It is fortunate that fraud (or incompetence) like this never occurs in other areas. For example think of the implications of this happening in Climate Science papers and studies. Luckily we can trust those implicitly, especially the model based ones.
Because when confronted with the evidence that 90/5,067 studies in one field (likely) contain fabricated data the obvious implication is that an entire field is fabricated?
Your conspiracy theory seems to be missing a few steps.
So we go from "they hacked us" to "they tried to hack us"? Not quite the same accusation.
No one has ever said they actually hacked voting machines or IT infrastructure related with the actual conducting of the election. There have however, been persistent rumours that Russia had attempted, but failed, to hack those things. This is the first evidence we've seen that those rumours were true.
You seem to be conflating those rumours of attempted hacks of election infrastructure with far more publicized claims that Russia hacked the DNC, RNC, and gained access via phishing to John Podesta's emails.
The part where there is no enforcement, no requirement to do what was promised, and the 1.2 trillion dollar cost over 20 years to pay other countries to pretend that they are doing something.
Well lucky for you there was no enforcement or requirement to do what was promised.
So if the US felt like the other countries weren't doing anything you could simply not pay them.
And when the left wants to smoke weed, they suddenly remember states' rights and the 10th Amendment, but when they don't like what the local board of education is doing or don't like that people are allowed to own and carry firearms, that memory fades into a cloud of pipe smoke.
Both sides do plenty of picking and choosing about when and where they respect the rights of states. Conservatives tend to more frequently side with states' rights over the Federal government because that fits with their fundamental principles, but obviously isn't applied in all cases. Let's be honest about the fact that nobody is 100% consistent with their principles in all cases, though that doesn't mean we shouldn't point out hypocrisy. Just don't get too holier-than-thou about it.
They vacillate on states' rights because no one really cares about states' rights, giving priority to one government level over another is hardly a fundamental political belief.
The US Federal Government's most common conflicts with the states come up when the Federal Government want's to introduce a new program or protect an ethnic or sexual minority, both things the right tends to oppose.
Therefore, the right tends to side with state's rights more often.
India specifically gets US dollars to fund it's green industry pretty much forever. China gets to keep uping emissions for 13 years and then the US pays them to use green energy that they are already building. Russia just gets to ignore the entire thing.
Several other 3rd world countries also gets US dollars but not as bad as the above. It was a horrible accord that only an idiot would sign *John Kerry*
So what part do you disagree with?
1) The part that global warming is a real and serious problem.
Or 2) the part where the US helps other countries reduce their emissions, as a result of the US being one of the nations most responsible for the problem, who benefited the most from prior emissions, and who is most capable of dealing with the problem.
I think #1 is quite true, and once you accept #1 then #2 makes a lot of sense as well. For all the talk of cash transfers to 3rd world countries many on the right seem to think the only "fair" way to deal with global warming is for the West to keep living like kings while the developing world goes pre-industrial.
Don't give the left legal weed, they never supported it, still don't.
Legal weed is a libertarian success. Simple as that.
Uhhh... what?
Libertarians generally support legalization true... but they're fairly anemic as a political force in the US. They generally just make a bit of noise during the GOP Primaries when some form of libertarian pops up and takes a chunk of the base with them for a few months.
Liberals also generally support legalization, and they're a much stronger political force.
Legal weed without Liberal support is just another fringe idea.
Legal weed without Libertarian support is still a plausible outcome.
And lets not forget, they were searching the unallocated space on the hard drive. There is absolutely no reason to do this unless you are searching for deleted data.
I did mention in a follow-up comment that in this case there was a phone call from Best Buy aslomg whether they should try to recover data, and the customer responded yes.
The records also show that Rettenmaier signed a form when he first handed over the computer, stating that any child pornography found by Geek Squad technicians will be reported to the authorities. When a technician called Rettenmaier to ask him if he wanted his data restored, including pictures, Rettenmaier said yes on a recorded call.
There is something that doesn't quite make sense. Presumably if the Doctor knew he had kiddie porn on his computer, there is a bit of a disconnect that he would sign that form. As well, unless he was insane, why would he consent to BB recovering any data? He would know he had illegal shit on the computer, but said in effect. "Yeah, I know you're going to find that stuff and report it to the feds, but YOLO, LOL!" Something doesn't add up here.
I can think of 4 possibilities.
a) He didn't realize the technician would actually view the recovered photos. b) He had deleted the photos, and didn't realize recovering data might include files he'd deleted on purpose. c) Who reads those forms? He probably thought the technician would treat any photos he found as confidential. d) People doing stupid things that don't make sense is a very regular occurrence.
But poking around a hard drive is a legitimate part of fixing a computer, and if they inform on criminal activity they've observed as part of their normal activities they're informants.
Unless the customer is asking for recovery of deleted files, please explain the reason for looking for files in unallocated space while performing maintenance.
FTA:
The case began in November 2011 when Rettenmaier, a gynecologic oncologist, took his desktop computer to a Best Buy in Mission Viejo, Calif., because it wouldn’t boot up. The technicians there were able to fix that problem, but not recover Rettenmaier’s data. Court records show that Best Buy sends all of its data recovery jobs to Geek Squad City in Brooks, Ky., outside of Louisville.
The records also show that Rettenmaier signed a form when he first handed over the computer, stating that any child pornography found by Geek Squad technicians will be reported to the authorities. When a technician called Rettenmaier to ask him if he wanted his data restored, including pictures, Rettenmaier said yes on a recorded call. In general, searches performed by private entities do not require a search warrant — only government searches do.
I'm not saying I agree the technician was acting as an informant, but there's legitimate ambiguities at work.
I'm sure the Chinese are thrilled to be leading the rest of the world as the US withdraws into isolation.
China has over a billion people and a fragile economy, they're not trying to reduce admissions because they want to be a world leader. They're trying to reduce admissions because they're terrified that global warming is going to cause chaos and destabilize their country.
The revenue can be used to foster growth in an equitable way, by returning the revenue as household rebates, supporting poorer sections of the population, managing transitional changes, investing in low-carbon infrastructure, and fostering technological change
The report doesn't mention how sucking four trillion dollars out of the economy actually impacts the climate in any way.
Looks like wealth redistribution to me.
The first line of the news article: A global carbon tax that would raise trillions of dollars if applied across the world should be introduced if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change
further in the article, quoting from the report.
“The revenue can be used to foster growth in an equitable way, by returning the revenue as household rebates, supporting poorer sections of the population, managing transitional changes, investing in low-carbon infrastructure, and fostering technological change,” they said.
From the preamble of the executive summary in the report, just to emphasize the absurdity of you citing a report that explicitly says it ignores climate impacts!!
This report does not focus on the estimation and evaluation of the climate change impacts that would be avoided by reducing carbon emissions.
And the second point of the executive summary where the report still talks briefly about the impacts you claim it didn't:
Carbon prices are intended to incentivize the changes needed in investment, production, and consumption patterns, and to induce the kind of technological progress that can bring down future abatement costs.
They sure don't make denialists like they used to, you can't even cherry pick evidence right!!
Since this was an active program by the FBI to recruit and pay on piecework basis for material found that was illegal, the Best Buy workers were no longer working for Best Buy with regards to this action and were effectively working for the FBI in a sort of deputized role. As such the terms of conditions by Best Buy should not apply, and since they are effectively contract workers for the FBI -- they should have required warrants. Thus the evidence should be thrown out.
Yeah, I'm kinda shocked the judge (seemingly) allowed this though I can see the reasoning they probably used.
Basically the Best Buy employees would be acting as deputies if they were doing something they wouldn't normally do in the course of their job. For instance, if you were paying for them to repair your computer at your house, and they used the opportunity to snoop through your drawers and report that to the FBI. Then that would be a 4th amendment violation.
But poking around a hard drive is a legitimate part of fixing a computer, and if they inform on criminal activity they've observed as part of their normal activities they're informants.
This seems to be part of the argument that was going on in the trial:
But Carney said the image found in Kentucky was not pornographic, that the FBI did not disclose that image was found in “unallocated space” on Rettenmaier’s hard drive, and that the FBI misstated how many times they searched the hard drive before applying for a warrant
[...]
Riddet argued that the fact that Geek Squad technicians were exploring Rettenmaier’s “unallocated space” was evidence they were going beyond standard data recovery in an attempt to assist the FBI. Carney rejected that argument. The technician testified that he was simply trying to recover all of the customer’s photos, wherever they might be.
My totally uneducated legal analysis is that: 1) The defendant argued that searching unallocated space meant the Best Buy employee was acting as a government employee, not an informant. 2) The judge rejected this, thinking that the technician was searching for legitimate repair reasons and was therefore not performing a search. 3) The FBI might have been worried about #1 and so didn't mention it on the warrant (or they just screwed up). 4) The judge threw out the warrant because of #3.
No one ever got harmed when I drank and drove, either.
That's... a terrible metaphor.
We ban drinking and driving, we also ban men (who identify as men) going into women's facilities, especially men looking to do creepy sexual things. By the logic you apply to bathrooms we'd need to ban alcohol because it make it more likely people will drink and drive.
Hell, most likely he was a pervert who heard all the right wing pundits saying perverts were allowed in change rooms now so he decided to give it a try and failed!
No need for right-wing pundits: it's the first thing that I -- and many other men I know -- knew would happen.
And then endlessly advertised. Men pretending to be transgender to creep in washrooms is an extremely rare problem, before and after!
"those who identify as men and those who identify as women."
And how do you enforce that?
Do you really think guys going to go around falsely claiming to be a transgendered woman is going to be a big problem?
It was a busy time at Evans Pool around 5:30pm Monday February 8. The pool was open for lap swim. According to Seattle Parks and Recreation, a man wearing board shorts entered the women's locker room and took off his shirt. Women alerted staff, who told the man to leave, but he said "the law has changed and I have a right to be here."
the man returned a second time while young girls were changing for swim practice.
Creepy but no one got harmed. And, almost certainly not a transgendered person. Hell, most likely he was a pervert who heard all the right wing pundits saying perverts were allowed in change rooms now so he decided to give it a try and failed!
The University of Toronto (U of T) is temporarily changing its policy on gender-neutral bathrooms after two reports of voyeurism in a student residence.
Gender-neutral is something quite different.
In fact, you should really be more careful with your citations as you seem to have an unfortunate habit of excluding a critical paragraph that undercuts your entire point.
Melinda Scott, dean of students at University College, told campus newspaper The Varsity that some washrooms in the college's residences will now be separated by gender for "those who identify as men and those who identify as women."
"At the same time, there remains at least one gender-neutral washroom per floor and per house,” Scott said.
“The purpose of this temporary measure is to provide a safe space for the women who have been directly impacted by these events and other students who may feel more comfortable in a single-gender washroom in the wake of these incidents."
ie, the remedy to this voyeur was the exact policy you're arguing against!!
Many of the protesters, like my roommate, were paid and had professionals help coordinate their actions, so why would it be illegal for the other side to do the same.
Basically, the messages are: first, yes, Russia has meddled in, and there are links between them and Trump. But it's nothing new, Russia's always tried to destabilize Western democracies and undermine their credibility, including by supporting political crackpots there. This time the crackpots won the election.
There are a few differences this time: 1) Russia seems to have had significant influence with several people in the crackpot's administration, and that influence seems to have been translated into proposed policy.
2) Several members of the crackpot's campaign were having unusual communications with the Russians, and may have been colluding in Russian interference.
3) Russia may have significant leverage over the main crackpot himself.
None of these may be true, but there's more than enough evidence to warrant investigation.
Second, the media frenzy about this is being played up because it's seemingly the only scandal that riles people enough that the Republican majority in Congress might have to take notice, instead of looking the other way as they did with all the other documented lies. So Trump opponents are playing this specific card.
Russia having direct influence in the White House is a pretty damn big deal. I don't think the media is going overboard with its focus.
But, third, there's probably nothing concrete enough there to warrant a successful impeachment. And this is beginning to border on speculation and conspiracy-theory thinking, in other words using some of Trump's foul tactics against him in the unlikely hope of getting rid of him. Bad precedent.
As I said, there's a lot of real evidence in play. And being a lying incompetent President isn't an impeachable offence, conspiring with Russia is.
So, fourth, not only it won't work, it's drowning out more urgent and serious issues: dismantling healthcare, crippling budget cuts everywhere but in the military, hurting government agencies. If more attention was focused on them instead, sure, it would be even less likely to cause Trump's demise, but it would mitigate the damage, as it did for the Muslim travel ban.
This is a very valid point, the focus on Trump's scandals allow the rest of his administration (and the GOP legislators) to get away with some astoundingly outrageous things. I'm honestly not sure what their plan is in some cases, I mean WTF are they thinking with health care? Have they even considered what would happen if their bill became law?
There are two things I'm really curious about with this.
1) What are the real impacts of the die-offs? ie are is the total stock of bees going into decline or are beekeepers needed to put in overtime in order to breed replacement stock.
2) What's the cause of the decline in the decline? It looks like the loss has been slowly levelling off over the past few years, 30-40% is pretty drastic, is this evidence that they've evolving some kind of resistance to whatever is happening?
However this is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
We need good intelligence, and some of it needs to be kept secret. However the trend is to classify stuff that shouldn't need to be classified, just because it is easier to classify then have it public.
With the leaks, what bothers me more isn't the stuff that got leaked out, most of it is fairly common knowledge, it just confirms what we already know. The real problem is why is such mundane stuff classified?
Have you ever disclosed your real identity on/.?
Now assume I go through your posting history and read every comment, and that I start searching the Internet for other comments made under the same username, or people using the same phrases on other forums.
How confident are you that I couldn't uncover your real identity?
Give an intelligence agency a bunch of mundane stuff and some confirmed rumours and they'll figure out a lot of things they weren't supposed to know.
if you actually look at the graph, it was falling prior to the election at almost the same rate, you know the time frame when we were 98% sure hillary was going to win. so lets not try and put this on trump. i know thats the popular thing to do but seriously. this is a non story
It should be noted there's also seasonal variation, the drop from Sept-Oct and flat-line through November is consistent with Summer ending and school starting.
The subsequent post-November drop doesn't seem to be what you'd expect based on seasonal variation, though we'd need to see a comparison to prior years to really be sure.
if you actually look at the graph, it was falling prior to the election at almost the same rate, you know the time frame when we were 98% sure hillary was going to win. so lets not try and put this on trump. i know thats the popular thing to do but seriously. this is a non story
Even when we thought Hillary would win we were still appalled by the fact that Trump was not only nominated, but that he was making it an actual race.
For all his celebrity Trump is terrible marketing for the US.
We've also found life in every environment we've looked, no matter how inhospitable it seems. Life lives everywhere it can't.
Really? We've found life on Mars, the Moon, Venus?
Or rather, you mean we've found life on earth, rather, we've found that life, that evolved under fairly specific conditions on earth, has now spread to a much wider range of environments
And intelligence is such a generic trick that it has independently evolved multiple times on earth.
Has it? I wasn't aware that complex nervous systems evolved multiple times.
That's a silly question. The entire universe is setup so life can evolve - it's the inverse of the anthropic principle though - life exists BECAUSE that is the kind of universe this is. But to assume that only once did that universal set of coincidences succeed is to bet on impossible odds. It smacks of religiosity.
Huh? The fact that the universe supports life does not mean that life is likely to arise, nor that multi-cellular life is likely to arise from single-cellular life.
Claiming that a second instance must be an extraordinary claim is the most extraordinary claim imaginable.
No, because a single instance is consistent with life being an extremely rare phenomena, two instances suggests it's fairly common. That is the extraordinary claim for which we lack evidence.
Forget the Fermi paradox, it's idiotic. The biggest stain on the man's career.
I'm sorry, but you're out to lunch with this one. The Fermi paradox is both easily understood and extremely relevant.
For starters - the 'paradox' may not even be true - who says we HAVEN'T found a signal from another civilization ? Odds are if we did we wouldn't have known it - because the chances that their methods of communication are even recognizable as such by us are vanishingly small. Communication develops from biology - we have no reason to assume that another civilization would have senses like hearing or sight or if they do that their communication would be based on that. This being the case for most (not all) earthbound species is a result of the specific conditions on earth favoring them in evolution - nothing about that can be extrapolated. A civilization far more advanced than us could communicate entirely by pheromones - or some process we've never encountered or imagined.
WTF? Can you see or hear radio waves? Communication is dictated by physics, even if they did communicate by scent they would need something like radio waves to transmit that scent over a long distance.
Now, it's possible that a) light waves are totally passe and advanced civilizations use some other sort of advanced communication technology that we can't detect, and b) all of the civilizations have decided not to blab signals our way, and/or we're under some kind of prime directive galactic blackout.
But those are grasping for straws, the conclusion that makes the fewest assumptions is that we're not hearing galactic radio because there is none.
More-over - if this is a Dyson sphere they did NOT happen 'at the same time' - that star is 1300 light years away. That means what we're seeing now was 1300 years ago. There are plenty of starts within 10 light years of us - do you really think we'd head to somewhere 1300 light years away before we do those ?
The universe is 13.8 billion years old.
1300 years IS "at the same time".
Hell, if we're looking at the midpoint of a 10 million year old project it is "at the same time".
And for all you know - they ARE our ancestors. Cosmic seeding is a legitimate hypotheses.
Legitimate, but you still have insufficient evidence to make such a claim.
Its not an extraordinary claim bevause we already have absolute proof that life can and do exist in this universe.
Our not finding it is likely more of a testament to how limited our looking is tgan to life's abundance. The evidence from earth us life lives everywhere it can't
We have a single instance of intelligent life, some hints that single cellular life is fairly common, and that's it. Throw in the many-worlds hypothesis and multi-cellular life culminating in intelligence may be an event that occurs with a frequency of much less than once per universe, we simply don't have the data to make a meaningful prediction. Claiming a second instance is a very extraordinary claim.
More than that, a civilization capable of building a Dyson sphere in visual range would bring up a lot of awkward questions concerning the Fermi paradox. Why didn't they shoot off seed ships to every surrounding system? Did we just happen to pop up in the same cosmic instant as they finished that structure but before they expanded?
We haven't reached critical mass yet, but once enough people only use cell phones for communication the floodgates will be opened.
Cellphones were on par with landlines in 2014. I'm sure they're a healthy majority now.
Either way, I can think of few things more obnoxious than prerecorded voicemails. It's bad enough I don't even know why marketers would want to do so in the first place, I'm not sure what marketing course teaches to you associate your client with feelings of incandescent rage.
Slashdot Mirror
It is fortunate that fraud (or incompetence) like this never occurs in other areas. For example think of the implications of this happening in Climate Science papers and studies. Luckily we can trust those implicitly, especially the model based ones.
Because when confronted with the evidence that 90/5,067 studies in one field (likely) contain fabricated data the obvious implication is that an entire field is fabricated?
Your conspiracy theory seems to be missing a few steps.
How will I save my copy of Shazaam!?
There is no such movie. You're the victim of a popular Internet conspiracy.
As far as the movie you're really thinking of, no need to worry. You can watch it for free on YouTube. Or, here's the YouTube version you actually have to pay to see, and is somehow 15 minutes longer.
Whoosh :)
So we go from "they hacked us" to "they tried to hack us"? Not quite the same accusation.
No one has ever said they actually hacked voting machines or IT infrastructure related with the actual conducting of the election. There have however, been persistent rumours that Russia had attempted, but failed, to hack those things. This is the first evidence we've seen that those rumours were true.
You seem to be conflating those rumours of attempted hacks of election infrastructure with far more publicized claims that Russia hacked the DNC, RNC, and gained access via phishing to John Podesta's emails.
How will I save my copy of Shazaam!?
The part where there is no enforcement, no requirement to do what was promised, and the 1.2 trillion dollar cost over 20 years to pay other countries to pretend that they are doing something.
Well lucky for you there was no enforcement or requirement to do what was promised.
So if the US felt like the other countries weren't doing anything you could simply not pay them.
And when the left wants to smoke weed, they suddenly remember states' rights and the 10th Amendment, but when they don't like what the local board of education is doing or don't like that people are allowed to own and carry firearms, that memory fades into a cloud of pipe smoke.
Both sides do plenty of picking and choosing about when and where they respect the rights of states. Conservatives tend to more frequently side with states' rights over the Federal government because that fits with their fundamental principles, but obviously isn't applied in all cases. Let's be honest about the fact that nobody is 100% consistent with their principles in all cases, though that doesn't mean we shouldn't point out hypocrisy. Just don't get too holier-than-thou about it.
They vacillate on states' rights because no one really cares about states' rights, giving priority to one government level over another is hardly a fundamental political belief.
The US Federal Government's most common conflicts with the states come up when the Federal Government want's to introduce a new program or protect an ethnic or sexual minority, both things the right tends to oppose.
Therefore, the right tends to side with state's rights more often.
Try reading it.
India specifically gets US dollars to fund it's green industry pretty much forever. China gets to keep uping emissions for 13 years and then the US pays them to use green energy that they are already building. Russia just gets to ignore the entire thing.
Several other 3rd world countries also gets US dollars but not as bad as the above. It was a horrible accord that only an idiot would sign *John Kerry*
So what part do you disagree with?
1) The part that global warming is a real and serious problem.
Or 2) the part where the US helps other countries reduce their emissions, as a result of the US being one of the nations most responsible for the problem, who benefited the most from prior emissions, and who is most capable of dealing with the problem.
I think #1 is quite true, and once you accept #1 then #2 makes a lot of sense as well. For all the talk of cash transfers to 3rd world countries many on the right seem to think the only "fair" way to deal with global warming is for the West to keep living like kings while the developing world goes pre-industrial.
Don't give the left legal weed, they never supported it, still don't.
Legal weed is a libertarian success. Simple as that.
Uhhh... what?
Libertarians generally support legalization true... but they're fairly anemic as a political force in the US. They generally just make a bit of noise during the GOP Primaries when some form of libertarian pops up and takes a chunk of the base with them for a few months.
Liberals also generally support legalization, and they're a much stronger political force.
Legal weed without Liberal support is just another fringe idea.
Legal weed without Libertarian support is still a plausible outcome.
And lets not forget, they were searching the unallocated space on the hard drive. There is absolutely no reason to do this unless you are searching for deleted data.
I did mention in a follow-up comment that in this case there was a phone call from Best Buy aslomg whether they should try to recover data, and the customer responded yes.
The records also show that Rettenmaier signed a form when he first handed over the computer, stating that any child pornography found by Geek Squad technicians will be reported to the authorities. When a technician called Rettenmaier to ask him if he wanted his data restored, including pictures, Rettenmaier said yes on a recorded call.
There is something that doesn't quite make sense. Presumably if the Doctor knew he had kiddie porn on his computer, there is a bit of a disconnect that he would sign that form. As well, unless he was insane, why would he consent to BB recovering any data? He would know he had illegal shit on the computer, but said in effect. "Yeah, I know you're going to find that stuff and report it to the feds, but YOLO, LOL!" Something doesn't add up here.
I can think of 4 possibilities.
a) He didn't realize the technician would actually view the recovered photos.
b) He had deleted the photos, and didn't realize recovering data might include files he'd deleted on purpose.
c) Who reads those forms? He probably thought the technician would treat any photos he found as confidential.
d) People doing stupid things that don't make sense is a very regular occurrence.
Unless the customer is asking for recovery of deleted files, please explain the reason for looking for files in unallocated space while performing maintenance.
FTA:
The case began in November 2011 when Rettenmaier, a gynecologic oncologist, took his desktop computer to a Best Buy in Mission Viejo, Calif., because it wouldn’t boot up. The technicians there were able to fix that problem, but not recover Rettenmaier’s data. Court records show that Best Buy sends all of its data recovery jobs to Geek Squad City in Brooks, Ky., outside of Louisville.
The records also show that Rettenmaier signed a form when he first handed over the computer, stating that any child pornography found by Geek Squad technicians will be reported to the authorities. When a technician called Rettenmaier to ask him if he wanted his data restored, including pictures, Rettenmaier said yes on a recorded call. In general, searches performed by private entities do not require a search warrant — only government searches do.
I'm not saying I agree the technician was acting as an informant, but there's legitimate ambiguities at work.
I'm sure the Chinese are thrilled to be leading the rest of the world as the US withdraws into isolation.
China has over a billion people and a fragile economy, they're not trying to reduce admissions because they want to be a world leader. They're trying to reduce admissions because they're terrified that global warming is going to cause chaos and destabilize their country.
Climate change politics are increasingly about wealth redistribution.
Truer words were never said, particularly by someone with so little grasp of the truth.
You think the OP is clueless? Then check out this article: $4 trillion carbon tax is needed
In the report, there is this gem:
The revenue can be used to foster growth in an equitable way, by returning the revenue as household rebates, supporting poorer sections of the population, managing transitional changes, investing in low-carbon infrastructure, and fostering technological change
The report doesn't mention how sucking four trillion dollars out of the economy actually impacts the climate in any way.
Looks like wealth redistribution to me.
The first line of the news article:
A global carbon tax that would raise trillions of dollars if applied across the world should be introduced if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change
further in the article, quoting from the report.
“The revenue can be used to foster growth in an equitable way, by returning the revenue as household rebates, supporting poorer sections of the population, managing transitional changes, investing in low-carbon infrastructure, and fostering technological change,” they said.
From the preamble of the executive summary in the report, just to emphasize the absurdity of you citing a report that explicitly says it ignores climate impacts!!
This report does not focus on the estimation and evaluation of the climate change impacts that would be avoided by reducing carbon emissions.
And the second point of the executive summary where the report still talks briefly about the impacts you claim it didn't:
Carbon prices are intended to incentivize the changes needed in investment, production, and consumption patterns, and to induce the kind of technological progress that can bring down future abatement costs.
They sure don't make denialists like they used to, you can't even cherry pick evidence right!!
Since this was an active program by the FBI to recruit and pay on piecework basis for material found that was illegal, the Best Buy workers were no longer working for Best Buy with regards to this action and were effectively working for the FBI in a sort of deputized role. As such the terms of conditions by Best Buy should not apply, and since they are effectively contract workers for the FBI -- they should have required warrants. Thus the evidence should be thrown out.
Yeah, I'm kinda shocked the judge (seemingly) allowed this though I can see the reasoning they probably used.
Basically the Best Buy employees would be acting as deputies if they were doing something they wouldn't normally do in the course of their job. For instance, if you were paying for them to repair your computer at your house, and they used the opportunity to snoop through your drawers and report that to the FBI. Then that would be a 4th amendment violation.
But poking around a hard drive is a legitimate part of fixing a computer, and if they inform on criminal activity they've observed as part of their normal activities they're informants.
This seems to be part of the argument that was going on in the trial:
But Carney said the image found in Kentucky was not pornographic, that the FBI did not disclose that image was found in “unallocated space” on Rettenmaier’s hard drive, and that the FBI misstated how many times they searched the hard drive before applying for a warrant
[...]
Riddet argued that the fact that Geek Squad technicians were exploring Rettenmaier’s “unallocated space” was evidence they were going beyond standard data recovery in an attempt to assist the FBI. Carney rejected that argument. The technician testified that he was simply trying to recover all of the customer’s photos, wherever they might be.
My totally uneducated legal analysis is that:
1) The defendant argued that searching unallocated space meant the Best Buy employee was acting as a government employee, not an informant.
2) The judge rejected this, thinking that the technician was searching for legitimate repair reasons and was therefore not performing a search.
3) The FBI might have been worried about #1 and so didn't mention it on the warrant (or they just screwed up).
4) The judge threw out the warrant because of #3.
No one ever got harmed when I drank and drove, either.
That's... a terrible metaphor.
We ban drinking and driving, we also ban men (who identify as men) going into women's facilities, especially men looking to do creepy sexual things. By the logic you apply to bathrooms we'd need to ban alcohol because it make it more likely people will drink and drive.
Hell, most likely he was a pervert who heard all the right wing pundits saying perverts were allowed in change rooms now so he decided to give it a try and failed!
No need for right-wing pundits: it's the first thing that I -- and many other men I know -- knew would happen.
And then endlessly advertised. Men pretending to be transgender to creep in washrooms is an extremely rare problem, before and after!
"those who identify as men and those who identify as women."
And how do you enforce that?
Do you really think guys going to go around falsely claiming to be a transgendered woman is going to be a big problem?
Have you met people before???
And what form does this "perving out" take? Please enlighten us.
Why should I have to justify to you what creeps women out?
In fact, here's the link: http://www.thegetrealmom.com/blog/womensrestroom.
Ok, an extremely rare incident occurred, as a result of which, some women were made temporarily uncomfortable.
Not a very good justification for discrimination.
Another link: http://www.king5.com/news/local/seattle/man-in-womens-locker-room-cites-gender-rule/65533111
It was a busy time at Evans Pool around 5:30pm Monday February 8. The pool was open for lap swim. According to Seattle Parks and Recreation, a man wearing board shorts entered the women's locker room and took off his shirt. Women alerted staff, who told the man to leave, but he said "the law has changed and I have a right to be here."
the man returned a second time while young girls were changing for swim practice.
Creepy but no one got harmed. And, almost certainly not a transgendered person. Hell, most likely he was a pervert who heard all the right wing pundits saying perverts were allowed in change rooms now so he decided to give it a try and failed!
And another: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/06/u-of-t-bathrooms-voyeurism_n_8253970.html
The University of Toronto (U of T) is temporarily changing its policy on gender-neutral bathrooms after two reports of voyeurism in a student residence.
Gender-neutral is something quite different.
In fact, you should really be more careful with your citations as you seem to have an unfortunate habit of excluding a critical paragraph that undercuts your entire point.
Melinda Scott, dean of students at University College, told campus newspaper The Varsity that some washrooms in the college's residences will now be separated by gender for "those who identify as men and those who identify as women."
"At the same time, there remains at least one gender-neutral washroom per floor and per house,” Scott said.
“The purpose of this temporary measure is to provide a safe space for the women who have been directly impacted by these events and other students who may feel more comfortable in a single-gender washroom in the wake of these incidents."
ie, the remedy to this voyeur was the exact policy you're arguing against!!
Many of the protesters, like my roommate, were paid and had professionals help coordinate their actions, so why would it be illegal for the other side to do the same.
An AC said it so it must be true!
I've read an interesting opinion piece by a Russian opponent:
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/03/06/trump-russia-conspiracy-trap/.
Basically, the messages are: first, yes, Russia has meddled in, and there are links between them and Trump. But it's nothing new, Russia's always tried to destabilize Western democracies and undermine their credibility, including by supporting political crackpots there. This time the crackpots won the election.
There are a few differences this time:
1) Russia seems to have had significant influence with several people in the crackpot's administration, and that influence seems to have been translated into proposed policy.
2) Several members of the crackpot's campaign were having unusual communications with the Russians, and may have been colluding in Russian interference.
3) Russia may have significant leverage over the main crackpot himself.
None of these may be true, but there's more than enough evidence to warrant investigation.
Second, the media frenzy about this is being played up because it's seemingly the only scandal that riles people enough that the Republican majority in Congress might have to take notice, instead of looking the other way as they did with all the other documented lies. So Trump opponents are playing this specific card.
Russia having direct influence in the White House is a pretty damn big deal. I don't think the media is going overboard with its focus.
But, third, there's probably nothing concrete enough there to warrant a successful impeachment. And this is beginning to border on speculation and conspiracy-theory thinking, in other words using some of Trump's foul tactics against him in the unlikely hope of getting rid of him. Bad precedent.
As I said, there's a lot of real evidence in play. And being a lying incompetent President isn't an impeachable offence, conspiring with Russia is.
So, fourth, not only it won't work, it's drowning out more urgent and serious issues: dismantling healthcare, crippling budget cuts everywhere but in the military, hurting government agencies. If more attention was focused on them instead, sure, it would be even less likely to cause Trump's demise, but it would mitigate the damage, as it did for the Muslim travel ban.
This is a very valid point, the focus on Trump's scandals allow the rest of his administration (and the GOP legislators) to get away with some astoundingly outrageous things. I'm honestly not sure what their plan is in some cases, I mean WTF are they thinking with health care? Have they even considered what would happen if their bill became law?
There are two things I'm really curious about with this.
1) What are the real impacts of the die-offs? ie are is the total stock of bees going into decline or are beekeepers needed to put in overtime in order to breed replacement stock.
2) What's the cause of the decline in the decline? It looks like the loss has been slowly levelling off over the past few years, 30-40% is pretty drastic, is this evidence that they've evolving some kind of resistance to whatever is happening?
However this is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
We need good intelligence, and some of it needs to be kept secret. However the trend is to classify stuff that shouldn't need to be classified, just because it is easier to classify then have it public.
With the leaks, what bothers me more isn't the stuff that got leaked out, most of it is fairly common knowledge, it just confirms what we already know. The real problem is why is such mundane stuff classified?
Have you ever disclosed your real identity on /.?
Now assume I go through your posting history and read every comment, and that I start searching the Internet for other comments made under the same username, or people using the same phrases on other forums.
How confident are you that I couldn't uncover your real identity?
Give an intelligence agency a bunch of mundane stuff and some confirmed rumours and they'll figure out a lot of things they weren't supposed to know.
if you actually look at the graph, it was falling prior to the election at almost the same rate, you know the time frame when we were 98% sure hillary was going to win. so lets not try and put this on trump. i know thats the popular thing to do but seriously. this is a non story
It should be noted there's also seasonal variation, the drop from Sept-Oct and flat-line through November is consistent with Summer ending and school starting.
The subsequent post-November drop doesn't seem to be what you'd expect based on seasonal variation, though we'd need to see a comparison to prior years to really be sure.
if you actually look at the graph, it was falling prior to the election at almost the same rate, you know the time frame when we were 98% sure hillary was going to win. so lets not try and put this on trump. i know thats the popular thing to do but seriously. this is a non story
Even when we thought Hillary would win we were still appalled by the fact that Trump was not only nominated, but that he was making it an actual race.
For all his celebrity Trump is terrible marketing for the US.
We've also found life in every environment we've looked, no matter how inhospitable it seems. Life lives everywhere it can't.
Really? We've found life on Mars, the Moon, Venus?
Or rather, you mean we've found life on earth, rather, we've found that life, that evolved under fairly specific conditions on earth, has now spread to a much wider range of environments
And intelligence is such a generic trick that it has independently evolved multiple times on earth.
Has it? I wasn't aware that complex nervous systems evolved multiple times.
That's a silly question. The entire universe is setup so life can evolve - it's the inverse of the anthropic principle though - life exists BECAUSE that is the kind of universe this is. But to assume that only once did that universal set of coincidences succeed is to bet on impossible odds. It smacks of religiosity.
Huh? The fact that the universe supports life does not mean that life is likely to arise, nor that multi-cellular life is likely to arise from single-cellular life.
Claiming that a second instance must be an extraordinary claim is the most extraordinary claim imaginable.
No, because a single instance is consistent with life being an extremely rare phenomena, two instances suggests it's fairly common. That is the extraordinary claim for which we lack evidence.
Forget the Fermi paradox, it's idiotic. The biggest stain on the man's career.
I'm sorry, but you're out to lunch with this one. The Fermi paradox is both easily understood and extremely relevant.
For starters - the 'paradox' may not even be true - who says we HAVEN'T found a signal from another civilization ? Odds are if we did we wouldn't have known it - because the chances that their methods of communication are even recognizable as such by us are vanishingly small. Communication develops from biology - we have no reason to assume that another civilization would have senses like hearing or sight or if they do that their communication would be based on that. This being the case for most (not all) earthbound species is a result of the specific conditions on earth favoring them in evolution - nothing about that can be extrapolated. A civilization far more advanced than us could communicate entirely by pheromones - or some process we've never encountered or imagined.
WTF? Can you see or hear radio waves? Communication is dictated by physics, even if they did communicate by scent they would need something like radio waves to transmit that scent over a long distance.
Now, it's possible that a) light waves are totally passe and advanced civilizations use some other sort of advanced communication technology that we can't detect, and b) all of the civilizations have decided not to blab signals our way, and/or we're under some kind of prime directive galactic blackout.
But those are grasping for straws, the conclusion that makes the fewest assumptions is that we're not hearing galactic radio because there is none.
More-over - if this is a Dyson sphere they did NOT happen 'at the same time' - that star is 1300 light years away. That means what we're seeing now was 1300 years ago. There are plenty of starts within 10 light years of us - do you really think we'd head to somewhere 1300 light years away before we do those ?
The universe is 13.8 billion years old.
1300 years IS "at the same time".
Hell, if we're looking at the midpoint of a 10 million year old project it is "at the same time".
And for all you know - they ARE our ancestors. Cosmic seeding is a legitimate hypotheses.
Legitimate, but you still have insufficient evidence to make such a claim.
Its not an extraordinary claim bevause we already have absolute proof that life can and do exist in this universe.
Our not finding it is likely more of a testament to how limited our looking is tgan to life's abundance. The evidence from earth us life lives everywhere it can't
We have a single instance of intelligent life, some hints that single cellular life is fairly common, and that's it. Throw in the many-worlds hypothesis and multi-cellular life culminating in intelligence may be an event that occurs with a frequency of much less than once per universe, we simply don't have the data to make a meaningful prediction. Claiming a second instance is a very extraordinary claim.
More than that, a civilization capable of building a Dyson sphere in visual range would bring up a lot of awkward questions concerning the Fermi paradox. Why didn't they shoot off seed ships to every surrounding system? Did we just happen to pop up in the same cosmic instant as they finished that structure but before they expanded?
We haven't reached critical mass yet, but once enough people only use cell phones for communication the floodgates will be opened.
Cellphones were on par with landlines in 2014. I'm sure they're a healthy majority now.
Either way, I can think of few things more obnoxious than prerecorded voicemails. It's bad enough I don't even know why marketers would want to do so in the first place, I'm not sure what marketing course teaches to you associate your client with feelings of incandescent rage.