The more people that come to believe a lie, the more that begin repeating it and perpetuating the misunderstanding.
But why should anyone care? It does not make any real difference to anyone, and it certainly doesn't lead to any misunderstanding. Why is it so important that the word theft cannot get mentioned around here without more than one person whining about it? Why is it that hardly anybody similarly jumps in whenever the words loose or lose are used, and are invariably interchanged (eg. you will loose an argument)? If it is so important not to mix up theft and infringement, why doesn't everyone also correct the many people who make basic grammatical errors?
You made an assumption so I will too, and ask who are you shilling for, shill?
Do you really think that this is an important issue that anyone would want to pay me to get people to say theft instead of copyright infringement? It is not like people calling it one thing over another is going to have any effect on whether people actually pirate stuff, nor will it change the legal status.
And at least I am willing to sign in before I post, unlike the three Anonymous Cowards who have replied to me so far. I stand by my statements. But hey, if you can't come up with any real arguments, why not throw around the shill accusation. It saves you having to think!
Did you actually read that part where I said that this is NOT a court of law? Even when lawyers do post here, they always make it clear that they are not giving legal advice. And really, is anyone discussing this here actually in a position to take a case of copyright infringement to court? I doubt it.
My original statement stands. We can call copyright infringement "theft", we can call cutting down the rainforests "raping the environment", we can murder a curry, and Carrie Bradshaw still assaults our eyes. And all this without having to consult a lawyer.
No, it is not. Calling it one term or the other makes no difference to anybody's understanding of this story. We don't need to be perfectly accurate to any legal definition as/. is not a court of law, just a bunch of people chatting.
I believe that you only think that it is vital because you want to justify to yourself you own torrenting of movies and CDs. Why else does the word "theft" attract so many responses around here while all the other incorrect terms and misuse of the English language slip by with nary a word?
Also, try not to actually have pirated software. Even companies that claim in policy not to use pirated software sometimes do.
As you say, it can be quite difficult to ensure that a you have no pirated software. It may be easier in the long run for a company just to be nicer to their employees so that don't rat them out to the BSA in the first place!
Yeah, this kind of scaring will just scare organizations right into the lap of OSS. Keep it, suits! You are doing an outstanding job!
The BSA has been doing this practice since 1988. It doesn't appear to have scared many organizations to OSS.
I am sure that a few have made the switch to OSS, but I imagine that the number would be insignificant compared to the organizations who change their practices to pay for all the software they use. It is still going to be worth it for the BSA and its member companies.
Besides, it is not much of a threat to say that if you get audited then you will stop pirating commercial software and start using open source.
I agree. I am surprised that I had to scroll down so far to find somebody saying this. Microsoft got it wrong when they tried to make the one user interface work across the desktop and phone interfaces with the old Windows Mobile (a tiny start menu on a small screen? Ridiculous!).
So too will they get it wrong when they zoom a tiny screen's interface up to a 24 inch monitor. Microsoft lost the huge head start they had on smart phones due to this single user-interface folly, and they will lose a lot of the desktop market share this time (although I suppose it could be that their biggest competitor will be Windows 7, so they won't lose out too much).
They sell Microsoft Office for operating systems other than Windows.
This concession to the antitrust authorities and Apple is something of an exception to the general rule and it was a brutal fight to make it come about.
What rubbish! The first version of Microsoft Office EVER was for the Mac in August 1989. The Windows release came out in November 1990. With whom did they have this "brutal fight" to get this released for the Mac?
Interestingly, according to Wikipedia, after the release of Word for the Mac in 1985 (2 years after Word for MS-DOS and Xenix), "Word for Mac's sales were higher than its MS-DOS counterpart for at least four years". It seems that Microsoft were rather pragmatic about selling software where it would make a buck!
I supplied facts about the case to explain to the slow learners that the case isn't about "round rect with a black front."...... In fact, Samsung could have come up with a different design that would have trivially avoided the claim: color the plastic in the front bezel anything but black, and voila, the devices are easily distinguished.
If you supplied facts to say that this isn't about "round rect with a black front", then why bring up the comparison of the products from 10 feet away? In fact, that has been your only fact that you keep supplying. At that distance, the differences between the two products cannot be seen.At that distance it is all just about rounded corners and a black front.
If it isn't all just "round rect with a black front." then why is your solution to change the black front to another color? If black around the edges of the screen is so unique, then why do most of the computer monitors and televisions come with black edges?
Broadband internet would have been rather rare, but we could run our S3 Virge 3D card along with a monochrome video card to get multiple monitors and multitask under OS/2. 1995 was a pretty interesting time in computerland!
After playing with the XLS, I discovered that it actually was their XML format in a zip archive. They seem to now be calling that XLS instead of XLSD (?).
Then it had been misnamed by someone, because Microsoft use a variety of different extensions for their new file format (depending on whether it contains macros), and XLS is not one of them.
You can get the compatibility pack for previous versions of office to allow you to open the new file format in your version of Office and a lot of the earlier ones (it is not listed, but the pack works back to at least Office 97). It works pretty well, and means that you are not forced to upgrade with "a series of endless incompatible formats". I only upgrade about once a decade, and even then it is only when I get given an upgrade for free. Also, the file formats only change once a decade too, so it is not too much of a problem (the last change prior to 2007 format was with Office 97).
Your own quote pretty much admits there is a standard.
No, it did not. Here is the test: do you have to pay to license the exFAT file system? Yes. Do you have to pay to license the SD format? Yes. Does the author of the file system call it a standard? No, it calls it "our exFAT file system".. If Microsoft did proclaim it as a standard, would that be good enough for the Slashdot community? No. We tend to like our standards to be maintained by a standards body, not an individual company and especially not Microsoft.
But as I said before, I can see your argument as to why you might informally refer to it as a standard, but it seems a bit rich to arbitrarily define a proprietary, commercial specification as a standard (when the author's have not called it that nor have them submitted it to a standards body), only to then accuse the company of forcing it onto the industry. If you want to blame anyone, blame the people at the SD Card Association for choosing a patent encumbered file system. Or the device makers for choosing the SD format.
Sorry, but once the SD association adopted Fat32 and exFat, its a standard by any useful definition.
I can see how you might think that, but Microsoft have always promoted the filesystem as a proprietary licensable format. That it was chosen to be part if the SD spec does not change this. Rather, it just makes SDXC format a proprietary based system.
In fact, the use of ExFat format was noted as a compatibility problem in the wikipedia entry for SDXC:
SDXC cards are pre-formatted with Microsoft's proprietary and patented exFAT file system, which the host device might not support. Since Microsoft does not publish the specifications of exFAT and its use requires a non-free license, many alternative or older operating systems do not support exFAT for technical or legal reasons.
Microsoft's FRAND terms and apple's on firewire have already been found discriminatory - kinda rich for them to be going after google for not asking for FRAND, which isn't compatible with open source.
Isn't the licencing of patents the way Motorola is doing also incompatible with open source?
One of Motorola's patents could be worth 10 times all of the 2300 patents MS has put together.
They are not Microsoft's patents, they are the patents that Microsoft pay 29 companies to use - although I am sure that one of those companies is Microsoft, so they effectively pay themselves! From the article:
As it turns out, there are at least 2,300 other patents needed to implement this standard. They are available from a group of 29 companies that came together to offer their H.264 patents to the industry on FRAND terms.
There are a lot of things for which MS has patents (allegedly, since every settlement is under NDA) and are using them to demand the $7.50 from B&N and all other Android devices. Standards that MS forced onto the industry, like Fat32, ExFat, MTP. The list goes on and on.
First of all, a lot of Microsoft's patents have been seen because they have not always been settled and have gone to court. While Microsoft may have some reasonable patents, but from what we have seen of the ones listed in court they have a lot that are complete crap too.
Secondly, FAT32 and ExFat are not standards. Only FAT is a standard. FAT32 is a patented extension to this, and ExFat is a proprietory file system. MTP Basic is a proposed standard, and is available royalty free.
How would the prospective forger have known about Anthony Watt's involvement in the Expanded Climate Communications?
That was listed in the fundraising plain document on page 19.
That said, I think that it is the most stupid defence to claim that this is a forgery because every fact in it is true! If that is the most damning thing they can say about it, then it is pretty weak.
However, in true-to-form fashion for this organization, it is a often used strategy that works. Look how much time is being spent arguing about a document that is supposedly all true. It is a great way to spread doubt about the revelations and to turn the discussion away from the real meat of the matter - the allegations themselves. As I have been discovering recently in a conversation from a previous story on this matter, misdirection is a key tool in the denialist's arsenal.
Bloody hell! You have done it again. This is yet another example of your constant use of misdirection. All along I have been complaining about Heartland's secret payments to scientists to spruik for the institute under the credentials of the scientists' own instutitions. Your response is not to deny that this happens, but the claim that Greenpeace does it too (which if true would not exonerate Heartland, but merely mean that we had two organisations to condem). Let's have a look at what you have said:
1. And that's different from Greenpeace surreptitiously paying people to say what they want...how?
When pressed on this claim, you then morphed it into:
2. What? Really? You think that Greenpeace simply doesn't get anonymous donations, and then parcels that out to people who agree with their policy positions? Wow.
So when pressed again to provide evidence of this accusation you completely ignore the topic of discussion and "prove" the inconsequential addition that you had inserted into your claim about whether Greenpeace accepts anonymous donations. Did you think that I would not notice that you had changed the topic? That I would forget that we had been talking about Greenpeace corrupting scientists like Heartland Institute did? The fact that I didn't believe your original allegation should not have been a source of surprise for you, considering that you yourself cannot back it up with any evidence!
It's been independently verified as a forgery by several sources, but here's a particularly well done one:
I'm afraid that those links were not any verification of forgery, but complete guesswork. How is it evidence of fakery because one of the PDFs was generated in a different location than the others and by a different method? I would be more suspicious if they were all made by the same person in the same way. How is it evidence of fakery that every fact has been verified as true? How is it evidence that that the style is different? The document was probably only meant to be seen in the board meeting, and was not intended to be kept on record. The fact that it was a discussion document would also explain why it was "too short" or that there was no identifying information (not required if it was to be handed out in person).
Now I am not going to say that the document isn't a forgery. But it seems strange that you are so happy to accept the rather flimsy "evidence" to prove that it is, and yet completely dismiss the details that have been verified as true (even verified by some of the recipients of the secret payments). This is either wishful thinking on your part that Heartland have done no wrong, or it is an attempt at misdirection away from the revelations of the documents.
Considering how you have shown a pattern towards this kind of misdirection in your postings, I am fairly confident that it is the latter. This would make you either a "true believer" who has his eyes covered or a shill for the organisation.
Sorry... FAIL. This system will ONLY work if we remove humans as a variable in the equation.
Seriously? FAIL? You find one particular scenario where it would provide optimal performance and somehow this means the system has failed? So what is your solution then? Do not implement a system that would make traffic flow better in 90% of cases just because the 10% would not be improved?
<RANT> It is a curious reaction that we often see on/. on stories about inventions. People either dismiss it because of one edge case (like now), or they will say that they personally do not need the technology so it should not be implemented. Myself, I use public transport more often than I drive but that doesn't mean that I think we should not improve traffic flow for cars. To do so would be amazingly self-centered. </RANT>
As to your particular concern, we are in the process of removing humans as a variable. Even ignoring the work being done on auto-driving cars, how many cars do you see with navigation systems in them these days. Sure, you don't input your destination into these every time if you know where you are going, but would you do so if it meant that you were more likely to get a dream run of green traffic lights?
What? Really? You think that Greenpeace simply doesn't get anonymous donations, and then parcels that out to people who agree with their policy positions? Wow.
And you do think that? Why? Do you have any specifics? Any evidence? Or are you just telling lies to make it seem like Greenpeace is as bad as Heartland?
That's because the *real* story is "Global Warming activists forge documents to discredit Heartland", and the MSM doesn't want to give that any play:)
Really? One document of the bunch was supposedly forged. And who was it that made that claim? It was Heartland Institute itself. It won't tell anyone what bits are forged though. Hardly damning evidence of forgery. Surely you can see that this lacks credibility?
So out of all the revelations about this matter (most of which has been confirmed by other sources), why is it that the one part that you think is the most important is the one unspecific and unsubstantiated claim made by Heartland themselves?
Okay, exactly what is underhanded and deceptive about funding skeptical climate curriculum, or more access to climate data? Be specific.
Why are you asking me that? I have never brought up that topic at all. It is obvious that I was talking about the secret payments to people who work in respectable institutions to use their authority to push Heartland's agenda. This makes it appear that there is a dissent in the scientific community where there is none.
Now maybe the recipients would have still made the same claims about climate change without Heartland's money. If so, why did they need to be paid in the first place. If nothing else, it makes them seem to be corrupt.
Heartland Institute surreptitiously pays people to say what they want.
And that's different from Greenpeace surreptitiously paying people to say what they want...how?
The difference is that Heartland Institute have just been caught out doing this exact practice, whereas Greenpeace has not. You just made up the allegation about Greenpeace. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that they are doing this, and there is no reason for them to hide away like that. Heatland had to manufacture some tame scientists to even attempt to look slightly credible. Greenpeace argues a point that mirrors what the overwhelming majority of scientists say.
Wait, wait, so maybe Heartland has been waging a PR campaign like Greenpeace, except with an order of magnitude *less* money?
Really?
Why not? They are doing quite a good job of it too. I have been monitoring the local news outlets in my area and there has been barely a mention of this story. Contrast this with the hysteria surrounding the so called Climategate emails, and it appears that somebody was doing a good PR job of keeping that scandal in the public eye. Remember that Heartland has a lot of experience planting anti-scientific FUD in the public forums from back in the day when they were doing it for the tobacco companies.
Were you under the impression that the Heartland institute didn't have a PR goal? Are you under the impression that Greenpeace doesn't have a PR goal?
I did state in my post that they each had their own agenda, but that doesn't make them equals. Judge them by how underhanded and deceptive they are.
But you can bet that when the Greenpeace researchers publish anything it is under the Greenpeace banner.
Cite a single peer reviewed paper funded by Greenpeace.
Who mentioned peer review papers? I said "publish anything". You are merely trying to deflect the topic by redefining what I said. So let's cut through the crap.
When Greenpeace publishes anything (scientific or not), they do so using their name. They do not hide their agenda - their green ideals are in their name, for god sake!
Heartland Institute surreptitiously pays people to say what they want. When those people publish anything, it is not under the banner of Heartland Institute, but as Professor X of Blah University. They hide their ideals behind the names of other respectable institutions. It is deceitful.
So you might try to make a big deal of how much money they have compared to other organisations, but it is how they use their money that is important. In Heartland's case, they are buying credability and a notion of impartiality by paying prominent anti-AGW mouthpieces. And if they are willing to do that, perhaps they also use their money to pay shills to flood social networking sites with their agenda.
It makes you wonder. Correction. It makes me wonder.
Name a single bit of actual scientific research that Greenpeace funds.
Why should I? It was you who brought up the notion that Greenpeace does scientific research when you posted your ealier link which says that "Its 1,200-strong staff ranges from 'direct action' activists to scientific researchers." You can't use the fact that they pay for scientific researchers to denigrate the organisation, and then turn around to imply that they don't do scientific research!
Of course, Heartland pay scientists too. But you can bet that when the Greenpeace researchers publish anything it is under the Greenpeace banner. What's the bet that when the scientists bought by the Heartland Institute publish anything they neglect to mention their funding sources.
Tell you what, when you want to play the science game, come at me with your concise falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
Your problem is that you think that global warming is just a single theory. It is actually made up of a lot of theories in a variety of scientific disciplines. It all began when people started wondering if all the CO2 we were emitting was increasing the levels in the atmosphere, and if that was true then it could raise the temperature. People did some tests and found that both of these things were true. People looked at all aspects of the CO2 cycle of emission and absorption and found the most credible reason for change was due to man's influence. The oceanographers wondered that if the CO2 levels were in fact increasing, then they should see ocean acidification - and it was so. The people drilling in the ice to look at the historical records agreed with the ones looking at tree rings. The people measuring the temperature on earth agreed with the ones doing it from satellites in space. The scientists published their math in the IPCC reports, and nobody has found any errors with it. The errors found in the IPCC reports were in the non-scientific impacts section (part 3 I believe).
At any stage along the way, someone could have discovered something that did not match the climate change theory and the whole thing would come down like a house of cards. But this has not happened. The theory is falsifiable because there are so many people doing different tests on this subject and they all keep coming up with the same conclusions.
I followed the link provided, and was immediately struck by the first graph in the header showing a dropping trend over 6,000 years and an arrow at the end where it rises a bit and the text "global warming part". Obviously this shows that by taking a very narrow view, an unscrupulous scientist can make it appear like it is getting warmer.
Now to the headline: 2011 Global Sea Level Dropped back to 2008 Levels. I would like to see those three years highlighted on the first graph. They are saying that they have proof that global warming is wrong by taking an extremely narrow view of the data. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
Slashdot Mirror
The more people that come to believe a lie, the more that begin repeating it and perpetuating the misunderstanding.
But why should anyone care? It does not make any real difference to anyone, and it certainly doesn't lead to any misunderstanding. Why is it so important that the word theft cannot get mentioned around here without more than one person whining about it? Why is it that hardly anybody similarly jumps in whenever the words loose or lose are used, and are invariably interchanged (eg. you will loose an argument)? If it is so important not to mix up theft and infringement, why doesn't everyone also correct the many people who make basic grammatical errors?
You made an assumption so I will too, and ask who are you shilling for, shill?
Do you really think that this is an important issue that anyone would want to pay me to get people to say theft instead of copyright infringement? It is not like people calling it one thing over another is going to have any effect on whether people actually pirate stuff, nor will it change the legal status.
And at least I am willing to sign in before I post, unlike the three Anonymous Cowards who have replied to me so far. I stand by my statements. But hey, if you can't come up with any real arguments, why not throw around the shill accusation. It saves you having to think!
Did you actually read that part where I said that this is NOT a court of law? Even when lawyers do post here, they always make it clear that they are not giving legal advice. And really, is anyone discussing this here actually in a position to take a case of copyright infringement to court? I doubt it.
My original statement stands. We can call copyright infringement "theft", we can call cutting down the rainforests "raping the environment", we can murder a curry, and Carrie Bradshaw still assaults our eyes. And all this without having to consult a lawyer.
Actually, yes it is.
That's a pretty poor argument. Care to back that up with an explanation?
Also, the slashdot that we know is formed by a punch of pedants who care about details.
That doesn't explain why just one particular term gets disproportionately high attention.
The distinction is vital.
No, it is not. Calling it one term or the other makes no difference to anybody's understanding of this story. We don't need to be perfectly accurate to any legal definition as /. is not a court of law, just a bunch of people chatting.
I believe that you only think that it is vital because you want to justify to yourself you own torrenting of movies and CDs. Why else does the word "theft" attract so many responses around here while all the other incorrect terms and misuse of the English language slip by with nary a word?
so... you enjoy the probing...
"it still beats dealing with the airlines"
Also, try not to actually have pirated software. Even companies that claim in policy not to use pirated software sometimes do.
As you say, it can be quite difficult to ensure that a you have no pirated software. It may be easier in the long run for a company just to be nicer to their employees so that don't rat them out to the BSA in the first place!
Let the fools have their tar-tar sauce!
Yeah, this kind of scaring will just scare organizations right into the lap of OSS. Keep it, suits! You are doing an outstanding job!
The BSA has been doing this practice since 1988. It doesn't appear to have scared many organizations to OSS.
I am sure that a few have made the switch to OSS, but I imagine that the number would be insignificant compared to the organizations who change their practices to pay for all the software they use. It is still going to be worth it for the BSA and its member companies.
Besides, it is not much of a threat to say that if you get audited then you will stop pirating commercial software and start using open source.
I agree. I am surprised that I had to scroll down so far to find somebody saying this. Microsoft got it wrong when they tried to make the one user interface work across the desktop and phone interfaces with the old Windows Mobile (a tiny start menu on a small screen? Ridiculous!).
So too will they get it wrong when they zoom a tiny screen's interface up to a 24 inch monitor. Microsoft lost the huge head start they had on smart phones due to this single user-interface folly, and they will lose a lot of the desktop market share this time (although I suppose it could be that their biggest competitor will be Windows 7, so they won't lose out too much).
They sell Microsoft Office for operating systems other than Windows.
This concession to the antitrust authorities and Apple is something of an exception to the general rule and it was a brutal fight to make it come about.
What rubbish! The first version of Microsoft Office EVER was for the Mac in August 1989. The Windows release came out in November 1990. With whom did they have this "brutal fight" to get this released for the Mac?
Interestingly, according to Wikipedia, after the release of Word for the Mac in 1985 (2 years after Word for MS-DOS and Xenix), "Word for Mac's sales were higher than its MS-DOS counterpart for at least four years". It seems that Microsoft were rather pragmatic about selling software where it would make a buck!
I supplied facts about the case to explain to the slow learners that the case isn't about "round rect with a black front." ...... In fact, Samsung could have come up with a different design that would have trivially avoided the claim: color the plastic in the front bezel anything but black, and voila, the devices are easily distinguished.
If you supplied facts to say that this isn't about "round rect with a black front", then why bring up the comparison of the products from 10 feet away? In fact, that has been your only fact that you keep supplying. At that distance, the differences between the two products cannot be seen.At that distance it is all just about rounded corners and a black front.
If it isn't all just "round rect with a black front." then why is your solution to change the black front to another color? If black around the edges of the screen is so unique, then why do most of the computer monitors and televisions come with black edges?
Broadband internet would have been rather rare, but we could run our S3 Virge 3D card along with a monochrome video card to get multiple monitors and multitask under OS/2. 1995 was a pretty interesting time in computerland!
After playing with the XLS, I discovered that it actually was their XML format in a zip archive. They seem to now be calling that XLS instead of XLSD (?).
Then it had been misnamed by someone, because Microsoft use a variety of different extensions for their new file format (depending on whether it contains macros), and XLS is not one of them.
You can get the compatibility pack for previous versions of office to allow you to open the new file format in your version of Office and a lot of the earlier ones (it is not listed, but the pack works back to at least Office 97). It works pretty well, and means that you are not forced to upgrade with "a series of endless incompatible formats". I only upgrade about once a decade, and even then it is only when I get given an upgrade for free. Also, the file formats only change once a decade too, so it is not too much of a problem (the last change prior to 2007 format was with Office 97).
Your own quote pretty much admits there is a standard.
No, it did not. Here is the test: do you have to pay to license the exFAT file system? Yes. Do you have to pay to license the SD format? Yes. Does the author of the file system call it a standard? No, it calls it "our exFAT file system".. If Microsoft did proclaim it as a standard, would that be good enough for the Slashdot community? No. We tend to like our standards to be maintained by a standards body, not an individual company and especially not Microsoft.
But as I said before, I can see your argument as to why you might informally refer to it as a standard, but it seems a bit rich to arbitrarily define a proprietary, commercial specification as a standard (when the author's have not called it that nor have them submitted it to a standards body), only to then accuse the company of forcing it onto the industry. If you want to blame anyone, blame the people at the SD Card Association for choosing a patent encumbered file system. Or the device makers for choosing the SD format.
Sorry, but once the SD association adopted Fat32 and exFat, its a standard by any useful definition.
I can see how you might think that, but Microsoft have always promoted the filesystem as a proprietary licensable format. That it was chosen to be part if the SD spec does not change this. Rather, it just makes SDXC format a proprietary based system.
In fact, the use of ExFat format was noted as a compatibility problem in the wikipedia entry for SDXC:
SDXC cards are pre-formatted with Microsoft's proprietary and patented exFAT file system, which the host device might not support. Since Microsoft does not publish the specifications of exFAT and its use requires a non-free license, many alternative or older operating systems do not support exFAT for technical or legal reasons.
No mention of a standard there.
Microsoft's FRAND terms and apple's on firewire have already been found discriminatory - kinda rich for them to be going after google for not asking for FRAND, which isn't compatible with open source.
Isn't the licencing of patents the way Motorola is doing also incompatible with open source?
One of Motorola's patents could be worth 10 times all of the 2300 patents MS has put together.
They are not Microsoft's patents, they are the patents that Microsoft pay 29 companies to use - although I am sure that one of those companies is Microsoft, so they effectively pay themselves! From the article:
As it turns out, there are at least 2,300 other patents needed to implement this standard. They are available from a group of 29 companies that came together to offer their H.264 patents to the industry on FRAND terms.
There are a lot of things for which MS has patents (allegedly, since every settlement is under NDA) and are using them to demand the $7.50 from B&N and all other Android devices. Standards that MS forced onto the industry, like Fat32, ExFat, MTP. The list goes on and on.
First of all, a lot of Microsoft's patents have been seen because they have not always been settled and have gone to court. While Microsoft may have some reasonable patents, but from what we have seen of the ones listed in court they have a lot that are complete crap too.
Secondly, FAT32 and ExFat are not standards. Only FAT is a standard. FAT32 is a patented extension to this, and ExFat is a proprietory file system. MTP Basic is a proposed standard, and is available royalty free.
How would the prospective forger have known about Anthony Watt's involvement in the Expanded Climate Communications?
That was listed in the fundraising plain document on page 19.
That said, I think that it is the most stupid defence to claim that this is a forgery because every fact in it is true! If that is the most damning thing they can say about it, then it is pretty weak.
However, in true-to-form fashion for this organization, it is a often used strategy that works. Look how much time is being spent arguing about a document that is supposedly all true. It is a great way to spread doubt about the revelations and to turn the discussion away from the real meat of the matter - the allegations themselves. As I have been discovering recently in a conversation from a previous story on this matter, misdirection is a key tool in the denialist's arsenal.
And you do think that? Why? Do you have any specifics? Any evidence?
http://www.nationalcenter.org/2007/05/let-greenpeace-live-up-to-standard-it.html
Bloody hell! You have done it again. This is yet another example of your constant use of misdirection. All along I have been complaining about Heartland's secret payments to scientists to spruik for the institute under the credentials of the scientists' own instutitions. Your response is not to deny that this happens, but the claim that Greenpeace does it too (which if true would not exonerate Heartland, but merely mean that we had two organisations to condem). Let's have a look at what you have said:
1. And that's different from Greenpeace surreptitiously paying people to say what they want...how?
When pressed on this claim, you then morphed it into:
2. What? Really? You think that Greenpeace simply doesn't get anonymous donations, and then parcels that out to people who agree with their policy positions? Wow.
So when pressed again to provide evidence of this accusation you completely ignore the topic of discussion and "prove" the inconsequential addition that you had inserted into your claim about whether Greenpeace accepts anonymous donations. Did you think that I would not notice that you had changed the topic? That I would forget that we had been talking about Greenpeace corrupting scientists like Heartland Institute did? The fact that I didn't believe your original allegation should not have been a source of surprise for you, considering that you yourself cannot back it up with any evidence!
It's been independently verified as a forgery by several sources, but here's a particularly well done one:
I'm afraid that those links were not any verification of forgery, but complete guesswork. How is it evidence of fakery because one of the PDFs was generated in a different location than the others and by a different method? I would be more suspicious if they were all made by the same person in the same way. How is it evidence of fakery that every fact has been verified as true? How is it evidence that that the style is different? The document was probably only meant to be seen in the board meeting, and was not intended to be kept on record. The fact that it was a discussion document would also explain why it was "too short" or that there was no identifying information (not required if it was to be handed out in person).
Now I am not going to say that the document isn't a forgery. But it seems strange that you are so happy to accept the rather flimsy "evidence" to prove that it is, and yet completely dismiss the details that have been verified as true (even verified by some of the recipients of the secret payments). This is either wishful thinking on your part that Heartland have done no wrong, or it is an attempt at misdirection away from the revelations of the documents.
Considering how you have shown a pattern towards this kind of misdirection in your postings, I am fairly confident that it is the latter. This would make you either a "true believer" who has his eyes covered or a shill for the organisation.
Sorry... FAIL. This system will ONLY work if we remove humans as a variable in the equation.
Seriously? FAIL? You find one particular scenario where it would provide optimal performance and somehow this means the system has failed? So what is your solution then? Do not implement a system that would make traffic flow better in 90% of cases just because the 10% would not be improved?
<RANT> /. on stories about inventions. People either dismiss it because of one edge case (like now), or they will say that they personally do not need the technology so it should not be implemented. Myself, I use public transport more often than I drive but that doesn't mean that I think we should not improve traffic flow for cars. To do so would be amazingly self-centered.
It is a curious reaction that we often see on
</RANT>
As to your particular concern, we are in the process of removing humans as a variable. Even ignoring the work being done on auto-driving cars, how many cars do you see with navigation systems in them these days. Sure, you don't input your destination into these every time if you know where you are going, but would you do so if it meant that you were more likely to get a dream run of green traffic lights?
What? Really? You think that Greenpeace simply doesn't get anonymous donations, and then parcels that out to people who agree with their policy positions? Wow.
And you do think that? Why? Do you have any specifics? Any evidence? Or are you just telling lies to make it seem like Greenpeace is as bad as Heartland?
That's because the *real* story is "Global Warming activists forge documents to discredit Heartland", and the MSM doesn't want to give that any play :)
Really? One document of the bunch was supposedly forged. And who was it that made that claim? It was Heartland Institute itself. It won't tell anyone what bits are forged though. Hardly damning evidence of forgery. Surely you can see that this lacks credibility?
So out of all the revelations about this matter (most of which has been confirmed by other sources), why is it that the one part that you think is the most important is the one unspecific and unsubstantiated claim made by Heartland themselves?
Okay, exactly what is underhanded and deceptive about funding skeptical climate curriculum, or more access to climate data? Be specific.
Why are you asking me that? I have never brought up that topic at all. It is obvious that I was talking about the secret payments to people who work in respectable institutions to use their authority to push Heartland's agenda. This makes it appear that there is a dissent in the scientific community where there is none.
Now maybe the recipients would have still made the same claims about climate change without Heartland's money. If so, why did they need to be paid in the first place. If nothing else, it makes them seem to be corrupt.
Heartland Institute surreptitiously pays people to say what they want.
And that's different from Greenpeace surreptitiously paying people to say what they want...how?
The difference is that Heartland Institute have just been caught out doing this exact practice, whereas Greenpeace has not. You just made up the allegation about Greenpeace. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that they are doing this, and there is no reason for them to hide away like that. Heatland had to manufacture some tame scientists to even attempt to look slightly credible. Greenpeace argues a point that mirrors what the overwhelming majority of scientists say.
Wait, wait, so maybe Heartland has been waging a PR campaign like Greenpeace, except with an order of magnitude *less* money? Really?
Why not? They are doing quite a good job of it too. I have been monitoring the local news outlets in my area and there has been barely a mention of this story. Contrast this with the hysteria surrounding the so called Climategate emails, and it appears that somebody was doing a good PR job of keeping that scandal in the public eye. Remember that Heartland has a lot of experience planting anti-scientific FUD in the public forums from back in the day when they were doing it for the tobacco companies.
Were you under the impression that the Heartland institute didn't have a PR goal? Are you under the impression that Greenpeace doesn't have a PR goal?
I did state in my post that they each had their own agenda, but that doesn't make them equals. Judge them by how underhanded and deceptive they are.
But you can bet that when the Greenpeace researchers publish anything it is under the Greenpeace banner.
Cite a single peer reviewed paper funded by Greenpeace.
Who mentioned peer review papers? I said "publish anything". You are merely trying to deflect the topic by redefining what I said. So let's cut through the crap.
When Greenpeace publishes anything (scientific or not), they do so using their name. They do not hide their agenda - their green ideals are in their name, for god sake!
Heartland Institute surreptitiously pays people to say what they want. When those people publish anything, it is not under the banner of Heartland Institute, but as Professor X of Blah University. They hide their ideals behind the names of other respectable institutions. It is deceitful.
So you might try to make a big deal of how much money they have compared to other organisations, but it is how they use their money that is important. In Heartland's case, they are buying credability and a notion of impartiality by paying prominent anti-AGW mouthpieces. And if they are willing to do that, perhaps they also use their money to pay shills to flood social networking sites with their agenda.
It makes you wonder. Correction. It makes me wonder.
Name a single bit of actual scientific research that Greenpeace funds.
Why should I? It was you who brought up the notion that Greenpeace does scientific research when you posted your ealier link which says that "Its 1,200-strong staff ranges from 'direct action' activists to scientific researchers." You can't use the fact that they pay for scientific researchers to denigrate the organisation, and then turn around to imply that they don't do scientific research!
Of course, Heartland pay scientists too. But you can bet that when the Greenpeace researchers publish anything it is under the Greenpeace banner. What's the bet that when the scientists bought by the Heartland Institute publish anything they neglect to mention their funding sources.
Tell you what, when you want to play the science game, come at me with your concise falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
Your problem is that you think that global warming is just a single theory. It is actually made up of a lot of theories in a variety of scientific disciplines. It all began when people started wondering if all the CO2 we were emitting was increasing the levels in the atmosphere, and if that was true then it could raise the temperature. People did some tests and found that both of these things were true. People looked at all aspects of the CO2 cycle of emission and absorption and found the most credible reason for change was due to man's influence. The oceanographers wondered that if the CO2 levels were in fact increasing, then they should see ocean acidification - and it was so. The people drilling in the ice to look at the historical records agreed with the ones looking at tree rings. The people measuring the temperature on earth agreed with the ones doing it from satellites in space. The scientists published their math in the IPCC reports, and nobody has found any errors with it. The errors found in the IPCC reports were in the non-scientific impacts section (part 3 I believe).
At any stage along the way, someone could have discovered something that did not match the climate change theory and the whole thing would come down like a house of cards. But this has not happened. The theory is falsifiable because there are so many people doing different tests on this subject and they all keep coming up with the same conclusions.
I followed the link provided, and was immediately struck by the first graph in the header showing a dropping trend over 6,000 years and an arrow at the end where it rises a bit and the text "global warming part". Obviously this shows that by taking a very narrow view, an unscrupulous scientist can make it appear like it is getting warmer.
Now to the headline: 2011 Global Sea Level Dropped back to 2008 Levels. I would like to see those three years highlighted on the first graph. They are saying that they have proof that global warming is wrong by taking an extremely narrow view of the data. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.