Hazel in 53 wiped Montreal out. There's lots of these if you actually look.
The book "How to lie with statistics" is very handy to show things that aren't. Spin that data anyway youcan! Keep you're eyes off Fukushima and the Gulf, there's bogeyman to tax!
I always look to insurance companies when I want to learn hard science.
Budget cutbacks in response increase damages. This is how the weather can get worse without actually changing. Good thing we're not all about austerity these days.
Thing is, we knew this was going to happen. NASA said so a month or so ago:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html - 07.24.12 "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data."
On the other hand, read this, by Tony Rutkowski. For background, Tony has a PhD, MBA and LLB and installed the white house web server way back when and is well known in all internet policy circles. He founded (then quit out of disgust) ISOC and was the ITU general counsel and was the clever fellow that mad the net *legal* under ITU international telecommunications treaty/laws during his brief stint ar ITU general counsel. In this article he explains the two VERY BAD THINGS the ITU did and why they can never be trusted. There is nobody on earth that has more direct policy experience with the ITU and internet policy:
IANA hasn't been relevant since Jon died. It pretty much didn't exist for the first few years after he did - and did you notice you could always get your mail.
We have gone from the rapid growth to more or less just operations now and the IANA could go away and nobody would notice. They no longer make policy, ICANN does. IANA is just a secretariat now and has about as much operational relevance as the Good Housekeeping seal of approval.
I liked, knew and respected Jon but 1) this mess happened on his watch 2) he's dead Jim. - IANA didn't really exist outside of Jon, it was just a name he made up to describe what he did and wasn't real, which is why ICANN had to be created. It's kept around today as a cute historical artifact but doesn't actually do anything any more.
Christ, it was only a part time function for 15K/yr when Jon ran it, and it actually did stuff back then. Now, not so much (but the budget is 100X that)
"ITU are the good guys, they arent political like a country is."
HOLY FUCK. You have no direct experience with them, do you?
Modulo their attempts to kill the net, and to stall progress and to organize every government of the world against it, under their leadership AND IN SECRET, yeah sure.
It was only 19 years ago the one clever made made the net *legal* under international telecommunications law as defined by the ITU. Without that you'd be paying a tax on every packet that crossed a national border.
But please, tell us more about your working fusion reactor and warp drive. I'm sure you know all about those too.
Ironically when the first transatlantic x.25 link was set up it immediately began passing tcp/ip traffic. Not because of laws, but because it was useful and they could.
The ITU, as formulated now, would not let this happen today.
Explain to us your experience with the ITU and internet governance and how it worked out so well. You've done that, right?
I had the opposite thing happen when I did. They lie, cheat, steal and operate in the shadows to get power. That's what I saw. Now tell me of your experience.
"I'm failing to see how increased protection for the internet against bad laws is a bad thing. That's exactly what unanimous vote at the ITU grants it."
That'll give you a good idea what ITU "protection" brings you. Hint: they tried to ban TCP/IP and pushed OSI instead; in 1990 the USG mandated the use of OSI in all communications with it - because of the ITU. Read Sean Doran's great screed "It Seeks Overall Control" about when the IESG explained that there would be a new focus on OSI and there was a revolt in the IETF.
These are the last people on earth you want anywhere near the Internet.
"he reason I believe ITU control would be better than the status quo is quite simple - I believe that 193 vetoes (including the US') are a better safeguard against the passing of controversal changes to the internet, than simply relying on the US only to forever do the right thing."
But but but... the net thrives on controversial change. Look at.xxx for example. Maybe you agree maybe you don't but it's nice to see that it can actually happen; that is it doesn't matter if you're for or against it, the important thing is no government gets to block it (and god knows they tried).
Under UN/ITU aegis, it wouldn't. Nor would Wikileaks. Nor would... you get the point.
What would kill the net isn't "controversial change" but stagnation.
" ICANN has a very limited mandate which is to manage the top level domain servers and they have did a good job."
Nope.
1) ICANN has aegis over all domain and ip space. 2) They only had three things to do: A) devolve nsi B) do something about the collision of domains and trademarks and C) make new tlds. They did A & B in the first 6 months of ICANN, in 2000. C is still two years way from whenever you ask, and it's been 12 years.
ICANN doesn't manage servers, it's bound by it's own bylaws from doing so or running a registry. Check for yourself.
That's true. If they can get their mail from yahoo and facebook works they're happy and don't care.
This both works for, and against you.
The obvious (to me anyway) first step away from sucking at the tit of USG DNS is to port the legacy DNS to the Pirate Bay PDNS DHT stuff. The, get people to replace their resolution agent to use this instead. The recent legal troubles of Pirate Bay make this more difficult and they may not be a coincidence. You have no idea the forces at play that want to see the legacy DNS stay *exactly* the way it is now. You can probably figure it out by seeing which groups were at the interagency task force meetings to transfer the DNS away from the NSF to where it is now.
That works. But we'll need to replace the DNS as it's a hierarchy and guess who has the top slot?
But...
Two problems with this plan as presented in TFA: 1) it's physically impossible 2) they lack any authority to do so. What really happens is they may decide to do it then every country has to agree. The US will not. Nor will it ever. And it holds all the cars. The UN and ITU, can, as always, go fuck themselves.
They've been trying this for 17 years now; the ITU who used to coordinate analog phone voltages across national borders has been made redundant by VOIP and is seeking relevence to the net. It has none of course, and should either die or be replaced by a private entity as Tony Rutkowski (former ITU counsel) has advocated: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120816_privatizing_the_itu_t_back_to_the_future/
Biden's been head of the Senate foreign relations committee for years and years. He's well liked and well respected around the world and is a decent guy. He's be a fine president and you can't in all good faith say this about mittens and vampire boy, there's just something wrong with their brains.
Yes. Contragate. The hostages were released the day Reagan took office, which means the Reagan team was negotiating with America's worst enemy behind the back of proper diplomatic channels during a campaign, and whipped up the drugs for arms for Iranians deal.
And shortly after Reagan created the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Slashdot Mirror
Hazel in 53 wiped Montreal out. There's lots of these if you actually look.
The book "How to lie with statistics" is very handy to show things that aren't. Spin that data anyway youcan! Keep you're eyes off Fukushima and the Gulf, there's bogeyman to tax!
I always look to insurance companies when I want to learn hard science.
Budget cutbacks in response increase damages. This is how the weather can get worse without actually changing. Good thing we're not all about austerity these days.
They're saying this happened because the storm system was blocked from going into the Atlantic because of the melting ice in Greenland.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/rights/was-sandy-caused-years-record-ice-melt
Thing is, we knew this was going to happen. NASA said so a month or so ago:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html - 07.24.12
"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data."
From TFA:
"FIVE TROPICAL STORMS FORMED IN THE ATLANTIC BASIN DURING THE MONTH
OF OCTOBER. TWO OF THESE REACHED HURRICANE STATUS"
From Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Atlantic_hurricane_season
"The 2011 Atlantic hurricane season produced 20 tropical cyclones, 19 tropical storms, 7 hurricanes, and 4 major hurricanes."
Man, if things keep getting worse, then at this rate there'll be no hurricanes left.
Sure, just don't feed it after midnight and DON'T GET THEM WET.
Is the amount of rare earths that great? It sure is for magnets but solar panels are silicon. Sand.
You have to use a female ermine, but yes, this is correct otherwise.
x86 is kind of at end of life. evolve or die.
On the other hand, read this, by Tony Rutkowski. For background, Tony has a PhD, MBA and LLB and installed the white house web server way back when and is well known in all internet policy circles. He founded (then quit out of disgust) ISOC and was the ITU general counsel and was the clever fellow that mad the net *legal* under ITU international telecommunications treaty/laws during his brief stint ar ITU general counsel. In this article he explains the two VERY BAD THINGS the ITU did and why they can never be trusted. There is nobody on earth that has more direct policy experience with the ITU and internet policy:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121026_the_great_itu_internet_heist
IANA hasn't been relevant since Jon died. It pretty much didn't exist for the first few years after he did - and did you notice you could always get your mail.
We have gone from the rapid growth to more or less just operations now and the IANA could go away and nobody would notice. They no longer make policy, ICANN does. IANA is just a secretariat now and has about as much operational relevance as the Good Housekeeping seal of approval.
I liked, knew and respected Jon but 1) this mess happened on his watch 2) he's dead Jim. - IANA didn't really exist outside of Jon, it was just a name he made up to describe what he did and wasn't real, which is why ICANN had to be created. It's kept around today as a cute historical artifact but doesn't actually do anything any more.
Christ, it was only a part time function for 15K/yr when Jon ran it, and it actually did stuff back then. Now, not so much (but the budget is 100X that)
"ITU are the good guys, they arent political like a country is."
HOLY FUCK. You have no direct experience with them, do you?
Modulo their attempts to kill the net, and to stall progress and to organize every government of the world against it, under their leadership AND IN SECRET, yeah sure.
It was only 19 years ago the one clever made made the net *legal* under international telecommunications law as defined by the ITU. Without that you'd be paying a tax on every packet that crossed a national border.
But please, tell us more about your working fusion reactor and warp drive. I'm sure you know all about those too.
Ironically when the first transatlantic x.25 link was set up it immediately began passing tcp/ip traffic. Not because of laws, but because it was useful and they could.
The ITU, as formulated now, would not let this happen today.
Explain to us your experience with the ITU and internet governance and how it worked out so well. You've done that, right?
I had the opposite thing happen when I did. They lie, cheat, steal and operate in the shadows to get power. That's what I saw. Now tell me of your experience.
"I'm failing to see how increased protection for the internet against bad laws is a bad thing. That's exactly what unanimous vote at the ITU grants it."
COUGH CHOKE.
You have no direct experience with this, do you?
Read this: http://museum.media.org/eti/
That'll give you a good idea what ITU "protection" brings you. Hint: they tried to ban TCP/IP and pushed OSI instead; in 1990 the USG mandated the use of OSI in all communications with it - because of the ITU. Read Sean Doran's great screed "It Seeks Overall Control" about when the IESG explained that there would be a new focus on OSI and there was a revolt in the IETF.
These are the last people on earth you want anywhere near the Internet.
"he reason I believe ITU control would be better than the status quo is quite simple - I believe that 193 vetoes (including the US') are a better safeguard against the passing of controversal changes to the internet, than simply relying on the US only to forever do the right thing. "
But but but... the net thrives on controversial change. Look at .xxx for example. Maybe you agree maybe you don't but it's nice to see that it can actually happen; that is it doesn't matter if you're for or against it, the important thing is no government gets to block it (and god knows they tried).
Under UN/ITU aegis, it wouldn't. Nor would Wikileaks. Nor would... you get the point.
What would kill the net isn't "controversial change" but stagnation.
" ICANN has a very limited mandate which is to manage the top level domain servers and they have did a good job."
Nope.
1) ICANN has aegis over all domain and ip space.
2) They only had three things to do: A) devolve nsi B) do something about the collision of domains and trademarks and C) make new tlds. They did A & B in the first 6 months of ICANN, in 2000. C is still two years way from whenever you ask, and it's been 12 years.
ICANN doesn't manage servers, it's bound by it's own bylaws from doing so or running a registry. Check for yourself.
"You're not talking about "the basics." We've got the basics down. IETF & RFCs rule."
Not any more. Tell ICANN it's doing something that violates the major DNS RFC's and you'll be told that's not important any more.
That's true. If they can get their mail from yahoo and facebook works they're happy and don't care.
This both works for, and against you.
The obvious (to me anyway) first step away from sucking at the tit of USG DNS is to port the legacy DNS to the Pirate Bay PDNS DHT stuff. The, get people to replace their resolution agent to use this instead. The recent legal troubles of Pirate Bay make this more difficult and they may not be a coincidence. You have no idea the forces at play that want to see the legacy DNS stay *exactly* the way it is now. You can probably figure it out by seeing which groups were at the interagency task force meetings to transfer the DNS away from the NSF to where it is now.
That works. But we'll need to replace the DNS as it's a hierarchy and guess who has the top slot?
But...
Two problems with this plan as presented in TFA: 1) it's physically impossible 2) they lack any authority to do so. What really happens is they may decide to do it then every country has to agree. The US will not. Nor will it ever. And it holds all the cars. The UN and ITU, can, as always, go fuck themselves.
They've been trying this for 17 years now; the ITU who used to coordinate analog phone voltages across national borders has been made redundant by VOIP and is seeking relevence to the net. It has none of course, and should either die or be replaced by a private entity as Tony Rutkowski (former ITU counsel) has advocated: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120816_privatizing_the_itu_t_back_to_the_future/
"And yet, for all the problems, science marches on, the most successful system for gathering data and creating testable explanations ever created"
The scientific *process* is pure, but the publication of science is 50% good and 50% junk science.
Now superimpose it, with normalized axes, on the recent Norwegian tree ring data: http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/fraud/climategate/.images/00-both2.png
Biden's been head of the Senate foreign relations committee for years and years. He's well liked and well respected around the world and is a decent guy. He's be a fine president and you can't in all good faith say this about mittens and vampire boy, there's just something wrong with their brains.
"He had filibuster proof margins in both house and Senate for 2 years,"
Look it up. No he didn't.
"assassinated ambassador"
Uh huh. 4 Amricans died in Libya on Obama's watch.
3000 Americans died in New York on Bush's watch.
"muslim extremists taking over EVERYWHERE"
That's what Fox news wants you to believe. But it isn't actually true; you didn't bother to actually check.
Yes. Contragate. The hostages were released the day Reagan took office, which means the Reagan team was negotiating with America's worst enemy behind the back of proper diplomatic channels during a campaign, and whipped up the drugs for arms for Iranians deal.
And shortly after Reagan created the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Watch these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5CKO400_7M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGo1DqmfHjY