eg: Australian David Hicks is a political prisoner, he gets to rot in gitmo for five years while people argue about Habeus Corpus [sic?], this guy gets a court date and is handed over.
My tinfoil hat is asking why was this guy handed over for prosecution in the US? - Australia already has US style copyright laws and our AG is very enthusistic about enforcing them?
"And how the fuck you can convince someone on evidence that got obtained in an illegal way?"
Yeah, like that doesn't happen in the "drug war". Besides in this case the cops obtained the evidence legally since the guy gave it to them volantarily, they could also drag his arse into court if they wanted to be politically "brave".
OTHOH: The politics of peodophelia makes this a very neat cover for anyone in the industrial espionage or black-mailing bussiness.
I'm an Aussie and haven't got a clue about US telco's, I recall that Telstra was tipped to be the distributor for the iPhone in Oz but has recently told Apple to "stick to knitting" because their phone is "only 2.5G not 3G"? IIRC, Cingular is the parent company of Telstra's biggest competitor.
What I mean by conservative is the "certainty" estimates are conservative, I didn't intend to give the impression that it is conservatively certain.
The recent IPCC is a summary for policymakers (SPM), contributed to and endorsed by every national science body on the planet. What it says to policymakers is there is at least a 9/10 chance that we can make a significant difference by drastically reducing emmissions, and conversely, if we don't reduce emmission there is at most a 1/10 chance civilization is facing a collapse and an associated "population correction".
I certainly don't recommend jumping at every "quick fix", pollution and large scale engineering have some odd side effects, SE Australia (where I live) is losing 500yr old river gums (a type of tree) to drought, the massive river system that runs through the countries "breadbasket" has run dry. The drought has run for 10yrs in some parts and the massive hydro schemes in Tassie are having to import electricty over cables that were built to export it to the mainland.
In the meantime the N & NW of the country is getting record floods, this BTW is in line with climate models and is a trend that has been observed since the 50's, yet overall the national average rainfall has remained fairly constant. One bizzare peice of the puzzle is that SE Asia's slash and burn fires, and heavy polluters have been shown to be partly responsible for increased rainfall in the north of our country.
I expect very few people will be totally happy with whatever the "policymakers" do, their efforts (like those of the scientists) must be conservative to gain a critical level of acceptance. OTOH: If they do nothing, a violent machine smashing end to civilization just becomes all the more likely.
It's not all doom and gloom, the corporate world (starting with insurers a few years back) is lining up against the FF industry and have been making a noise about "certainty" in regulation, even the Aussie PM is saying a trading scheme is "inevitable". As soon as "I never back down" Bush is gone (if not before), the US public (and the media's) opinion will "flip-flop" just like we have seen here in Australia over the last year or so.
"I have no idea what is causing the current warming trend"
Neither do I, I have followed this subject since the early eighties when I was ironically working at a saw-mill, it always turns out that someone else thought of "my idea" first. However, lacking my own thesis I am forced to put a great deal of faith in the scientific method, meaning I have to treat my own ideas and my faith in science with the genuine skepticisim it deserves. Here is a pdf link to the 2007 IPCC SPM, take a few minutes to examine figure SPM-2.
All government restrains freedom, "socilialist" rivers create less laws since a system is simpler to regulate as a whole. If you don't regulate at all then it is anarchy where an elite few achive total "freedom" by ensalving the rest of us but I am asuming most people wouldn't want that, unless of course they get to be a member of the elite.
To regulate "for the people" means to do "the people's" bidding with "the people's" best interest at heart. One of those interests would be "freedom", but freedom from what exactly? Freedom from a government that can execute you? Freedom from disease? Freedom from hunger, thirst? Freedom to leach the labour of others? Freedom to practice economic slavery to pick cotton? Freedom to pollute your downstream neighbours drinking water? Freedom to rape an unattached female who can't defend herself?
You are deluding yourself if you think property laws that cover every sq inch of the planet will equate to freedom. Freedom is not a family compound sourrounded by razor-wire and anti-IRS mines, freedom is a state of mind.
No offence, in fact I adimre the foresight of the US founders but they are not "our" founding fathers, they are yours.
Depends on what your definition of "proven" is. The certainty in the attribution of the total of all significant +/- forcings is 90% or higher (ref: 2007 IPCC-SPM, figure SPM-2). The forcings attributed to humans outweighs all other forcings combined. ie: It is 90% certain that humas are responsible for greater than 50% of the total warming effect obserevd.
Note that the IPCC is by it's nature a conservative document, as it should be when 2500 "scientists agree". This means that at very best there is a 10% chance humans are not the cause and as each day passes with no viable alternative explaination combined with data sets that continue to improve, the certainty will increase.
Having said that, it is true the cause is not as certain as the observed warming itself but like all scientific concepts the idea will never be "proven", the best we can hope for is "virtually certain", eg: it is "virtually certain" the sun will rise in the morning but not "absolutely certain".
Re:We already have millions...
on
Interstellar Ark
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"I don't know how much squarefootage per person they would need, but it isn't much given the contentment with crowded cities you can see."
A city does not support humans it simply stores them in individual boxes, with current technology each city requires hundreds/thousands of sq miles of arable land to sustain it.
"What, the US wants Chinese trade and military secrets? That might be true if China weren't running behind the US in either."
So your saying the US strategy is to wait until China is "in front" of the US and then start spying, the US sure are good sports about this stuff wouldn't you agree?
"That's almost completely negated by the US sending tons of business their way."
Ahhhh, I see. The US is not losing bussiness to a competitor they're being generous to the underdog, what kind souls they are.
"Government regulation to control a problem created by socialism isn't a good example for your argument"
By that measure all goverment "for the people" is socialism, perhaps the stigma attached to socialisim is why goverment "for the people" is so uncommon these days.
If we accept the idea that rivers are "private" then someone polluting a private river still pollutes everyone else's "property" who lives downstream leaving you in the same position of having to impose government regulation to stop someone else polluting YOUR river. Or were you thinking that one corporation should buy an entire river, say Montanto purchasing the Mississipi, even if that happened it would be a different story with the Danube.
The idea that "socialisim caused the problem" is nothing more than dogma. It doesn't matter if rivers are public or private property, the problem of pollution is caused be "the people" or "the person" not respecting said property and thus degrades everyone else's property. Eg: I don't have a river on my property so if I dump paint thinner down the public stormwater drain it's someone else's problem, right?
Government regulation to stop pollution is in fact "the people" taking ownership of their property.
"Seriously, do you think Nixon (or even Reagan) could have gotten around one of the most important parts of the Geneva Convention on a technicality?",/i>
C'mon that's a trick question - censorship was a lot more effective back then.
"Are you aware that Michael Mann, the scientist that came up with the famous "Hockey Stick" graph, has YET to release his data and methods for peer review?"
As the GP pointed out with the link to M.Mann's informative RealClimate site, this particular attack on his peer-reviewed papers has been around for years, and as pointed out by the GP, the psudeo-skeptical attack was a troll when it first appeared and still a troll today.
The reason for the attack on the hockey-stick is that psuedo-skeptics wrongly belived if they could discredit his work then the 1997 IPCC report would fall to bits. What has happened instead is that the graph has become more robust due to independent peer-reviewed replication (not to metion the hockey-stick's predictions have matched emprical observations). Even most psuedo-skeptics have quietly dropped this attack but it intersesting to see some random slashdotter in a basement somewhere is still regurgitating ancient FUD as fact.
Slashdot Mirror
"--> insert example of your choice"
eg: Australian David Hicks is a political prisoner, he gets to rot in gitmo for five years while people argue about Habeus Corpus [sic?], this guy gets a court date and is handed over.
My tinfoil hat is asking why was this guy handed over for prosecution in the US? - Australia already has US style copyright laws and our AG is very enthusistic about enforcing them?
"And how the fuck you can convince someone on evidence that got obtained in an illegal way?"
Yeah, like that doesn't happen in the "drug war". Besides in this case the cops obtained the evidence legally since the guy gave it to them volantarily, they could also drag his arse into court if they wanted to be politically "brave".
OTHOH: The politics of peodophelia makes this a very neat cover for anyone in the industrial espionage or black-mailing bussiness.
Doh!
My kids are adults, they think I'm a ludite when it comes to phones and they are probably right, but yeah my bill is tiny.
I have been around for five decades now and it strikes me that "the government" have always wanted ID cards and "the opposition" have always objected.
"SingTel" - My bad.
Phones don't interest me much, I still have a Nokia 5110 but it only lasts ~3 min on a full charge. Perhaps it's time to trade it in.
I'm an Aussie and haven't got a clue about US telco's, I recall that Telstra was tipped to be the distributor for the iPhone in Oz but has recently told Apple to "stick to knitting" because their phone is "only 2.5G not 3G"? IIRC, Cingular is the parent company of Telstra's biggest competitor.
I guess you didn't notice that your sig could be mistaken for a continuation of your post.
Are you suggesting he suffers from err..ummm..."short man's", syndome
"if we don't reduce emmission there is at most a 1/10 chance civilization is facing a collapse and an associated "population correction". "
Obviously that should read: "is NOT facing".
What I mean by conservative is the "certainty" estimates are conservative, I didn't intend to give the impression that it is conservatively certain.
The recent IPCC is a summary for policymakers (SPM), contributed to and endorsed by every national science body on the planet. What it says to policymakers is there is at least a 9/10 chance that we can make a significant difference by drastically reducing emmissions, and conversely, if we don't reduce emmission there is at most a 1/10 chance civilization is facing a collapse and an associated "population correction".
I certainly don't recommend jumping at every "quick fix", pollution and large scale engineering have some odd side effects, SE Australia (where I live) is losing 500yr old river gums (a type of tree) to drought, the massive river system that runs through the countries "breadbasket" has run dry. The drought has run for 10yrs in some parts and the massive hydro schemes in Tassie are having to import electricty over cables that were built to export it to the mainland.
In the meantime the N & NW of the country is getting record floods, this BTW is in line with climate models and is a trend that has been observed since the 50's, yet overall the national average rainfall has remained fairly constant. One bizzare peice of the puzzle is that SE Asia's slash and burn fires, and heavy polluters have been shown to be partly responsible for increased rainfall in the north of our country.
I expect very few people will be totally happy with whatever the "policymakers" do, their efforts (like those of the scientists) must be conservative to gain a critical level of acceptance. OTOH: If they do nothing, a violent machine smashing end to civilization just becomes all the more likely.
It's not all doom and gloom, the corporate world (starting with insurers a few years back) is lining up against the FF industry and have been making a noise about "certainty" in regulation, even the Aussie PM is saying a trading scheme is "inevitable". As soon as "I never back down" Bush is gone (if not before), the US public (and the media's) opinion will "flip-flop" just like we have seen here in Australia over the last year or so.
"I have no idea what is causing the current warming trend"
Neither do I, I have followed this subject since the early eighties when I was ironically working at a saw-mill, it always turns out that someone else thought of "my idea" first. However, lacking my own thesis I am forced to put a great deal of faith in the scientific method, meaning I have to treat my own ideas and my faith in science with the genuine skepticisim it deserves. Here is a pdf link to the 2007 IPCC SPM, take a few minutes to examine figure SPM-2.
All government restrains freedom, "socilialist" rivers create less laws since a system is simpler to regulate as a whole. If you don't regulate at all then it is anarchy where an elite few achive total "freedom" by ensalving the rest of us but I am asuming most people wouldn't want that, unless of course they get to be a member of the elite.
To regulate "for the people" means to do "the people's" bidding with "the people's" best interest at heart. One of those interests would be "freedom", but freedom from what exactly? Freedom from a government that can execute you? Freedom from disease? Freedom from hunger, thirst? Freedom to leach the labour of others? Freedom to practice economic slavery to pick cotton? Freedom to pollute your downstream neighbours drinking water? Freedom to rape an unattached female who can't defend herself?
You are deluding yourself if you think property laws that cover every sq inch of the planet will equate to freedom. Freedom is not a family compound sourrounded by razor-wire and anti-IRS mines, freedom is a state of mind.
No offence, in fact I adimre the foresight of the US founders but they are not "our" founding fathers, they are yours.
"* Stamps feet, puts hands on hips and pouts *"
Patience my friend, if it's anything like today's frogs it will have a gut full of mosquitos we can drill into.
Seriously, if you are interested in amber and bugs (plus a bonus lizard), David Attenbourough's "Amber" doco is a must see.
"That, of course, has yet to be proven."
Depends on what your definition of "proven" is. The certainty in the attribution of the total of all significant +/- forcings is 90% or higher (ref: 2007 IPCC-SPM, figure SPM-2). The forcings attributed to humans outweighs all other forcings combined. ie: It is 90% certain that humas are responsible for greater than 50% of the total warming effect obserevd.
Note that the IPCC is by it's nature a conservative document, as it should be when 2500 "scientists agree". This means that at very best there is a 10% chance humans are not the cause and as each day passes with no viable alternative explaination combined with data sets that continue to improve, the certainty will increase.
Having said that, it is true the cause is not as certain as the observed warming itself but like all scientific concepts the idea will never be "proven", the best we can hope for is "virtually certain", eg: it is "virtually certain" the sun will rise in the morning but not "absolutely certain".
"I don't know how much squarefootage per person they would need, but it isn't much given the contentment with crowded cities you can see."
A city does not support humans it simply stores them in individual boxes, with current technology each city requires hundreds/thousands of sq miles of arable land to sustain it.
"And we could throw away 75% of them tomorrow without him even *NOTICING* that they're gone."
I'm sure you could, but as a father of two adult kids I gotta ask: have you tried it?
"What, the US wants Chinese trade and military secrets? That might be true if China weren't running behind the US in either."
/sarcasm
So your saying the US strategy is to wait until China is "in front" of the US and then start spying, the US sure are good sports about this stuff wouldn't you agree?
"That's almost completely negated by the US sending tons of business their way."
Ahhhh, I see. The US is not losing bussiness to a competitor they're being generous to the underdog, what kind souls they are.
"Government regulation to control a problem created by socialism isn't a good example for your argument"
By that measure all goverment "for the people" is socialism, perhaps the stigma attached to socialisim is why goverment "for the people" is so uncommon these days.
If we accept the idea that rivers are "private" then someone polluting a private river still pollutes everyone else's "property" who lives downstream leaving you in the same position of having to impose government regulation to stop someone else polluting YOUR river. Or were you thinking that one corporation should buy an entire river, say Montanto purchasing the Mississipi, even if that happened it would be a different story with the Danube.
The idea that "socialisim caused the problem" is nothing more than dogma. It doesn't matter if rivers are public or private property, the problem of pollution is caused be "the people" or "the person" not respecting said property and thus degrades everyone else's property. Eg: I don't have a river on my property so if I dump paint thinner down the public stormwater drain it's someone else's problem, right?
Government regulation to stop pollution is in fact "the people" taking ownership of their property.
Also it's takes more a LOT more energy to deliver all that spam as snail mail.
Transpose US and China in your post and it sounds equally plausible...
"One ptototype Schrödinger box for sale - cat may or may not be included."
I think "Pick a box" may actually have been the first quantum game show, wadya reckeon?
Love the (non-)sig.
"Seriously, do you think Nixon (or even Reagan) could have gotten around one of the most important parts of the Geneva Convention on a technicality?",/i>
C'mon that's a trick question - censorship was a lot more effective back then.
Forgive my spelling, I cut and paste all my words from other posts.
"Are you aware that Michael Mann, the scientist that came up with the famous "Hockey Stick" graph, has YET to release his data and methods for peer review?"
As the GP pointed out with the link to M.Mann's informative RealClimate site, this particular attack on his peer-reviewed papers has been around for years, and as pointed out by the GP, the psudeo-skeptical attack was a troll when it first appeared and still a troll today.
The reason for the attack on the hockey-stick is that psuedo-skeptics wrongly belived if they could discredit his work then the 1997 IPCC report would fall to bits. What has happened instead is that the graph has become more robust due to independent peer-reviewed replication (not to metion the hockey-stick's predictions have matched emprical observations). Even most psuedo-skeptics have quietly dropped this attack but it intersesting to see some random slashdotter in a basement somewhere is still regurgitating ancient FUD as fact.