Same as the "internet filter" here in Oz, some nutjob/shill politician suggests crippling the internet and the government of the day placates him and his supporters/sponsors with endless enquires until he is voted out of office at the next election.
It's coming from media barons, in particular Murdoch who has a number of major newspapers in Europe. He has made no secret about this desire to charge aggregators for the privilege of linking to his content, going so far as to claim google is "stealing" his content. He also wants to dismantle public broadcasting in UK/AU, he calls it "unfair competition" and has spent countless column inches devoted to attacking their credibility, which I find absolutely amazing coming from the guy who owns Fox News.
James Hansen - head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies 1981-2013
In 2007, Hansen alleged that in 2005 NASA administrators had attempted to influence his public statements about the causes of climate change.[107][108] Hansen said that NASA public relations staff were ordered to review his public statements and interviews after a December 2005 lecture at the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. NASA responded that its policies are similar to those of any other federal agency in requiring employees to coordinate all statements with the public affairs office without exception.[109] Two years after Hansen and other agency employees described a pattern of distortion and suppression of climate science by political appointees, the agency’s inspector general confirmed that such activities had taken place, with the NASA Office of Public Affairs having "reduced, marginalized or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public".[110]
In June 2006, Hansen appeared on 60 Minutes stating that the George W. Bush White House had edited climate-related press releases reported by federal agencies to make global warming seem less threatening.[69] He also stated that he was unable to speak freely without the backlash of other government officials, and that he had not experienced that level of restrictions on communicating with the public during his career.[69]
The simplest explanation is the obvious one, payback by Sunni extremists for the recent Russian military actions in support of a Shia dictator in Syria. Russian interest in Syria goes back to the cold war, it is home to Russia's only naval base in the mediterranean. Putin is nobody's fool, his actions make much more 'sense' when you realise that Syria is to Russia what Saudi Arabia is to the US. All four nations recognise they have a common enemy in ISIS and their allies, lets hope none of them lose sight of that.
I think Putin and Obama are smart enough to realise that ISIS would be overjoyed if they could arrange for the Russians and Americans to start shooting at each other in the middle east. AQ have used the same tactic against Pakistan and India in Kashmir. ISIS are a 'psychopathic' organisation, they arose from the remnants of Saddam's (Sunni) political base in central Iraq, their end game is a global caliphate with themselves at the top, that goal makes all nations states their natural enemy, in particular their Shia dominated neighbours, Syria and Iran (who are also aligned with Russia).
It's the same in Oz and the UK, election campaigns run for ~6 weeks and voting is compulsory. The people don't pick the prime minister, the party with the numbers to form government does that but the PM must be an elected MP. The ruling party can also sack the PM as happened here in Oz recently but he will remain an elected MP. Basically there is no single person in the westminster system that has the "CEO" powers of a US president (including the queen / governor general).
Yes, they claim to have found a slight accounting error in the work that attributes the inputs for the observed sea level rise, it was found with new satellites, improved data resolution, and longer time scales. That small portion of the rise must now be accounted for 'elsewhere', it probably won't be until we make similar measurement improvements 'elsewhere'. Remove the politics and this paper is only interesting to beancounter geeks, it does not challenge existing theories or observations, let alone disprove them. Most importantly, it does not change the observed sea level rise.
This paper is actually a continuation of the valuable and ongoing work that the 'climategate' beat up was desperately trying to discredit and disrupt via character assassination. ie - Robust climate data. Climate data sets are collected, cleaned, maintained and published by NASA and other organisations, here's a list of the main data sets used by climate researchers. The IPCC does not perform or fund research or data collection, it summarises existing peer-reviewed publications into various reports aimed at different audiences.
Anyone who genuinely wants to debunk global warming should start here, trust me, climate scientists will respond with collective sigh of releif should anyone succeed.
No, I have been following this argument for 30yrs, the data itself said the same as NASA and the IPCC - "stable or slightly decreasing", with better measurements and longer satellite records it turns out it's slightly increasing. The numerous permanent ice shelves in Antarctica that have been lost over the last couple of decades have not suddenly reformed because of this new paper, the antarctic peninsula is still melting at an alarming rate. Sea ice behaves very differently at the north and south pole, paid propagandists have been using that knowledge to confuse laymen for 20yrs, educate yourself and find out who is really using you.
Conveniently Global Warming initiative somehow morphed into the Climate Change
Yes the US government deliberately changed the terminology in the early 2000's, both phrases are technically correct but have different meanings, both phrases have been (properly) used by researchers since the 1950's. Frank Luntz (GWB's political advisor) suggested the change in official communications to sow doubt about the science in a now infamous memo. It backfired, so the GOP tried to pin the charge of "doublespeak" on the scientists.
Give it a break. This is what 'settled science' means. Karl Popper, called the same concept "The republic of Science", it's a key concept in the philosophy of Science, it is the difference between "A scientist says" and "Science says", why do so many people of one political colour have a problem with that?
As for TFA, there is nothing in it that says or implies "they've been measuring it all wrong", they are using all the measurements they have. NASA found something interesting in the data, something that doesn't fit previously extrapolated assumptions that were made because the data did not exist, they make it perfectly clear it does not change previous findings. The ocean is still rising, this observation means they cannot account for a very small portion of the observed rise.
By definition all scientific knowledge is imperfect but the mere existence of the modern world is very strong evidence that imperfect knowledge is preferable to ignorant speculation. So if being 'wrong' embarsses you, don't chose a STEM career.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." - Churchill.
Imagine restricting financial misery via the tax system so that the least financially miserable people can only ever aspire to having (say) 10x the (personal) income of the most miserable, is that too much sacrifice for the least financially miserable to bear in the US? The people in Finland/Norway/etc don't seem to think so, they already have that kind of system, and they have consistently topped "standard of living" charts for decades.
Hard work and money are unrelated (in a US style economy).
That's not just a common-sense interpretation of the world around me, it's a mathematical fact. Somewhere on the internet is an economics paper written by a physicists. In it there is a thought experiment where every time anyone leaves the house in the US they take all their money with them. Whenever they meet another person they throw a random amount of money at them, and the catch all the money thrown at them. The resulting income distribution curve within this hypothetical economy very neatly mirrors the income distribution in the US, the smoking gun is that the size of an individual's pile is unrelated to the time spent outside the home.
On a common-sense level, if wealth was related to effort there would be no such thing as the "working poor" - who (in my experience as a past member) actually work a hell of a lot harder than you and I.
We are the most social of all social mammals, we cooperate and compromise with others or die. Personally I don't see paying tax as "avoiding death", I have the "it buys me civilization" attitude. An example of me avoiding death would be something like allowing Broome airport staff to "steal" my fishing hooks and lures in the name of national security. I raised my voice while protesting but I am a large male and I was very careful not to be a "serious threat" to the dozen or so airport goons studying me. I was not arrested because I'm old enough to know that if you want to change a cop's mind you have to do it before he makes the call.
Your money is actually the property of the US government, it is supposed to represent hard work, but there is no correlation whatsoever with hard work and there never has been. This is about equity, in Scandinavian countries equity is enforced via tax, the richest people earn ~10X the poorest. it's a kinder capitalism where the phrase "working poor" doesn't make sense - in other words hard work is rewarded by the tax system, luck and greed get you nowhere near as far as they do in the US.
Of course this idea would never fly in a nation where taxation is widely perceived as a form of armed robbery.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really, it a way for minority issues to get aired and rejected.
Same as the "internet filter" here in Oz, some nutjob/shill politician suggests crippling the internet and the government of the day placates him and his supporters/sponsors with endless enquires until he is voted out of office at the next election.
It's coming from media barons, in particular Murdoch who has a number of major newspapers in Europe. He has made no secret about this desire to charge aggregators for the privilege of linking to his content, going so far as to claim google is "stealing" his content. He also wants to dismantle public broadcasting in UK/AU, he calls it "unfair competition" and has spent countless column inches devoted to attacking their credibility, which I find absolutely amazing coming from the guy who owns Fox News.
Shamelessly cut and paste from WP.
James Hansen - head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies 1981-2013
In 2007, Hansen alleged that in 2005 NASA administrators had attempted to influence his public statements about the causes of climate change.[107][108] Hansen said that NASA public relations staff were ordered to review his public statements and interviews after a December 2005 lecture at the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. NASA responded that its policies are similar to those of any other federal agency in requiring employees to coordinate all statements with the public affairs office without exception.[109] Two years after Hansen and other agency employees described a pattern of distortion and suppression of climate science by political appointees, the agency’s inspector general confirmed that such activities had taken place, with the NASA Office of Public Affairs having "reduced, marginalized or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public".[110]
In June 2006, Hansen appeared on 60 Minutes stating that the George W. Bush White House had edited climate-related press releases reported by federal agencies to make global warming seem less threatening.[69] He also stated that he was unable to speak freely without the backlash of other government officials, and that he had not experienced that level of restrictions on communicating with the public during his career.[69]
no critical thinking
The simplest explanation is the obvious one, payback by Sunni extremists for the recent Russian military actions in support of a Shia dictator in Syria. Russian interest in Syria goes back to the cold war, it is home to Russia's only naval base in the mediterranean. Putin is nobody's fool, his actions make much more 'sense' when you realise that Syria is to Russia what Saudi Arabia is to the US. All four nations recognise they have a common enemy in ISIS and their allies, lets hope none of them lose sight of that.
I think Putin and Obama are smart enough to realise that ISIS would be overjoyed if they could arrange for the Russians and Americans to start shooting at each other in the middle east. AQ have used the same tactic against Pakistan and India in Kashmir. ISIS are a 'psychopathic' organisation, they arose from the remnants of Saddam's (Sunni) political base in central Iraq, their end game is a global caliphate with themselves at the top, that goal makes all nations states their natural enemy, in particular their Shia dominated neighbours, Syria and Iran (who are also aligned with Russia).
You beat me to it. - Proving once and for all that Austrians are faster typists than Australians.
Most large companies make less than 20% ROI, so more like $100-200M pre-tax profit on $2B revenue.
I think they overpaid.
I think that is what "paid a 20% premium" means.
It's a "Bejeweled" clone, which is a very simple and addictive game that you can still buy, the magic sauce is FB.
It's the same in Oz and the UK, election campaigns run for ~6 weeks and voting is compulsory. The people don't pick the prime minister, the party with the numbers to form government does that but the PM must be an elected MP. The ruling party can also sack the PM as happened here in Oz recently but he will remain an elected MP. Basically there is no single person in the westminster system that has the "CEO" powers of a US president (including the queen / governor general).
Why would choosing a party candidate be democratic?
Do you know the meaning of the phrase "Eating your own dog food"?
He's a geek with political muscle, as was Maggie Thatcher and many of the US "founding fathers".
Thank FSM that you're the FP, the comments above you are chock full of stupid.
Yes, they claim to have found a slight accounting error in the work that attributes the inputs for the observed sea level rise, it was found with new satellites, improved data resolution, and longer time scales. That small portion of the rise must now be accounted for 'elsewhere', it probably won't be until we make similar measurement improvements 'elsewhere'. Remove the politics and this paper is only interesting to beancounter geeks, it does not challenge existing theories or observations, let alone disprove them. Most importantly, it does not change the observed sea level rise.
This paper is actually a continuation of the valuable and ongoing work that the 'climategate' beat up was desperately trying to discredit and disrupt via character assassination. ie - Robust climate data. Climate data sets are collected, cleaned, maintained and published by NASA and other organisations, here's a list of the main data sets used by climate researchers. The IPCC does not perform or fund research or data collection, it summarises existing peer-reviewed publications into various reports aimed at different audiences.
Anyone who genuinely wants to debunk global warming should start here, trust me, climate scientists will respond with collective sigh of releif should anyone succeed.
No, I have been following this argument for 30yrs, the data itself said the same as NASA and the IPCC - "stable or slightly decreasing", with better measurements and longer satellite records it turns out it's slightly increasing. The numerous permanent ice shelves in Antarctica that have been lost over the last couple of decades have not suddenly reformed because of this new paper, the antarctic peninsula is still melting at an alarming rate. Sea ice behaves very differently at the north and south pole, paid propagandists have been using that knowledge to confuse laymen for 20yrs, educate yourself and find out who is really using you.
Debunk this - smarter people with far more resources than you have tried and failed.
Conveniently Global Warming initiative somehow morphed into the Climate Change
Yes the US government deliberately changed the terminology in the early 2000's, both phrases are technically correct but have different meanings, both phrases have been (properly) used by researchers since the 1950's. Frank Luntz (GWB's political advisor) suggested the change in official communications to sow doubt about the science in a now infamous memo. It backfired, so the GOP tried to pin the charge of "doublespeak" on the scientists.
Your global warming theory is based on data from... old CCDs? Really?
No, just your strawman.
Give it a break. This is what 'settled science' means. Karl Popper, called the same concept "The republic of Science", it's a key concept in the philosophy of Science, it is the difference between "A scientist says" and "Science says", why do so many people of one political colour have a problem with that?
As for TFA, there is nothing in it that says or implies "they've been measuring it all wrong", they are using all the measurements they have. NASA found something interesting in the data, something that doesn't fit previously extrapolated assumptions that were made because the data did not exist, they make it perfectly clear it does not change previous findings. The ocean is still rising, this observation means they cannot account for a very small portion of the observed rise.
By definition all scientific knowledge is imperfect but the mere existence of the modern world is very strong evidence that imperfect knowledge is preferable to ignorant speculation. So if being 'wrong' embarsses you, don't chose a STEM career.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." - Churchill.
Imagine restricting financial misery via the tax system so that the least financially miserable people can only ever aspire to having (say) 10x the (personal) income of the most miserable, is that too much sacrifice for the least financially miserable to bear in the US? The people in Finland/Norway/etc don't seem to think so, they already have that kind of system, and they have consistently topped "standard of living" charts for decades.
Hard work and money are unrelated (in a US style economy).
That's not just a common-sense interpretation of the world around me, it's a mathematical fact. Somewhere on the internet is an economics paper written by a physicists. In it there is a thought experiment where every time anyone leaves the house in the US they take all their money with them. Whenever they meet another person they throw a random amount of money at them, and the catch all the money thrown at them. The resulting income distribution curve within this hypothetical economy very neatly mirrors the income distribution in the US, the smoking gun is that the size of an individual's pile is unrelated to the time spent outside the home.
On a common-sense level, if wealth was related to effort there would be no such thing as the "working poor" - who (in my experience as a past member) actually work a hell of a lot harder than you and I.
We are the most social of all social mammals, we cooperate and compromise with others or die. Personally I don't see paying tax as "avoiding death", I have the "it buys me civilization" attitude. An example of me avoiding death would be something like allowing Broome airport staff to "steal" my fishing hooks and lures in the name of national security. I raised my voice while protesting but I am a large male and I was very careful not to be a "serious threat" to the dozen or so airport goons studying me. I was not arrested because I'm old enough to know that if you want to change a cop's mind you have to do it before he makes the call.
Your money is actually the property of the US government, it is supposed to represent hard work, but there is no correlation whatsoever with hard work and there never has been. This is about equity, in Scandinavian countries equity is enforced via tax, the richest people earn ~10X the poorest. it's a kinder capitalism where the phrase "working poor" doesn't make sense - in other words hard work is rewarded by the tax system, luck and greed get you nowhere near as far as they do in the US.
Of course this idea would never fly in a nation where taxation is widely perceived as a form of armed robbery.
If you are an Aussie, every decent game server is a 250+ms round trip.