Well, yes, aristocrats have to stick together. Bi-partisanship, as usual, is easy when it increases their power and keeps the "little people" in their place.
AGW theories are not treated like science, they are treated like religion. Critics are called heretics ("deniers" in the parlance), journal editors publishing refutations are excommunicated ("thrown into disrepute"). Any "testable" predictions of AGW are either simple trend statistics or not testable at all. Most of the predictions have simply failed, but that's explained away by misinterpretation or, oddly enough, inaccurate data used in models at the time.
Really interesting that your argument about regional warming providing evidence of climate change is the EXACT SAME argument used to claim that the "Medieval warming period" was NOT evidence of pre-industrial climate change.
Thank you for pointing out the ultimate goal of the globalists that want to use climate change to implement new enforceable policies to control CO2: they want to eliminate most of the people.
Ten feet? WTF? Ten feet. I don't think even the most dire predictions of climate change come anywhere close to that. The worst-case is, I think, somewhere around 3 feet by 2100 - and that's IF everything aligns in the exactly worst way possible and everything the IPCC claims will happen actually does.
The AGW proponents scrambling to figure out where all the warming they predicted went reminds me of the Bush Administration officials running around Iraq trying to find the WMDs. In fact, there are factions of both claiming it really exists, it's just "hidden".
So you're a one issue voter. You people really don't matter much in the big scheme of things, to either party. They will simply use your focus on one issue to get their way, and then ignore you, as you found out.
Not true. Issue voters have a LOT of influence, and the 2nd Amendment / Gun Control lobbyists prove that every year, when their bills are introduced and debated in congress and in state houses all over the country. Same goes for the Pro-life/Pro-choice voters. The only reason these things don't move very much is because there are so many passionate voices on both sides.
The LGBT voters are doing much better. A small minority, but with a major influence on public policy.
The ones that really DO NOT matter are the partisan voters, that go with party even if it hurts their cause. Want a good example of that? Remember the "Moral Majority", the bunch of social authoritarians led by Jerry Falwell? Yea, they made a really big splash for a couple of elections, and then the Republicans figured out that those guys never voted for Democrats or third parties. So they ignored them. Truly good example of why voting for the "least objectionable" is never a good idea, it just lets both parties get away with being evil, as long as they can convince you they're not as evil as the other guy.
Not if you take third parties seriously, no (and I still do; go Gary Johnson!). But unless Ron Paul wins his party's nomination (and he won't), it is likely that Obama will be way better than the Republican nominee.
That's true, since anybody other than Paul would continue most of Obama's policies anyway. But with Obama still in office, we can keep our numbers up in the opposition. If a Republican got in, too many people would stop paying attention and we might not have the numbers and the funding to keep the congress blocking all the power grabs. You'd have to explain to people WHY a policy or law change is bad and CONVINCE them to oppose it. So, yea, keep Obama in, that will make it easier: "Hey, Obama wants this - Call your congressman and senator to tell them to oppose it!!"
And Al Awlaki, too. An American citizen. Never indicted, charged, or tried for any crime. But marked for death and killed by a drone in Yemen. Give Obama another 4 years and he'll probably be droning his enemies right here in the states.
Not that Newt Romney wouldn't do the same thing - but to vote for somebody because they can send drones to kill anybody they decide is dangerous seems like the very definition of voting against your own self-interest.
That's because for the first time since the Iraq war was started, it was put on the budget, and not in an "emergency supplement"...
Not really true. It may not have been part of discretionary budget, and it may have been allocated separate from the budget, but it was still part of federal spending, and still part of the deficit - the government has take in or borrow everything it spends, whether it's part of the budget or not. In fact, since 2009, congress hasn't passed a budget AT ALL, but they are still spending money, and still borrowing, and it's all part of the treasury department accounting.
Now, just to be clear on this: When Dick Cheney said that, they had already ballooned the deficit by trillions of dollars. He wasn't talking about "small deficits".
The deficit was never over $1 trillion until the 2009 budget.
The worst part to me is the whole idea of putting people in jail for possessing "dangerous information." Is this what is happening in free societies now? How can we even defend calling them "free societies" then?
IF you want to run e.g. Apache and IIS on the same machine, they can't both use the same ports. I've been in this situation before, and had to run one of my servers on a different port, IIRC it was 81. So maybe this chap's got three webservers?
Or he's using some cheap consumer ISP service that blocks incoming port 80 requests. Which explains why it got slashdotted so fast - it's probably a cheap desktop computer running a website. Note that the registrar for the site is DynDNS, and the name server is (interestingly) AFRAID.ORG !
Each of the 22 governments that agreed to pass ACTA was democratially elected by its own citizens.
Not so fast. I noticed, for instance, that Greece and Italy are on the list. Their governments were displaced recently by non-elected former banking industry executives, because they are so heavily in debt. Democratically elected? Hardly.
There are democratically elected officials in several bodies of EU nations, but they are quickly losing power, and the United States of Europe will be run by aristocrats that are not accountable to the people of Europe at all.
Increase the output of doctors from medical schools by increasing federal funding.
Apparently you don't understand how the system works. You don't need increased funding, you just have to remove the government caps on internships. That's the mechanism used by the health care industry to keep supplies artificially low.
Obviously, Anonymous Cowards on/. are going to be more credible on this topic than NASA's NAIC and the many physics experts and engineers that say all the studies show it's feasible and are working on the technologies required right now.
If Gingrich was anything close to a "visionary", he'd be talking space elevator, not moon bases.
What he is, is a liar that will say anything to gain power for himself, and that's quite clear from his history. The American voter has a very short memory, though, which is why these tyrants keep coming back even after leaving in disgrace.
This is not to say I particularly like Obama either, to put it bluntly I think he's an arrogant dick, but as I say, I don't think it matters if America can afford it or not anyway, Gingrich is just trolling the terminally dumb for votes.
It's easy to do in America, because the mainstream media has such a profound influence on the terminally dumb populace. It's how they got Obama elected, even though he had no real record to review, didn't really say anything substantive about policies, and his past was murky, at best. The media in America plays public opinion like a fiddle.
Note that Gingrich only recently became a front-runner, and I think the primary motivation for making sure he did was to keep the ratings up on the "Fear Factor: Republican Primary Edition" reality show that the big media companies have been getting such good ratings from. If Romney had won in South Carolina and maintained his position in the polls, they would have lost a lot of eyeballs as the show got much less interesting.
When on earth has the US actually cared how large the debt gets.
Before the US quit paying it back regularly or keeping it in check, essentially after the New Deal policies were put in place in the 1930s.
Actually it was later than that. The New Deal created the first set of "entitlements", the big one being Social Security. But they still paid attention to debts. The US ran up a pretty big debt (historically) during WW2, and made some major efforts to get that paid down, and it was.
The worst things happened during Johnson and Nixon. Johnson decided that since SS was bringing in so much money, they could spend it on anything they wanted to, and pay it back "later" (still hasn't happened, BTW). Nixon dropped the last of the gold backing for the US dollar, turning it into pure fiat money. Other countries expressed outrage over it, but they were so invested in dollars there wasn't much they could do.
And now that I think about it, it seems it was during the Reagan era that people started saying that "debt doesn't matter" at the Federal level. But back then it was quite a low percentage of GDP. I don't think they ever imagined it would grow so large that it would take 12% of revenues just to make the interest payments. And that's with interest rates at the lowest point ever.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, yes, aristocrats have to stick together. Bi-partisanship, as usual, is easy when it increases their power and keeps the "little people" in their place.
AGW theories are not treated like science, they are treated like religion. Critics are called heretics ("deniers" in the parlance), journal editors publishing refutations are excommunicated ("thrown into disrepute"). Any "testable" predictions of AGW are either simple trend statistics or not testable at all. Most of the predictions have simply failed, but that's explained away by misinterpretation or, oddly enough, inaccurate data used in models at the time.
Actually, the rise of temperature during the MWP was just as sharp and even warmer than today's. But the evangelists claim now that it can only be shown to be regional and shouldn't count as global warming.
Oh, yea. I forgot that AGW is a religion.
Really interesting that your argument about regional warming providing evidence of climate change is the EXACT SAME argument used to claim that the "Medieval warming period" was NOT evidence of pre-industrial climate change.
All of which is a refreshing change from the overwhelming liberal bias of the rest of the media promoting global warming alarm-ism.
Well thank goodness there's none of that bias here on slashdot!
Thank you for pointing out the ultimate goal of the globalists that want to use climate change to implement new enforceable policies to control CO2: they want to eliminate most of the people.
Sorry, but anecdotal evidence of regional temperature changes do not a global average make.
Average global temperatures are up ... 2c in the last decade
Uhhh... no. Just completely wrong. And the mods don't know the difference between "Insightful" and "bullshit".
Ten feet? WTF? Ten feet. I don't think even the most dire predictions of climate change come anywhere close to that. The worst-case is, I think, somewhere around 3 feet by 2100 - and that's IF everything aligns in the exactly worst way possible and everything the IPCC claims will happen actually does.
if we're changing the environment, then let's try to do it optimally.
Fine with me, bring it on. I want more winters like this one, and I'd rather not have to drive 70 miles to go sailing. Bring on the warm, baby!
The AGW proponents scrambling to figure out where all the warming they predicted went reminds me of the Bush Administration officials running around Iraq trying to find the WMDs. In fact, there are factions of both claiming it really exists, it's just "hidden".
So you're a one issue voter. You people really don't matter much in the big scheme of things, to either party. They will simply use your focus on one issue to get their way, and then ignore you, as you found out.
Not true. Issue voters have a LOT of influence, and the 2nd Amendment / Gun Control lobbyists prove that every year, when their bills are introduced and debated in congress and in state houses all over the country. Same goes for the Pro-life/Pro-choice voters. The only reason these things don't move very much is because there are so many passionate voices on both sides.
The LGBT voters are doing much better. A small minority, but with a major influence on public policy.
The ones that really DO NOT matter are the partisan voters, that go with party even if it hurts their cause. Want a good example of that? Remember the "Moral Majority", the bunch of social authoritarians led by Jerry Falwell? Yea, they made a really big splash for a couple of elections, and then the Republicans figured out that those guys never voted for Democrats or third parties. So they ignored them. Truly good example of why voting for the "least objectionable" is never a good idea, it just lets both parties get away with being evil, as long as they can convince you they're not as evil as the other guy.
Not if you take third parties seriously, no (and I still do; go Gary Johnson!). But unless Ron Paul wins his party's nomination (and he won't), it is likely that Obama will be way better than the Republican nominee.
That's true, since anybody other than Paul would continue most of Obama's policies anyway. But with Obama still in office, we can keep our numbers up in the opposition. If a Republican got in, too many people would stop paying attention and we might not have the numbers and the funding to keep the congress blocking all the power grabs. You'd have to explain to people WHY a policy or law change is bad and CONVINCE them to oppose it. So, yea, keep Obama in, that will make it easier: "Hey, Obama wants this - Call your congressman and senator to tell them to oppose it!!"
It was actually the Obama administration that insisted the indefinite detention provision apply to US Citizen be included in the bill in the first place.
No kick-backs to friends he has in big business.
You obviously haven't been paying attention.
Killed Bin Laden is a good start.
And Al Awlaki, too. An American citizen. Never indicted, charged, or tried for any crime. But marked for death and killed by a drone in Yemen. Give Obama another 4 years and he'll probably be droning his enemies right here in the states.
Not that Newt Romney wouldn't do the same thing - but to vote for somebody because they can send drones to kill anybody they decide is dangerous seems like the very definition of voting against your own self-interest.
That's because for the first time since the Iraq war was started, it was put on the budget, and not in an "emergency supplement"...
Not really true. It may not have been part of discretionary budget, and it may have been allocated separate from the budget, but it was still part of federal spending, and still part of the deficit - the government has take in or borrow everything it spends, whether it's part of the budget or not. In fact, since 2009, congress hasn't passed a budget AT ALL, but they are still spending money, and still borrowing, and it's all part of the treasury department accounting.
Now, just to be clear on this: When Dick Cheney said that, they had already ballooned the deficit by trillions of dollars. He wasn't talking about "small deficits".
The deficit was never over $1 trillion until the 2009 budget.
The worst part to me is the whole idea of putting people in jail for possessing "dangerous information." Is this what is happening in free societies now? How can we even defend calling them "free societies" then?
Dangerous Information Arrgh!
IF you want to run e.g. Apache and IIS on the same machine, they can't both use the same ports. I've been in this situation before, and had to run one of my servers on a different port, IIRC it was 81. So maybe this chap's got three webservers?
Or he's using some cheap consumer ISP service that blocks incoming port 80 requests. Which explains why it got slashdotted so fast - it's probably a cheap desktop computer running a website. Note that the registrar for the site is DynDNS, and the name server is (interestingly) AFRAID.ORG !
Each of the 22 governments that agreed to pass ACTA was democratially elected by its own citizens.
Not so fast. I noticed, for instance, that Greece and Italy are on the list. Their governments were displaced recently by non-elected former banking industry executives, because they are so heavily in debt. Democratically elected? Hardly.
There are democratically elected officials in several bodies of EU nations, but they are quickly losing power, and the United States of Europe will be run by aristocrats that are not accountable to the people of Europe at all.
Increase the output of doctors from medical schools by increasing federal funding.
Apparently you don't understand how the system works. You don't need increased funding, you just have to remove the government caps on internships. That's the mechanism used by the health care industry to keep supplies artificially low.
Obviously, Anonymous Cowards on /. are going to be more credible on this topic than NASA's NAIC and the many physics experts and engineers that say all the studies show it's feasible and are working on the technologies required right now.
If Gingrich was anything close to a "visionary", he'd be talking space elevator, not moon bases.
What he is, is a liar that will say anything to gain power for himself, and that's quite clear from his history. The American voter has a very short memory, though, which is why these tyrants keep coming back even after leaving in disgrace.
This is not to say I particularly like Obama either, to put it bluntly I think he's an arrogant dick, but as I say, I don't think it matters if America can afford it or not anyway, Gingrich is just trolling the terminally dumb for votes.
It's easy to do in America, because the mainstream media has such a profound influence on the terminally dumb populace. It's how they got Obama elected, even though he had no real record to review, didn't really say anything substantive about policies, and his past was murky, at best. The media in America plays public opinion like a fiddle.
Note that Gingrich only recently became a front-runner, and I think the primary motivation for making sure he did was to keep the ratings up on the "Fear Factor: Republican Primary Edition" reality show that the big media companies have been getting such good ratings from. If Romney had won in South Carolina and maintained his position in the polls, they would have lost a lot of eyeballs as the show got much less interesting.
When on earth has the US actually cared how large the debt gets.
Before the US quit paying it back regularly or keeping it in check, essentially after the New Deal policies were put in place in the 1930s.
Actually it was later than that. The New Deal created the first set of "entitlements", the big one being Social Security. But they still paid attention to debts. The US ran up a pretty big debt (historically) during WW2, and made some major efforts to get that paid down, and it was.
The worst things happened during Johnson and Nixon. Johnson decided that since SS was bringing in so much money, they could spend it on anything they wanted to, and pay it back "later" (still hasn't happened, BTW). Nixon dropped the last of the gold backing for the US dollar, turning it into pure fiat money. Other countries expressed outrage over it, but they were so invested in dollars there wasn't much they could do.
And now that I think about it, it seems it was during the Reagan era that people started saying that "debt doesn't matter" at the Federal level. But back then it was quite a low percentage of GDP. I don't think they ever imagined it would grow so large that it would take 12% of revenues just to make the interest payments. And that's with interest rates at the lowest point ever.