99% of people and researchers who saw this research would use it for good, or would try to. Unfortunately, the true ratio is irrelevant. Out of the billions of people on earth, all it would take is one competent person who wanted (for whatever reason) to wreak real havoc.
If the virus in question maintained the lethality that H5N1 has displayed in bird-to-human transmission, you're literally looking at billions of lives at risk.
This is one of the most relevant comments on this entire story (though Wikipedia puts the current human mortality figure at around 60%).
No, we don't want to censor information. But we DO, in certain cases.
No, in general it's not good for society if scientific information is withheld. But if this baby gets out, would we still HAVE a society? This is truly a nightmare scenario: a virus with mortality rates comparable to ebola, as transmissible as the common flu.
I truly do understand the arguments for putting information out there. But think for a moment about what happens if a suicidal person gets ahold of this, or a religious zealot who thinks it won't affect him or his flock, or some other nut who believes it won't affect him or that society is too sick to go on, etc., etc. All it would take is one.
We're not talking about someone grabbing a high powered rifle and gunning down a few people in a public square (as bad as that can be). We're talking potentially billions dead.
It is the freakin' Middle East, everybody has guns. I see this comment and other versions of it posted around here and other forums by guys with a pretty recent UID. Could there be some spreading of misinformation going on from the powers-that-be that don't want this video out?
Does it make you feel better if you hear it from me?
Not saying I necessarily agree that the incident was justified -- just that I don't think it's necessarily cut-and-dry.
The Founders were pretty darned progressive in their day:) Folks like you, by contrast, were generally siding with His Majesty.
I'm glad you appreciate the simplicity, by the way. Conservatives have been trying to stuff the Constitution with a bunch of trivial laws (e.g. an amendment against flag-burning) for a while. Maybe your comment indicates they've finally seen the folly of this, and they'll join with progressives in recognizing the purpose of the Constitution for what it is: the basic, highest-level framework for the U.S.' system.
However, since you're such a defender of the Big C, I'm a bit puzzled as to why you'd be against government schools (clearly, something nearly demanded by the grant of authority to Congress for "promoting the general welfare").
Yes, you should.
And part of "putting the well being of your patient" first is making sure what you're doing will actually help. Throwing crap against the wall in the name of doing something doesn't qualify.
That's where clean data and studies come in.
Breakers have their limits, depending on design and what hits them. Most main home breakers can't even stop a direct lightning strike, for example:
http://llss.mrsellc.com/
I also have degrees (Bachelors and Masters) in Electrical Engineering. While I didn't specialize in power electrical systems, we certainly were exposed to them. I agree with the poster above. One does not simply "rewind" the transformers in question as one would change brake pads; nor would the existing breakers address the problem in many cases.
Disruptions of the type and scale being discussed are a very serious problem, and the solutions being thrown around above won't cut it at this point.
Yeah. Funny how, when lies like that are called out, so often the fallback is "I was just kidding!"
The trouble is, the "joke" perpetuates a false notion. Funny or not, it's not true, it's not fair and it really needs to stop.
You know, I'll admit that I don't spend a whole lot of time these days debating global warming deniers, so I'm a bit taken aback at how amazingly unskeptical they seem to be of anything that support their "position," no matter how unsavory and disreputable the source. Then again, this is a classic wingnut characteristic, and many of the same folks occupy the two camps, so perhaps I shouldn't be.
My goodness. When I said you should have fact-checked your article before you posted, even I didn't realize how embarrassingly bad it would get for you.
It's plain the article you posted didn't just get things wrong: it's an out-and-out libel. Perhaps you'd care to salvage a little bit of your credibility by admitting it?
Funny, though, that someone so easily taken in by simplistic propaganda should be asking anyone "do you really believe that."
Here's more for your reading pleasure:
Had you bothered to do the most basic of research and fact-checking on the article you linked, you likely would have been too embarrassed to post it. At least, I'd like to think so. Then again, why let facts get in the way of the agenda, huh?
I'll let your non-response speak for itself. You see, my friend, you aren't the audience. Our illustrious lurkers are the audience. And IMHO you're not winning any converts.
There will always be people like yourself who aren't interested in what the science actually says, and put the success of your obscure theory of government and extreme ideology before the welfare of actual people. That's sad, but it's no big deal, because there are more people who DO give a damn about real people and real problems. You'll hurt people in the short run, but in the long run, you've already lost.
So, as I said before, folks such as you can rage on the fringes, and will be remembered as the flat-earthers you are.
What a pity you evidently didn't even bother to read the first link.
But I suppose it's par for the course. Most "climate change skeptics" aren't remotely interested in the science or accurate evaluation of facts. They're interested in the politics, and they care about opposing whatever their leaders tell them liberals care about.
The real world has a way of catching up with you. You cannot wish or "email-gate" away shrinking glaciers and rising sea levels. And all the bloviations of all the pundits in the world can't change the fact of real damage, in lives and treasure, resulting from AGW.
Which is why, while you may be able to make noise for a while and have people listen to you, it won't be long before you're left in the "dustbin of history".
It's just too bad that you're going to hurt so many people along the way.
Boy, it's hard to take a lecture on what constitutes "trollish behavior" from someone who hides behind anonymity.
Frankly, while I'm not unsympathetic toward the obvious effort you put into constructing such a wordy, yet nonsensical rebuttal, I'm afraid it doesn't really make the grade. Case in point: my post above wasn't intended to be a scientific treatise. It doesn't necessarily follow that it was worthy of a troll rating. And it was in response to the obvious hypocrisy of the troll ratings that I called a spade a spade, not the other way around.
As for political discourse...my friend, I've been arguing politics online for a very long time--since the days when Usenet was the primary medium. I do not fear referring to the various variety of wingnuts by their proper names.
But if you really want to be scientific about it, perhaps you'd care to prove your assertion that
...it was indeed scientists who revised what they had been calling global warming since they realized that 'global warming' wasn't an accurate description of what they were seeing. Regardless of your POV here, that's a fact that nobody in their right mind is going to deny, especially since the scientists now refer to it as 'change' not 'warming'.
"Climate Change" is a general term, and my recollection is that skeptics have been using it for years instead of "global warming" to make it seem as though humans aren't involved. Since you seem to know climate scientists started using the term because they saw data contrary to the notion of global warming--and your knowledge is supposedly plain for all to see--it should be simple to prove-- with citations.
So, let's see...here you teabaggin' yahoos are complaining, on the basis of Glenn-Beck-interpreted email hacks, about how climate scientists are supposedly manipulating data and suppressing stuff that agrees with you, and in lieu of actually responding to what I wrote, you try to hide it with troll ratings.
Speaks volumes, really.
Interesting revisionism. I'm pretty sure "climate change" was a term invented by denialists, not scientists.
As for global cooling, well, either you have a really good memory or you've been listening to people really intent on spreading the crap. "Global cooling" was an early conjecture by a minority of scientists back in the 70's. Scientists haven't found that theory supportable for a long time. In fact, scientists at the time didn't really back it then, either.
Even if they had, though, why scientists first getting things wrong should be grounds for doubting everything now is beyond me. As I recall, we didn't nail the germ theory of disease right off the bat, too--yet I'll bet you take your antibiotics.
History will not be kind to the memory of folks like you. Of course, you won't be around to care. Your kids will, though.
I've read them. Your characterization is literally full of crap.
The propaganda win coming out of that computer crime sure has revved you guys up, though.
Slashdot Mirror
99% of people and researchers who saw this research would use it for good, or would try to. Unfortunately, the true ratio is irrelevant. Out of the billions of people on earth, all it would take is one competent person who wanted (for whatever reason) to wreak real havoc. If the virus in question maintained the lethality that H5N1 has displayed in bird-to-human transmission, you're literally looking at billions of lives at risk.
This is one of the most relevant comments on this entire story (though Wikipedia puts the current human mortality figure at around 60%).
No, we don't want to censor information. But we DO, in certain cases.
No, in general it's not good for society if scientific information is withheld. But if this baby gets out, would we still HAVE a society? This is truly a nightmare scenario: a virus with mortality rates comparable to ebola, as transmissible as the common flu.
I truly do understand the arguments for putting information out there. But think for a moment about what happens if a suicidal person gets ahold of this, or a religious zealot who thinks it won't affect him or his flock, or some other nut who believes it won't affect him or that society is too sick to go on, etc., etc. All it would take is one.
We're not talking about someone grabbing a high powered rifle and gunning down a few people in a public square (as bad as that can be). We're talking potentially billions dead.
Does it make you feel better if you hear it from me? Not saying I necessarily agree that the incident was justified -- just that I don't think it's necessarily cut-and-dry.
That seems to be the point. Either that, or it's an exercise in mental and moral gymnastics.
The Founders were pretty darned progressive in their day :) Folks like you, by contrast, were generally siding with His Majesty.
I'm glad you appreciate the simplicity, by the way. Conservatives have been trying to stuff the Constitution with a bunch of trivial laws (e.g. an amendment against flag-burning) for a while. Maybe your comment indicates they've finally seen the folly of this, and they'll join with progressives in recognizing the purpose of the Constitution for what it is: the basic, highest-level framework for the U.S.' system.
However, since you're such a defender of the Big C, I'm a bit puzzled as to why you'd be against government schools (clearly, something nearly demanded by the grant of authority to Congress for "promoting the general welfare").
You should get right on that.
Yes, you should. And part of "putting the well being of your patient" first is making sure what you're doing will actually help. Throwing crap against the wall in the name of doing something doesn't qualify. That's where clean data and studies come in.
Breakers have their limits, depending on design and what hits them. Most main home breakers can't even stop a direct lightning strike, for example: http://llss.mrsellc.com/
The transformers in question are huge, industrial pieces of equipment. It takes more than "a dowel and copper wire" to repair them :)
I also have degrees (Bachelors and Masters) in Electrical Engineering. While I didn't specialize in power electrical systems, we certainly were exposed to them. I agree with the poster above. One does not simply "rewind" the transformers in question as one would change brake pads; nor would the existing breakers address the problem in many cases.
Disruptions of the type and scale being discussed are a very serious problem, and the solutions being thrown around above won't cut it at this point.
Yeah. Funny how, when lies like that are called out, so often the fallback is "I was just kidding!" The trouble is, the "joke" perpetuates a false notion. Funny or not, it's not true, it's not fair and it really needs to stop.
Amazingly, it gets worse:
http://mediamatters.org/research/201002150015
You know, I'll admit that I don't spend a whole lot of time these days debating global warming deniers, so I'm a bit taken aback at how amazingly unskeptical they seem to be of anything that support their "position," no matter how unsavory and disreputable the source. Then again, this is a classic wingnut characteristic, and many of the same folks occupy the two camps, so perhaps I shouldn't be.
My goodness. When I said you should have fact-checked your article before you posted, even I didn't realize how embarrassingly bad it would get for you.
Media Matters just eviscerated your article:
http://mediamatters.org/research/201002150015
It's plain the article you posted didn't just get things wrong: it's an out-and-out libel. Perhaps you'd care to salvage a little bit of your credibility by admitting it?
My God, man, did you even bother to do the most basic of fact-checking on the Daily Mail article?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/daily-mangle/
How incredibly embarrassing for you.
Don't take my word for it. Spend a little time on mediamatters.org. They debunk the claims about the emails quite nicely.
Or, if you lack the courage to visit that fine site, try factcheck.org.
Policies are changed one person at a time.
Funny, though, that someone so easily taken in by simplistic propaganda should be asking anyone "do you really believe that." Here's more for your reading pleasure:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/daily-mangle/
It's a direct takedown of your article.
Had you bothered to do the most basic of research and fact-checking on the article you linked, you likely would have been too embarrassed to post it. At least, I'd like to think so. Then again, why let facts get in the way of the agenda, huh?
I'll let your non-response speak for itself. You see, my friend, you aren't the audience. Our illustrious lurkers are the audience. And IMHO you're not winning any converts.
There will always be people like yourself who aren't interested in what the science actually says, and put the success of your obscure theory of government and extreme ideology before the welfare of actual people. That's sad, but it's no big deal, because there are more people who DO give a damn about real people and real problems. You'll hurt people in the short run, but in the long run, you've already lost.
So, as I said before, folks such as you can rage on the fringes, and will be remembered as the flat-earthers you are.
What a pity you evidently didn't even bother to read the first link.
But I suppose it's par for the course. Most "climate change skeptics" aren't remotely interested in the science or accurate evaluation of facts. They're interested in the politics, and they care about opposing whatever their leaders tell them liberals care about.
The real world has a way of catching up with you. You cannot wish or "email-gate" away shrinking glaciers and rising sea levels. And all the bloviations of all the pundits in the world can't change the fact of real damage, in lives and treasure, resulting from AGW.
Which is why, while you may be able to make noise for a while and have people listen to you, it won't be long before you're left in the "dustbin of history".
It's just too bad that you're going to hurt so many people along the way.
Frankly, while I'm not unsympathetic toward the obvious effort you put into constructing such a wordy, yet nonsensical rebuttal, I'm afraid it doesn't really make the grade. Case in point: my post above wasn't intended to be a scientific treatise. It doesn't necessarily follow that it was worthy of a troll rating. And it was in response to the obvious hypocrisy of the troll ratings that I called a spade a spade, not the other way around.
As for political discourse...my friend, I've been arguing politics online for a very long time--since the days when Usenet was the primary medium. I do not fear referring to the various variety of wingnuts by their proper names.
But if you really want to be scientific about it, perhaps you'd care to prove your assertion that
"Climate Change" is a general term, and my recollection is that skeptics have been using it for years instead of "global warming" to make it seem as though humans aren't involved. Since you seem to know climate scientists started using the term because they saw data contrary to the notion of global warming--and your knowledge is supposedly plain for all to see--it should be simple to prove-- with citations.
So, let's see...here you teabaggin' yahoos are complaining, on the basis of Glenn-Beck-interpreted email hacks, about how climate scientists are supposedly manipulating data and suppressing stuff that agrees with you, and in lieu of actually responding to what I wrote, you try to hide it with troll ratings. Speaks volumes, really.
Interesting revisionism. I'm pretty sure "climate change" was a term invented by denialists, not scientists.
As for global cooling, well, either you have a really good memory or you've been listening to people really intent on spreading the crap. "Global cooling" was an early conjecture by a minority of scientists back in the 70's. Scientists haven't found that theory supportable for a long time. In fact, scientists at the time didn't really back it then, either.
Even if they had, though, why scientists first getting things wrong should be grounds for doubting everything now is beyond me. As I recall, we didn't nail the germ theory of disease right off the bat, too--yet I'll bet you take your antibiotics.
History will not be kind to the memory of folks like you. Of course, you won't be around to care. Your kids will, though.
Little quick on the draw there, trigger. Read the two posts above you. We'll await your mea culpa.
Pure gold :)
I've read them. Your characterization is literally full of crap. The propaganda win coming out of that computer crime sure has revved you guys up, though.
Which is, surprisingly, a part of the EU.