First of all I'd like to thank you for your fine response to my posts. I'm gratified to see someone actually willing to debate the issue, rather than just scream "You're wrong because I say so!" at me. Again, thank you. I should also note, that my declaration of victory previously posted was due to Waffle Iron being completely incapable of mounting any kind of defense of his position beyond the aforementioned screaming. I was declaring my victory over him, not Slashdot as a whole. As evidenced by his follow-up posts, I vouch safe that my victory over him remains untarnished.
My primary issue is that Human Caused Global Warming is bunk. The other issues are secondary at this time and we can shelve them for now. To back up my point, I direct you to the junkscience.com link I posted. They have a full scientific breakdown that completely debunks the concept of human-based global warming. That is merely one of many sites that discuss the issue.
You stated four facts in your post. I won't reiterate them here as it is just as easy to look up 2 inches and re-read them. I WILL NOT DISPUTE ANY OF THEM. I absolutely 100% agree with each and every fact you stated. HOWEVER, you left off one crucial fifth fact that is key to the entire debate. Science has yet to prove that human Greenhouse Gas (GG) emissions are released in quantities sufficient to affect anything more short term local climate. (Smog in L.A. as an example) There have been many CLAIMS that humans release enough GG to cause global warming, but no scientific proof. There hasn't even been good solid scientific EVIDENCE of such a thing occurring.
In fact, most of the evidence points to the exact opposite conclusion. For proof of this statement, I point you to the excellent book mentioned in the first link I posted. Arctic Ice cores contain trapped gases and material unchanged from the time the ice formed. They provide an excellent snapshot of what the climate was like at various times in the past. Study of the ice cores provides very strong evidence that the Earth is traveling in a predictable and cyclic pattern through warm and cold periods, and the patterns shown in the ice cores can be very accurately mapped to historical weather patterns.
This, combined with the effects of the Solar maximum and minimum's effects on the Earth combine to form a near perfect picture of the weather in the past. We can even account for the current heating cycle, as we are coming out of a long cool period caused by a long solar minimum coinciding with a natural cooling period, which caused what is now called the "Little Ice Age" throughout the globe.
As a general discussion point, I would direct you to look up Mount Pinatubo. You may remember that? A volcano in the Pacific that erupted about 20 years ago. We had measurement instruments ALL OVER that mountain, because we received a tremendous amount of warning from the mountain that it was gong to erupt. When it finally did erupt, it spewed (along with the Ash, mud and Pyroclastic material) millions upon millions of cubic tons of GG's into the atmosphere. You may remember that there was grave concern about what might happen. There was actually a global cooling fear from all the ash and aerosols sprayed high into the jet stream. Of course, there was also a large amount of CO2 and Sulfur, and other GG's as well, so nobody was really certain what would happen. Scientists at the time calculated that Pinatubo had spewed more GG's into the atmosphere than all of humanity had throughout it's entire history (a claim that has since been backed up by further study).
What happened? Well, globally we had about 2-3 slightly cooler seasons, with the first summer after Pinatubo being the coolest on record for years. After that, the weather pretty much got back to normal worldwide. Do you see the problem with Human-caused Global warming now? If NATURE, through a VOLCANO can "poison" her own environment by many orders of magnitude greater than humanity
They don't work accurately if you push them far enough into the past, and they don't work the other way either. They are SHORT TERM models only, based on a very small, local history model of weather behavior. They don't work over the long scale because Earth's weather (even within the last 1000 years!) has varied widely from our recent weather pattern.
The Global Warming crowd always fails to mention this. They use data from the last hundred years to try and predict global weather patterns that cycle on 1000-2000 year schedules. The results are almost guaranteed to be wrong!
And this from someone who feels it necessary to call me a "Knucklehead"? He didn't HAVE a counter-argument, unless you consider "You're wrong because I say so!" a counter argument.
Very well. Since neither you nor Waffle Iron can even be bothered to come up with a cogent counter-argument other than a "Neener neener, you're a big meanie" and "Watch me alter your argument in a nonsensical way to mock you with." I'll just pound you both into the ground with evidence. Apparently all you understand is Appeals to Authority, so here they are:
I can pull these links ALL DAY, but I've got work to do and a life to live.
The point is, the more evidence we gather, the more we realize that IF the world is warming (and it's a BIG if) then it's part of a natural cycle that has been taking place on our planet for Millenia, and there isn't a damn thing we can do to cause or stop it. All we would be doing by adopting the inane Kyoto accord agreements (or anything like it) would be to weaken our economy and society in such a way that should natural global warming actually happen, we wouldn't have the economic or social strength left to survive it! All it takes is an open mind and a little critical thinking and the "Global Warming" hysteria becomes just that. Hysteria not worth wasting our energy on.
If you can't see the evidence right in front of you, then you're a damn fool and I've got no more time to deal with you.
If my point is so false, then DISPROVE IT logically. Simply saying "You are wrong" isn't enough. Prove it.
This may not be a high school debate class, but the rules of debate and logic still reign. You are just trying to be the loudest voice in the room, and that doesn't cut it with me.
You say my argument is baseless, and yet you refuse to logically prove why. Debate me. Logically disprove my points. I'm right here waiting for you to take me on.
Incidentally, the IPCC is largely funded through UNEP, an ostensibly neutral international organization staffed and led by socialists. So despite the fact that the IPCC website says nothing directly about socialism, the prescriptions required to implement their fixes would naturally have to be socialistic.
This, of course, is exactly as planned. International socialist organizations fund the scientists, what a surprise that the scientists' "findings" would indicate a socialist method is needed to address the "problem"! The fix is in and we all pay.
It's nothing more than a global shell game, and the U.S. isn't playing.
Making a logical argument DOES NOT REQUIRE sources. Insisting I produce them is an Appeal to Authority. You again attempt to attack me by not addressing the content of my argument, and instead attempt to brush the entire argument away by insisting I provide sources. You have yet to address the content of my argument, and have been reduced to plugging your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.
I accept your surrender and rightly claim debate victory.
"Big Oil" will make money REGARDLESS of whether they are selling oil, or Biodiesel, or Ethanol, or windmills, or batteries. They have become energy companies, and oil is just ONE of their profit areas. They know that one day oil will no longer be economically sound as a fuel, so they are investing in technologies to swap over to when that day comes. In other words, THE MARKET has already addressed this issue, and signing us onto some crackpot-eco-communist scheme that exempts the world's largest pollution producers while punishing us is crazy.
Making a logical argument DOES NOT REQUIRE sources. Insisting I produce them is an Appeal to Authority. You again attempt to attack me by not addressing the content of my argument, and instead attempt to brush the entire argument away by insisting I provide sources. You have yet to address the content of my argument, and have been reduced to plugging your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.
I accept your surrender and rightly claim debate victory.
So it costs money to do something? Now run the numbers on the cost of doing nothing. The fact is that the US is in the position to lead by example. The US is also in the position to be left behind, in terms of green technology, if they continue along their current course of action.
The problem is that when you "run the numbers" you aren't taking into account that the "numbers" are provided by eco-communists and are deliberately cooked to always make them look good. It's a rigged game and the only way to win is not to play. The U.S. chooses not to play.
A more honest appraisal shows that the earth may be going through yet another of it's many many natural climate adjustments, and that we puny humans had nothing to do with it. Thusly, obliterating our economy to satisfy dubious and hysterical claims of human-caused massive climate change would be absurd.
Also, see my post just above a bit. The big oil companies (US based ones included) are the primary sources of funding and research into alternative fuels. Big Oil has been and continues to prepare for the day when it is no longer economically sound to use oil, and is ready to ease into a change that will be economically profitable. Wrecking our economy just to "set an example" is idiotic, especially when we are already setting the proper example in allowing the market to determine the correct course of action.
You are making an Ad Hominem attack against me by not addressing the points of my argument, and saying my information does not have authority because you suspect that it came from "talk radio". It is a CLASSIC example of an Ad Hominem attack. Remember, the messenger is not the message. Where I learned the information is irrelevant to the content of the argument.
Now stop wasting my time. Either logically address my argument, or accept defeat and leave.
Let's trot out the "Republicans are in bed with EEEVil Big Oil" argument! Way to whip out that straw man!
Do you have ANY CLUE about that which you speak? No, I didn't think so. Let me clue you in: So called "Big Oil" does NOT CARE about "emissions standards" or any "green" laws, except those that attempt to impose communism and steal their assets. They have no special bond with Republicans, except that Republicans generally trend towards conservatism, and away from Communism. This ensures "Big Oil's" ability to operate in a free(er) market and allows them to hold onto the assets they have worked so hard to obtain.
Guess who the NUMBER ONE investor in "Green" and "Alternative" energy is...
Go on, guess.
Is it Greenpeace? No. Is it PETA? No. Is it Friends of the Earth? No. Is it ANY ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET? NO!
It's the Eeevil "BIG OIL"! That's right, BP, Mobil, and most of the other large energy companies are the largest investors in alternative energy sources. If we all switched to "green" energy today, tomorrow, or any time in the future, the ONLY groups to financially benefit in any significant way will be "Big Oil". They know this because they have been building up their energy infrastructure for YEARS, preparing for the day that the oil does run out, so that they can continue making money. So how would stopping this process help them in any way? IT WOULDN'T!
Why would China and India join if the US IS included?
The problem is that the US is NOT the biggest CO2 emissions maker in the world, that title belongs to China, and India is right behind it. Yet they were exempted from almost ALL the restrictions that would have been placed on us!
It's time you understood. Kyoto was NEVER about "saving the environment". It was about punishing the United States for it's economic success by strapping it with impossible to meet standards that would have absolutely crushed our economy. It would have been economic SUICIDE for us to sign on to it, and China KNEW this. That's why they wanted us to sign on so badly. They want to be the world's superpower, but they will never do it as long as the US has a healthy and robust economy. So they sought to stab us in the back by forcing exemptions for themselves into Kyoto, and the latent communists in the global environmental community were all too willing to be their accomplices.
The big problem with the whole "Global Warming" hysteria is that is doesn't take into account natural processes. It just looks at our Earth from a static viewpoint and assumes nothing ever changes, while adding in massivley inflated numbers of Human pollution. The models that the scientists are using are so primitive that they can't accurately predict real climate change.
The truth is, in a real "Global Warming" type of situation, you would have the exact OPPOSITE of what the "experts" are predicting. No rampant hurricanes, no super violent weather at all. What you would have is a "banding" effect of the weather, much like we see on Venus. But our system is doing NOTHING LIKE THAT! In fact, our weather system is typical of what one would expect from a healthy dynamic system; Lots of wild fluctuations, with an overall effect of balancing the weather throughout the globe.
Our Earth has been warming and cooling for MILLENIA, well before we puny humans showed up on the scene. Entire ecosystems have sprung up and been wiped out several times over during the course of our planet's history. We were never there for any of them. The ancient tides of our planet's natural systems are too deep and strong for the insignificant ship of humanity to do a thing about. The most we can do is make small ripples on the surface, which quickly vanish into the vastness of nature, obliterating even a mark that we were there.
Ultimately, what the "Global Warming" push is about is power. It has become a political point of view, co-opted by socialists and communists who are attempting to force a consensus in the scientific community through control of government and private foundation grant funds. Once they are able to force a consensus and squash all independent thought in the scientific community, they hope to be able to push the government towards socialism and (eventually) all-out communism. While I doubt there is a conspiracy in the classical sense, there are absolutely like-minded groups of people all pushing for similar goals. I, for one, am proud of GW's insistence on real hard science, and not the death of independent thought that the "Consensus Scientists" would bring us.
Nslookup isn't always helpful in a case such as this due to the fact that these IP's are DYNAMICALLY assigned. In other words, the hostname at the time of the crime may have been assigned to a different IP than at the time of the investigation. Nslookup alone would only provide circumstantial evidence. The FBI or other authorities would need to collect more evidence, and they would need a good hard lock on the suspect's PC. This might require the short-term, monitoring of a block of IP's that the suspect's PC is likely to use in a given timeframe.
Again, it fits into the "minimalize" concept of a narrowly focused investigation. They capture only what they need for as short a time as possible in order to build a case against a very specific target. This isn't a "fishing trip", they are looking for very specific evidence related to a very specific individual. I really don;t understand what the issue is. They aren't rummaging through your personal life or violating your privacy in some illegal way.
Frankly, this is no different than an FBI investigator aiming a parabolic microphone at a pair of suspects sitting in an open-air cafe. They are also going to get alot of "cross-talk" from other people in the area. Are they violating the constitutional rights of the young couple sitting right behind the suspects? What if the FBI happens to hear the couple talking about what movie to watch that night? No.
The FBI just happened to catch a "private" conversation while in the course of catching an illegal one on tape. This is to be expected. While it may make you uncomfortable to find out that your conversation was also recorded becasue the FBI was listening in on the two criminals sitting at the next table over, only the most moonbatty of moonbats would try and make a "violation of privacy" case over it.
Many ISPs in the U.S. use an IP addressing scheme called "Multinetting" (I'm not certain if that's the correct term, it's just the one I learned for it) Whereby they create multiple virtual IP networks behind one router. This allows them to dynamically expand their network without having to deploy thousands of high-end routers for their network as they expand. As most ISPs also dynamically assign IP's in their network, this allows them great flexibility of network topology.
The downside is that it's somewhat difficult to tie an IP down to a specific MAC address. Most times the best you can do is find the block (or blocks) of IP's assigned to a given area. For example: let's say that the FBI has a hostname, but no IP. The hostname will often have the region or township name in it. If the FBI provides that to the ISP, the ISP will be able to say "That area uses these IP blocks." and then the FBI would have to monitor ALL those blocks to try and separate the suspect's individual IP from all the other innocent people's IPs.
The really tricky part is where the Subpoena comes in. If it's really general IE: it allows them to monitor for "suspicious activity", then it could be used as a virtual dragnet, pulling in lots of people unrelated to the original investigation. However, Judges understand this and will usually issue a very specific subpoena so that they can avoid such a "dragnet" situation.
If they are UNABLE to isolate the IP addy, but they have a good idea which ISP it's coming from , then doing a "full pipe" exam would be the logical next step, and the smallest step they could take. This would fit into the "minimalize" concept. I don't see what the big deal is here.
Now, if they were doing "Full Pipe" exams without CAUSE (IE: just out fishing to see what they can catch) then I would have a problem with that. But with cause, this is perfectly legit and appropriate.
If it's any consolation, I got it right away, and laughed. If I had mod points I'd have modded it +1 Funny! Too bad some Slashdotters don't have a sense of humor.
Or just use a Linux boot CD such as Knoppix. Boot into Linux, do what you need to do, reboot afterward. No tracks, no data stored, no alterations to the host computer, no evidence you were there beyond fingerprints on the keyboard (unless you wear latex gloves while you type, then not even that.)
It makes me wonder what is going to happen when the moron with the latest e-mail daemon virus hooks up? Pumping out thousands of virus-laden e-mails per second isn't going to do wonders for the overall connectivity. Or when the first "Blaster" for Vista is discovered? YIKES!
Slashdot Mirror
I was petulant because you were insulting. I loathe being goaded into obliterating my opponent, but if it must be done, it must be done.
However, I will accept your thanks in the spirit they are offered.
You are welcome.
Ambitwistor,
First of all I'd like to thank you for your fine response to my posts. I'm gratified to see someone actually willing to debate the issue, rather than just scream "You're wrong because I say so!" at me. Again, thank you. I should also note, that my declaration of victory previously posted was due to Waffle Iron being completely incapable of mounting any kind of defense of his position beyond the aforementioned screaming. I was declaring my victory over him, not Slashdot as a whole. As evidenced by his follow-up posts, I vouch safe that my victory over him remains untarnished.
My primary issue is that Human Caused Global Warming is bunk. The other issues are secondary at this time and we can shelve them for now. To back up my point, I direct you to the junkscience.com link I posted. They have a full scientific breakdown that completely debunks the concept of human-based global warming. That is merely one of many sites that discuss the issue.
You stated four facts in your post. I won't reiterate them here as it is just as easy to look up 2 inches and re-read them. I WILL NOT DISPUTE ANY OF THEM. I absolutely 100% agree with each and every fact you stated. HOWEVER, you left off one crucial fifth fact that is key to the entire debate. Science has yet to prove that human Greenhouse Gas (GG) emissions are released in quantities sufficient to affect anything more short term local climate. (Smog in L.A. as an example) There have been many CLAIMS that humans release enough GG to cause global warming, but no scientific proof. There hasn't even been good solid scientific EVIDENCE of such a thing occurring.
In fact, most of the evidence points to the exact opposite conclusion. For proof of this statement, I point you to the excellent book mentioned in the first link I posted. Arctic Ice cores contain trapped gases and material unchanged from the time the ice formed. They provide an excellent snapshot of what the climate was like at various times in the past. Study of the ice cores provides very strong evidence that the Earth is traveling in a predictable and cyclic pattern through warm and cold periods, and the patterns shown in the ice cores can be very accurately mapped to historical weather patterns.
This, combined with the effects of the Solar maximum and minimum's effects on the Earth combine to form a near perfect picture of the weather in the past. We can even account for the current heating cycle, as we are coming out of a long cool period caused by a long solar minimum coinciding with a natural cooling period, which caused what is now called the "Little Ice Age" throughout the globe.
As a general discussion point, I would direct you to look up Mount Pinatubo. You may remember that? A volcano in the Pacific that erupted about 20 years ago. We had measurement instruments ALL OVER that mountain, because we received a tremendous amount of warning from the mountain that it was gong to erupt. When it finally did erupt, it spewed (along with the Ash, mud and Pyroclastic material) millions upon millions of cubic tons of GG's into the atmosphere. You may remember that there was grave concern about what might happen. There was actually a global cooling fear from all the ash and aerosols sprayed high into the jet stream. Of course, there was also a large amount of CO2 and Sulfur, and other GG's as well, so nobody was really certain what would happen. Scientists at the time calculated that Pinatubo had spewed more GG's into the atmosphere than all of humanity had throughout it's entire history (a claim that has since been backed up by further study).
What happened? Well, globally we had about 2-3 slightly cooler seasons, with the first summer after Pinatubo being the coolest on record for years. After that, the weather pretty much got back to normal worldwide. Do you see the problem with Human-caused Global warming now? If NATURE, through a VOLCANO can "poison" her own environment by many orders of magnitude greater than humanity
And that is the fundamental problem.
They don't work accurately if you push them far enough into the past, and they don't work the other way either. They are SHORT TERM models only, based on a very small, local history model of weather behavior. They don't work over the long scale because Earth's weather (even within the last 1000 years!) has varied widely from our recent weather pattern.
The Global Warming crowd always fails to mention this. They use data from the last hundred years to try and predict global weather patterns that cycle on 1000-2000 year schedules. The results are almost guaranteed to be wrong!
And this from someone who feels it necessary to call me a "Knucklehead"? He didn't HAVE a counter-argument, unless you consider "You're wrong because I say so!" a counter argument.
p osts_ ID=2319http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?page=article&A rticle_ID=2319
t m
r ticles/V10/N3/C1.jsp
t m
Very well. Since neither you nor Waffle Iron can even be bothered to come up with a cogent counter-argument other than a "Neener neener, you're a big meanie" and "Watch me alter your argument in a nonsensical way to mock you with." I'll just pound you both into the ground with evidence. Apparently all you understand is Appeals to Authority, so here they are:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1496781/
The source page for that post - http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?page=article&Article
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/What_Watt.h
http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,05568.cfm
http://acuf.org/issues/issue71/061104cul.asp
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/a
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/56456.s
I can pull these links ALL DAY, but I've got work to do and a life to live.
The point is, the more evidence we gather, the more we realize that IF the world is warming (and it's a BIG if) then it's part of a natural cycle that has been taking place on our planet for Millenia, and there isn't a damn thing we can do to cause or stop it. All we would be doing by adopting the inane Kyoto accord agreements (or anything like it) would be to weaken our economy and society in such a way that should natural global warming actually happen, we wouldn't have the economic or social strength left to survive it! All it takes is an open mind and a little critical thinking and the "Global Warming" hysteria becomes just that. Hysteria not worth wasting our energy on.
If you can't see the evidence right in front of you, then you're a damn fool and I've got no more time to deal with you.
Good day sir.
And you have yet to address my arguments.
If my point is so false, then DISPROVE IT logically. Simply saying "You are wrong" isn't enough. Prove it.
This may not be a high school debate class, but the rules of debate and logic still reign. You are just trying to be the loudest voice in the room, and that doesn't cut it with me.
You say my argument is baseless, and yet you refuse to logically prove why. Debate me. Logically disprove my points. I'm right here waiting for you to take me on.
http://www.marxist.com/global-warming-socialism05
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/2003/323/index.h
With Comrades like these, who needs enemies?
Incidentally, the IPCC is largely funded through UNEP, an ostensibly neutral international organization staffed and led by socialists. So despite the fact that the IPCC website says nothing directly about socialism, the prescriptions required to implement their fixes would naturally have to be socialistic.
This, of course, is exactly as planned. International socialist organizations fund the scientists, what a surprise that the scientists' "findings" would indicate a socialist method is needed to address the "problem"! The fix is in and we all pay.
It's nothing more than a global shell game, and the U.S. isn't playing.
Wow, trying to back up one logical fallacy with another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority [wikipedia.org]
Making a logical argument DOES NOT REQUIRE sources. Insisting I produce them is an Appeal to Authority. You again attempt to attack me by not addressing the content of my argument, and instead attempt to brush the entire argument away by insisting I provide sources. You have yet to address the content of my argument, and have been reduced to plugging your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.
I accept your surrender and rightly claim debate victory.
You missed the point.
"Big Oil" will make money REGARDLESS of whether they are selling oil, or Biodiesel, or Ethanol, or windmills, or batteries. They have become energy companies, and oil is just ONE of their profit areas. They know that one day oil will no longer be economically sound as a fuel, so they are investing in technologies to swap over to when that day comes. In other words, THE MARKET has already addressed this issue, and signing us onto some crackpot-eco-communist scheme that exempts the world's largest pollution producers while punishing us is crazy.
Wow, trying to back up one logical fallacy with another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
Making a logical argument DOES NOT REQUIRE sources. Insisting I produce them is an Appeal to Authority. You again attempt to attack me by not addressing the content of my argument, and instead attempt to brush the entire argument away by insisting I provide sources. You have yet to address the content of my argument, and have been reduced to plugging your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.
I accept your surrender and rightly claim debate victory.
A more honest appraisal shows that the earth may be going through yet another of it's many many natural climate adjustments, and that we puny humans had nothing to do with it. Thusly, obliterating our economy to satisfy dubious and hysterical claims of human-caused massive climate change would be absurd.
Also, see my post just above a bit. The big oil companies (US based ones included) are the primary sources of funding and research into alternative fuels. Big Oil has been and continues to prepare for the day when it is no longer economically sound to use oil, and is ready to ease into a change that will be economically profitable. Wrecking our economy just to "set an example" is idiotic, especially when we are already setting the proper example in allowing the market to determine the correct course of action.
You are making an Ad Hominem attack against me by not addressing the points of my argument, and saying my information does not have authority because you suspect that it came from "talk radio". It is a CLASSIC example of an Ad Hominem attack. Remember, the messenger is not the message. Where I learned the information is irrelevant to the content of the argument.
Now stop wasting my time. Either logically address my argument, or accept defeat and leave.
You get the same response pipatron got.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Whee!
Let's trot out the "Republicans are in bed with EEEVil Big Oil" argument! Way to whip out that straw man!
Do you have ANY CLUE about that which you speak? No, I didn't think so. Let me clue you in: So called "Big Oil" does NOT CARE about "emissions standards" or any "green" laws, except those that attempt to impose communism and steal their assets. They have no special bond with Republicans, except that Republicans generally trend towards conservatism, and away from Communism. This ensures "Big Oil's" ability to operate in a free(er) market and allows them to hold onto the assets they have worked so hard to obtain.
Guess who the NUMBER ONE investor in "Green" and "Alternative" energy is...
Go on, guess.
Is it Greenpeace? No.
Is it PETA? No.
Is it Friends of the Earth? No.
Is it ANY ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET? NO!
It's the Eeevil "BIG OIL"! That's right, BP, Mobil, and most of the other large energy companies are the largest investors in alternative energy sources. If we all switched to "green" energy today, tomorrow, or any time in the future, the ONLY groups to financially benefit in any significant way will be "Big Oil". They know this because they have been building up their energy infrastructure for YEARS, preparing for the day that the oil does run out, so that they can continue making money. So how would stopping this process help them in any way? IT WOULDN'T!
Where's your conspiracy now, hippie?
Why would China and India join if the US IS included?
The problem is that the US is NOT the biggest CO2 emissions maker in the world, that title belongs to China, and India is right behind it. Yet they were exempted from almost ALL the restrictions that would have been placed on us!
It's time you understood. Kyoto was NEVER about "saving the environment". It was about punishing the United States for it's economic success by strapping it with impossible to meet standards that would have absolutely crushed our economy. It would have been economic SUICIDE for us to sign on to it, and China KNEW this. That's why they wanted us to sign on so badly. They want to be the world's superpower, but they will never do it as long as the US has a healthy and robust economy. So they sought to stab us in the back by forcing exemptions for themselves into Kyoto, and the latent communists in the global environmental community were all too willing to be their accomplices.
No, if is NO and When is NEVER.
The big problem with the whole "Global Warming" hysteria is that is doesn't take into account natural processes. It just looks at our Earth from a static viewpoint and assumes nothing ever changes, while adding in massivley inflated numbers of Human pollution. The models that the scientists are using are so primitive that they can't accurately predict real climate change.
The truth is, in a real "Global Warming" type of situation, you would have the exact OPPOSITE of what the "experts" are predicting. No rampant hurricanes, no super violent weather at all. What you would have is a "banding" effect of the weather, much like we see on Venus. But our system is doing NOTHING LIKE THAT! In fact, our weather system is typical of what one would expect from a healthy dynamic system; Lots of wild fluctuations, with an overall effect of balancing the weather throughout the globe.
Our Earth has been warming and cooling for MILLENIA, well before we puny humans showed up on the scene. Entire ecosystems have sprung up and been wiped out several times over during the course of our planet's history. We were never there for any of them. The ancient tides of our planet's natural systems are too deep and strong for the insignificant ship of humanity to do a thing about. The most we can do is make small ripples on the surface, which quickly vanish into the vastness of nature, obliterating even a mark that we were there.
Ultimately, what the "Global Warming" push is about is power. It has become a political point of view, co-opted by socialists and communists who are attempting to force a consensus in the scientific community through control of government and private foundation grant funds. Once they are able to force a consensus and squash all independent thought in the scientific community, they hope to be able to push the government towards socialism and (eventually) all-out communism. While I doubt there is a conspiracy in the classical sense, there are absolutely like-minded groups of people all pushing for similar goals. I, for one, am proud of GW's insistence on real hard science, and not the death of independent thought that the "Consensus Scientists" would bring us.
Nslookup isn't always helpful in a case such as this due to the fact that these IP's are DYNAMICALLY assigned. In other words, the hostname at the time of the crime may have been assigned to a different IP than at the time of the investigation. Nslookup alone would only provide circumstantial evidence. The FBI or other authorities would need to collect more evidence, and they would need a good hard lock on the suspect's PC. This might require the short-term, monitoring of a block of IP's that the suspect's PC is likely to use in a given timeframe.
Again, it fits into the "minimalize" concept of a narrowly focused investigation. They capture only what they need for as short a time as possible in order to build a case against a very specific target. This isn't a "fishing trip", they are looking for very specific evidence related to a very specific individual. I really don;t understand what the issue is. They aren't rummaging through your personal life or violating your privacy in some illegal way.
Frankly, this is no different than an FBI investigator aiming a parabolic microphone at a pair of suspects sitting in an open-air cafe. They are also going to get alot of "cross-talk" from other people in the area. Are they violating the constitutional rights of the young couple sitting right behind the suspects? What if the FBI happens to hear the couple talking about what movie to watch that night? No.
The FBI just happened to catch a "private" conversation while in the course of catching an illegal one on tape. This is to be expected. While it may make you uncomfortable to find out that your conversation was also recorded becasue the FBI was listening in on the two criminals sitting at the next table over, only the most moonbatty of moonbats would try and make a "violation of privacy" case over it.
Gah!
You're right. 4th Amendment to the Constitution. I need to re-read my copy again.
Many ISPs in the U.S. use an IP addressing scheme called "Multinetting" (I'm not certain if that's the correct term, it's just the one I learned for it) Whereby they create multiple virtual IP networks behind one router. This allows them to dynamically expand their network without having to deploy thousands of high-end routers for their network as they expand. As most ISPs also dynamically assign IP's in their network, this allows them great flexibility of network topology.
The downside is that it's somewhat difficult to tie an IP down to a specific MAC address. Most times the best you can do is find the block (or blocks) of IP's assigned to a given area. For example: let's say that the FBI has a hostname, but no IP. The hostname will often have the region or township name in it. If the FBI provides that to the ISP, the ISP will be able to say "That area uses these IP blocks." and then the FBI would have to monitor ALL those blocks to try and separate the suspect's individual IP from all the other innocent people's IPs.
The really tricky part is where the Subpoena comes in. If it's really general IE: it allows them to monitor for "suspicious activity", then it could be used as a virtual dragnet, pulling in lots of people unrelated to the original investigation. However, Judges understand this and will usually issue a very specific subpoena so that they can avoid such a "dragnet" situation.
While I agree that collecting "side evidence" from a "full pipe" exam is wrong, and probably inadmissible in court, it is NOT "Unconstitutional".
Unlawful, most likely. Unprincipled, absolutely. Unconstitutional, no.
I was about to say the same thing.
If they are UNABLE to isolate the IP addy, but they have a good idea which ISP it's coming from , then doing a "full pipe" exam would be the logical next step, and the smallest step they could take. This would fit into the "minimalize" concept. I don't see what the big deal is here.
Now, if they were doing "Full Pipe" exams without CAUSE (IE: just out fishing to see what they can catch) then I would have a problem with that. But with cause, this is perfectly legit and appropriate.
Well Sunburnt,
If it's any consolation, I got it right away, and laughed. If I had mod points I'd have modded it +1 Funny! Too bad some Slashdotters don't have a sense of humor.
Ummm...
Usenet, available to Linux users
Anonymous mail drops, available to Linux users
Tor network, available to Linux users
Powerful encryption mechanisms, available to Linux users
"Live" OS CDs that let you use a PC without leaving any data behind at all, available EXCLUSIVELY to Linux users
What else do you need?
Or just use a Linux boot CD such as Knoppix. Boot into Linux, do what you need to do, reboot afterward. No tracks, no data stored, no alterations to the host computer, no evidence you were there beyond fingerprints on the keyboard (unless you wear latex gloves while you type, then not even that.)
It makes me wonder what is going to happen when the moron with the latest e-mail daemon virus hooks up? Pumping out thousands of virus-laden e-mails per second isn't going to do wonders for the overall connectivity. Or when the first "Blaster" for Vista is discovered? YIKES!