Copyright is a valid and useful thing for a society. The implementation of it can be problematic though and ours is rife with abuses, such as Disney, etc.
I tend to not have a problem paying for actual performances and if I use something someone else owns to do it, paying a fair fee is reasonable. The bigger problem is with licenses for the simple 'sale' of recorded performances. With technology this is now an infinite good; the value of a 'copy' of the performance is so low as to be zero.
The value of a performance is a different animal, however. Whether it's through live music or recorded music (radio, iPod over the speakers in the gym, etc.) an experience is being gained, good bad or indifferent it's still an experience. Good ones will attract repeat paying customers, bad/indifferent ones won't. That's the free market at work.
One of the best modern examples of this is The Grateful Dead. They made millions playing *live* concerts, while letting recordings of those concerts be freely made and traded among their fans. Which in turn brought *more* fans to their shows making them more money.
The issue of ASCAP harrasing a bar or other venue is legitimate. However, if the above facts are to be believed, paying $500 for a flat fee versus having to itemize every performance and when questioned provide proof it wasn't licensed music being played seems like a *massive* undertaking. Pay the $500 and walk away much happier.
All of this argument is predicated on the idea that these rights are *LIMITED* by time. But that gets back to the implementation problem I said earlier. Copyright is still a good thing but with limitations.
perhaps the same end that lets us now reasonably predict the weather a few days ahead and generally even a week ahead of time? We didn't used to be able to do that much more than a day.
maybe the science that is starting to predict when volcanoes will erupt?
If we can predict something with accuracy, we can take actions appropriate the the situation *before* the situation becomes reality. This is critical when the issue is prevention of catastrophe.
you don't get better at predicting without trying out ideas and seeing how they work. In this case the models have predicted less change than we've already seen. It's clearly time to make the models act more aggressively.
Well that and models which when applied to the data we have from 30 years ago, predict what we're seeing now.
The problem is the models we have, actually *understate* the problem. They predicted LESS effects than we're seeing now. As we get better data and models, hopefully we'll be more accurate but when you predict your mark and reality overshoots it by significant amounts, its time to adjust your models to be *more* aggressive.
it's also a theory as to why there was a 2nd prolonged cooling period during the last major ice age. A massive ice damn broke releasing millions of tons of fresh water that flooded the north Atlantic.
did you miss this part of my post: So the conveyor belt may act as somewhat of a coarse 'brake' on global warming over longer time frames.
We have the problem of warming temps melting more ice. This means less salty northern waters. As such the 'conveyor' stops running (based on previous theories). This stops the transfer of heat from the tropics to the northern climates which in turn causes a cooling of the northern climates producing more ice. It is indeed a cyclical process so point A leads to point B to point C and back to A in a massive generalization.
My point was that if the conveyor theory is wrong, the 'brake' I described might not exist or only work at a reduced rate, thus allowing more effect from global warming to be experienced.
If we have to choose between spending a trillion dollars now and spending a trillion fifty years from now, which should we do? Personally, I'd rather wait the fifty.
Thank you for disclosing your idiocy club membership. In 50-100 years the cost will not be the same, it will be MUCH MUCH higher even adjusted for inflation. Damn near everything costs more the longer you wait to address the problem, why would this be any different?
As if humans have the capability of creating matter from thin air now...
Uh, does the guy who opens the flood gates at the dam 'create' the water that flows out of it? not hardly. But that doesn't diminish the effects of LOTS more water downstream does it?
Humans have clearly and measurably increased the carbon dioxide in the ATMOSHPHERE. That comes from burning MILLIONS of years of carbon sequestered in the oil. This is the problem and the 'unnatural' influx of which I spoke. it would not have happened this much this fast without us actively digging it up and burning it.
As for the other sources of heat you mention, the solar aspects are the most reasonable to affect global temperatures since its the basis for just about all life in the first place;-)
However, global warming is not because we are producing more heat than the earth can handle. It is because we are retarding the rate at which it sheds heat into space. How much heat we as a species produce is probably actually pretty measurable as is the amount of heat added by the Sun (Sun heated asphalt would be in our bucket not the Suns). I'd be willing to bet we don't hold a candle to the Sun in that department.
But generally those wonderful thermodynamics laws really do prevent us from 'increasing' the heat on the planet. The rate at which it moves (into space) however is something we can and have readily affected. That's where the vast majority of 'extra' heat is coming from. Without the extra CO2 blanket, transfer rates would simply go up in response to any larger heat concentrations we've caused, still reaching a reasonable equilibrium.
But as you say, by paving over fields and forests, and then reducing the rate at which the extra heat can leave (through processes producing yet more heat) we aren't helping ourselves.
The main problem is still the 'greenhouse' effect.
Ocean Circulation doesn't affect the *global* temperature directly. It simply redistributes the heat around the planet. Hence the name CONVEYOR.
The down side is that if the 'conveyor' belt doesn't work as we expect, global warming may actually end up being WORSE. The (now questined) premise of the conveyor belt is that if the northern Atlantic ocean becomes less salty (due to melting Greenland ice), the water stops falling to the ocean depths, and since no conveyor means no warm gulf steam to warm the northeastern US and European continents, they will get colder.
This in turn produces more snowfall in the northern latitudes, thicker ice, etc. Which in turn reflects more sunlight lessening the effects of global warming.
So the conveyor belt may act as somewhat of a coarse 'brake' on global warming over longer time frames.
Or at least that was the theory. If the conveyor belt doesn't work as we thought, it might just mean we will feel the full effects of global warming.
Some of the deniers will jump on this as a natural cycle. Understand it that is a natural environment *response* to an unnatural influx of carbon dioxide from humans.
This isn't 'dwarfism' as defined in medicine. It's just the evolution of a species overtime to a smaller size. Dwarfism is an abnormality in development that prevents reaching full size. These creatures were full size for their species. The size just got smaller over time.
The theory makes perfect sense. Over time if some were born smaller, they need less food. Since food is already scarce, they'll have more food to share with their family since they need less themselves. Better nourishment gives you better chances for survival and reproducing.
Whether the theory holds up in fact or not, it is quite plausible.
As for the komodo dragon's, since they don't/didn't feed on the same food source as the hobbits, it's quite possible to see the different results. Since there aren't many large predators on the island and being the top of the food chain, their food source likely wasn't very limited.
Neither were you;-) You don't have healthcare if you can't pay for it. So your healthcare is tied to your having *a* job at the very least. That was my point.
Employers already can and do choose people they think will be more likely to show up reliably, I don't argue that.
As to whether they will hire people with or prone to serious illness, well that's discrimination. You can't *know* they will get something and if someone is actually sick enough it becomes perfectly reasonable to let them go and hire someone else. (yes there are multitudes of lawsuits on both sides of this issue). What's not reasonable is to reject someone based on risks they can't control; this is the central issue I think, that people have a right to healthcare regardless of circumstance - so make it national or mandate that employers *have* to provide basic coverage while the gov't absorbs the extra risks (how I won't claim to know).
Currently though, the employer is also on the hook for increased medical costs and premiums, even cancellation in extreme cases. That's a lot different than just trying to decide that Joe Schmo will give you 40 hours a week or not.
but locally 2/3 goes to schools, which is theft from those who don't use public schools to indoctrinate children generally.
And just who do you think is going to be paying for your sorry ass in retirement? Its today's kids. Sure you may have enough extra, but the current system relies on today's workers to pay for today's retirees benefits. Most people will need *some* help in retirement, and an uneducated workforce ain't the brightest idea.
As for roads, sure private roads exist, but only with gov't oversight. What stops someone from buying *your* road and charging you $1000 a trip? hmmm? Me thinks you'd like gov't in that case. Or did you want to pass the full cost of roads and utilities into the price of housing? nice work there putting houses out of reach of most people, that'll sure help the economy!
Gov't is about spreading out societies costs so that society as a WHOLE prospers better than it could if everybody had to pay for absolutely everything they used or consumed. You come out much better in the long run.
Hey, maybe your neighbor has swine flu but can't pay for treatment? or did you just want them to keep spreading it or even die?
Education should be competitive. If it was, we'd see TONS of competitors reaching every level of education need.
uh, no, you'd get rural places with little to no education or crappy education because there isn't any money for it.
Funny thing about capitalism...it goes where it can make money. Gov't serves *everybody*, even in cases where it loses money. It is a form of socialism and it works quite well thank you very much.
As for Walmart, the drug offering is indeed a nice gesture, but its a blatant attempt to draw people into stores that give their community a net *loss* of jobs. Walmart is also a prime example of our trade imbalance with China, they wouldn't be so cheap if they weren't getting it all from China. Now because of their size, everybody has to be that cheap and we lose jobs that could be done here, but are just cheaper to do in China. Quality is less (lead in baby toys) and the money leaves our country for theirs. No 'trickle' down affect as the money is respent through the economy.
I happily agree that some education programs aren't economical, but I'd say most are reasonably well run. The system can use tweaking and innovative ideas, and yes, even some firings, but all in all we've got a pretty damn good education system in this country.
So your solution to TW's bandwidth problem....is to just use FIOS? not exactly on option TW probably wants to take.
I have FIOS myself and its great I agree. The issue isn't the speed or reliability of the service we're talking about, it's what happens when the network gets saturated. What policy will a provider implement to 'desaturate' the network.
FIOS is nicely unsaturated not due to any policies but because they don't have the user base yet that cable does. Obviously the fiber-optics push their saturation point farther out, but they will still get there.
Yes tiered pricing is in place from a number of vendors, even cable vendors. The issue here is when your sum total amount of downloaded bits goes over a fixed limit you can't download AT ALL without incurring fees regardless of what speed plan you've signed up for.
I'm too lazy to do the math, but given predicted monthly caps could it be determined what the *effective* download speed over the month could be? my guess it would be pretty friggin slow.
Kinda like giving you a set amount of gas with your choice of cars: Yugo, Mustang, Ferrari. You can go different speeds but the faster you go the less time you have available.
Glad to see some *real* grassroots movements working.
The ISP's usual quote of "Its only 5% of our customers using 40% of traffic" argument flew in the face of the "So we're going to cap things so low everybody will hit it" response they kept trying to ram through.
If it's only 5%, set the cap just below where they are and only punish the *actual* problem children...or better yet, don't 'cap' but rate limit. Doesn't DirecTV's internet access do this already?
This isn't about pollution because C02 isn't a pollutant, it's the lynch-pin of all life on this planet.
So's water, but drinking too much water can killyou. Too much oxygen in the air can kill you. Likewise too much C02 in the air WILL kill you.
We're certainly not talking about C02 concentrations high enough for asphixiation (sp?), but C02 is a feedback loop gas in the atmosphere. It does cause *some* warming. But when that warming starts to affect the H20 in the atmosphere then things really get interesting. H20 is far more prevalent in the air than C02, but it too has greenhouse effects. Once the H20 starts adding its larger weight to the warming it just keeps getting faster an faster.
Sorta like a small kid on the far end of a really long seesaw. He doesn't need much weight to really upset the status quo. And when the big kid on the short end starts moving its much hard to stop.
The 'crying wolf' has been done for the last 6 years, piling on the fear of another 9/11.
*IRAQ* - ZOMG Saddam has bad things! we must overthrow him (and label anyone who disagrees as unpatriotic) oops, he didn't have bad things and we made up stuff to look like he did.
A story that is sourced based on 'unnamed *former* security professional' just doesn't cut it anymore as a reliable source.
Another good indication this is fear mongering will be the proposed remedy. If they say we need all sorts of new safety measures and lots and lots of money, be warned. All they need to do is disconnect the damn control systems from the internet as others have posted. If its that critical, you don't put it on a publicly accessible network.
Stevens in his OWN VOICE recorded talking with Allen:
STEVENS: That's, that's the way it should be. But as a practical matter, the question is, what can they convince the jury, uh grand jury, to charge us with? That's the problem. But when I was a district attorney, I handled grand juries, lots of them. They're funny people, but they also are people from within the community. And your reputation and everything else comes into play, as far as grand juries are concerned... We ought to just cool it. I told Ben the same thing: just cool it, you know, go about our business and smile and have a happy face... Do the things you used to do and just keep going. If it's a violation of the elections law, that's a corporate violation. This thing, it shouldn't, it shouldn't get to your mind, old buddy."
ALLEN: Well it has been, I'll tell you."
STEVENS:...You've got to get a mental attitude that these guys can't really hurt us. You know, they're not going shoot us. It's not Iraq. What the hell? The worst that can be done, the worst that can happen to us is we round up a bunch of legal fees and might lose and we might have to pay a fine, might have to serve a little time in jail. I hope to Christ it never gets to that...
Oh yeah it sounds like an innocent man there, not one playing the odds that his massive Alaska support base will get him off of whatever he does. He *knew* it was illegal and did it anyway.
He also readily admitted he didn't pay for many of the things he received; the grill, the furniture, the permanent generator, the massage chair. Yet he didn't disclose those things as he was *legally obligated* to do.
People deserve an opportunity to clear their name through a re-trial
He's claimed the dropping of the charges *has* cleared his name. I'd bet you'd find him suspiciously UNWILLINGLY to go through the trial again and possibly lose...again.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, maybe this one?
Copyright is a valid and useful thing for a society. The implementation of it can be problematic though and ours is rife with abuses, such as Disney, etc.
I tend to not have a problem paying for actual performances and if I use something someone else owns to do it, paying a fair fee is reasonable. The bigger problem is with licenses for the simple 'sale' of recorded performances. With technology this is now an infinite good; the value of a 'copy' of the performance is so low as to be zero.
The value of a performance is a different animal, however. Whether it's through live music or recorded music (radio, iPod over the speakers in the gym, etc.) an experience is being gained, good bad or indifferent it's still an experience. Good ones will attract repeat paying customers, bad/indifferent ones won't. That's the free market at work.
One of the best modern examples of this is The Grateful Dead. They made millions playing *live* concerts, while letting recordings of those concerts be freely made and traded among their fans. Which in turn brought *more* fans to their shows making them more money.
The issue of ASCAP harrasing a bar or other venue is legitimate. However, if the above facts are to be believed, paying $500 for a flat fee versus having to itemize every performance and when questioned provide proof it wasn't licensed music being played seems like a *massive* undertaking. Pay the $500 and walk away much happier.
All of this argument is predicated on the idea that these rights are *LIMITED* by time. But that gets back to the implementation problem I said earlier. Copyright is still a good thing but with limitations.
perhaps the same end that lets us now reasonably predict the weather a few days ahead and generally even a week ahead of time? We didn't used to be able to do that much more than a day.
maybe the science that is starting to predict when volcanoes will erupt?
If we can predict something with accuracy, we can take actions appropriate the the situation *before* the situation becomes reality. This is critical when the issue is prevention of catastrophe.
you don't get better at predicting without trying out ideas and seeing how they work. In this case the models have predicted less change than we've already seen. It's clearly time to make the models act more aggressively.
Well that and models which when applied to the data we have from 30 years ago, predict what we're seeing now.
The problem is the models we have, actually *understate* the problem. They predicted LESS effects than we're seeing now. As we get better data and models, hopefully we'll be more accurate but when you predict your mark and reality overshoots it by significant amounts, its time to adjust your models to be *more* aggressive.
it's also a theory as to why there was a 2nd prolonged cooling period during the last major ice age. A massive ice damn broke releasing millions of tons of fresh water that flooded the north Atlantic.
Actually I live just outside Washington, DC so I'm somewhat experienced with 'hot gaseous emmisions' ;-)
did you miss this part of my post:
So the conveyor belt may act as somewhat of a coarse 'brake' on global warming over longer time frames.
We have the problem of warming temps melting more ice. This means less salty northern waters. As such the 'conveyor' stops running (based on previous theories). This stops the transfer of heat from the tropics to the northern climates which in turn causes a cooling of the northern climates producing more ice. It is indeed a cyclical process so point A leads to point B to point C and back to A in a massive generalization.
My point was that if the conveyor theory is wrong, the 'brake' I described might not exist or only work at a reduced rate, thus allowing more effect from global warming to be experienced.
If we have to choose between spending a trillion dollars now and spending a trillion fifty years from now, which should we do? Personally, I'd rather wait the fifty.
Thank you for disclosing your idiocy club membership. In 50-100 years the cost will not be the same, it will be MUCH MUCH higher even adjusted for inflation. Damn near everything costs more the longer you wait to address the problem, why would this be any different?
As if humans have the capability of creating matter from thin air now...
;-)
Uh, does the guy who opens the flood gates at the dam 'create' the water that flows out of it? not hardly. But that doesn't diminish the effects of LOTS more water downstream does it?
Humans have clearly and measurably increased the carbon dioxide in the ATMOSHPHERE. That comes from burning MILLIONS of years of carbon sequestered in the oil. This is the problem and the 'unnatural' influx of which I spoke. it would not have happened this much this fast without us actively digging it up and burning it.
As for the other sources of heat you mention, the solar aspects are the most reasonable to affect global temperatures since its the basis for just about all life in the first place
However, global warming is not because we are producing more heat than the earth can handle. It is because we are retarding the rate at which it sheds heat into space. How much heat we as a species produce is probably actually pretty measurable as is the amount of heat added by the Sun (Sun heated asphalt would be in our bucket not the Suns). I'd be willing to bet we don't hold a candle to the Sun in that department.
But generally those wonderful thermodynamics laws really do prevent us from 'increasing' the heat on the planet. The rate at which it moves (into space) however is something we can and have readily affected. That's where the vast majority of 'extra' heat is coming from. Without the extra CO2 blanket, transfer rates would simply go up in response to any larger heat concentrations we've caused, still reaching a reasonable equilibrium.
But as you say, by paving over fields and forests, and then reducing the rate at which the extra heat can leave (through processes producing yet more heat) we aren't helping ourselves.
The main problem is still the 'greenhouse' effect.
Ocean Circulation doesn't affect the *global* temperature directly. It simply redistributes the heat around the planet. Hence the name CONVEYOR.
The down side is that if the 'conveyor' belt doesn't work as we expect, global warming may actually end up being WORSE. The (now questined) premise of the conveyor belt is that if the northern Atlantic ocean becomes less salty (due to melting Greenland ice), the water stops falling to the ocean depths, and since no conveyor means no warm gulf steam to warm the northeastern US and European continents, they will get colder.
This in turn produces more snowfall in the northern latitudes, thicker ice, etc. Which in turn reflects more sunlight lessening the effects of global warming.
So the conveyor belt may act as somewhat of a coarse 'brake' on global warming over longer time frames.
Or at least that was the theory. If the conveyor belt doesn't work as we thought, it might just mean we will feel the full effects of global warming.
Some of the deniers will jump on this as a natural cycle. Understand it that is a natural environment *response* to an unnatural influx of carbon dioxide from humans.
This isn't 'dwarfism' as defined in medicine. It's just the evolution of a species overtime to a smaller size. Dwarfism is an abnormality in development that prevents reaching full size. These creatures were full size for their species. The size just got smaller over time.
The theory makes perfect sense. Over time if some were born smaller, they need less food. Since food is already scarce, they'll have more food to share with their family since they need less themselves. Better nourishment gives you better chances for survival and reproducing.
Whether the theory holds up in fact or not, it is quite plausible.
As for the komodo dragon's, since they don't/didn't feed on the same food source as the hobbits, it's quite possible to see the different results. Since there aren't many large predators on the island and being the top of the food chain, their food source likely wasn't very limited.
Uh, the actual *DIFFERENCE* is that even those of us who wanted, supported and voted for Obama are openly critical of some of his policies.
As opposed to the right-wing nut jobs that felt like Bush could do no wrong at anything.
It's called 'big tent' politics, people with varying degrees of agreement on issues, but general agreement overall.
Look how well that 'small tent' purity jihad is working for the GOP...
Neither were you ;-) You don't have healthcare if you can't pay for it. So your healthcare is tied to your having *a* job at the very least. That was my point.
Employers already can and do choose people they think will be more likely to show up reliably, I don't argue that. As to whether they will hire people with or prone to serious illness, well that's discrimination. You can't *know* they will get something and if someone is actually sick enough it becomes perfectly reasonable to let them go and hire someone else. (yes there are multitudes of lawsuits on both sides of this issue). What's not reasonable is to reject someone based on risks they can't control; this is the central issue I think, that people have a right to healthcare regardless of circumstance - so make it national or mandate that employers *have* to provide basic coverage while the gov't absorbs the extra risks (how I won't claim to know).
Currently though, the employer is also on the hook for increased medical costs and premiums, even cancellation in extreme cases. That's a lot different than just trying to decide that Joe Schmo will give you 40 hours a week or not.
you do have the one advantage in that you can change jobs without worrying about healthcare issues, this is true.
But your healthcare *is* tied to your job in the sense that without your job, you wouldn't be able to pay it.
imagine a world where your healthcare isn't tied to your job....
It's called most civilized countries other than the US.
but locally 2/3 goes to schools, which is theft from those who don't use public schools to indoctrinate children generally.
And just who do you think is going to be paying for your sorry ass in retirement? Its today's kids. Sure you may have enough extra, but the current system relies on today's workers to pay for today's retirees benefits. Most people will need *some* help in retirement, and an uneducated workforce ain't the brightest idea.
As for roads, sure private roads exist, but only with gov't oversight. What stops someone from buying *your* road and charging you $1000 a trip? hmmm? Me thinks you'd like gov't in that case. Or did you want to pass the full cost of roads and utilities into the price of housing? nice work there putting houses out of reach of most people, that'll sure help the economy!
Gov't is about spreading out societies costs so that society as a WHOLE prospers better than it could if everybody had to pay for absolutely everything they used or consumed. You come out much better in the long run.
Hey, maybe your neighbor has swine flu but can't pay for treatment? or did you just want them to keep spreading it or even die?
Education should be competitive. If it was, we'd see TONS of competitors reaching every level of education need.
uh, no, you'd get rural places with little to no education or crappy education because there isn't any money for it.
Funny thing about capitalism...it goes where it can make money. Gov't serves *everybody*, even in cases where it loses money. It is a form of socialism and it works quite well thank you very much.
As for Walmart, the drug offering is indeed a nice gesture, but its a blatant attempt to draw people into stores that give their community a net *loss* of jobs. Walmart is also a prime example of our trade imbalance with China, they wouldn't be so cheap if they weren't getting it all from China. Now because of their size, everybody has to be that cheap and we lose jobs that could be done here, but are just cheaper to do in China. Quality is less (lead in baby toys) and the money leaves our country for theirs. No 'trickle' down affect as the money is respent through the economy.
I happily agree that some education programs aren't economical, but I'd say most are reasonably well run. The system can use tweaking and innovative ideas, and yes, even some firings, but all in all we've got a pretty damn good education system in this country.
So your solution to TW's bandwidth problem....is to just use FIOS? not exactly on option TW probably wants to take.
I have FIOS myself and its great I agree. The issue isn't the speed or reliability of the service we're talking about, it's what happens when the network gets saturated. What policy will a provider implement to 'desaturate' the network.
FIOS is nicely unsaturated not due to any policies but because they don't have the user base yet that cable does. Obviously the fiber-optics push their saturation point farther out, but they will still get there.
Then what?
I think you missed the point.
Yes tiered pricing is in place from a number of vendors, even cable vendors. The issue here is when your sum total amount of downloaded bits goes over a fixed limit you can't download AT ALL without incurring fees regardless of what speed plan you've signed up for.
I'm too lazy to do the math, but given predicted monthly caps could it be determined what the *effective* download speed over the month could be? my guess it would be pretty friggin slow.
Kinda like giving you a set amount of gas with your choice of cars: Yugo, Mustang, Ferrari. You can go different speeds but the faster you go the less time you have available.
Glad to see some *real* grassroots movements working.
The ISP's usual quote of "Its only 5% of our customers using 40% of traffic" argument flew in the face of the "So we're going to cap things so low everybody will hit it" response they kept trying to ram through.
If it's only 5%, set the cap just below where they are and only punish the *actual* problem children...or better yet, don't 'cap' but rate limit. Doesn't DirecTV's internet access do this already?
This isn't about pollution because C02 isn't a pollutant, it's the lynch-pin of all life on this planet.
So's water, but drinking too much water can kill you. Too much oxygen in the air can kill you. Likewise too much C02 in the air WILL kill you.
We're certainly not talking about C02 concentrations high enough for asphixiation (sp?), but C02 is a feedback loop gas in the atmosphere. It does cause *some* warming. But when that warming starts to affect the H20 in the atmosphere then things really get interesting. H20 is far more prevalent in the air than C02, but it too has greenhouse effects. Once the H20 starts adding its larger weight to the warming it just keeps getting faster an faster.
Sorta like a small kid on the far end of a really long seesaw. He doesn't need much weight to really upset the status quo. And when the big kid on the short end starts moving its much hard to stop.
to be fair, the French system results in about 10 times less waste than ours, but they still have the waste issue to deal with.
It may even be less radioactive than ours, but its still not something you want to bury behind the house.
The 'crying wolf' has been done for the last 6 years, piling on the fear of another 9/11.
*IRAQ* - ZOMG Saddam has bad things! we must overthrow him (and label anyone who disagrees as unpatriotic) oops, he didn't have bad things and we made up stuff to look like he did.
A story that is sourced based on 'unnamed *former* security professional' just doesn't cut it anymore as a reliable source.
Another good indication this is fear mongering will be the proposed remedy. If they say we need all sorts of new safety measures and lots and lots of money, be warned. All they need to do is disconnect the damn control systems from the internet as others have posted. If its that critical, you don't put it on a publicly accessible network.
I'd say losing your congressional seat is a pretty good warning to the rest of Congress that people aren't going to take it anymore.
Even from Ted Stevens in Alaska.
Stevens in his OWN VOICE recorded talking with Allen: ... We ought to just cool it. I told Ben the same thing: just cool it, you know, go about our business and smile and have a happy face ... Do the things you used to do and just keep going. If it's a violation of the elections law, that's a corporate violation. This thing, it shouldn't, it shouldn't get to your mind, old buddy."
...
STEVENS: That's, that's the way it should be. But as a practical matter, the question is, what can they convince the jury, uh grand jury, to charge us with? That's the problem. But when I was a district attorney, I handled grand juries, lots of them. They're funny people, but they also are people from within the community. And your reputation and everything else comes into play, as far as grand juries are concerned
ALLEN: Well it has been, I'll tell you."
STEVENS:...You've got to get a mental attitude that these guys can't really hurt us. You know, they're not going shoot us. It's not Iraq. What the hell? The worst that can be done, the worst that can happen to us is we round up a bunch of legal fees and might lose and we might have to pay a fine, might have to serve a little time in jail. I hope to Christ it never gets to that
Oh yeah it sounds like an innocent man there, not one playing the odds that his massive Alaska support base will get him off of whatever he does. He *knew* it was illegal and did it anyway.
He also readily admitted he didn't pay for many of the things he received; the grill, the furniture, the permanent generator, the massage chair. Yet he didn't disclose those things as he was *legally obligated* to do.
People deserve an opportunity to clear their name through a re-trial
He's claimed the dropping of the charges *has* cleared his name. I'd bet you'd find him suspiciously UNWILLINGLY to go through the trial again and possibly lose...again.