Hamas hasn't attacked the US either, and doesn't target Americans in particular. Their primary target is and has always been Israel and Israelis. The extent of Hamas attacking Americans has been generally attacking Israel and unexpectedly ending up with American captives or casualties.
I think what you're missing is that Hamas isn't the same organization as Al Qaida, which has done both of the things you mentioned.
As George Carlin pointed out, if firefighters fight fires, and crime fighters fight crime, what do "freedom fighters" fight?
But seriously, the difference between the US's treatment of the IRA versus the US's treatment of Hamas is rather fascinating, since both their tactics and goals were/are extremely similar.
Actually, thanks to the recession, you have thousands of young people paying search firms to get into internship programs that pay $0 an hour (for instance, this story).
As I wrote in to a magazine recently, the interesting thing about the recession is that it started for young people long before the housing crash in 2008. Wages were dropping like a rock for our parents too, but they could keep afloat with home equity loans until the entire system unravelled. 20-somethings, on the other hand, almost never have a home of their own and thus no home equity. The best the new BA grads could manage was to use grad school as a way to delay entering the real world, and a strikingly high percentage of them have done just that, running up massive student loans in the process.
Matt Foley is a very successful speaker.
* He made a lasting impression on his audience. Everyone remembers him.
* He actually conveyed the point he was trying to make.
* He successfully handled unexpected mishaps, like breaking a coffee table.
An adult doesn't "need" to communicate with a child, but I think you're ignoring the gazillions of positive interactions a child can have with adults that aren't related to them.
Scenario: A 10-12 year-old who is interested in computers starts creating a real website for the fun of it. They want some dynamic content, so they start asking around on some forums about good tools to do that. Would you rather that (a) all the adults who can help the kid out refuse to respond for fear of prosecution, or (b) work with the kid to help them figure out the best tools they can use that will teach them something, point them to resources on Javascript, etc?
Scenario: A teenager who is really upset about a breakup starts making comments online that indicate that they may be suicidal. Would you rather that (a) all the adults on the forum refuse to respond for fear of prosecution, or (b) adults direct the teenager to suicide prevention resources?
Kids can and will express themselves differently to adults who aren't their parents, and those adults can often offer critical help to those kids. Just because 0.0001% of adults online will do bad stuff to kids doesn't mean the other 99.999% should be cut off from those kids.
Imagine this if you will: a. An agent or officer who suspects a certain Mr John Doe but has no real evidence begins surveillance of them using an NSL. - Using that information, supplies that information to the judge as evidence of probable cause for a search warrant. - The evidence from the search is then used to charge Mr Doe with a crime. - Based on that evidence, Mr Doe is convicted.
Now, much of the time, that's the end of the story. But let's say Mr Doe's lawyer is the dedicated type, and starts looking into the search warrant, because if that's a bad warrant then the conviction should be overturned. Specifically, how the evidence to justify the search warrant was obtained. Since no one can legally tell the lawyer, the person who would risk a felony conviction would not be Mr Doe, but some functionary at Yahoo, AT&T, etc, who would presumably be disinclined to risk time in PMITA prison on behalf of some stranger. Yes, that would be the morally correct and principled thing to do thing to do, but as a practical matter it's a rare thing for anyone to want to take the risk.
Especially no one will want to take the risk when at least 4 members of the current US Supreme Court (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito) have shown no signs of having any problem with NSLs.
The really interesting part about National Security Letters is that they're fairly obviously unconsitutional, but were designed in such a way that the judiciary would never rule on their constitutionality. By making it a crime to reveal that you've received an NSL, you make it impossible for anyone to demonstrate that it existed in the first place, and thus prevent anyone who was targeted by them to establish standing to sue. So if someone tries to challenge it, the executive branch can argue correctly "You can't prove an NSL existed, therefor you can't prove you were harmed by NSLs, therefor you have no reason to sue".
I just wish more of the Senate had understood what was really at stake and followed Sen Russ Feingold's (D-WI) lead. Because what was actually going on was that the executive succeeded in shutting out the judiciary from the judicial process.
One of the really good practices out there is reviewing code in a group. You pull in 3-4 developers (besides the one who wrote the code). The one who wrote the code explains what it was intended to do. Another developer goes through line-by-line and describes what it actually does. Lots of nits are picked, but in the end what you usually get is useful critiques for the developer who wrote the code, and some good ideas from that same developer that other developers use.
If mis-applied, this sort of thing would be annoying bureaucracy, but when done properly the result is that all developers are learning what works and what doesn't from each other, and the code that gets put into the code base gets better.
Jon Stewart has made that exact point repeatedly, that something is fundamentally wrong when CNN is looking to Comedy Central for integrity in broadcasting. Whenever he calls someone out for spreading BS, it's truly embarrassing to watch them defend themselves. For instance, watch his appearance on Crossfire (which led directly to the show being canceled), and his very appropriate grilling of Jim Cramer.
Here's my take on why he is so successful at doing this: He, unlike most TV personalities, didn't come up through the ranks at one of the big 3 networks. The people who did had to swallow a certain amount of BS in order to make it to where they are now, and are at least partially complicit. That means that unlike Jon, they are reluctant to call people out for spreading BS because they're doing the same thing, they know they're doing it, and don't want to invite a reprisal.
Then explain why reporters who have the chance to investigate, say, the Vice President's Chief of Staff for outing a CIA agent instead go to great lengths (including going to jail) to protect him and other sources?
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" -- it's in every restaurant.
Actually, only sort of. If there's a pattern to who you refuse service to, it can get you into big trouble. For instance, if you consistently refuse service to black people, you are in violation of a number of civil rights laws.
If you think that user-content can be more fair and balanced than most journalists, I ask of you: have you read slashdot?
It can be more balanced than journalists.
The upside of user content and lively comment threads is that as a general rule any BS gets exposed quickly for what it is. And even some mainstream sources like the New York Times have had some pretty interesting episodes where one of the NYTimes columnists posted something on their site which was not even slightly even-handed, and their user base immediately responded in the comments section with pages of reasons why the columnist was full of it.
The downside of user content is that a lot of BS gets spit out. So you can't believe everything you read.
As far as the line between a columnist and a reporter, here's an example of how you get into trouble: Why do many basketball fans think that LeBron James will be playing for the Knicks next year? The idea that he will regularly shows up in places where it shouldn't, and you'll see reporting that looks like this: "LeBron James and the Cavaliers beat the New York Knicks today in Madison Square Garden 110-75.... LeBron James refused to answer questions about whether he will play for the Knicks in 2010." That second sentence, while reporting the fact, immediately causes the person reading it to think "why was that even a question?"
As one of those who put up some gripes with modern-day journalism, the biggest problem I was alluding to was not the censorship by the news organizations, which blog-based journalism could remedy, but 5 much more critical problems: 1. The mixing of editorializing and reporting. The telltale sign for that is only 1 major source for a story rather than 2 or 3 sources (some of whom disagree with each other). 2. The mix of advertising and reporting. This is the big one for the business press. For instance, a story with a headline of "CEO John Doe of Initech announces launch of FlimFlam" combined with an advertising link to buy shares of Initech. 3. The dependency of journalists on their sources. This causes all sorts of problems, the most common of which is that the source can threaten to cut off the reporter if the reporter doesn't print something favorable to the source. This is a huge problem in political reporting, because reporter's careers tend to depend on getting and keeping insider sources. 4. If 2-3 sources say the same thing, and it's not dug into more deeply, reporters will not infrequently incorrectly assume that the 2-3 sources aren't organized. A classic case of this is the Pentagon paying retired generals to stick to a party line, while reporters were using the retired generals as independent analysts (kudos to the reporters who did look more deeply and figure that one out). 5. A perception by a lot of news organizations that speed beats accuracy.
- Political journalists, who help their sources insult people and ruin careers anonymously? Or do what Stephen Colbert pointed out was "the White House tells you what to write, you write it down, and print it." - Sports journalists, who basically are professional sports fans, desperately clinging to rumor, conjecture, and hearsay? - Business journalists, who often act as cheerleaders for a company's stock more than anything else? - Slashdot editors? (enough said)
These are not the days of Bernstein, Woodward, Hersch, etc.
The idea that the CRA caused the mortgage meltdown is flatwrong. There are plenty of other sources besides those 2, from all sorts of economists.
The other basic thing that you fail to acknowledge is that oligopolies are different from free markets. If the number of sellers in your market drop into the single-digits (which is true of a lot of markets right now), Adam Smith's work stops being half as useful as John Nash's. It's sort of like how Isaac Newton's physics works extremely well most of the time, but once you get into the realm of really big, really small, or really fast things it tends to fall apart.
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected (X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it ( ) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it (X) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once ( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists (X) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it (X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email (X) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses (X) Asshats (X) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email (X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches (X) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians (X) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers (X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses (X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email (X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
After all, being truly machiavellian is an art rarely practiced outside of government.
Definitely not true. In fact, there's a pretty good book (as well as quite a few imitators) on the very subject of how Machiavelli is incredibly useful for understanding modern business.
The key difference between government and corporate power: governments are ultimately answerable to their citizens, whereas corporations are ultimately answerable to their shareholders. That means among other things that corporations can and will ruin the lives of their employees or residents of the surrounding area (via pollution mostly) if it increases their profits, can and will bilk their customers if they can get away with it, and don't really mind a large population of unemployed, broke, desperate people.
I was actually guessing they'd replaced his brain with an electronic one, that was capable of basic bodily functions, saying "What", and "Where's the tea?"
The leaked archive was a cherry-picked portion of the email. Which for me begged the question of where the person who leaked it possibly came up with the time and resources to go through the GBs of data and pick out all the bits that made the researchers look bad.
Only instead of a few million Windows computers getting botted, our very economy is at stake from the "warmers" and their political machinations.
Or alternately, our very civilization is at stake from the "deniers" and their political machinations.
I don't know for sure that CO2 emissions are a problem. What I do know is that right now we only have one place to perform a real-world test to find out, and unfortunately we're living on it and have no alternatives if we screw up. Sort of a Reverse Pascal's Wager.
Slashdot Mirror
Hamas hasn't attacked the US either, and doesn't target Americans in particular. Their primary target is and has always been Israel and Israelis. The extent of Hamas attacking Americans has been generally attacking Israel and unexpectedly ending up with American captives or casualties.
I think what you're missing is that Hamas isn't the same organization as Al Qaida, which has done both of the things you mentioned.
As George Carlin pointed out, if firefighters fight fires, and crime fighters fight crime, what do "freedom fighters" fight?
But seriously, the difference between the US's treatment of the IRA versus the US's treatment of Hamas is rather fascinating, since both their tactics and goals were/are extremely similar.
Which, as the summary explains, is absolutely true.
Actually, thanks to the recession, you have thousands of young people paying search firms to get into internship programs that pay $0 an hour (for instance, this story).
As I wrote in to a magazine recently, the interesting thing about the recession is that it started for young people long before the housing crash in 2008. Wages were dropping like a rock for our parents too, but they could keep afloat with home equity loans until the entire system unravelled. 20-somethings, on the other hand, almost never have a home of their own and thus no home equity. The best the new BA grads could manage was to use grad school as a way to delay entering the real world, and a strikingly high percentage of them have done just that, running up massive student loans in the process.
Matt Foley is a very successful speaker.
* He made a lasting impression on his audience. Everyone remembers him.
* He actually conveyed the point he was trying to make.
* He successfully handled unexpected mishaps, like breaking a coffee table.
An adult doesn't "need" to communicate with a child, but I think you're ignoring the gazillions of positive interactions a child can have with adults that aren't related to them.
Scenario: A 10-12 year-old who is interested in computers starts creating a real website for the fun of it. They want some dynamic content, so they start asking around on some forums about good tools to do that. Would you rather that (a) all the adults who can help the kid out refuse to respond for fear of prosecution, or (b) work with the kid to help them figure out the best tools they can use that will teach them something, point them to resources on Javascript, etc?
Scenario: A teenager who is really upset about a breakup starts making comments online that indicate that they may be suicidal. Would you rather that (a) all the adults on the forum refuse to respond for fear of prosecution, or (b) adults direct the teenager to suicide prevention resources?
Kids can and will express themselves differently to adults who aren't their parents, and those adults can often offer critical help to those kids. Just because 0.0001% of adults online will do bad stuff to kids doesn't mean the other 99.999% should be cut off from those kids.
It's not that simple.
Imagine this if you will:
a. An agent or officer who suspects a certain Mr John Doe but has no real evidence begins surveillance of them using an NSL.
- Using that information, supplies that information to the judge as evidence of probable cause for a search warrant.
- The evidence from the search is then used to charge Mr Doe with a crime.
- Based on that evidence, Mr Doe is convicted.
Now, much of the time, that's the end of the story. But let's say Mr Doe's lawyer is the dedicated type, and starts looking into the search warrant, because if that's a bad warrant then the conviction should be overturned. Specifically, how the evidence to justify the search warrant was obtained. Since no one can legally tell the lawyer, the person who would risk a felony conviction would not be Mr Doe, but some functionary at Yahoo, AT&T, etc, who would presumably be disinclined to risk time in PMITA prison on behalf of some stranger. Yes, that would be the morally correct and principled thing to do thing to do, but as a practical matter it's a rare thing for anyone to want to take the risk.
Especially no one will want to take the risk when at least 4 members of the current US Supreme Court (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito) have shown no signs of having any problem with NSLs.
The really interesting part about National Security Letters is that they're fairly obviously unconsitutional, but were designed in such a way that the judiciary would never rule on their constitutionality. By making it a crime to reveal that you've received an NSL, you make it impossible for anyone to demonstrate that it existed in the first place, and thus prevent anyone who was targeted by them to establish standing to sue. So if someone tries to challenge it, the executive branch can argue correctly "You can't prove an NSL existed, therefor you can't prove you were harmed by NSLs, therefor you have no reason to sue".
I just wish more of the Senate had understood what was really at stake and followed Sen Russ Feingold's (D-WI) lead. Because what was actually going on was that the executive succeeded in shutting out the judiciary from the judicial process.
One of the really good practices out there is reviewing code in a group. You pull in 3-4 developers (besides the one who wrote the code). The one who wrote the code explains what it was intended to do. Another developer goes through line-by-line and describes what it actually does. Lots of nits are picked, but in the end what you usually get is useful critiques for the developer who wrote the code, and some good ideas from that same developer that other developers use.
If mis-applied, this sort of thing would be annoying bureaucracy, but when done properly the result is that all developers are learning what works and what doesn't from each other, and the code that gets put into the code base gets better.
Much better: throw a handful of flour at it. Hey, it worked well when my D&D party had to deal with invisible stalkers, why not this?
Jon Stewart has made that exact point repeatedly, that something is fundamentally wrong when CNN is looking to Comedy Central for integrity in broadcasting. Whenever he calls someone out for spreading BS, it's truly embarrassing to watch them defend themselves. For instance, watch his appearance on Crossfire (which led directly to the show being canceled), and his very appropriate grilling of Jim Cramer.
Here's my take on why he is so successful at doing this: He, unlike most TV personalities, didn't come up through the ranks at one of the big 3 networks. The people who did had to swallow a certain amount of BS in order to make it to where they are now, and are at least partially complicit. That means that unlike Jon, they are reluctant to call people out for spreading BS because they're doing the same thing, they know they're doing it, and don't want to invite a reprisal.
Right. My point is that the so-called "mainstream press" are regularly caught not doing their job.
Then explain why reporters who have the chance to investigate, say, the Vice President's Chief of Staff for outing a CIA agent instead go to great lengths (including going to jail) to protect him and other sources?
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" -- it's in every restaurant.
Actually, only sort of. If there's a pattern to who you refuse service to, it can get you into big trouble. For instance, if you consistently refuse service to black people, you are in violation of a number of civil rights laws.
If you think that user-content can be more fair and balanced than most journalists, I ask of you: have you read slashdot?
It can be more balanced than journalists.
The upside of user content and lively comment threads is that as a general rule any BS gets exposed quickly for what it is. And even some mainstream sources like the New York Times have had some pretty interesting episodes where one of the NYTimes columnists posted something on their site which was not even slightly even-handed, and their user base immediately responded in the comments section with pages of reasons why the columnist was full of it.
The downside of user content is that a lot of BS gets spit out. So you can't believe everything you read.
As far as the line between a columnist and a reporter, here's an example of how you get into trouble: Why do many basketball fans think that LeBron James will be playing for the Knicks next year? The idea that he will regularly shows up in places where it shouldn't, and you'll see reporting that looks like this: "LeBron James and the Cavaliers beat the New York Knicks today in Madison Square Garden 110-75. ... LeBron James refused to answer questions about whether he will play for the Knicks in 2010." That second sentence, while reporting the fact, immediately causes the person reading it to think "why was that even a question?"
As one of those who put up some gripes with modern-day journalism, the biggest problem I was alluding to was not the censorship by the news organizations, which blog-based journalism could remedy, but 5 much more critical problems:
1. The mixing of editorializing and reporting. The telltale sign for that is only 1 major source for a story rather than 2 or 3 sources (some of whom disagree with each other).
2. The mix of advertising and reporting. This is the big one for the business press. For instance, a story with a headline of "CEO John Doe of Initech announces launch of FlimFlam" combined with an advertising link to buy shares of Initech.
3. The dependency of journalists on their sources. This causes all sorts of problems, the most common of which is that the source can threaten to cut off the reporter if the reporter doesn't print something favorable to the source. This is a huge problem in political reporting, because reporter's careers tend to depend on getting and keeping insider sources.
4. If 2-3 sources say the same thing, and it's not dug into more deeply, reporters will not infrequently incorrectly assume that the 2-3 sources aren't organized. A classic case of this is the Pentagon paying retired generals to stick to a party line, while reporters were using the retired generals as independent analysts (kudos to the reporters who did look more deeply and figure that one out).
5. A perception by a lot of news organizations that speed beats accuracy.
Who exactly are they referring to?
- Political journalists, who help their sources insult people and ruin careers anonymously? Or do what Stephen Colbert pointed out was "the White House tells you what to write, you write it down, and print it."
- Sports journalists, who basically are professional sports fans, desperately clinging to rumor, conjecture, and hearsay?
- Business journalists, who often act as cheerleaders for a company's stock more than anything else?
- Slashdot editors? (enough said)
These are not the days of Bernstein, Woodward, Hersch, etc.
The idea that the CRA caused the mortgage meltdown is flat wrong. There are plenty of other sources besides those 2, from all sorts of economists.
The other basic thing that you fail to acknowledge is that oligopolies are different from free markets. If the number of sellers in your market drop into the single-digits (which is true of a lot of markets right now), Adam Smith's work stops being half as useful as John Nash's. It's sort of like how Isaac Newton's physics works extremely well most of the time, but once you get into the realm of really big, really small, or really fast things it tends to fall apart.
Sorry to do this, but:
Your post advocates a
( ) technical (X) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(X) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
(X) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(X) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(X) Asshats
(X) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(X) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
(X) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
(X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
After all, being truly machiavellian is an art rarely practiced outside of government.
Definitely not true. In fact, there's a pretty good book (as well as quite a few imitators) on the very subject of how Machiavelli is incredibly useful for understanding modern business.
The key difference between government and corporate power: governments are ultimately answerable to their citizens, whereas corporations are ultimately answerable to their shareholders. That means among other things that corporations can and will ruin the lives of their employees or residents of the surrounding area (via pollution mostly) if it increases their profits, can and will bilk their customers if they can get away with it, and don't really mind a large population of unemployed, broke, desperate people.
I was actually guessing they'd replaced his brain with an electronic one, that was capable of basic bodily functions, saying "What", and "Where's the tea?"
The leaked archive was a cherry-picked portion of the email. Which for me begged the question of where the person who leaked it possibly came up with the time and resources to go through the GBs of data and pick out all the bits that made the researchers look bad.
Only instead of a few million Windows computers getting botted, our very economy is at stake from the "warmers" and their political machinations.
Or alternately, our very civilization is at stake from the "deniers" and their political machinations.
I don't know for sure that CO2 emissions are a problem. What I do know is that right now we only have one place to perform a real-world test to find out, and unfortunately we're living on it and have no alternatives if we screw up. Sort of a Reverse Pascal's Wager.
How about "Climatewinsky"?