Got anything more recent? All this says is that the company that makes the chemicals got pissed and sued. Big deal. You can sue a ham sandwich. What actually came out of it?
(And I'll Google it myself, so don't bother, but I'd like to point out that you just linked to a 90%-non-story.)
I suspect with republicans coming in to help fund more denial research, we will have a great "debate", but the easy to predict sophism won't do much to alter the reality that the planet is getting hotter as a result of forcing by carbon dioxide and as the temperatures in the arctic continue to increase, methane as well.
It may surprise you to note that NASA isn't exactly the RNC.
Further, if you'll take the time to read the article, it actually says that CO2 actually contributes to cooling when you factor in what the plants are doing.
There doesn't seem to be a lot of need to look farther, unless you just don't like the unavoidable conclusion.
So you're describing a religion, then, and nothing scientific at all.
Read the article before you comment. It should cause you to regret a statement or two. If the findings in the report are correct, cutting CO2 may well be the wrong thing to do. More work is needed, not less.
5) At some point debate has to end, there is literally no benefit to having to argue every day over whether 2+2=4 and whether gravity will continue working tomorrow.
So, on the topic of the article, are you unconvinced by the findings in this report? You talk about people who 'do not critically examine' evidince, but are you or are you not one of those?
I'm only asking because this report seems to have not been published by Exxon, but rather NASA, so it just might be credible. Yet your diatribe here is unmodified. Why?
Actually, later in the article it says they even went so far as to credit him along with a bunch of others as "talent". Yet they didn't pay him.
I'm guessing he recalls the meeting and fails to recall the waiver of likeness rights he signed during said meeting. That, or he signed something that flat-out said that they were doing research among multiple people, none of whom would be compensated beyond a credit, and that the result would take lifelike tidbits from multiple people to inspire one fictional character's traits.
And what if there was no waiver? Those things exist for a reason, and you're well illustrating the proper use, but their counter argument seems to be along the lines of...
The other, bigger, part suggests that Rockstar based the in-game personalities on a collection of caricatures and stereotypes – Boys ‘n the Hood-style – rather than anything, or anyone specific.
It is possible that the design team was confident that the generalization defense would be sufficient and that they wouldn't require any actual paperwork.
I guess it depends on who is doing that phishing. My real name is publicly available information. Blizzard not only has it, but they have all sorts of other info on me as well, like my credit card number. I don't generally keep it a secret, and indeed I tell it to everyone I meet in meatspace. Heck, my work makes me wear it on my collar everywhere I go, just in case they forget who I am.
People aren't used to it in the online world, but they'll get there. One day we'll be at a place where using your real, full name isn't some kind of a big 'harass me' sign. Maybe Blizzard was ahead of their time, but it is coming.
Huh. I thought we went to Iraq because of the 19 UN resolutions authorizing the use of force to depose Saddam due to his continued violations of the cease-fire agreement from the first gulf war, which is what all the democrats in 1999 were in favor of doing.
Yeah, we all thought that. Then we saw what really happened, and now we know better. The statement you're making is now out of date in at least two significant ways:
A) Our attacking Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with Saddam and everything to do with conquering it. We could have removed him in any number of ways, but we elected for 'Shock and Awe' instead. Largely we just wanted to flex some military muscle and bully everyone with a display of power. Too bad it backfired...
B) It turns out that Saddam's 'violations' were largely bluffs. We killed millions of humans because Husein was pretending to have weapons. Why? Were we worried that Israel would have to pretend to play dead when he pointed his finger and went 'bang'?
Then again, I'm not a partisan hack that has to chant talking points and memes like those monks from Monty Python in order to validate my self-worth.
Except you are. Which is awkward, because I'm genuinely not. You assume I'm on the Blue Team because I can point out how clearly stupid and insane the conquest of Iraq was and continues to be - but you're wrong. I usually vote for the Red Team. But in this particular case, I can see the facts - and more importantly the results - for what they are, rather than what certain powerful people wish they could have been.
Senator Chuck Schumer proposed a bill to make it illegal to redistribute porno-vision image. Wrong problem, wrong answer.
Indeed. The actual problem is that these people at the TSA are batshit insane, and the solution would be to require MANDATORY publication of every scan. Just so people finally wake up and put a stop to it.
You, sir, are an idiot. Let's say someone exploits this and blows up a flight somewhere. Or, they manage to hijack the plane and fly it into some building (the how is irrelevant). I don't see any of the people killed by the collateral damage opting out of getting killed.
Either collateral damage matters or it doesn't. Either we should be protecting the lives of the potential three thousand dead by stopping futher hijackings, or we should never have killed the nearly two million civilian Iraqis, poisoned their ground water, multiplied their cancer risks, etc. Can't have it both ways, America.
So we've gone from not being two-faced to living as a celebrity?
Besides, every single one of my coworkers knows all of the above, save the nudity, and that's probably to their benefit.
I've already stated that we need to be as honest as possible at all times, as individuals, and that this ramps up significantly for governments. Both types of parties need to strive for as few as possible.
Yes, clearly they do not have a need for those levels. They're simply bureaucracy, and are not necessary at all.
If the US Government HAD invited Japan over to view the Manhattan Project's testing, Nagasaki would not have happened, certainly, and probably neither Hiroshima. So it isn't all bad. Besides, fast-forward to today and everyone (or everyone who can afford it, at least) has this power. No real harm done.
And, in truth, I think you can attribute a lot of the GERMAN and Japanese behavior to misunderstandings. Nazi's, not so much. But the way the German people were usurped by this party isn't altogether too surprising when you understand the situation they were in after WWI.
Rather like we, here in America, can be excused for surrendering all of our freedoms after 9/11.
Still - in an era where such things can be tracked via satellite, there's no need to try and keep it secret. I'm all for individual privacy, but the government has no proper use for such a creature.
I actually do try to live my life this way, excepting omission, which is still something I'm working on weeding out. It isn't easy, but it only takes a tiny amount of discipline applied consistently. But the end result is, you're not going to catch me being two-faced unless I'm being weak. And I'm working on the latter part.
We ought to operate the government the same way. We should not tell our allies one thing to their face and say something different in cables behind their backs. Vis-a-vis enemies, as well. We can be completely honest at all times, again with a bit of discipline and constant application.
As for witness protection, so be it. Those lists WILL be leaked someday anyway. We need to redesign the system to tolerate it, or we'll have their blood on our hands. That's the final evaluation of it, and there's genuinely no room for debate. The only, tiny hope is that the people in the protection program will die of natural causes before the information age catches up to that system. And God help their kids when it does.
So, in that light, the only secret needing kept by the government should be the last few they are working on eliminating. It does take time and effort, but this is our government. It can be designed as we wish it to be.
Would you mind if someone went through your trash or if a house guest went through your bureau and posted your bank accounts, social security number, the like online?
Yes, absolutely. And I would likewise object to anyone going through the personal belongings of any of these politicians.
GOVERNMENTS, however are NOT people, and do not have nor require any right to 'privacy'. So, alas, here we disagree.
The article seems to be detailing diplomacy as usual.
I hear this a lot, and I find it overly cynical.
Imagine an article describing someone being brutally murdered. Picture that this person is a black twelve year old male. Imagine now that this happened in the following places:
A) New York City B) Mobile Alabama C) Darfur
Which of those locations match the expectation, and which do not? Statistically the odds of violent death would vary by location, but would it ever simply be 'detailing business as usual'?
Because with the cables I think this is the most important part. Few people genuinely believed that the CIA was doing so much evil as grabbing completely innocent people and rushing them off to torture and interrogation, but here we have the cable confirming not only that this was true, but that we suppressed their investigation of it. That's MORE evil than the first accusation!
And what about being complicit in murder?? Does this genuinely shock no one?
I couldn't have those conversations if the person was listening in. I mean there isn't any way I could let a student know they are dealing with an asshole, no matter how diplomatic I was the asshole would get mad. It is important that I can have a candid conversation with the students about this, it makes them able to do their job more effectively. But I couldn't do it if I had to record my conversations and hand them over to the parties involved.
In that case, then, you really shouldn't do it. Not only is it potentially harmful, but you're causing your biases to flow downward onto every new employee you're responsible for training. Further, you're just some schmoe and not an entire government. With the size and importance of the organization increasing, so does the responsibility.
We need to develop a means of governing without secrets. Period.
It is genuinely the only way to survive the coming age. We're in the midst of an information renaissance, and Wikileaks is simply ahead of it's time. Our entire culture will adapt to the notion that you could be being watched. This might hopefully lead us into an era where we can be more honest with each other, especially at the political level.
Secondly, my message is more along the lines of: "Because Twitter isn't censoring Wikileaks, people who believe Twitter is censoring Wikileaks are paranoid." That seems like pretty solid reasoning to me.
I accept this phrasing of your message, and take the identical exception to it. In order to ascertain that Wikileaks was not under fire one would need to consider more than a single datapoint. I've got nothing against you repudiating this one point on whatever grounds, but I do draw the line at you knocking them all out in one fell swoop. That's not intellectually honest.
Whatever people think about *other* activities that may or may not be occurring against Wikileaks is off-topic, and therefore I'm not addressing those.
Re-read the post you replied to, and try that again. You could have asserted your opinion at any level within this thread, but you elected to do so here - underneath this assertion:
I am amazed at how many fronts have been opened against wikileaks in the past few weeks. Clearly, there are people who want it crushed, but I can't recall ever seeing the number and variety of attacks against another "thorn in the side" as we're seeing against wikileaks.
The takeaway lesson: those who try to learn the truth and spread the truth will be destroyed.
To reply to something or someone else under this specific reply button is incorrect.
Because I'm sick of having to read paranoid rantings modded-up in every single goddamned story.
So don't click on them. It isn't exactly hard. I personally avoid tons of articles on this site. There was one below here that was entitled something like 'I need a developer' and I was fairly certain it would be a self-referring 'OMG PHBs are so lulz' waste of time. There's no shame in having taste preferences.
So when you encounter an article entitled, 'Is Twitter Censoring Wikileaks Trends?', what, pray-tell did you expect to find within it, exactly?
Who made you the slashdot comment police?
By "single element" do you mean Wikileaks not showing up on Twitter's Trending Topics list? The thing this topic is about? Am I reading this right? You're actually chiding me for being on-topic?
For someone who cannot demonstrate better reading comprehension than this particular moron, you sure are bad at filtering what you post. Think about it - you just displayed a poorer level of comprehension than me, who you have labeled as a complete simpleton. That can't be good. But, acting under the assumption that you were just rushed, I'll spell it out slowly for you...
A) You're dismissing the topic out of hand
B) You're doing so in rebuttal to a comment about 'how many fronts have been opened'
C) You're using this rebuttal as a means of measuring that 'people on Slashdot are paranoid'
Therefore your position can be summed up, in it's complete context, as:
Because Twitter isn't attacking Wikileaks, anyone (on slashdot) who believes that Wikileaks is under attack is paranoid.
Or maybe... just maybe... not enough people are tweeting about it? Did that extremely simple, common-sense, explanation ever occur to you?
And yet here you are, in this comment, calling people names. If your position is the more reasonable one, why the passion in your response? Besides, it isn't as if twitter would be the only thing Wikileaks has had to worry about over the last year or so. Or, what, if trends start to appear then Assange would be free to travel to the US again?
Please just note how by dismissing a single element of what some perceive to be an alarming trend you have DISMISSED THE ENTIRE SITUATION as paranoia.
To me, it seems 'the sir dost protest too much'. Dissonance, most likely.
The cable leaks have almost no worthy information. They don't show cover-ups, torture or anything else we didn't already know about. It's the equivalent on getting caught passing a note at primary school.
The Yanks have little to worry about.
If nothing else they prove that everyone knew about these goings-on, and that it wasn't just the local evil men in the field. They clearly illustrate systematic corruption at the highest levels.
You can opine that even this is not new, but that's just your cynicism talking. Joe Public does not believe that Obama is guilty of high crimes. The cables illustrate that conspiracy charges, at a minimum, would in fact stick in a fair court of law.
Slashdot Mirror
Got anything more recent? All this says is that the company that makes the chemicals got pissed and sued. Big deal. You can sue a ham sandwich. What actually came out of it?
(And I'll Google it myself, so don't bother, but I'd like to point out that you just linked to a 90%-non-story.)
I suspect with republicans coming in to help fund more denial research, we will have a great "debate", but the easy to predict sophism won't do much to alter the reality that the planet is getting hotter as a result of forcing by carbon dioxide and as the temperatures in the arctic continue to increase, methane as well.
It may surprise you to note that NASA isn't exactly the RNC.
Further, if you'll take the time to read the article, it actually says that CO2 actually contributes to cooling when you factor in what the plants are doing.
There doesn't seem to be a lot of need to look farther, unless you just don't like the unavoidable conclusion.
So you're describing a religion, then, and nothing scientific at all.
Read the article before you comment. It should cause you to regret a statement or two. If the findings in the report are correct, cutting CO2 may well be the wrong thing to do. More work is needed, not less.
5) At some point debate has to end, there is literally no benefit to having to argue every day over whether 2+2=4 and whether gravity will continue working tomorrow.
So, on the topic of the article, are you unconvinced by the findings in this report? You talk about people who 'do not critically examine' evidince, but are you or are you not one of those?
I'm only asking because this report seems to have not been published by Exxon, but rather NASA, so it just might be credible. Yet your diatribe here is unmodified. Why?
It's time the species got that lesson, and stopped using the world we rely on as a toilet.
So we can poop, but we just have to go to Mars to do so?
Perhaps you missed this important book on the matter...
Actually, later in the article it says they even went so far as to credit him along with a bunch of others as "talent". Yet they didn't pay him.
I'm guessing he recalls the meeting and fails to recall the waiver of likeness rights he signed during said meeting. That, or he signed something that flat-out said that they were doing research among multiple people, none of whom would be compensated beyond a credit, and that the result would take lifelike tidbits from multiple people to inspire one fictional character's traits.
And what if there was no waiver? Those things exist for a reason, and you're well illustrating the proper use, but their counter argument seems to be along the lines of...
The other, bigger, part suggests that Rockstar based the in-game personalities on a collection of caricatures and stereotypes – Boys ‘n the Hood-style – rather than anything, or anyone specific.
It is possible that the design team was confident that the generalization defense would be sufficient and that they wouldn't require any actual paperwork.
I guess it depends on who is doing that phishing. My real name is publicly available information. Blizzard not only has it, but they have all sorts of other info on me as well, like my credit card number. I don't generally keep it a secret, and indeed I tell it to everyone I meet in meatspace. Heck, my work makes me wear it on my collar everywhere I go, just in case they forget who I am.
People aren't used to it in the online world, but they'll get there. One day we'll be at a place where using your real, full name isn't some kind of a big 'harass me' sign. Maybe Blizzard was ahead of their time, but it is coming.
Huh. I thought we went to Iraq because of the 19 UN resolutions authorizing the use of force to depose Saddam due to his continued violations of the cease-fire agreement from the first gulf war, which is what all the democrats in 1999 were in favor of doing.
Yeah, we all thought that. Then we saw what really happened, and now we know better. The statement you're making is now out of date in at least two significant ways:
A) Our attacking Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with Saddam and everything to do with conquering it. We could have removed him in any number of ways, but we elected for 'Shock and Awe' instead. Largely we just wanted to flex some military muscle and bully everyone with a display of power. Too bad it backfired...
B) It turns out that Saddam's 'violations' were largely bluffs. We killed millions of humans because Husein was pretending to have weapons. Why? Were we worried that Israel would have to pretend to play dead when he pointed his finger and went 'bang'?
Then again, I'm not a partisan hack that has to chant talking points and memes like those monks from Monty Python in order to validate my self-worth.
Except you are. Which is awkward, because I'm genuinely not. You assume I'm on the Blue Team because I can point out how clearly stupid and insane the conquest of Iraq was and continues to be - but you're wrong. I usually vote for the Red Team. But in this particular case, I can see the facts - and more importantly the results - for what they are, rather than what certain powerful people wish they could have been.
Indeed. "Secure in their persons" prohibits both body scans and junk-touching.
Senator Chuck Schumer proposed a bill to make it illegal to redistribute porno-vision image. Wrong problem, wrong answer.
Indeed. The actual problem is that these people at the TSA are batshit insane, and the solution would be to require MANDATORY publication of every scan. Just so people finally wake up and put a stop to it.
A guy tried that in California, and it got him ejected from the airport. Probably not the intended impact.
You, sir, are an idiot. Let's say someone exploits this and blows up a flight somewhere. Or, they manage to hijack the plane and fly it into some building (the how is irrelevant). I don't see any of the people killed by the collateral damage opting out of getting killed.
Either collateral damage matters or it doesn't. Either we should be protecting the lives of the potential three thousand dead by stopping futher hijackings, or we should never have killed the nearly two million civilian Iraqis, poisoned their ground water, multiplied their cancer risks, etc. Can't have it both ways, America.
So we've gone from not being two-faced to living as a celebrity?
Besides, every single one of my coworkers knows all of the above, save the nudity, and that's probably to their benefit.
I've already stated that we need to be as honest as possible at all times, as individuals, and that this ramps up significantly for governments. Both types of parties need to strive for as few as possible.
Yes, clearly they do not have a need for those levels. They're simply bureaucracy, and are not necessary at all.
If the US Government HAD invited Japan over to view the Manhattan Project's testing, Nagasaki would not have happened, certainly, and probably neither Hiroshima. So it isn't all bad. Besides, fast-forward to today and everyone (or everyone who can afford it, at least) has this power. No real harm done.
And, in truth, I think you can attribute a lot of the GERMAN and Japanese behavior to misunderstandings. Nazi's, not so much. But the way the German people were usurped by this party isn't altogether too surprising when you understand the situation they were in after WWI.
Rather like we, here in America, can be excused for surrendering all of our freedoms after 9/11.
Still - in an era where such things can be tracked via satellite, there's no need to try and keep it secret. I'm all for individual privacy, but the government has no proper use for such a creature.
I actually do try to live my life this way, excepting omission, which is still something I'm working on weeding out. It isn't easy, but it only takes a tiny amount of discipline applied consistently. But the end result is, you're not going to catch me being two-faced unless I'm being weak. And I'm working on the latter part.
We ought to operate the government the same way. We should not tell our allies one thing to their face and say something different in cables behind their backs. Vis-a-vis enemies, as well. We can be completely honest at all times, again with a bit of discipline and constant application.
As for witness protection, so be it. Those lists WILL be leaked someday anyway. We need to redesign the system to tolerate it, or we'll have their blood on our hands. That's the final evaluation of it, and there's genuinely no room for debate. The only, tiny hope is that the people in the protection program will die of natural causes before the information age catches up to that system. And God help their kids when it does.
So, in that light, the only secret needing kept by the government should be the last few they are working on eliminating. It does take time and effort, but this is our government. It can be designed as we wish it to be.
Would you mind if someone went through your trash or if a house guest went through your bureau and posted your bank accounts, social security number, the like online?
Yes, absolutely. And I would likewise object to anyone going through the personal belongings of any of these politicians.
GOVERNMENTS, however are NOT people, and do not have nor require any right to 'privacy'. So, alas, here we disagree.
The article seems to be detailing diplomacy as usual.
I hear this a lot, and I find it overly cynical.
Imagine an article describing someone being brutally murdered. Picture that this person is a black twelve year old male. Imagine now that this happened in the following places:
A) New York City
B) Mobile Alabama
C) Darfur
Which of those locations match the expectation, and which do not? Statistically the odds of violent death would vary by location, but would it ever simply be 'detailing business as usual'?
Because with the cables I think this is the most important part. Few people genuinely believed that the CIA was doing so much evil as grabbing completely innocent people and rushing them off to torture and interrogation, but here we have the cable confirming not only that this was true, but that we suppressed their investigation of it. That's MORE evil than the first accusation!
And what about being complicit in murder?? Does this genuinely shock no one?
I couldn't have those conversations if the person was listening in. I mean there isn't any way I could let a student know they are dealing with an asshole, no matter how diplomatic I was the asshole would get mad. It is important that I can have a candid conversation with the students about this, it makes them able to do their job more effectively. But I couldn't do it if I had to record my conversations and hand them over to the parties involved.
In that case, then, you really shouldn't do it. Not only is it potentially harmful, but you're causing your biases to flow downward onto every new employee you're responsible for training. Further, you're just some schmoe and not an entire government. With the size and importance of the organization increasing, so does the responsibility.
We need to develop a means of governing without secrets. Period.
It is genuinely the only way to survive the coming age. We're in the midst of an information renaissance, and Wikileaks is simply ahead of it's time. Our entire culture will adapt to the notion that you could be being watched. This might hopefully lead us into an era where we can be more honest with each other, especially at the political level.
Secondly, my message is more along the lines of: "Because Twitter isn't censoring Wikileaks, people who believe Twitter is censoring Wikileaks are paranoid." That seems like pretty solid reasoning to me.
I accept this phrasing of your message, and take the identical exception to it. In order to ascertain that Wikileaks was not under fire one would need to consider more than a single datapoint. I've got nothing against you repudiating this one point on whatever grounds, but I do draw the line at you knocking them all out in one fell swoop. That's not intellectually honest.
Whatever people think about *other* activities that may or may not be occurring against Wikileaks is off-topic, and therefore I'm not addressing those.
Re-read the post you replied to, and try that again. You could have asserted your opinion at any level within this thread, but you elected to do so here - underneath this assertion:
I am amazed at how many fronts have been opened against wikileaks in the past few weeks. Clearly, there are people who want it crushed, but I can't recall ever seeing the number and variety of attacks against another "thorn in the side" as we're seeing against wikileaks.
The takeaway lesson: those who try to learn the truth and spread the truth will be destroyed.
To reply to something or someone else under this specific reply button is incorrect.
Because I'm sick of having to read paranoid rantings modded-up in every single goddamned story.
So don't click on them. It isn't exactly hard. I personally avoid tons of articles on this site. There was one below here that was entitled something like 'I need a developer' and I was fairly certain it would be a self-referring 'OMG PHBs are so lulz' waste of time. There's no shame in having taste preferences.
So when you encounter an article entitled, 'Is Twitter Censoring Wikileaks Trends?', what, pray-tell did you expect to find within it, exactly?
Who made you the slashdot comment police?
By "single element" do you mean Wikileaks not showing up on Twitter's Trending Topics list? The thing this topic is about? Am I reading this right? You're actually chiding me for being on-topic?
For someone who cannot demonstrate better reading comprehension than this particular moron, you sure are bad at filtering what you post. Think about it - you just displayed a poorer level of comprehension than me, who you have labeled as a complete simpleton. That can't be good. But, acting under the assumption that you were just rushed, I'll spell it out slowly for you...
A) You're dismissing the topic out of hand
B) You're doing so in rebuttal to a comment about 'how many fronts have been opened'
C) You're using this rebuttal as a means of measuring that 'people on Slashdot are paranoid'
Therefore your position can be summed up, in it's complete context, as:
Because Twitter isn't attacking Wikileaks, anyone (on slashdot) who believes that Wikileaks is under attack is paranoid.
That is broken, logically speaking.
Have a nice day!
Surely such a claim, that the government would exert such power over privately-owned corporations would require at least one example, right?
Because it isn't as if they can just haul the most powerful communications companies in the world in to their offices and start making demands, right?
SURELY we'd know about that sort of abuse? RIGHT?
We're being reasonable here. Thoughtful, critical-thinking types who don't just blindly repeat things...
So your position, if I'm summarizing correctly is:
Twitter isn't censoring Wikileaks because Twitter is actually just censoring Bieber?
To me this is still censorship, but perhaps only accidental in the former case.
God people on Slashdot are paranoid.
Or maybe... just maybe... not enough people are tweeting about it? Did that extremely simple, common-sense, explanation ever occur to you?
And yet here you are, in this comment, calling people names. If your position is the more reasonable one, why the passion in your response? Besides, it isn't as if twitter would be the only thing Wikileaks has had to worry about over the last year or so. Or, what, if trends start to appear then Assange would be free to travel to the US again?
Please just note how by dismissing a single element of what some perceive to be an alarming trend you have DISMISSED THE ENTIRE SITUATION as paranoia.
To me, it seems 'the sir dost protest too much'. Dissonance, most likely.
Uh, you must not be talking about the press in the USA, because they were sucking Bush cock during both his terms.
Since you're rebutting something that you well know contradicts what you're putting forward - please do feel free to toss in a link or two.
The cable leaks have almost no worthy information. They don't show cover-ups, torture or anything else we didn't already know about. It's the equivalent on getting caught passing a note at primary school.
The Yanks have little to worry about.
If nothing else they prove that everyone knew about these goings-on, and that it wasn't just the local evil men in the field. They clearly illustrate systematic corruption at the highest levels.
You can opine that even this is not new, but that's just your cynicism talking. Joe Public does not believe that Obama is guilty of high crimes. The cables illustrate that conspiracy charges, at a minimum, would in fact stick in a fair court of law.