- the API considered this so important that they could ask fossil fuel companies to contribute a whopping 0.0002% of their cash flow to deal with it.
For the sake of argument, let's say one could get the temperature down to absolute zero. Let us further assume a single atom is subjected to this temperature. Would one be able to "freeze" the atom so that its constituent parts would be immobile and visible?
No. The "component parts" would be in their ground-state wave function. They would not suddenly become "visible."
Or would it fall apart?
No. Zero temperature does not cancel out the coulomb force that bind electrons onto the atoms
What happens to an atom at absolute zero?
Nothing much happens to an individual atom. The Bose-Einstein condensate applies to groups of atoms.
I know that irony is indeed very hard to detect on the internet, due to the general high level of cluelessness masking it, but I'd have thought that this one at least would have triggered your irony detector. Maybe you need to have it recalibrated.
...but certainly newspapers quote twitter a lot. And not just the tweeter-in-chief's
Given that a certain high-profile tweeter is tweeting tweets that regularly make headlines-- and thus giving Twitter effectively free advertising almost every day-- I think it's no surprise that Twitter is making a rally.
Hm. If the relation really was consensual, I'm inclined toward being a bit tolerant.
Of course, we haven't heard from the employee. Relations between powerful and powerless always tend to look consensual from the viewpoint of the powerful.
We apparently have different ideas of "technologically superior". My definition is "does the things I use it to do."
I know that there are cars on the market that can hit top speeds of 200 miles per hour. They may be "technologically superior", but I don't buy one because it is capability I don't need and will never use.
Please don't speak about what you have so little real knowledge of.
And I would suggest you do likewise. Apparently your experience in the Army did not teach you civilian law. Fair enough: the military really does do things differently.
The requirement for handling classified information correctly may be set in law, but the actual details of what this entails and who has control authority are codified in Federal regulations, not law, and these regulations stem from executive order. When Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, the applicable executive order would have been Executive Order 13292 (2003). The relevant section is 4.1 (g):
(g) Consistent with law, directives, and regulation, each agency head or senior agency official shall establish controls to ensure that classified information is used, processed, stored, reproduced, transmitted, and destroyed under conditions that provide adequate protection and prevent access by unauthorized persons.
Clinton was the agency head, so she actually did have the ultimate authority to determine whether her server was secure.
When my 20 year old toaster died, I want another one just like it, not some shiny contraption with electronic doodads that add no value to what I want to do, which is toast bread.
Poor analogy. Toaster technology is fully mature and hasn't advanced meaningfully in the last 20 years. PC technology has advanced more in the last 6 months than toasters have in the last 50 years.
My point is that is really hasn't. My laptop already does all the things I need to do with it. I'm sure later technology would mine bitcoins while running SETI at home and simultaneously doing a 3-D rendering of my solidworks model of the ship from Cowboy Bebop as I stream Hulu and listen to deathmetal, but I don't want to do that.
If your education system sucks so badly in your country -- that looks like a business opportunity for someone (to me).
So, your "business opportunity" is to provide educational opportunities for poor people, where "poor people" is defined as "people who can't afford to pay you".
Nice idea. I wish you luck with that.
The State Department got hacked, but the Clintons didn't.
Then how did those darn Russians get her emails? The alternative to badly secured server hacked by Russians is the Seth Rich conspiracy theory. Pick your poison carefully.
The DNC email leak was from the DNC, not the Clinton server (and was years after Hillary left the Secretary of State office). It was done by phishing John Podesta's account: https://www.apnews.com/dea73ef... https://www.engadget.com/2017/11/03/ap-investigation-russia-hack-dnc-clinton-emails/
Powell never used his personal email for official government related emails. That is a lie. The Left tried to get him on it and it failed for that precise reason.
To the contrary, he did. But it wasn't illegal to use personal servers for government related email. It only became policy after Hillary left office:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/c... https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/colin-powell-defends-personal-email-227889
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/fbi-colin-powell-email-probe-218748
(it was probably illegal for him to not archive them, though.
Ok. Clinton wasn't accused of using personal email for business. She was accused of transmitting top secret documents over unsecured personal email
Classified, actually. Top Secret is considerably higher; "classified" is not the same as "top secret".
Amusingly, her server turns out to have been more secure than the State Department server. The State Department got hacked, but the Clintons didn't. https://securityintelligence.c...
(very illegal),
In fact, all she had to do was issue an exemption stating that her server was allowed for classified email. As Secretary of State, she had the authority to declare what server are secure!
I suppose if you live in America, a country with literally thousands of universities competing for students, including at least multiple State University campuses in every single state, it might look like that.
It requires you to avail yourself of every opportunity, rather than sitting around waiting for someone to give it to you.
And if there aren't any opportunities, well, guess you're out of luck.
You could emigrate to the US. Oh, wait, that's not an opportunity either any more.
"they shouldn't have to buy a "new" computer based on tech from two years ago."
Why? What is different from 2016 technology from 2018?
Indeed. Why not? If my computer served my needs, why would I want a different one?
I have the same problem with toasters, frankly. When my 20 year old toaster died, I want another one just like it, not some shiny contraption with electronic doodads that add no value to what I want to do, which is toast bread.
I'm with the original poster. I don't see why it matters whether the mac hardware is "stagnant". I care about whether it does what I want it to do.
My laptop runs everything I want to run fine. Why would I want to "upgrade" to something "better" if it's not actually any better at what I want it to do?
I'd much rather they spend their money fixing system bugs.
I hate how many otherwise intelligent people completely misunderstand global warming. Although people are contributing a fair amount to the rate at which we are warming up, this planets default temperature is much MUCH higher than what our species is comfortable with.
this is true, if you're talking about average temperature over many millions of years, but I'm not sure what your point is. I don't see why the temperature a hundred million years ago is relevant to a discussion. The interest is in the rate of warming now, and what effect that has, not in what the equilibrium temperature was during the mid Cretaceous.
The temperature during the Cretaceous, when carbon dioxide levels were considerably higher, does, I suppose, serve as a cautionary data point: don't think that the polar caps won't melt just because we haven't seen them disappear recently. They have melted.
Slashdot Mirror
Citing inside climate news is like citing the daily mail.
There's any number of sites that have the memo on them. I cited those two because they have the actual scan of the memo on them, not merely the text file, and added the New York Times article, as a mainstream media source, but if you don't like those, I can send you a few dozen other links to the file. Or you could just google it.
By the way, everything you're accusing Exxon of is actually what a group of environmentalists and plaintiff's lawyers decided to do,
I gave a citation and links to three different sources. Where is yours?
Ah, you don't have a citation, you're making that up. Right. That's a trick right out of Göbbels, that "the cleverest trick used in propaganda" is to accuse your enemies of what you yourself are doing.
with funding by various Rockefeller foundations (among others). The main people that would benefit from this case being successful would be the class action attorneys, who would stand to make hundreds of millions if not billions.
Have you fully thought about the fact that the fossil fuel industry is a trillion dollar industry? Mere "hundreds of millions" is less than penny ante to them.
Who is more likely to fund a campaign, an industry that has a trillion dollars at stake, or some random collection of lawyers who say wait, maybe if we believe the science, some time in the far distant future some laws might or might not get written that might or might not allow a new grounds for lawsuit? Oh, wait, we know the answer to that, because we already have the American Petroleum Institute memo laying out their campaign and asking for 2 million dollars in funding... for the first year.
Yes, that's right-- the API considered this so important that they could ask fossil fuel companies to contribute a whopping 0.0002% of their cash flow to deal with it.
Yeah. Nothing much really happens at the individual atom level.
For the sake of argument, let's say one could get the temperature down to absolute zero. Let us further assume a single atom is subjected to this temperature. Would one be able to "freeze" the atom so that its constituent parts would be immobile and visible?
No. The "component parts" would be in their ground-state wave function. They would not suddenly become "visible."
Or would it fall apart?
No. Zero temperature does not cancel out the coulomb force that bind electrons onto the atoms
What happens to an atom at absolute zero?
Nothing much happens to an individual atom. The Bose-Einstein condensate applies to groups of atoms.
Your view of the world is 'interesting'. You think 'Big Oil' is a thing, like a group that holds meetings and makes decisions.
Yes, in fact they were and they did, in the form of the American Petroleum Institute.
In a 1998 memo, they outlined their "action plan" for a campaign to cast doubt on climate science. Which they implemented pretty much as written.
(despite the fact that they had already-- in 1980-- identified climate warming due to carbon dioxide as a problem.)
(news article here.)
Maybe I would buy a few tickets for my rivals.
Me! Me! I'm your rival! Totally! Rivaling you in every way!
I know that irony is indeed very hard to detect on the internet, due to the general high level of cluelessness masking it, but I'd have thought that this one at least would have triggered your irony detector. Maybe you need to have it recalibrated.
If you want to have a relationship with a subordinate the right thing to do is to remove yourself from a position of power over them.
Easy enough to say, but given he was CEO, everybody in the company was subordinate.
Which are you recommending, that he quit his job, or that he fire his innamorata?
...but certainly newspapers quote twitter a lot. And not just the tweeter-in-chief's
Given that a certain high-profile tweeter is tweeting tweets that regularly make headlines-- and thus giving Twitter effectively free advertising almost every day-- I think it's no surprise that Twitter is making a rally.
You can't buy that kind of advertising.
"hackers" are people who hack systems.
"crackers", on the other hand, are southern rednecks.
learn the difference. Few crackers are hackers, and few hackers are crackers.
Of course, we haven't heard from the employee. Relations between powerful and powerless always tend to look consensual from the viewpoint of the powerful.
I know that there are cars on the market that can hit top speeds of 200 miles per hour. They may be "technologically superior", but I don't buy one because it is capability I don't need and will never use.
Please don't speak about what you have so little real knowledge of.
And I would suggest you do likewise. Apparently your experience in the Army did not teach you civilian law. Fair enough: the military really does do things differently.
The requirement for handling classified information correctly may be set in law, but the actual details of what this entails and who has control authority are codified in Federal regulations, not law, and these regulations stem from executive order. When Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, the applicable executive order would have been Executive Order 13292 (2003). The relevant section is 4.1 (g):
(g) Consistent with law, directives, and regulation, each agency head or senior agency official shall establish controls to ensure that classified information is used, processed, stored, reproduced, transmitted, and destroyed under conditions that provide adequate protection and prevent access by unauthorized persons.
Clinton was the agency head, so she actually did have the ultimate authority to determine whether her server was secure.
She didn't do that, but she could have.
Prosecutors want a case that's a slam dunk.
Nevertheless, the State Department server was hacked. At the time it was described as the "worst ever" cyberattack intrusion against a federal agency.
When my 20 year old toaster died, I want another one just like it, not some shiny contraption with electronic doodads that add no value to what I want to do, which is toast bread.
Poor analogy. Toaster technology is fully mature and hasn't advanced meaningfully in the last 20 years. PC technology has advanced more in the last 6 months than toasters have in the last 50 years.
My point is that is really hasn't. My laptop already does all the things I need to do with it. I'm sure later technology would mine bitcoins while running SETI at home and simultaneously doing a 3-D rendering of my solidworks model of the ship from Cowboy Bebop as I stream Hulu and listen to deathmetal, but I don't want to do that.
If your education system sucks so badly in your country -- that looks like a business opportunity for someone (to me).
So, your "business opportunity" is to provide educational opportunities for poor people, where "poor people" is defined as "people who can't afford to pay you". Nice idea. I wish you luck with that.
Then how did those darn Russians get her emails? The alternative to badly secured server hacked by Russians is the Seth Rich conspiracy theory. Pick your poison carefully.
The DNC email leak was from the DNC, not the Clinton server (and was years after Hillary left the Secretary of State office). It was done by phishing John Podesta's account: https://www.apnews.com/dea73ef...
https://www.engadget.com/2017/11/03/ap-investigation-russia-hack-dnc-clinton-emails/
Powell never used his personal email for official government related emails. That is a lie. The Left tried to get him on it and it failed for that precise reason.
To the contrary, he did. But it wasn't illegal to use personal servers for government related email. It only became policy after Hillary left office: https://www.wsj.com/articles/c...
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/colin-powell-defends-personal-email-227889
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/fbi-colin-powell-email-probe-218748
(it was probably illegal for him to not archive them, though.
In fact, it was Powell who advised Hillary on use of personal e-mail: https://abcnews.go.com/Politic...
So? That's not illegal.
Ok. Clinton wasn't accused of using personal email for business. She was accused of transmitting top secret documents over unsecured personal email
Classified, actually. Top Secret is considerably higher; "classified" is not the same as "top secret".
Amusingly, her server turns out to have been more secure than the State Department server. The State Department got hacked, but the Clintons didn't. https://securityintelligence.c...
(very illegal),
In fact, all she had to do was issue an exemption stating that her server was allowed for classified email. As Secretary of State, she had the authority to declare what server are secure!
It requires you to avail yourself of every opportunity, rather than sitting around waiting for someone to give it to you.
And if there aren't any opportunities, well, guess you're out of luck.
You could emigrate to the US. Oh, wait, that's not an opportunity either any more.
"they shouldn't have to buy a "new" computer based on tech from two years ago."
Why? What is different from 2016 technology from 2018?
Indeed. Why not? If my computer served my needs, why would I want a different one?
I have the same problem with toasters, frankly. When my 20 year old toaster died, I want another one just like it, not some shiny contraption with electronic doodads that add no value to what I want to do, which is toast bread.
Ninety percent of the market uses Excel to work on small data sets.
I use Excel to keep track of my grocery bills, and sometimes to add up travel expenses when I take a trip.
I expect a faster processor would add *microseconds* to my free time.
My laptop runs everything I want to run fine. Why would I want to "upgrade" to something "better" if it's not actually any better at what I want it to do?
I'd much rather they spend their money fixing system bugs.
I hate how many otherwise intelligent people completely misunderstand global warming. Although people are contributing a fair amount to the rate at which we are warming up, this planets default temperature is much MUCH higher than what our species is comfortable with.
this is true, if you're talking about average temperature over many millions of years, but I'm not sure what your point is. I don't see why the temperature a hundred million years ago is relevant to a discussion. The interest is in the rate of warming now, and what effect that has, not in what the equilibrium temperature was during the mid Cretaceous.
The temperature during the Cretaceous, when carbon dioxide levels were considerably higher, does, I suppose, serve as a cautionary data point: don't think that the polar caps won't melt just because we haven't seen them disappear recently. They have melted.