To summarize your position: "One wrong justifies a much larger level of violence and rapid escalation."
Bullshit! That's stupidity, plain and simple. One wrong is not justification to inflict yet more violence on innocent people. And yet that's YOUR position. Again, bullshit!
I'll add - you do understand that the photos were released when we were handing control of large parts of the country back to Iraqi control - right? The release of those photos not only made that impossible, but directly started a civil war within competing factions in Iraq. In other words, if you wanted to release photos at the absolutely worst possible time so as to ensure more violence and loss of life while generating yet more shit to report on, you'd do so exactly as they did.
Lots of civilians and soldiers lost their life because of what they directly incited as a result of those photos being made public.
These are facts which were extremely obvious to all soldiers on the ground at the time those photos were released. You can dodge all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that those reporters have LOTS of blood on their hands. Period.
You mistake my thought here; sorry for not being clearer.
It's too much to ask for from wikileaks due to the nature of wikileaks
Again, I disagree. Just because something in the world has been leaked is not justification for it be made public, unless you're willing to accept that all people are robots and critical thinking should never be applied to mass media.
Had they not been complete idiots, the reporters that is, and simply waited two weeks, maybe three, many, many lives could have been saved.
Furthermore, as is often the done, they could have disclosed the story to the military to protect those prisoners. There was zero legitimate reason to release the story when the did.
reduce sonic boom to match federal guidelines for land crossing
Currently, federal guidelines are mutually exclusive to any aircraft which breaks the sound barrier. This is something current aerospace biggies have repeatedly pointed out. We already have designs which can satisfy all reasonable super sonic noise demands. Meaning, you *might* occasionally hear a very distant boom but you would never have the associated window shaking.
Besides, most (all?) studies indicate the vast majority of complaints associated with sonic booms never actually existed. More often than not, it was people looking to get some money from the government/airport by simply lying.
There exists no legitimate reason to prevent modern, supersonic aircraft, which have been designed to mitigate sonic boom disturbance, from flying across all land masses in the world.
Flying wings have many excellent characteristics but mass passenger transport isn't one of them.
In order to accommodate large passenger loads the flying wing shape becomes abused which leaves behind many of the characteristics which make the flying wing attractive in the first place. Once you modify the flying wing shape to accommodate large passenger loads, you more or less have a shape which is portrayed in the designs presented. And once you accommodate construction/materials issues, it almost exactly looks like the designs presented.
In other words, I'm not really seeing a problem. But, as you mention, hopefully some designers won't be silent.
You can argue that we protect them from China now, but I don't hear anyone claiming that China has been doing much saber rattling.
Then you've clearly not been paying attention to the news over the last decade or two. North Korea and China have been saber rattling, but more so has been North Korea. You don't remember Japan being pissed off about North Korea launching missiles over Japan to make a statement to both Japan and the US? That was practically a blink in time ago.
The problem is, names are frequently not needed to identify an intelligence source. Made even worse, his arrogance is not enough to know what does and does not compromise a source.
Without a doubt, at an absolute minimum, some innocent person and/or family is going to pay for his arrogance, with torture and their life.
I feel that wikileaks is a Good Thing; but I also acknowledge that there are some things that serve no purpose being released, and that put individuals in danger for no benefit.
I agree, and this is the bottom line. Disclosure of malfeasance is a good thing and provides a vital public service. Releases such as the topic at hand, only serves for people to be murdered. It is contrary to the public good.
To be pro-wikileaks now is like being pro-assignation because one of the people he assassinated just happened to be a bad-guy. I'm okay with him simply disappearing and never being heard from again. It is, after all, exactly the fate he advocates for others. Likewise, wikileaks needs to come down and be replaced by another site. Preferably the replacement site would be run by someone who isn't a complete idiot, who isn't completely indifferent to the people who will be and likely already have been murdered, thanks to him.
You need to keep in mind, one of the reasons why information is frequently not disclosed by the freedom of information act is because it protects people who provided the information. Sometimes the informant isn't directly relieved in the disclosure, but knowing how the information was revealed is enough to determine who leaked it. In other words, a looming death sentence.
No ifs, ands, or buts, this douche-bag has the blood of innocent people on his hands - and needlessly so. The people who leaked the information are traitors and should be treated as such. I honestly don't understand the mass ignorance of those willing to protect a negligent murderer; which is exactly what he is now.
Responsible disclosure may be too much to ask for
No, that's a cop out. It most certainly is not "too much to ask for." Some thirty years ago and further, it was considered responsible reporting. Reporter's were considered to be ethically bound to do so. It was common for stories to be pushed days, weeks, and even months such that innocent people were not murdered or unduly punished because of reprisals as a result of disclosure. In some cases, stories were not released for decades.
These days we have countless lives lost and protracted military involvement because of irresponsible disclosure and reporting. The reporters who disclosed those Iraq prison photos literally have the death and murder of a minimum of hundreds of people on their hands. By believing themselves to be more important than a country's independence, the lives of many people (soldiers and civilians), and a civil war. Those reporters got their story, paid for with the blood of hundreds, if not thousands of others. Wow, those reporters are awesome guys!
Responsible disclosure is absolutely not too much to ask for. Unfortunately, in an age where news is considered entertainment, irresponsible disclosure and reporting is the price everyone must pay - such that another group can be entertained today and forgotten tomorrow.
I encourage you to re-evaluate your view and to hold them to a higher standard - not a lower standard. It is, after all, the responsible thing to do.
Actually, no. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,..." The First Amendment would not apply because the government is not imposing any restrictions.
If the government allows others to impose those restrictions, it applies - as is the case here. My comment also presumes one is aware of current society impacts of this constitution and how the lack of net neutrality is likely to be applied such that questions of Constitutionality is applicable.
If you're still not sure why my original comment is likely accurate, let me know.
Actually, violation of Net Neutrality is far more likely to violate the First Amendment. As such, huge the potential to violate the First Amendment clearly trumps any weak possibility for it to violate the Fifth Amendment.
Next.
This is a create example of just because its published research doesn't mean it has any validity.
I've never read anything with Sun saying it, but that hardly matters. It was well known Sun had a dislike for Linux. Sun was losing more licenses to Linux than any other competing OS. Every market share study indicates this, and has for a very long time. Sun was also losing mind share to Linux, which is why they created their Solaris/GNU distros and added Linux compatibility. In doing so they stayed relevant and "cool". All of a sudden Sun announces/releases ZFS whereby its license is completely incompatible with Linux. Now, suddenly, Sun has a cool, enterprise technology, which isn't available on Linux but is available on Solaris, and while they are providing Linux compatibility. Hmmm...
I mean, come on, do we really have to be in denial and debate everything? Especially when its obvious, good business for Sun? To believe ZFS was not intentionally created to be Linux/GPL incompatible is literally to be nieve. Or, perhaps you believed Sun to be so inept to be incapable of such an obviously strong business play? To believe this, all that is required is to believe Sun had a desire to grow its market and mind share. Come on...no conspiracies required.
Why do people think economies of scale will drive down the cost of batteries? You can't use economies of scale to drive down the cost of raw materials. What economies of scale are you talking about driving down?
You incorrectly assume the sole cost of batteries is raw materials. Its true the cost of raw materials places a cap on the lower limit of product costs but that nowhere near the same as advocating economies of scale are not at all applicable. The former is true while the later, your assumption, is completely false.
I wish more people understood how the law worked. They make completely invalid distinctions and make it sound like something improper.
was taken into a room, frisked and his bag was searched.
This is completely legal so long as they have probable cause. The fact they were there to specifically to detain and talk with him means they likely had probable cause. Had he refused detainment, they would be forced to either charge him or release him. Had he been charged, assuming they had reason to do so (they likely did, including impeding a federal investigation in matters of national security), it would have gotten far, far uglier for him.
Officials from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the US Army then told him he was not under arrest but was being detained.
First of all, understand that detainment means you actually are under arrest. There is a difference between being arrested/detained and being charged. The later is what they actually implied. In other words, he absolutely was arrested/detained, he was just not charged - yet, if at all. Had he attempted to leave without permission, he could have been charged with fleeing custody and likely many others.
Under the US law, you can be legally arrested/detained with probably cause and not charged. Its just that a clock starts ticking the second they arrested/detained. If he's not charged within a specific time period, they must release him. These laws have existed long before 9/11 and various paranoid, anti-Constitutional laws were passed.
They asked questions about Wikileaks, asked for his opinions about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked where Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is, but he declined to comment without a lawyer present, according to the sources.
That's within both party's rights. It sounds like nothing improper took place there. Sounds like the law worked as designed.
He was not permitted to make a phone call, they said.
Legally, you are absolutely not entitled to a phone call until you are charged. But, they had a ticking clock in which time they must either set him free or charge him. Once charged, he has the legal right to both representation and a call. The call is frequently used to obtain representation.
The fact he was not charged and freed within a fairly reasonable time (three hours) means the law worked exactly as it should have while both empowering an ongoing investigation and protecting his rights.
Frankly, I don't understand why this is newsworthy in the least. "On ongoing investigation is conducted within the powers permitted by the law of the land. News at 11." WTF?!
We don't. Anyone is advocates the requirement for GPS tracking is pro-government, invasive control of its citizens.
Then get taxed based on that.
This makes a lot of sense and has actually been previously argued for in the US. I don't recall, if in fact I ever knew, why this didn't take root.
This approach is especially attractive as, for example, it stops economy owners from subsidizing SUV owners. Which is made all the more insulting as SUV owners actually drive up demand, which in turn drives up fuel costs and percentage based taxes on everyone else. Thusly, mileage * fuel tax * weight factor goes a long, long, way toward correcting taxes toward actual use and negative impact. Its very likely this will drive down the costs on fuel efficient vehicles, drive down the cost of fuel, and drive up the cost of SUVs.
Every time I hear someone complain that my taxes *might* go up because of more equitable taxation, I immediately think that translates into, "its not fair to make me pay for my share of use when right now I get to mooch off of everyone else." These people don't have a right to complain as in almost every other aspect of life, we call these people moochers and are held in low regard. Since when do we care what moochers think?
Mammals are a lot more susceptible to radiation than, say, insects are. Don't know about reptiles, fish, birds etc.
I watched a documentary on Chernobyl where it was asserted that the normal life expectancy of many mammals in the wild which frequent that area is below the threshold in which elevated cancer rates are expected to negatively affect the mammalian life cycle.
Furthermore, because of the decline in human population as well as increased re-forestation, many mammalian species (example, bear) which were all but absent have now taken a foot hold and growing in numbers.
If that seems like altruism, think: why would Mozilla want a bunch of black hat hackers pissed off at them?
Fixed it for you.
If that seems like altruism, think: why would Mozilla want a bunch of black hat hypocritical hackers pissed off at them? After all, such rational is what black hatters use to justify almost every action, disclosure, and exploitation. To be pissed at such an exploit would mean thy are a bunch of small minded, hypocritical bitches.
If you could copy one without any impact on Ze Germans who built the one at the lot, I would think you might be able too.
Given that its impossible, what's your point? And I mean that in the most generic way.
Any time you make a copy of something of value, you dilute its value. This is as true for currency, stocks, bonds, art, and yes, even software. Every pirate who steals, have inflicted at least some degree of financial damage to the IP owner. That's just how markets and economies work.
If I make counterfeit money using my own paper and my own ink and my own time, has the economy been damaged? Yes! That's why counterfeiting is illegal in every country which supports the concept of currency. And yes, that's exactly, what pirates to do IP owners every day.
You can not pirate IP, assuming the IP still have market value, without harming the value of the IP in question. As a result, in all these situations, the IP owner is financially harmed.
Pirates who steal and believe they've done no harm are as nieve and misinformed as they come.
Next time, just gracefully bow out. There is nothing wrong with that. There's no need to embarrass yourself like that. Sometimes its the smarter man who stays silent.
You see, when you make a bold statement which is intended to summarily terminate a discussion or imply its a pivotal point, and in doing so, reveals you know nothing of the subject matter, you've embarrassed yourself and wasted everyone's time.
If you're still not sure why you've embarrassed yourself, please go learn something, anything, about the Earth's climate before you comment further in any future climate discussion.
But it wasn't the scientists who politicized the issue. They're knee-deep into the politics as a defensive measure
Not true in the least. Good science and documentation there of is capable of standing on its own. They are "knee-deep", so as to continue to obtain large, lush, research grants which would otherwise not be available but a lot of GW research is well, not very strong according to scientific stands and methods.
Thanks for sharing that read. I must admit, I'm surprised Tesla had such a good showing. Any time a first year, first generation of new technology, from a much smaller company, is significantly comparable with a world renowned, preeminent rival, the newcomer is clearly doing something right. Despite Porche coming out on top in their shoot out, I can't help but be encouraged about the implications, to wit, Tesla is doing a lot of things right.
I can't find the link so hopefully someone will provide the proper link before I get troll moderated to death.
Personally, I believe GW is real. I'm just not convinced that man is entirely behind it. And to date, I've not read one account which addresses the problem of the most accurate data in the world (US data) being so inaccurate as to be useless. These scientists then take this data to derive information which they then use to prove a conclusion. When sadly, if the conclusion is anything other than our data is invalid, the only thing they've proved is they are extremely poor scientists who don't grasp the very fundimentals of scientific research.
The problem is, the US has tons of sensors all across the US. Many have been in place for extremely long durations. That sounds great until you discover that almost no one validates the location and integrity of the sensor yet continue to blindly accept the data on which all of this research depends. Worse, independent volunteers who do go validate these sensors are horrified at what they find. And yes, they do document their findings with diagrams and pictures. Again, hopefully someone will provide the link to which I refer.
Many times the findings document sensors which were once in a field are now in the middle of a paved parking lot, or literally next to an A/C exhaust for a building, or receiving radiant heat for an endless list of man made factors which absolutely invalidate the sensor's readings. As a result, the readings are verifiable much higher than would otherwise exist. Additionally, the rise attributed to man by GW falls well within the noise provided by these very erroneous readings.
In other words, these "scientists" are finding a signal from known invalid data, which does not rise above its noise level. This type of science is what is universally called, "quackery", and yet that's largely the basis of a vast amounts of GW research. Until credible researches step forward and both, address how they can get valid data from invalid data and two, can come to inescapable conclusions based on invalid research and data, they only continue to dig their quack-hole deeper.
Man may very well be behind GW, but to date, most if not all research supporting a man-made GW conclusion is compete quackery. Address the validity of their data and then they'll have my attention. Until such time, we have every reason to view them as grant-whores and science-for-hire. They are their own worst enemies.
Slashdot Mirror
The reporters wouldn't have disclosed any photos
To summarize your position: "One wrong justifies a much larger level of violence and rapid escalation."
Bullshit! That's stupidity, plain and simple. One wrong is not justification to inflict yet more violence on innocent people. And yet that's YOUR position. Again, bullshit!
I'll add - you do understand that the photos were released when we were handing control of large parts of the country back to Iraqi control - right? The release of those photos not only made that impossible, but directly started a civil war within competing factions in Iraq. In other words, if you wanted to release photos at the absolutely worst possible time so as to ensure more violence and loss of life while generating yet more shit to report on, you'd do so exactly as they did.
Lots of civilians and soldiers lost their life because of what they directly incited as a result of those photos being made public.
These are facts which were extremely obvious to all soldiers on the ground at the time those photos were released. You can dodge all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that those reporters have LOTS of blood on their hands. Period.
Exactly who are the innocent people that have died as a result of this leak?
Nice troll. I can only hope you're being serious.
You mistake my thought here; sorry for not being clearer.
It's too much to ask for from wikileaks due to the nature of wikileaks
Again, I disagree. Just because something in the world has been leaked is not justification for it be made public, unless you're willing to accept that all people are robots and critical thinking should never be applied to mass media.
What The Fuck?
Yes, exactly! What the fuck is right!
Had they not been complete idiots, the reporters that is, and simply waited two weeks, maybe three, many, many lives could have been saved.
Furthermore, as is often the done, they could have disclosed the story to the military to protect those prisoners. There was zero legitimate reason to release the story when the did.
Sorry, but that's the facts.
reduce sonic boom to match federal guidelines for land crossing
Currently, federal guidelines are mutually exclusive to any aircraft which breaks the sound barrier. This is something current aerospace biggies have repeatedly pointed out. We already have designs which can satisfy all reasonable super sonic noise demands. Meaning, you *might* occasionally hear a very distant boom but you would never have the associated window shaking.
Besides, most (all?) studies indicate the vast majority of complaints associated with sonic booms never actually existed. More often than not, it was people looking to get some money from the government/airport by simply lying.
There exists no legitimate reason to prevent modern, supersonic aircraft, which have been designed to mitigate sonic boom disturbance, from flying across all land masses in the world.
Flying wings have many excellent characteristics but mass passenger transport isn't one of them.
In order to accommodate large passenger loads the flying wing shape becomes abused which leaves behind many of the characteristics which make the flying wing attractive in the first place. Once you modify the flying wing shape to accommodate large passenger loads, you more or less have a shape which is portrayed in the designs presented. And once you accommodate construction/materials issues, it almost exactly looks like the designs presented.
In other words, I'm not really seeing a problem. But, as you mention, hopefully some designers won't be silent.
You can argue that we protect them from China now, but I don't hear anyone claiming that China has been doing much saber rattling.
Then you've clearly not been paying attention to the news over the last decade or two. North Korea and China have been saber rattling, but more so has been North Korea. You don't remember Japan being pissed off about North Korea launching missiles over Japan to make a statement to both Japan and the US? That was practically a blink in time ago.
I know they tried to completely purge names,
The problem is, names are frequently not needed to identify an intelligence source. Made even worse, his arrogance is not enough to know what does and does not compromise a source.
Without a doubt, at an absolute minimum, some innocent person and/or family is going to pay for his arrogance, with torture and their life.
I feel that wikileaks is a Good Thing; but I also acknowledge that there are some things that serve no purpose being released, and that put individuals in danger for no benefit.
I agree, and this is the bottom line. Disclosure of malfeasance is a good thing and provides a vital public service. Releases such as the topic at hand, only serves for people to be murdered. It is contrary to the public good.
To be pro-wikileaks now is like being pro-assignation because one of the people he assassinated just happened to be a bad-guy. I'm okay with him simply disappearing and never being heard from again. It is, after all, exactly the fate he advocates for others. Likewise, wikileaks needs to come down and be replaced by another site. Preferably the replacement site would be run by someone who isn't a complete idiot, who isn't completely indifferent to the people who will be and likely already have been murdered, thanks to him.
You need to keep in mind, one of the reasons why information is frequently not disclosed by the freedom of information act is because it protects people who provided the information. Sometimes the informant isn't directly relieved in the disclosure, but knowing how the information was revealed is enough to determine who leaked it. In other words, a looming death sentence.
No ifs, ands, or buts, this douche-bag has the blood of innocent people on his hands - and needlessly so. The people who leaked the information are traitors and should be treated as such. I honestly don't understand the mass ignorance of those willing to protect a negligent murderer; which is exactly what he is now.
Responsible disclosure may be too much to ask for
No, that's a cop out. It most certainly is not "too much to ask for." Some thirty years ago and further, it was considered responsible reporting. Reporter's were considered to be ethically bound to do so. It was common for stories to be pushed days, weeks, and even months such that innocent people were not murdered or unduly punished because of reprisals as a result of disclosure. In some cases, stories were not released for decades.
These days we have countless lives lost and protracted military involvement because of irresponsible disclosure and reporting. The reporters who disclosed those Iraq prison photos literally have the death and murder of a minimum of hundreds of people on their hands. By believing themselves to be more important than a country's independence, the lives of many people (soldiers and civilians), and a civil war. Those reporters got their story, paid for with the blood of hundreds, if not thousands of others. Wow, those reporters are awesome guys!
Responsible disclosure is absolutely not too much to ask for. Unfortunately, in an age where news is considered entertainment, irresponsible disclosure and reporting is the price everyone must pay - such that another group can be entertained today and forgotten tomorrow.
I encourage you to re-evaluate your view and to hold them to a higher standard - not a lower standard. It is, after all, the responsible thing to do.
Actually, no. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, ..." The First Amendment would not apply because the government is not imposing any restrictions.
If the government allows others to impose those restrictions, it applies - as is the case here. My comment also presumes one is aware of current society impacts of this constitution and how the lack of net neutrality is likely to be applied such that questions of Constitutionality is applicable.
If you're still not sure why my original comment is likely accurate, let me know.
Does Net Neutrality Violate the Fifth Amendment?
The answer is no!
Actually, violation of Net Neutrality is far more likely to violate the First Amendment. As such, huge the potential to violate the First Amendment clearly trumps any weak possibility for it to violate the Fifth Amendment.
Next.
This is a create example of just because its published research doesn't mean it has any validity.
I've never read anything with Sun saying it, but that hardly matters. It was well known Sun had a dislike for Linux. Sun was losing more licenses to Linux than any other competing OS. Every market share study indicates this, and has for a very long time. Sun was also losing mind share to Linux, which is why they created their Solaris/GNU distros and added Linux compatibility. In doing so they stayed relevant and "cool". All of a sudden Sun announces/releases ZFS whereby its license is completely incompatible with Linux. Now, suddenly, Sun has a cool, enterprise technology, which isn't available on Linux but is available on Solaris, and while they are providing Linux compatibility. Hmmm...
I mean, come on, do we really have to be in denial and debate everything? Especially when its obvious, good business for Sun? To believe ZFS was not intentionally created to be Linux/GPL incompatible is literally to be nieve. Or, perhaps you believed Sun to be so inept to be incapable of such an obviously strong business play? To believe this, all that is required is to believe Sun had a desire to grow its market and mind share. Come on...no conspiracies required.
Why do people think economies of scale will drive down the cost of batteries? You can't use economies of scale to drive down the cost of raw materials. What economies of scale are you talking about driving down?
You incorrectly assume the sole cost of batteries is raw materials. Its true the cost of raw materials places a cap on the lower limit of product costs but that nowhere near the same as advocating economies of scale are not at all applicable. The former is true while the later, your assumption, is completely false.
I wish more people understood how the law worked. They make completely invalid distinctions and make it sound like something improper.
was taken into a room, frisked and his bag was searched.
This is completely legal so long as they have probable cause. The fact they were there to specifically to detain and talk with him means they likely had probable cause. Had he refused detainment, they would be forced to either charge him or release him. Had he been charged, assuming they had reason to do so (they likely did, including impeding a federal investigation in matters of national security), it would have gotten far, far uglier for him.
Officials from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the US Army then told him he was not under arrest but was being detained.
First of all, understand that detainment means you actually are under arrest. There is a difference between being arrested/detained and being charged. The later is what they actually implied. In other words, he absolutely was arrested/detained, he was just not charged - yet, if at all. Had he attempted to leave without permission, he could have been charged with fleeing custody and likely many others.
Under the US law, you can be legally arrested/detained with probably cause and not charged. Its just that a clock starts ticking the second they arrested/detained. If he's not charged within a specific time period, they must release him. These laws have existed long before 9/11 and various paranoid, anti-Constitutional laws were passed.
They asked questions about Wikileaks, asked for his opinions about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked where Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is, but he declined to comment without a lawyer present, according to the sources.
That's within both party's rights. It sounds like nothing improper took place there. Sounds like the law worked as designed.
He was not permitted to make a phone call, they said.
Legally, you are absolutely not entitled to a phone call until you are charged. But, they had a ticking clock in which time they must either set him free or charge him. Once charged, he has the legal right to both representation and a call. The call is frequently used to obtain representation.
The fact he was not charged and freed within a fairly reasonable time (three hours) means the law worked exactly as it should have while both empowering an ongoing investigation and protecting his rights.
Frankly, I don't understand why this is newsworthy in the least. "On ongoing investigation is conducted within the powers permitted by the law of the land. News at 11." WTF?!
Why the need for a GPS tracker??
We don't. Anyone is advocates the requirement for GPS tracking is pro-government, invasive control of its citizens.
Then get taxed based on that.
This makes a lot of sense and has actually been previously argued for in the US. I don't recall, if in fact I ever knew, why this didn't take root.
This approach is especially attractive as, for example, it stops economy owners from subsidizing SUV owners. Which is made all the more insulting as SUV owners actually drive up demand, which in turn drives up fuel costs and percentage based taxes on everyone else. Thusly, mileage * fuel tax * weight factor goes a long, long, way toward correcting taxes toward actual use and negative impact. Its very likely this will drive down the costs on fuel efficient vehicles, drive down the cost of fuel, and drive up the cost of SUVs.
Every time I hear someone complain that my taxes *might* go up because of more equitable taxation, I immediately think that translates into, "its not fair to make me pay for my share of use when right now I get to mooch off of everyone else." These people don't have a right to complain as in almost every other aspect of life, we call these people moochers and are held in low regard. Since when do we care what moochers think?
Mammals are a lot more susceptible to radiation than, say, insects are. Don't know about reptiles, fish, birds etc.
I watched a documentary on Chernobyl where it was asserted that the normal life expectancy of many mammals in the wild which frequent that area is below the threshold in which elevated cancer rates are expected to negatively affect the mammalian life cycle.
Furthermore, because of the decline in human population as well as increased re-forestation, many mammalian species (example, bear) which were all but absent have now taken a foot hold and growing in numbers.
If that seems like altruism, think: why would Mozilla want a bunch of black hat hackers pissed off at them?
Fixed it for you.
If that seems like altruism, think: why would Mozilla want a bunch of black hat hypocritical hackers pissed off at them? After all, such rational is what black hatters use to justify almost every action, disclosure, and exploitation. To be pissed at such an exploit would mean thy are a bunch of small minded, hypocritical bitches.
If you could copy one without any impact on Ze Germans who built the one at the lot, I would think you might be able too.
Given that its impossible, what's your point? And I mean that in the most generic way.
Any time you make a copy of something of value, you dilute its value. This is as true for currency, stocks, bonds, art, and yes, even software. Every pirate who steals, have inflicted at least some degree of financial damage to the IP owner. That's just how markets and economies work.
If I make counterfeit money using my own paper and my own ink and my own time, has the economy been damaged? Yes! That's why counterfeiting is illegal in every country which supports the concept of currency. And yes, that's exactly, what pirates to do IP owners every day.
You can not pirate IP, assuming the IP still have market value, without harming the value of the IP in question. As a result, in all these situations, the IP owner is financially harmed.
Pirates who steal and believe they've done no harm are as nieve and misinformed as they come.
If anyone wants the the Google link, rather than ripped content to drive up page hits of someone else's website.
Are there still glaciers covering North America?
Next time, just gracefully bow out. There is nothing wrong with that. There's no need to embarrass yourself like that. Sometimes its the smarter man who stays silent.
You see, when you make a bold statement which is intended to summarily terminate a discussion or imply its a pivotal point, and in doing so, reveals you know nothing of the subject matter, you've embarrassed yourself and wasted everyone's time.
If you're still not sure why you've embarrassed yourself, please go learn something, anything, about the Earth's climate before you comment further in any future climate discussion.
But it wasn't the scientists who politicized the issue. They're knee-deep into the politics as a defensive measure
Not true in the least. Good science and documentation there of is capable of standing on its own. They are "knee-deep", so as to continue to obtain large, lush, research grants which would otherwise not be available but a lot of GW research is well, not very strong according to scientific stands and methods.
Thanks for sharing that read. I must admit, I'm surprised Tesla had such a good showing. Any time a first year, first generation of new technology, from a much smaller company, is significantly comparable with a world renowned, preeminent rival, the newcomer is clearly doing something right. Despite Porche coming out on top in their shoot out, I can't help but be encouraged about the implications, to wit, Tesla is doing a lot of things right.
The warming that matters is in the ocean, not the atmosphere.
You just invalidated all climate simulations. This is climate. They are all interconnected.
I can't find the link so hopefully someone will provide the proper link before I get troll moderated to death.
Personally, I believe GW is real. I'm just not convinced that man is entirely behind it. And to date, I've not read one account which addresses the problem of the most accurate data in the world (US data) being so inaccurate as to be useless. These scientists then take this data to derive information which they then use to prove a conclusion. When sadly, if the conclusion is anything other than our data is invalid, the only thing they've proved is they are extremely poor scientists who don't grasp the very fundimentals of scientific research.
The problem is, the US has tons of sensors all across the US. Many have been in place for extremely long durations. That sounds great until you discover that almost no one validates the location and integrity of the sensor yet continue to blindly accept the data on which all of this research depends. Worse, independent volunteers who do go validate these sensors are horrified at what they find. And yes, they do document their findings with diagrams and pictures. Again, hopefully someone will provide the link to which I refer.
Many times the findings document sensors which were once in a field are now in the middle of a paved parking lot, or literally next to an A/C exhaust for a building, or receiving radiant heat for an endless list of man made factors which absolutely invalidate the sensor's readings. As a result, the readings are verifiable much higher than would otherwise exist. Additionally, the rise attributed to man by GW falls well within the noise provided by these very erroneous readings.
In other words, these "scientists" are finding a signal from known invalid data, which does not rise above its noise level. This type of science is what is universally called, "quackery", and yet that's largely the basis of a vast amounts of GW research. Until credible researches step forward and both, address how they can get valid data from invalid data and two, can come to inescapable conclusions based on invalid research and data, they only continue to dig their quack-hole deeper.
Man may very well be behind GW, but to date, most if not all research supporting a man-made GW conclusion is compete quackery. Address the validity of their data and then they'll have my attention. Until such time, we have every reason to view them as grant-whores and science-for-hire. They are their own worst enemies.