I am a little frightened by the willingness of most of you to accept this without any corroboration. Searching the web I find no real reporting on this just blogs already predisposed to an anti-lawenforcement bias.
And what of the pro-law enforcement biased blogs? If there's any corroboration that supports the police why isn't it on those blogs?
who was railroaded during the elections, has been completely exhonorated.
"Exhonorated"? If you mean he was relieved of a burden, yes he was but if you mean he was cleared of wrong doing you're wrong. Stevens may well have been innocent but the charges were dropped because he was wrongly convicted, the prosecutors withheld evidence and such from defense.
We got screwed out of one of the few honest politicians in the Senate
You can't possibly talking about the same Senator Ted Stevens who earmarked millions of taxpayer dollars for a Bridge to Nowhere. But what other Senator Ted Stevens is there?
And don't give me that bullshit 'they are just kids' crap, that excuse has been used far too many times. If you think they are old enough to drive a car on their own, I think they are old enough to know when they are about to get their asses kicked for being morons.
They're old enough to be stopped from protesting but they're not old enough to drink?
If we stop using pesticides, those same kids will be even more unhappy when they starve to death because we can't produce enough food
Organic farmers, who are barred from using most pesticides, do it all the tyme.
What do we do to protect the police from rantings of ignorant bloggers who are pissed off because they got caught breaking the law in the past and can't except the results?
Two things can be done, start your own blog and sue the person in civil court.
Every fucking criminal on the planet says 'I'm innocent and this is police harrasment!!'
My logic is fine, your jumping to conclusions about who the actual victim is is bad. You have no clue what actually happened, just the word of some blogger who by his own work hates cops.
And how does your logic conclude he's guilty? Or that he hates cops? What I get from both articles is that he hates bad cops, not all. He even uses cops as sources of information.
When someone starts off by saying 'I hate cops because they are all corrupt, and these corrupt cops are attacking me because I'm telling other people they are corrupt' its generally a good sign they aren't exactly telling you the whole truth.
I read then searched both articles for "hate". One did not contain it at all and the other only hard the word in comments made by others. Can you show me where either article says he said "I hate cops because they are all corrupt"? Do you have another source for this, or are you putting words in his mouth?
You've already decided who's guilty
By making him out to say "I hate cops because they are all corrupt" you're not doing the exact same thing but you're making things up too.
I don't want my tax money going to pay these guys either, but when you give money to an organization to pay its obligations and they do, you can't get upset about it. Better to have let them go out of business, which was my position, and avoid the situation altogether.
I'm with you on tax money going to these people but I find it hypocritical when the admin says the AIG execs had contracts and had to be paid but the UAW workers should take pay cuts, when they also have contracts. They all, AIG, Detroit, and other financial businesses, should have been made to declare bankruptcy. Those that made bad decisions would then be out of business while those who chose not to make bad decisions would still be around. Those still around may even have been able to buy those bankrupt and turned them around.
If you read the article, written mostly as an advertisment FOR HIM BY HIM
TFA was written by him for him? The writer of the first article was Carlos Miller but his name is Jeff Pataky. Is Carlos a pseudonym? The writer of the second one was Michael Ferraresi, is that also a pseudonym?
The articles the confiscated don't point to shit.
What?
If you RTFA you should have at least some sort of inclination that he's not being totally truthful just based on his actions.
Based on what?
He just spreads unsubstantiated rumors from others who are pissed off at the cops for unknown reasons.
And you're not spreading "unsubstantiated rumors" about him?
ts that this isn't a story until someone is actually showing some sort of facts. Right now to me this is nothing more than some douchebag trying to get even with cops who are about to put him in jail for something he's guilty of.
And where's your evidence he's guilty? Or is it a one way street, they're innocent until proven guilty but he's automatically guilty?
Uhm, if he's already been to court, doesn't it stand the chance that maybe he's doing something wrong and deserves what he's getting?
Yes, he was in court before. Because he filed a lawsuit against them.
Cops don't just randomly pick people to pick on, even the most corrupt cops. They are after all, people, and for the most part they have better things to do, until you make yourself a target.
Except it wasn't random and he didn't make himself a target. He went through a bad divorce and his ex filed a lot of complaints against him. According to TFA some of the complaints happened when he was out of town.
Perhaps, just maybe, the slashdot assumption that a blogger did no wrong, is infact, wrong.
People are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty not the other way around.
This guy is doing exactly what any liar does, just like a politician does. Screams as loudly as possible to anyone who will listen that he has been wronged and trying to drag in a bunch of support from people who don't know what actually happened because all they've heard is his one sided bullshit story that paints him to be a saint.
The innocent should do the same thing, scream as loud as they could when wronged.
Thousands of windmill, all at least a few hundred feet apart are very difficult to damage in any sigficant way.
I've said much the same. However the sabotage of key points in the national infrastructure can have a significant impact, as with the I 35W bridge collapse. Some businesses did not survive the collapse. I live in Minneapolis and people were shocked and dumbfounded. The blackout in the Northeast is as you point out another example. Now imagine what people's reaction would be if the Golden Gate Bridge collapsed.
In a , all of the "free" energy sources are more expensive than coal in terms of $ per MWh.
Funny, that doesn't say anything about the subsidies coal gets. I wonder how cheap coal is if you add in those subsidies. Then there's all the external costs of coal.
the U.S. wind plant figures on page 55 look good simply because the U.S. rates wind plants with a 40 year lifespan, vs 20 years for the rest of the world
There are Jacobs Wind Turbines older than 40 years old still working. People look for Jacobs made in the 1930s and '40s to use.
About $45/MWh for wind vs. about $30/MWh for coal and nuclear.
And I bet subsidies are not included in the cost of coal and nuclear but they are for wind.
The problem with the wind and solar is that they are very sparse.
This is not true in the US. The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States lists what regions are good or bad for wind, and the only region in the US that is not good for wind is the southeast. However Florida is part of the southeast and it's great for solar. Also good for solar is Texas west to California then up the coast.
Hydro, geothermal, and biofuels (which is really using plants as your solar collectors) look like much better candidates long-term.
I disagree about hydro but agree about geothermal. Biofuels might become good later but as it's done in the US today it sucks. Corn, which is what's used in the US, is a bad feedstock, sugarcane is better and switchgrass is currently the best.
Does it seem premature to declare this the savior of our energy troubles before you have even put up a single test/prototype site?
There have been offshore wind farms for a while now. There are some in the North Sea, however they're falling victim to the financial crisis.
Land based wind power has been hamstrung by NIMBY folks
The same applies to offshore wind farms. No less than Ted Kennedy has opposed them. Someone above this pointed out this article: "Kennedy doesn't play by the rules".
I gather that windmills are safer for birds than they were years ago (I have no firm reason to believe it)
What made wind genies dangerous to birds was that they spun fast. For years now though the blades have been made larger so they don't spin fast. Actually more birds die from flying into buildings.
Oh and the coastal transmission lines need to be larger if you are going to transmit all the way to Kansas.
Transmission lines don't need to run from the east coast to Kansas. Kansas is near the Colorado Rockies, Colorado and Kansas share a border, and the Rockies have enough potential wind power to supply all 48 continuous states. According to the Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States about the only place in the US that isn't good for wind is the southeast. However Florida, part of the southeast, is terrific for solar power.
One of your three articles is about NYC nixing municipal wifi (a stupid idea anyway), and the other TWO are from five years ago.
So, I didn't limit the tyme. Try this, from 7 August 2008: "New York City and State Each Craft Broadband Policies". "Cheap New York High Speed Internet..." dated April 2009 says "Most New York high speed services are available in New York City." As for the muni wifi article, perhaps you didn't read where it says "August 7 - New York City should not create a comprehensive municipal wireless network, but should instead take targeted actions to increase the public availability of high-speed internet service and encourage broadband adoption, city officials said last week." If it's available everywhere they don't need to increase availability.
Nuclear is (or should be), without a doubt, the biggest part of the picture.
No, solar and wind should be the biggest part of our energy supply.
In it's current form it's relatively clean and safe.
There's no waste and no mining?
We should be breaking ground on dozens of new reactors, not looking to stick windmills in the middle of the atlantic.
If private businesses want to then they can without government subsidies. However without subsidies nuclear power would not be profitable.
Solar and wind have their place, but they're simply not a viable alternative if your goal is to stop burning fossil fuels.
TFA says wind farms in the Atlantic can provide a quarter of the US's electricity, what it does not say is that the Rockies can provide all of the US's electricity. And the Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States lists more good places. In "A Solar Grand Plan" the writers say solar can provide 69% of the US's electricity by 2050. Solar and wind are vary viable.
Terrorists can only target people or landmarks, by definition. Going after the infrastructure is counterproductive use of their resources, since they cannot damage a lot; the only way to have any impact is to try to terrorize the populace.
A goal of terrorism is to terrorize. Destroying the USA's infrastructure will certainly terrorize a lot of americans. Look at the effects of 911. Because of it americans allowed their rights to be abridged and allowed the president to start 2 wars. Heck hurricanes make people afraid.
The truth is, one should not be worried about the terrorists at all because the probability and the extent of any actual damages in terms of lives or goods is minimal.
When I've said this before/.ers have scuffed at me but I'll risk it again, government scares me more than any terrorists do.
Slashdot Mirror
I am a little frightened by the willingness of most of you to accept this without any corroboration. Searching the web I find no real reporting on this just blogs already predisposed to an anti-lawenforcement bias.
And what of the pro-law enforcement biased blogs? If there's any corroboration that supports the police why isn't it on those blogs?
Falcon
I am not saying that justifies the actions of the Phoenix PD, just that this guy apparently enjoys being an asshole.
What evidence do you have he was being an asshole and wasn't trying to get justice?
Falcon
who was railroaded during the elections, has been completely exhonorated.
"Exhonorated"? If you mean he was relieved of a burden, yes he was but if you mean he was cleared of wrong doing you're wrong. Stevens may well have been innocent but the charges were dropped because he was wrongly convicted, the prosecutors withheld evidence and such from defense.
We got screwed out of one of the few honest politicians in the Senate
You can't possibly talking about the same Senator Ted Stevens who earmarked millions of taxpayer dollars for a Bridge to Nowhere. But what other Senator Ted Stevens is there?
Falcon
And don't give me that bullshit 'they are just kids' crap, that excuse has been used far too many times. If you think they are old enough to drive a car on their own, I think they are old enough to know when they are about to get their asses kicked for being morons.
They're old enough to be stopped from protesting but they're not old enough to drink?
If we stop using pesticides, those same kids will be even more unhappy when they starve to death because we can't produce enough food
Organic farmers, who are barred from using most pesticides, do it all the tyme.
Falcon
What do we do to protect the police from rantings of ignorant bloggers who are pissed off because they got caught breaking the law in the past and can't except the results?
Two things can be done, start your own blog and sue the person in civil court.
Every fucking criminal on the planet says 'I'm innocent and this is police harrasment!!'
Innocents who are harassed say the same thing.
Falcon
I shut the fuck up the minute he wagered *ten*dollars*. On *Slashdot*.
If that fucker don't know what he's talking about I don't know who does.
I've known a lot of people who said stuff like "I bet X money" who didn't know squat about something. I've said it myself.
Falcon
My logic is fine, your jumping to conclusions about who the actual victim is is bad. You have no clue what actually happened, just the word of some blogger who by his own work hates cops.
And how does your logic conclude he's guilty? Or that he hates cops? What I get from both articles is that he hates bad cops, not all. He even uses cops as sources of information.
When someone starts off by saying 'I hate cops because they are all corrupt, and these corrupt cops are attacking me because I'm telling other people they are corrupt' its generally a good sign they aren't exactly telling you the whole truth.
I read then searched both articles for "hate". One did not contain it at all and the other only hard the word in comments made by others. Can you show me where either article says he said "I hate cops because they are all corrupt"? Do you have another source for this, or are you putting words in his mouth?
You've already decided who's guilty
By making him out to say "I hate cops because they are all corrupt" you're not doing the exact same thing but you're making things up too.
Falcon
Humanity will grow up and idiots like this guy will stop taunting people who can make their life a living hell...
For your sake I hope you're right but there isn't enough info, evidence, to support your claim he's an idiot, or a criminal.
Falcon
I don't want my tax money going to pay these guys either, but when you give money to an organization to pay its obligations and they do, you can't get upset about it. Better to have let them go out of business, which was my position, and avoid the situation altogether.
I'm with you on tax money going to these people but I find it hypocritical when the admin says the AIG execs had contracts and had to be paid but the UAW workers should take pay cuts, when they also have contracts. They all, AIG, Detroit, and other financial businesses, should have been made to declare bankruptcy. Those that made bad decisions would then be out of business while those who chose not to make bad decisions would still be around. Those still around may even have been able to buy those bankrupt and turned them around.
Falcon
when I come take your computer because it was actually stolen from my dad in the first place, doesn't make me a corrupt cop or guilty of being evil
Exactly where does it say the computer was stolen? Or is this misdirection and FUD?
Falcon
If you read the article, written mostly as an advertisment FOR HIM BY HIM
TFA was written by him for him? The writer of the first article was Carlos Miller but his name is Jeff Pataky. Is Carlos a pseudonym? The writer of the second one was Michael Ferraresi, is that also a pseudonym?
The articles the confiscated don't point to shit.
What?
If you RTFA you should have at least some sort of inclination that he's not being totally truthful just based on his actions.
Based on what?
He just spreads unsubstantiated rumors from others who are pissed off at the cops for unknown reasons.
And you're not spreading "unsubstantiated rumors" about him?
ts that this isn't a story until someone is actually showing some sort of facts. Right now to me this is nothing more than some douchebag trying to get even with cops who are about to put him in jail for something he's guilty of.
And where's your evidence he's guilty? Or is it a one way street, they're innocent until proven guilty but he's automatically guilty?
Falcon
Get a fucking grip, $10 says this guy did something illegal as shit and is just a bumbling idiot.
Who's making an ass by assuming something now? And without reading TFA?
$50 says you're an idiot for jumping to conclusions with no facts what so ever.
Who jumping to conclusions now? Without reading TFA>
ALL people are innocent until proven guilty, and you've already decided the cops are guilty
Yet you persist in saying this guy is guilty. You're even willing to bet money on it.
Falcon
Uhm, if he's already been to court, doesn't it stand the chance that maybe he's doing something wrong and deserves what he's getting?
Yes, he was in court before. Because he filed a lawsuit against them.
Cops don't just randomly pick people to pick on, even the most corrupt cops. They are after all, people, and for the most part they have better things to do, until you make yourself a target.
Except it wasn't random and he didn't make himself a target. He went through a bad divorce and his ex filed a lot of complaints against him. According to TFA some of the complaints happened when he was out of town.
Perhaps, just maybe, the slashdot assumption that a blogger did no wrong, is infact, wrong.
People are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty not the other way around.
This guy is doing exactly what any liar does, just like a politician does. Screams as loudly as possible to anyone who will listen that he has been wronged and trying to drag in a bunch of support from people who don't know what actually happened because all they've heard is his one sided bullshit story that paints him to be a saint.
The innocent should do the same thing, scream as loud as they could when wronged.
Falcon
Thousands of windmill, all at least a few hundred feet apart are very difficult to damage in any sigficant way.
I've said much the same. However the sabotage of key points in the national infrastructure can have a significant impact, as with the I 35W bridge collapse. Some businesses did not survive the collapse. I live in Minneapolis and people were shocked and dumbfounded. The blackout in the Northeast is as you point out another example. Now imagine what people's reaction would be if the Golden Gate Bridge collapsed.
Falcon
In a , all of the "free" energy sources are more expensive than coal in terms of $ per MWh.
Funny, that doesn't say anything about the subsidies coal gets. I wonder how cheap coal is if you add in those subsidies. Then there's all the external costs of coal.
the U.S. wind plant figures on page 55 look good simply because the U.S. rates wind plants with a 40 year lifespan, vs 20 years for the rest of the world
There are Jacobs Wind Turbines older than 40 years old still working. People look for Jacobs made in the 1930s and '40s to use.
About $45/MWh for wind vs. about $30/MWh for coal and nuclear.
And I bet subsidies are not included in the cost of coal and nuclear but they are for wind.
The problem with the wind and solar is that they are very sparse.
This is not true in the US. The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States lists what regions are good or bad for wind, and the only region in the US that is not good for wind is the southeast. However Florida is part of the southeast and it's great for solar. Also good for solar is Texas west to California then up the coast.
Hydro, geothermal, and biofuels (which is really using plants as your solar collectors) look like much better candidates long-term.
I disagree about hydro but agree about geothermal. Biofuels might become good later but as it's done in the US today it sucks. Corn, which is what's used in the US, is a bad feedstock, sugarcane is better and switchgrass is currently the best.
Falcon
Does it seem premature to declare this the savior of our energy troubles before you have even put up a single test/prototype site?
There have been offshore wind farms for a while now. There are some in the North Sea, however they're falling victim to the financial crisis.
Land based wind power has been hamstrung by NIMBY folks
The same applies to offshore wind farms. No less than Ted Kennedy has opposed them. Someone above this pointed out this article: "Kennedy doesn't play by the rules".
Falcon
Will there even be enough copper available to distribute it?
No need, almost every region of the US has good wind potential. About the only region that doesn't is the southeast.
Falcon
I gather that windmills are safer for birds than they were years ago (I have no firm reason to believe it)
What made wind genies dangerous to birds was that they spun fast. For years now though the blades have been made larger so they don't spin fast. Actually more birds die from flying into buildings.
Falcon
Oh and the coastal transmission lines need to be larger if you are going to transmit all the way to Kansas.
Transmission lines don't need to run from the east coast to Kansas. Kansas is near the Colorado Rockies, Colorado and Kansas share a border, and the Rockies have enough potential wind power to supply all 48 continuous states. According to the Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States about the only place in the US that isn't good for wind is the southeast. However Florida, part of the southeast, is terrific for solar power.
His brother was SHOT!
Two of his brothers was shot, JFK and Bobby. Another brother, Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr., was shot down in a plane during WWII.
Falcon
One of your three articles is about NYC nixing municipal wifi (a stupid idea anyway), and the other TWO are from five years ago.
So, I didn't limit the tyme. Try this, from 7 August 2008: "New York City and State Each Craft Broadband Policies". "Cheap New York High Speed Internet..." dated April 2009 says "Most New York high speed services are available in New York City." As for the muni wifi article, perhaps you didn't read where it says "August 7 - New York City should not create a comprehensive municipal wireless network, but should instead take targeted actions to increase the public availability of high-speed internet service and encourage broadband adoption, city officials said last week." If it's available everywhere they don't need to increase availability.
Falcon
Nuclear is (or should be), without a doubt, the biggest part of the picture.
No, solar and wind should be the biggest part of our energy supply.
In it's current form it's relatively clean and safe.
There's no waste and no mining?
We should be breaking ground on dozens of new reactors, not looking to stick windmills in the middle of the atlantic.
If private businesses want to then they can without government subsidies. However without subsidies nuclear power would not be profitable.
Solar and wind have their place, but they're simply not a viable alternative if your goal is to stop burning fossil fuels.
TFA says wind farms in the Atlantic can provide a quarter of the US's electricity, what it does not say is that the Rockies can provide all of the US's electricity. And the Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States lists more good places. In "A Solar Grand Plan" the writers say solar can provide 69% of the US's electricity by 2050. Solar and wind are vary viable.
Falcon
No, the Federal government owns the rights to waters offshore.
State waters extends out 3 miles.
Falcon
Vietnam
The fake Gulf of Tonkin Incident?
Falcon
Terrorists can only target people or landmarks, by definition. Going after the infrastructure is counterproductive use of their resources, since they cannot damage a lot; the only way to have any impact is to try to terrorize the populace.
A goal of terrorism is to terrorize. Destroying the USA's infrastructure will certainly terrorize a lot of americans. Look at the effects of 911. Because of it americans allowed their rights to be abridged and allowed the president to start 2 wars. Heck hurricanes make people afraid.
The truth is, one should not be worried about the terrorists at all because the probability and the extent of any actual damages in terms of lives or goods is minimal.
When I've said this before /.ers have scuffed at me but I'll risk it again, government scares me more than any terrorists do.
Falcon