Even in Texas, where climate change doesn't exist, cough, "Temperature extremes have far-reaching consequences nationwide. Public health impacts, including mortality, have been well documented"
But Jaffe reaches an interesting conclusion. "I don't think they're lying. I just think they left something out of the public reveal that would have explained how these numbers work."
-Drinking spirits was more likely than all other drink types to be associated with feelings of aggression, illness, restlessness and tearfulness
Previous science told us it's not the type of alcohol that gives you a worse hangover or has worse affects, but the amount - and almost solely the amount (exactly how close to 100% I don't see that it was ever concluded). But any feeling of difference due to type is only perceived. Eg
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3888958/
Here's an article more repeating what I've heard a million times (including a bartender class):
https://io9.gizmodo.com/do-different-kinds-of-alcohol-get-you-different-kinds-o-482710477
So, if TFA is simply repeating people's answer to a survey, then it doesn't disprove the previous line of thinking, and is actually misleading imo.
People build up tolerance to alcohol over time and can end up drinking more to feel the same "positive" effects that they enjoy.
Again, another thing I thought was against previous studies. You feel the same effects, but "tolerance" is achieved simply because you are used to feeling these affects, and can attempt to act more normal since you expect them and make an effort to do so.
Note that Dr. Spencer is not a "denialist", he's a [scientist that makes his argument with data]
Fair enough. I haven't looked it up yet - how much of his work is published or gone through peer-review? (if you object to that metric, then fine, we can limit the discussion, but it would definitely be more information for me to consider)
he's using the 90 models from the IPCC - not cherry picked at all
That's not what I meant about cherry-picking. I meant he's finding the easiest arguments to make, focusing on data points that aren't as clear. Which I should admit isn't wrong at all as a scientist, but to base a political decision on one point of non-absolute knowledge is cherry-picking in order to reach a pre-determined belief. Even in this climate models case, it's not the most convincing (to me, yet) argument he makes. The 90 models predicted a bunch of different paths, but followed the same slopes, and the results were not outside of the bounds. This means to me there is a factor that most of the models didn't consider or didn't weigh enough, but they were still generally right - and the global temps are still increasing, despite this respite.
It would make sense to me that the deep ocean is possibly temporarily absorbing more of the energy than previously believed, which they mention, and it explains why ocean levels are still rising (does Spencer refute that too - idk?) despite the lower temperatures than expected. The 2014 IPCC report showed there were already extreme precipitation events related to this, and I live in SE Texas, where we just burst through our previous weather event rainfall record - not by 2% or 5%, but by 57% (or 75% depending how you measure)! Nothing like 4 500-year floods in 3 years to convince me that things are changing. There's no dispute humans are contributing greenhouse gases, and most scientists agree (like 97% or so?) that greenhouse gases raise temperatures.
So it still sounds to me like nothing has changed - we should do what we can to immediately "clean up". You'd have to present just a little more refuting information to convince me for this one topic, and then repeat the process for the hundred other topics in the reports IPCC puts out. Until then, I have a risk/reward argument:
What happens if Spencer is right, and 97% of scientists are wrong, but we listen to them anyway? The US invents and produces a bunch of stuff that we can sell to the world, enriching ourselves, and providing clean air for our children. Cancer rates go down and our standard of living goes up.
What happens if Spencer is wrong, everyone else is right, but we trust him anyway? Floods, droughts, disease, food production scarcity since farmlands have to move so much, war, refugees, more war.
Doh, my apologies I missed the beginning of the thread. But the response:
I see the reference shows a graph of a bunch of climate models - predictions starting in 1983. The best fit line I'll guess is around 38 degree incline upward, and I know the prediction is horrible catastrophic consequences in the next 100yrs if it's fulfilled. The actual measurements show a fit line - again I'll guesstimate - around ~23 degrees, less than the ~38. But it's still tracking upwards at ~23 degrees. That's still a huge increase. If it was 1983 and some homeless guy told me he could predict the future, and global temps were going to rise, and then they did, I'd suddenly give the guy my attention. But this graph isn't even a straight line - it winds down a bit, then up, down, up, meanders. The measured temps follow it - exactly lockstep. I now think the homeless guy had traveled back from the future because he NAILED the prediction, albeit got the magnitude a bit off. Then you say no, the graph was made by a bunch of scientists with research and computer models (a few of which were exactly right btw). Now, I'm less impressed - well, sure, that's their job, I'm not surprised they were right. There must be some influence most of their models haven't taken complete account of yet. I'm sure they're working on finding it, but it doesn't discount the huge body of evidence they compiled already. When their dire predictions change, and if that happened I'm sure some scientists would become famous by proving it, then everyone, including myself, will cheer in relief. But the linked blog feels like he's trying to cherry-pick the worst results from others' work to me.
All that said, at least you really did provide some numbers, which is more than most people from the denial side, I do have to commend that.
If they cannot give numbers with a relatively low window of error and fairly high certainty, then their predictions are almost meaningless. You may as well rely on the Farmer's Almanac.
Strat
You have given no numbers, therefore you must have no argument at all. See how that works, and see why your comment isn't great? And if you surprise me with some actual numbers, then I can just say 'those numbers aren't perfect because they're not x significant digits more than the y you gave'. You're making the claim that since the science isn't 100% complete, then we can't take action. There are aspects of gravity at small scales that we don't understand, therefore we must stop believing in gravity! Don't touch that scale, it'll never work!
To be clear, climate change is a life and death situation for many future people. Start counting the dollar cost of massive abnormalities we've been seeing lately, just for comparison. Nobody can tell you they are 100% sure of anything, but the scientists are telling you the error bars are small enough to take action, triple-especially if the consequences of stopping pollution, if it's really an... eyeroll... Chinese hoax, would be that we stop having to breath so much pollution. The risk/reward ratio is worth it to almost every single expert that is familiar with any details, and they've been saying so for 20+ years.
Ya, right on to this too - I've always downgraded to whatever I could afford to live within biking distance of my work, usually in sprawly cities like Houston and Dallas. Again, not only is this good for the big issue, but it's also soooo nice to ditch traffic. Another no-brainer.
I don't know where you're getting information from, but you're so wrong. Starting in the 90's, when the scientists agreed on the size of the problem and that humans were causing it, I immediately said I'd give up on every other issue if we'd just solve it - because it was cheap to do back then! And yes, since then, I've also been pro-nuclear. Other dems haven't argued much with my viewpoint.
They've known it was a practical impossibility from the start. They know that humans will do the same thing they've done every other time climate (or other major events/conditions) change. They will adapt.
Uh, I remember growing up thinking the hole in the ozone was going to make going outside impossible. But government enacted laws and we actually solved the problem. On a global scale. So actually the biggest example of human-caused environmental damage that would have had a huge global affect on us was actually solved by rational actions by politicians. I don't have much faith on our current ones, yet there's no reason to give up hope or stop trying. The discussion you propose will eventually happen anyway, but should happen after we do the easy & safe part - mitigating what we're currently contributing. Granted, I don't see a reason we can't have them both at the same time.
I appreciate the frustration. I was looking for somewhere to post this - there is one solution I heard 15 years ago that had believable realistic calculations, and it was the most guaranteed successful solution - a 3% carbon tax. I bet the % is higher now, but the point is that there are always financial incentives, like the real estate ones you describe, to release carbon. The *only* solution is to change the financial incentives, so people invest in some of the ideas discussed here. And, get this, it doesn't cost us anything. We've seen Germany launch a photovoltaic revolution that spurred their stock market and real estate values. So if no country has a carbon tax, the first country that creates one, even if it's not the 3%, will actually gain money, because we can sell technology and services to others. I know this isn't a direct answer to the point of this story, but I just want to repeat it so everyone is aware. Hopefully some will mention to politicians.
This thread is right on. It's not the silver bullet, but so easy. We don't even have to stop completely, just slight tiny changes. One of the no-brainers. I don't eat beef unless someone buys it for me against my will. Heh, I've saved money, got healthier, and probably reduced the carbon impact of my diet by 70%. I think the numbers say our diet contributes almost 30% of the human-caused carbon.
(paraphrasing multiple comments) I'm sick of people talking about politics, especially nerds that are rewarded for putting time and research into their comments.
Well, I agree it's not the main purpose of the site. But I'll take this discussion over reddit actually, I think the reward system is just better here.
We need some adults in government.
So how do you propose to get adults elected, if you discourage political speech and discussion? Compare this place to the average discussion online or otherwise, include ease-of-access, and remember youtube exists.
I'm glad your not the typical trumpite, with 100% glorious reviews of el commandante, but even with carefully chosen words, I still have to bring inline some reality:
I do not like Trump, but things he is good at:
He is good at picking one word to say about oppeonts that fits well enough for them to get in trouble over it.
Shit-talking. Got it.
He is good at changing the subject - that said, it has gotten harder for him with some of these russia investigation stuff,
More caca from the cabeza, ok.
Sounding honest - i.e many people seem to believe that he says.
Ya, more people believe this president than any other, well, except for... all of them in the last 70 years.
He was reasonably compentent with his companies, in the sense that he could not have won that much more by investing all his money in top 100 stocks, when he started AND got a name out of it.
So he's an average businessman? I could find a lot of numbers to disagree, but I'll give you that. Granted, it doesn't really qualify for "things he's good at."
He seemes to value family highly.
As opposed to all those other politicians who claim to hate family.
He sounded better to enough people than Hillary Clinton.
Popular vo... 20 years of faux... Bah, fine, I'll give you this one too. Final score, pros: "shit-talking" and "more popular than Hilary." Yay. Man, the cons list would take years. Heh, I said 'Con'.
But lately Comcast has been pushing HBO, trying to get subscribers to pony up for the premium channel, citing shows like the new season of Game of Thrones.
I can see their angle here. GOT is huge, and the bigger it is, the more people willing to pay to watch, the easier it is to buy cable. If you rope in a chord-cutter with HBO, and then get them paying for one or two more channels, bundle in some internet, and all of a sudden, customer is thinking why am I paying all these seperate bills that add up to close to regular cable anyway? And now there's a 6 month promotion where I'll actually save money. 6months later, 'ya, I need to cancel, but it's freaking convenient, and I'm lazy.'
They have also spent quite a bit promoting that you can watch Netflix on their X1 platform.
Netflix is no secret - everyone - ev-er-y-one - knows about them. Chord-cutters are leaving, and most are watching Netflix. This keeps some from leaving without informing anyone new about Netflix. Also, see above.
Point being that large companies are actually capable of not violating anti-trust laws
True, I'm not arguing with this part. But I've dealt with Comcast support before, and anyone who has will tell you that they don't really value their customers. They could really use some competition.
they need to be enforced swiftly and with commensurate punishments.
Here's the problem, and why what the Dems are doing is actually a good thing. How easy is it to regulate the deep pockets? It's not, the Reps get the most donations and are blatant about it, but Dems get $ too. So anything is better than nothing, and if you break up the huge companies, it's pushing the line in the right direction, because you can't completely count on regulatory teeth.
Hrm. I'm all for fighting our adversaries, and at least perceptionally, Russia seems to be getting our goat & Isis is doing better than they should. But, I also hope we're doing this right. Anything Trump touches ends up being horribly planned and rushed, bad for common American public, horribly implemented, and eventually all the details get leaked by back-stabbing political underlings. I see Ash Carter and Obama started the Command, and Mattis is pushing it now, so I have hope. And the only thing Trump should do is sign on the dotted line w/out saying a word. I'd like to know the details that have been negotiated recently - at least that they don't unnecessarily intrude on friendly common people's privacy and other rights. And to parent's point - how exactly do military operation rules have more constraints & scrutiny than law enforcement agencies?
You are parroting and perpetuating misinformation.
Well you are probably a perjuring prevaricator, Pashenka.
Really, you do yourself a grave injustice and insult the intelligence of slashdot readers by driveling opinions without a basis of fact.
Eg, you claim there is "zero evidence" to support "Moscow's efforts to meddle in the 2016 American election." Lol, just lol. You made your point without any evidence either, but I'll ignore that (this one time) and respond anyway:
http://www.businessinsider.com...https://www.washingtonpost.com...
At this point, there's just a huge mountain of evidence. To make a claim like "there's no evidence" is obviously a troll/shill, but I just had to respond because your alliteration made me laugh, you sounded so serious, heh, I'm still chuckling.
I'm trying to extrapolate some coherent point from this post. It's difficult, but seems like some common... thoughts... should be addressed:
The liberals were the fascists in the Nazi party (Nazi meaning new socialist)
Where the heck does this come from?? Every single iota of non-biased information I've ever seen points to the opposite. Eg Wikipedia:
the Nazi Party was a far-right political party in Germany
You... are a "climate denier". Notice that none of these ad homonym attacks...
If you deny the scientifically-accepted theory of climate change, then you're a climate denier. It's not ad homonym. (face-palm). It's not ad hominem to accuse someone of a position that they hold.
Slashdot Mirror
Even in Texas, where climate change doesn't exist, cough, "Temperature extremes have far-reaching consequences nationwide. Public health impacts, including mortality, have been well documented"
https://www.dshs.texas.gov/chs...
I saw on Fox, one Officer Barbrady said there's nothing to see here, move along.
But Jaffe reaches an interesting conclusion. "I don't think they're lying. I just think they left something out of the public reveal that would have explained how these numbers work."
So maybe it's Betteridge after all.
-Drinking spirits was more likely than all other drink types to be associated with feelings of aggression, illness, restlessness and tearfulness
Previous science told us it's not the type of alcohol that gives you a worse hangover or has worse affects, but the amount - and almost solely the amount (exactly how close to 100% I don't see that it was ever concluded). But any feeling of difference due to type is only perceived. Eg
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3888958/
Here's an article more repeating what I've heard a million times (including a bartender class):
https://io9.gizmodo.com/do-different-kinds-of-alcohol-get-you-different-kinds-o-482710477
So, if TFA is simply repeating people's answer to a survey, then it doesn't disprove the previous line of thinking, and is actually misleading imo.
People build up tolerance to alcohol over time and can end up drinking more to feel the same "positive" effects that they enjoy.
Again, another thing I thought was against previous studies. You feel the same effects, but "tolerance" is achieved simply because you are used to feeling these affects, and can attempt to act more normal since you expect them and make an effort to do so.
His model not only tracks the historical record - but seems to match the current satellite record as well.
Fine by me, throw it in there with the rest, I hope he's submitted his model and I'd like to see the peer review of the methodologies.
Note that Dr. Spencer is not a "denialist", he's a [scientist that makes his argument with data]
Fair enough. I haven't looked it up yet - how much of his work is published or gone through peer-review? (if you object to that metric, then fine, we can limit the discussion, but it would definitely be more information for me to consider)
he's using the 90 models from the IPCC - not cherry picked at all
That's not what I meant about cherry-picking. I meant he's finding the easiest arguments to make, focusing on data points that aren't as clear. Which I should admit isn't wrong at all as a scientist, but to base a political decision on one point of non-absolute knowledge is cherry-picking in order to reach a pre-determined belief. Even in this climate models case, it's not the most convincing (to me, yet) argument he makes. The 90 models predicted a bunch of different paths, but followed the same slopes, and the results were not outside of the bounds. This means to me there is a factor that most of the models didn't consider or didn't weigh enough, but they were still generally right - and the global temps are still increasing, despite this respite.
It would make sense to me that the deep ocean is possibly temporarily absorbing more of the energy than previously believed, which they mention, and it explains why ocean levels are still rising (does Spencer refute that too - idk?) despite the lower temperatures than expected. The 2014 IPCC report showed there were already extreme precipitation events related to this, and I live in SE Texas, where we just burst through our previous weather event rainfall record - not by 2% or 5%, but by 57% (or 75% depending how you measure)! Nothing like 4 500-year floods in 3 years to convince me that things are changing. There's no dispute humans are contributing greenhouse gases, and most scientists agree (like 97% or so?) that greenhouse gases raise temperatures.
So it still sounds to me like nothing has changed - we should do what we can to immediately "clean up". You'd have to present just a little more refuting information to convince me for this one topic, and then repeat the process for the hundred other topics in the reports IPCC puts out. Until then, I have a risk/reward argument:
What happens if Spencer is right, and 97% of scientists are wrong, but we listen to them anyway? The US invents and produces a bunch of stuff that we can sell to the world, enriching ourselves, and providing clean air for our children. Cancer rates go down and our standard of living goes up.
What happens if Spencer is wrong, everyone else is right, but we trust him anyway? Floods, droughts, disease, food production scarcity since farmlands have to move so much, war, refugees, more war.
--- retracted jokes about the website background and book sales ---
Doh, my apologies I missed the beginning of the thread. But the response:
I see the reference shows a graph of a bunch of climate models - predictions starting in 1983. The best fit line I'll guess is around 38 degree incline upward, and I know the prediction is horrible catastrophic consequences in the next 100yrs if it's fulfilled. The actual measurements show a fit line - again I'll guesstimate - around ~23 degrees, less than the ~38. But it's still tracking upwards at ~23 degrees. That's still a huge increase. If it was 1983 and some homeless guy told me he could predict the future, and global temps were going to rise, and then they did, I'd suddenly give the guy my attention. But this graph isn't even a straight line - it winds down a bit, then up, down, up, meanders. The measured temps follow it - exactly lockstep. I now think the homeless guy had traveled back from the future because he NAILED the prediction, albeit got the magnitude a bit off. Then you say no, the graph was made by a bunch of scientists with research and computer models (a few of which were exactly right btw). Now, I'm less impressed - well, sure, that's their job, I'm not surprised they were right. There must be some influence most of their models haven't taken complete account of yet. I'm sure they're working on finding it, but it doesn't discount the huge body of evidence they compiled already. When their dire predictions change, and if that happened I'm sure some scientists would become famous by proving it, then everyone, including myself, will cheer in relief. But the linked blog feels like he's trying to cherry-pick the worst results from others' work to me.
All that said, at least you really did provide some numbers, which is more than most people from the denial side, I do have to commend that.
If they cannot give numbers with a relatively low window of error and fairly high certainty, then their predictions are almost meaningless. You may as well rely on the Farmer's Almanac.
Strat
You have given no numbers, therefore you must have no argument at all. See how that works, and see why your comment isn't great? And if you surprise me with some actual numbers, then I can just say 'those numbers aren't perfect because they're not x significant digits more than the y you gave'. You're making the claim that since the science isn't 100% complete, then we can't take action. There are aspects of gravity at small scales that we don't understand, therefore we must stop believing in gravity! Don't touch that scale, it'll never work!
... eyeroll ... Chinese hoax, would be that we stop having to breath so much pollution. The risk/reward ratio is worth it to almost every single expert that is familiar with any details, and they've been saying so for 20+ years.
To be clear, climate change is a life and death situation for many future people. Start counting the dollar cost of massive abnormalities we've been seeing lately, just for comparison. Nobody can tell you they are 100% sure of anything, but the scientists are telling you the error bars are small enough to take action, triple-especially if the consequences of stopping pollution, if it's really an
Ya, right on to this too - I've always downgraded to whatever I could afford to live within biking distance of my work, usually in sprawly cities like Houston and Dallas. Again, not only is this good for the big issue, but it's also soooo nice to ditch traffic. Another no-brainer.
Sure, models are simplifications - but in this case the models are off by more than twice their error bars. And they continue to diverge even further.
Sigh. References?
This. I have references. Omg they were so hard to find: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://skepticalscience.com/i...
I don't know where you're getting information from, but you're so wrong. Starting in the 90's, when the scientists agreed on the size of the problem and that humans were causing it, I immediately said I'd give up on every other issue if we'd just solve it - because it was cheap to do back then! And yes, since then, I've also been pro-nuclear. Other dems haven't argued much with my viewpoint.
They've known it was a practical impossibility from the start. They know that humans will do the same thing they've done every other time climate (or other major events/conditions) change. They will adapt.
Uh, I remember growing up thinking the hole in the ozone was going to make going outside impossible. But government enacted laws and we actually solved the problem. On a global scale. So actually the biggest example of human-caused environmental damage that would have had a huge global affect on us was actually solved by rational actions by politicians. I don't have much faith on our current ones, yet there's no reason to give up hope or stop trying. The discussion you propose will eventually happen anyway, but should happen after we do the easy & safe part - mitigating what we're currently contributing. Granted, I don't see a reason we can't have them both at the same time.
I appreciate the frustration. I was looking for somewhere to post this - there is one solution I heard 15 years ago that had believable realistic calculations, and it was the most guaranteed successful solution - a 3% carbon tax. I bet the % is higher now, but the point is that there are always financial incentives, like the real estate ones you describe, to release carbon. The *only* solution is to change the financial incentives, so people invest in some of the ideas discussed here. And, get this, it doesn't cost us anything. We've seen Germany launch a photovoltaic revolution that spurred their stock market and real estate values. So if no country has a carbon tax, the first country that creates one, even if it's not the 3%, will actually gain money, because we can sell technology and services to others. I know this isn't a direct answer to the point of this story, but I just want to repeat it so everyone is aware. Hopefully some will mention to politicians.
This thread is right on. It's not the silver bullet, but so easy. We don't even have to stop completely, just slight tiny changes. One of the no-brainers. I don't eat beef unless someone buys it for me against my will. Heh, I've saved money, got healthier, and probably reduced the carbon impact of my diet by 70%. I think the numbers say our diet contributes almost 30% of the human-caused carbon.
(paraphrasing multiple comments) I'm sick of people talking about politics, especially nerds that are rewarded for putting time and research into their comments.
Well, I agree it's not the main purpose of the site. But I'll take this discussion over reddit actually, I think the reward system is just better here.
We need some adults in government.
So how do you propose to get adults elected, if you discourage political speech and discussion? Compare this place to the average discussion online or otherwise, include ease-of-access, and remember youtube exists.
I do not like Trump, but things he is good at: He is good at picking one word to say about oppeonts that fits well enough for them to get in trouble over it.
Shit-talking. Got it.
He is good at changing the subject - that said, it has gotten harder for him with some of these russia investigation stuff,
More caca from the cabeza, ok.
Sounding honest - i.e many people seem to believe that he says.
Ya, more people believe this president than any other, well, except for ... all of them in the last 70 years.
He was reasonably compentent with his companies, in the sense that he could not have won that much more by investing all his money in top 100 stocks, when he started AND got a name out of it.
So he's an average businessman? I could find a lot of numbers to disagree, but I'll give you that. Granted, it doesn't really qualify for "things he's good at."
He seemes to value family highly.
As opposed to all those other politicians who claim to hate family.
He sounded better to enough people than Hillary Clinton.
Popular vo... 20 years of faux... Bah, fine, I'll give you this one too. Final score, pros: "shit-talking" and "more popular than Hilary." Yay. Man, the cons list would take years. Heh, I said 'Con'.
What happens when this administration is dealing with another country, or sensitive situation, where they do not control many/most of the factors?
Too late, see recent N. Korea progress on nuclear missiles.
But lately Comcast has been pushing HBO, trying to get subscribers to pony up for the premium channel, citing shows like the new season of Game of Thrones.
I can see their angle here. GOT is huge, and the bigger it is, the more people willing to pay to watch, the easier it is to buy cable. If you rope in a chord-cutter with HBO, and then get them paying for one or two more channels, bundle in some internet, and all of a sudden, customer is thinking why am I paying all these seperate bills that add up to close to regular cable anyway? And now there's a 6 month promotion where I'll actually save money. 6months later, 'ya, I need to cancel, but it's freaking convenient, and I'm lazy.'
They have also spent quite a bit promoting that you can watch Netflix on their X1 platform.
Netflix is no secret - everyone - ev-er-y-one - knows about them. Chord-cutters are leaving, and most are watching Netflix. This keeps some from leaving without informing anyone new about Netflix. Also, see above.
Point being that large companies are actually capable of not violating anti-trust laws
True, I'm not arguing with this part. But I've dealt with Comcast support before, and anyone who has will tell you that they don't really value their customers. They could really use some competition.
they need to be enforced swiftly and with commensurate punishments.
Here's the problem, and why what the Dems are doing is actually a good thing. How easy is it to regulate the deep pockets? It's not, the Reps get the most donations and are blatant about it, but Dems get $ too. So anything is better than nothing, and if you break up the huge companies, it's pushing the line in the right direction, because you can't completely count on regulatory teeth.
More than 1,000 vendors say their products employ AI, but many are "applying the AI label a little too indiscriminately,"
/me updates resume - Acrimonious "AI" Howard
Hrm. I'm all for fighting our adversaries, and at least perceptionally, Russia seems to be getting our goat & Isis is doing better than they should. But, I also hope we're doing this right. Anything Trump touches ends up being horribly planned and rushed, bad for common American public, horribly implemented, and eventually all the details get leaked by back-stabbing political underlings. I see Ash Carter and Obama started the Command, and Mattis is pushing it now, so I have hope. And the only thing Trump should do is sign on the dotted line w/out saying a word. I'd like to know the details that have been negotiated recently - at least that they don't unnecessarily intrude on friendly common people's privacy and other rights. And to parent's point - how exactly do military operation rules have more constraints & scrutiny than law enforcement agencies?
He'll fix everything with THE cyber.
FTFY
You are parroting and perpetuating misinformation.
Well you are probably a perjuring prevaricator, Pashenka.
Really, you do yourself a grave injustice and insult the intelligence of slashdot readers by driveling opinions without a basis of fact.
Eg, you claim there is "zero evidence" to support "Moscow's efforts to meddle in the 2016 American election." Lol, just lol. You made your point without any evidence either, but I'll ignore that (this one time) and respond anyway: http://www.businessinsider.com... https://www.washingtonpost.com...
At this point, there's just a huge mountain of evidence. To make a claim like "there's no evidence" is obviously a troll/shill, but I just had to respond because your alliteration made me laugh, you sounded so serious, heh, I'm still chuckling.
Wow, since when have vehement posts on slashdot been spot on?
The liberals were the fascists in the Nazi party (Nazi meaning new socialist)
Where the heck does this come from?? Every single iota of non-biased information I've ever seen points to the opposite. Eg Wikipedia:
the Nazi Party was a far-right political party in Germany
You ... are a "climate denier". Notice that none of these ad homonym attacks...
If you deny the scientifically-accepted theory of climate change, then you're a climate denier. It's not ad homonym. (face-palm). It's not ad hominem to accuse someone of a position that they hold.