See my response above. These are classic denialist tactics. Stop it alreeady and come up with some scientific arguments.
read my post above where I listed some from actual scientists. Oh, and that whole "paid by oil companies" crap is a classic alarmist tactic. Refute the argument or go home. Shooting the messenger is a fallacy of the ignorant and the unethical.
False analogy. Those hired by an energy company do have an interest in findings which support the energy company's bottom line, namely that no restrictions on fossil fuel use are necessary. Whether polar bears are killed are incidental to that.
So, what you are saying is: Those hired by politicians via governmental grants do have an interest in findings which support the politicians expansion of power via energy regulation, namely those that control the people and businesses that use energy and the ability to decide which entities the restrictions should apply. Whether businesses are killed are incidental to that.
If it works one way, it works the other way as well. You can't discredit scientists who work for oil companies who have something to gain unless you discredit scientists who work for governments that have something to gain. That would pretty much eliminate every University, the IPCC and any other UN body.
I think the real problem is that all the kids that watched star wars when they were little grew up to be cynical assholes. Yes, every movie sucks, except the ones you watched when you were a kid, I get it.
No. I have to agree with the critic in these films (and yes, I saw all 70 minutes). There were three light saber battles in the original three. Obi Wan vs Vader (Master and Apprentice as well as a rematch), Luke vs Vader (Father and son, yet we didn't know that at the time. Evil overlord vs farm boy hero trying to save his friends), and finally Luke vs. Vader, the rematch (Father vs. Son, good vs evil, finally, resistance, redemption and death). In the prequels, there was no emotion in the battles. Two Jedi fighting a Sith they didn't know existed 15 minutes ago, Two Jedi (and Yoda) fighting a Sith they used to know... sorta, and finally, a master and apprentice/good friends battle.
Of course, this is just the tip of the iceberg. The critic got into many of the enormous plot holes and crap that simply didn't make sense. (Why not just cut Wado in half or steal the part they needed. They were trying to cheat him out of it anyway. Are they seriously against killing a slave owner/trader in order to free a slave and her kid?!!?)
In any case, while I'm inclined to agree with climate researchers who are experts in their field and have formulated their models on the scientific method, which is itself based on rational thought...
First, "scientific method" involves welcoming peer review of your work. As we now know, many of the leading climatologists working in AGW research have refused to publish their work in scientific journals that post criticism of their work.
Would you listen to Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences? He said:
"Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."
How about Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences:
"We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future... [T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."
Oh, and $40 trillion was a global figure from HERE:
This finding was based on a groundbreaking research paper by renowned climate economist Professor Richard Tol, who showed that a high, global CO2 tax starting at 68 dollars could reduce world GDP by a staggering 12.9 percent in 2100—the equivalent of 40 trillion dollars a year – costing many times the expected damage of global warming.
Or do you consider the work of 5 Nobel laureates to be credible?
That argument would suggest that we can't protest about the operators of anything that we depend on. If there's no practical choice but to use a particular company, does that mean they're therefore immune to criticism?
Well, there is old adage, "don't bite the hand that feeds you". Sure, if there were only one oil company, one computer company or one *whatever* company, sure, then you may complain all you want. But as long as there is competition, if you don't like the services or the actions of one company, use another. That's how the free market works. However, if you take the free market away and put the government in charge of everything, there's really not a damn thing you can do if you don't like it, especially if that "government" is completely unelected, like the UN's IPCC.
Corporations != the free market. There was capitalism before we became the corporate state we (the U.S.) are now.
Very true. Also, small business simply can not produce things like computer processors, RAM, hard drives and the infrastructure that has produced the Internet. All of these things are used to post on Slashdot.
It gets old having to listen to people bitch about the evil corporations while happily using their products to do it. I'm reminded of my wife's graduation in Michigan. Dick Cheney was speaking so, of course, there were protesters. One tried to hand me a pamphlet concerning the evils of the oil companies. I had to stop her and ask her how she got to the rally. Of course, it was Michigan in the winter so it was pretty obvious that she drove. I don't think she ever got the irony of her driving her car to protest oil companies.
You haven't addressed the secondary issue; that the melting in the Himalayas is only doubled by the soot, not caused by it.
What about the third issue of declining precipitation? So now we have soot and declining levels of precipitation, the rest is caused by global warming.
Oh wait...
Let's not forget about all the ice cores taken from scientists...
So now we have soot, declining levels of precipitation, ice core holes, the rest is caused by global warming.
Of course, there is the increased travel from those scientists who are drilling holes as well as the increase in tourism...
So now we have soot, declining levels of precipitation, ice core holes, increase in tourism and the rest is caused by global warming.
You know what.. there are thousands of reasons as to why the ice cap on the Himalayas may be decreasing. It doesn't really matter as long as we end it with "and the rest is caused by global warming."
Fortunately, we did do something about the scattered theories and reports of global cooling in the 60s and 70s. We put more money into climate science to find out what was really happening.
Yes, because THIS time, we are right. All those other times, we were wrong. So, give us $40,000,000,000,000/yr, control of your lives and we'll fix it for ya.
We have already noticed problems with soot. In fact I recall reading books about terraforming where soot was sprinkled on an ice cap, so the idea is pretty old.
The article you are referring to is HERE. It was in response to Global Cooling, which as we all know was false and THANK GOD we didn't do anything about it. Regardless of our arrogance back then, science in the 70's was no where near where it is today. If we had acted on our ignorant assumptions, it surely would have led to an enormous disaster today.
I wonder what we'll be saying about Global Warming in 35 years.
The right wingers will surely use this as "proof" that global warming is wrong. Yet... if we started using renewable energy, it would still solve the problem.
It's actually the Libertarians that are pushing much of this. They are currently allied with the "right wingers" as many of their goals are the same (smaller government, free market, local control).
OK, one more time. "Companies don't pay taxes, their customers do!"
So, look around you and pick out all the items in your life that are made by corporations and try to see how it will affect you to pay a little more for each of them and the power it takes to run them.
The DoJ is already in their business, by virtue of the settlement. What the librarians are trying to do is limit the damage which this in-their-business-ness may do. It's not analagous at all to someone who bitches about the cops but then calls 911 at the first sign of trouble. It's more like someone who was once tasered for asking an officer why he was getting a speeding ticket trying to figure out, the next time he gets pulled over, what he can do to avoid it happening again.
Yeah, that was a bad analogy. Someone call BadAnalogyGuy and tell him we got one for him.
Still, I find it hypocritical that librarians, who are paid by the government after bitching about federal regulation, are asking for the feds to regulate potential competition. Regardless of you opinion of the feds getting in your business, when your business is paid for by the government, the government has a right to regulate it. That's kinda what "government run" means.
(Analogy V2) It would be like the post office asking the feds to investigate UPS after complaining about being investigated by the feds. (better?)
Aren't librarians notorious for telling the DOJ to stay the hell out of their business? Weren't these the same people who refused to give the DOJ the records of people who were checking out Jihad and bomb making books? Aren't these the same people who refuse to have any type of filtering software on their computers so that any perve can sit there and view gay-incestuous-animal-porn on a PC right in front of preschoolers sitting down for story time?
Reminds of people who protest and bitch about the cops all the time but are happy to call them when someone is breaking into their house!
Was this the bill in which Republicans called funding for the 2010 Census, airport security, public transportation and new fire stations "earmarks"?
If the money is directed to specific projects like this stuff is, then yes, by definition the spending is earmarks. I'd go further and call it "pork" since none of those with the possible exception of the Census spending (it is a federal obligation, but depends on who it's spent on) warrant federal money and are just attempts to bring home the bacon.
I'd also throw in airport security since most plane trips take you over state lines. But public transportation, fire stations, bridges on non-interstates, or anything else that can be picked up by local and state government SHOULD be picked up by local and state governments.
The federal government should only pay for what only the federal government can pay for. As for everything else, if the people want it, they should have their local and state governments pay for it. I'm sick and tired of paying for swamp conservation in Florida, a big hole in Boston and E-Coli cleanup in the Michigan when I live in Texas!
There are adverts on slashdot? You have a point, but really, I decide what browsing experience I have - it's advert free. My moral guidance unit tells me it's ok with this.
Sorry, I didn't mean to be snarky, but your ISP doesn't may for content. Some has to pay for it. Sometimes, it's just considered a cost of doing business, like company and retail websites (apple.com, hp.com, egghead.com, CNN.com and so on). Other times, it's people who pay for the site themselves and make it public. Other than that, most other websites have no way to pay for themselves without advertising or going to a subscription model. I would hate to have to subscribe and pay for every website I visit. This means we either need ads, charity or fraud ("your computer has been infected with a virus, click here to remove") to pay for these sites. I don't think charity will pay for sites like google.com or slashdot, and I don't want to see these sites try to fraud me out of my money, so, I like the ad based Internet as it is the least of the rest of the evils.
I already pay my ISP for my browsing experience - I have a bunch of websites that I can maintain advert free because I work for a living. If others have to rely on their advertising models to stay afloat, that's not my problem. The internet will still be here adverts or not.
I think it's a bit more nefarious than that. Allow me to finish that thought for you:
Google can come back and say, "Well, we've actually got some data on that, and...it appears that without the add blocker, your ad will be seen by 275 billion more people a day. We can add your adds to our "safe list" to allow them to get through our add blocker, but it will raise your rates by 35% in order to cover the administrative costs of maintaining your position on that list".
There are *ads* on the web? I haven't seen one in years!
Exactly! I keep trying different browsers like Opera, Chrome and even Safari, but then I see adds. Now, I don't mind adds and fully appreciate them paying for my browsing experience. It's the blinking, "Punch the monkey and win a prize" that drive me nuts and drive me right back to Firefox and AdBlock+.
No, demodulating a signal is not news. But not encrypting it in the first place ought to be.
(And TFA had a red herring in its focus on the software used to record the signal--the software is probably the easy part, once you've captured the signal).
We were using SINCGARS in the early 90's. SINCGARS is a frequency hopping, encrypted method of voice communication. We were just starting to use it to network military vehicles and personnel with HQ and each other. If SINCGARS could have been cracked, it would have put a beacon on every vehicle and soldier on and off the battlefield, not to mention eavesdropping. However, the inventor of SINCGARS could not decrypt the signal without the software and hardware keys. The software keys were changed at will. Usually weekly, but could easily be done daily. I am shocked that this signal does not use better encryption and/or frequency hopping. This type of communication is critical to tomorrow's battlefield.
OK, HERE is a better write up. Um, also don't hammer me for using a wiki source. As I recall, you used a wiki source as well.
Now, I never said Libby didn't lie. I never said that Libby wasn't innocent. What I did say was that he was innocent of the crime being investigated, and in that entire investigation, he was the only one convicted, or even charged with any crime. They even know who did the crime they were investigating and didn't charge him! Why was he not charge? (forgive me for using another wiki quote):
A close associate of Secretary of State Colin Powell, Armitage was regarded, along with Powell, as a moderate within the presidential administration of George W. Bush.
That's right! He was not an evil neo-con. He simply wasn't conservative enough. Besides, when all this was over, he was retired. No point in dragging some poor Powel fan moderate out of retirement just to convict him for committing this crime we are investigating. Let's go after that evil, no-heart VP's chief of staff.
Libby was convicted on March 6, 2007, on four counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements.
In other words, it is intellectually dishonest to say that four is "two." But, if suspending your common sense and believing that Libby was not just prosecuted but also convicted because "The prosecution needed a conviction to show for the money" justifies your hatred, then go for it.
OK, we'll use your math. Four is not "a lot more" than two. It is exactly a "couple more" than two. The argument stands.
Well, my source just listed perjury and obstruction of justice. But, if you want to use your source, that's fine with me. From that source:
Libby was charged with lying to FBI agents and to the grand jury about two conversations with reporters, Tim Russert of NBC News and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine. According to the Indictment, the obstruction of justice count alleges that while testifying under oath before the grand jury on March 5 and March 24, 2004, Libby knowingly and corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct and impede the grand jury’s investigation by misleading and deceiving the grand jury as to when, and the manner and means by which, he acquired, and subsequently disclosed to the media, information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA.
I don't understand how he could mislead the Grand Jury as to when and how he disclosed Plames' employment with the CIA since he wasn't the one to do it. The only way that statement could be true is if Libby lied and said that he was the one to leak the name.
Anyway, my point is that Libby, like Clinton a few years before him, was the victim of a very expensive witch hunt. Except with the Plame case, the only one to go to jail was NOT the one who actually did the crime. That's how you know it was a political witch hunt. Don't you think that if the point was to serve justice to the party guilty of the crime being investigated, that the guilty party would be the one punished? It was as if they found out that it was not a high level Bush appointee/staff member and gave up on the actual investigation and went after whoever they could get that worked for the political opposition.
It doesn't matter if global warming is real or not.
The root question is, does it make sense to pump pollution into a thin atmosphere? No, of course not, it is wrong to keep doing so. Therefore, we need to take steps to stop.
There are monied interests deliberately prolonging this useless debate about "Global warming - real, or not?" Think about why they do that.
Pollution is wrong. Let's come together in some comopolitan city - hmmm, maybe Copenhagen? - and agree to end pollution.
It doesn't matter if global warming happens today or 10,000 years from now. What matters is ending air pollution.
I agree. Pollution is bad. So let's concentrate on pollution to limit it and stop this silly war on CO2!
Now you're telling me that someone is funding international organizations and peer reviewed journals and leading scientists in the field... so they can slow down the economy with phony climate results? How are they going to profit off that again?
From academia: Tenure, speaking engagements, grants, articles, books, presidential advisory positions, paid contributor to MSNBC.... the list goes on. From the media: Magazine/Newspaper subscriptions/Nelson ratings (bad news sells. If it bleeds, it leads.) Government contracts (See GE, which owns MSNBC), You primary products becoming mandated and/or pushed by government regulation (See GE and their CFL bulb business), Interviews with top political leaders (how many times has President Obama been on Fox News? How many times on MSNBC?), Scoops/Tips/Leads to your journalists... the list goes on.
And then you say 'green industry'! That's also hilarious! The companies dumping the most money into green tech are also the ones that are already lead players in the energy and fuel sectors! They are the vast majority of the 'green industry.
Great! So the problem is fixing itself. Why do we need government intervention again? Won't government just screw it up for these guys?
Slashdot Mirror
See my response above. These are classic denialist tactics. Stop it alreeady and come up with some scientific arguments.
read my post above where I listed some from actual scientists. Oh, and that whole "paid by oil companies" crap is a classic alarmist tactic. Refute the argument or go home. Shooting the messenger is a fallacy of the ignorant and the unethical.
False analogy. Those hired by an energy company do have an interest in findings which support the energy company's bottom line, namely that no restrictions on fossil fuel use are necessary. Whether polar bears are killed are incidental to that.
So, what you are saying is:
Those hired by politicians via governmental grants do have an interest in findings which support the politicians expansion of power via energy regulation, namely those that control the people and businesses that use energy and the ability to decide which entities the restrictions should apply. Whether businesses are killed are incidental to that.
If it works one way, it works the other way as well. You can't discredit scientists who work for oil companies who have something to gain unless you discredit scientists who work for governments that have something to gain. That would pretty much eliminate every University, the IPCC and any other UN body.
I think the real problem is that all the kids that watched star wars when they were little grew up to be cynical assholes. Yes, every movie sucks, except the ones you watched when you were a kid, I get it.
No. I have to agree with the critic in these films (and yes, I saw all 70 minutes). There were three light saber battles in the original three. Obi Wan vs Vader (Master and Apprentice as well as a rematch), Luke vs Vader (Father and son, yet we didn't know that at the time. Evil overlord vs farm boy hero trying to save his friends), and finally Luke vs. Vader, the rematch (Father vs. Son, good vs evil, finally, resistance, redemption and death). In the prequels, there was no emotion in the battles. Two Jedi fighting a Sith they didn't know existed 15 minutes ago, Two Jedi (and Yoda) fighting a Sith they used to know... sorta, and finally, a master and apprentice/good friends battle.
Of course, this is just the tip of the iceberg. The critic got into many of the enormous plot holes and crap that simply didn't make sense. (Why not just cut Wado in half or steal the part they needed. They were trying to cheat him out of it anyway. Are they seriously against killing a slave owner/trader in order to free a slave and her kid?!!?)
In any case, while I'm inclined to agree with climate researchers who are experts in their field and have formulated their models on the scientific method, which is itself based on rational thought...
First, "scientific method" involves welcoming peer review of your work. As we now know, many of the leading climatologists working in AGW research have refused to publish their work in scientific journals that post criticism of their work.
Would you listen to Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences? He said:
"Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."
How about Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences:
"We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future... [T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."
Oh, and $40 trillion was a global figure from HERE:
This finding was based on a groundbreaking research paper by renowned climate economist Professor Richard Tol, who showed that a high, global CO2 tax starting at 68 dollars could reduce world GDP by a staggering 12.9 percent in 2100—the equivalent of 40 trillion dollars a year – costing many times the expected damage of global warming.
Or do you consider the work of 5 Nobel laureates to be credible?
That argument would suggest that we can't protest about the operators of anything that we depend on. If there's no practical choice but to use a particular company, does that mean they're therefore immune to criticism?
Well, there is old adage, "don't bite the hand that feeds you". Sure, if there were only one oil company, one computer company or one *whatever* company, sure, then you may complain all you want. But as long as there is competition, if you don't like the services or the actions of one company, use another. That's how the free market works. However, if you take the free market away and put the government in charge of everything, there's really not a damn thing you can do if you don't like it, especially if that "government" is completely unelected, like the UN's IPCC.
Corporations != the free market. There was capitalism before we became the corporate state we (the U.S.) are now.
Very true. Also, small business simply can not produce things like computer processors, RAM, hard drives and the infrastructure that has produced the Internet. All of these things are used to post on Slashdot.
It gets old having to listen to people bitch about the evil corporations while happily using their products to do it. I'm reminded of my wife's graduation in Michigan. Dick Cheney was speaking so, of course, there were protesters. One tried to hand me a pamphlet concerning the evils of the oil companies. I had to stop her and ask her how she got to the rally. Of course, it was Michigan in the winter so it was pretty obvious that she drove. I don't think she ever got the irony of her driving her car to protest oil companies.
You haven't addressed the secondary issue; that the melting in the Himalayas is only doubled by the soot, not caused by it.
What about the third issue of declining precipitation? So now we have soot and declining levels of precipitation, the rest is caused by global warming.
Oh wait...
Let's not forget about all the ice cores taken from scientists...
So now we have soot, declining levels of precipitation, ice core holes, the rest is caused by global warming.
Of course, there is the increased travel from those scientists who are drilling holes as well as the increase in tourism...
So now we have soot, declining levels of precipitation, ice core holes, increase in tourism and the rest is caused by global warming.
You know what.. there are thousands of reasons as to why the ice cap on the Himalayas may be decreasing. It doesn't really matter as long as we end it with "and the rest is caused by global warming."
(why am I reminded of a scene from "The Jerk"?)
Fortunately, we did do something about the scattered theories and reports of global cooling in the 60s and 70s. We put more money into climate science to find out what was really happening.
Yes, because THIS time, we are right. All those other times, we were wrong. So, give us $40,000,000,000,000/yr, control of your lives and we'll fix it for ya.
We have already noticed problems with soot. In fact I recall reading books about terraforming where soot was sprinkled on an ice cap, so the idea is pretty old.
The article you are referring to is HERE. It was in response to Global Cooling, which as we all know was false and THANK GOD we didn't do anything about it. Regardless of our arrogance back then, science in the 70's was no where near where it is today. If we had acted on our ignorant assumptions, it surely would have led to an enormous disaster today.
I wonder what we'll be saying about Global Warming in 35 years.
The right wingers will surely use this as "proof" that global warming is wrong. Yet... if we started using renewable energy, it would still solve the problem.
It's actually the Libertarians that are pushing much of this. They are currently allied with the "right wingers" as many of their goals are the same (smaller government, free market, local control).
Cry me a river about lost corporate profits.
OK, one more time. "Companies don't pay taxes, their customers do!"
So, look around you and pick out all the items in your life that are made by corporations and try to see how it will affect you to pay a little more for each of them and the power it takes to run them.
The DoJ is already in their business, by virtue of the settlement. What the librarians are trying to do is limit the damage which this in-their-business-ness may do. It's not analagous at all to someone who bitches about the cops but then calls 911 at the first sign of trouble. It's more like someone who was once tasered for asking an officer why he was getting a speeding ticket trying to figure out, the next time he gets pulled over, what he can do to avoid it happening again.
Yeah, that was a bad analogy. Someone call BadAnalogyGuy and tell him we got one for him.
Still, I find it hypocritical that librarians, who are paid by the government after bitching about federal regulation, are asking for the feds to regulate potential competition. Regardless of you opinion of the feds getting in your business, when your business is paid for by the government, the government has a right to regulate it. That's kinda what "government run" means.
(Analogy V2)
It would be like the post office asking the feds to investigate UPS after complaining about being investigated by the feds. (better?)
Aren't librarians notorious for telling the DOJ to stay the hell out of their business? Weren't these the same people who refused to give the DOJ the records of people who were checking out Jihad and bomb making books? Aren't these the same people who refuse to have any type of filtering software on their computers so that any perve can sit there and view gay-incestuous-animal-porn on a PC right in front of preschoolers sitting down for story time?
Reminds of people who protest and bitch about the cops all the time but are happy to call them when someone is breaking into their house!
Was this the bill in which Republicans called funding for the 2010 Census, airport security, public transportation and new fire stations "earmarks"?
If the money is directed to specific projects like this stuff is, then yes, by definition the spending is earmarks. I'd go further and call it "pork" since none of those with the possible exception of the Census spending (it is a federal obligation, but depends on who it's spent on) warrant federal money and are just attempts to bring home the bacon.
I'd also throw in airport security since most plane trips take you over state lines. But public transportation, fire stations, bridges on non-interstates, or anything else that can be picked up by local and state government SHOULD be picked up by local and state governments.
The federal government should only pay for what only the federal government can pay for. As for everything else, if the people want it, they should have their local and state governments pay for it. I'm sick and tired of paying for swamp conservation in Florida, a big hole in Boston and E-Coli cleanup in the Michigan when I live in Texas!
Something with no energy means it has no movement.
Or no mass.
There are adverts on slashdot? You have a point, but really, I decide what browsing experience I have - it's advert free. My moral guidance unit tells me it's ok with this.
Sorry, I didn't mean to be snarky, but your ISP doesn't may for content. Some has to pay for it. Sometimes, it's just considered a cost of doing business, like company and retail websites (apple.com, hp.com, egghead.com, CNN.com and so on). Other times, it's people who pay for the site themselves and make it public. Other than that, most other websites have no way to pay for themselves without advertising or going to a subscription model. I would hate to have to subscribe and pay for every website I visit. This means we either need ads, charity or fraud ("your computer has been infected with a virus, click here to remove") to pay for these sites. I don't think charity will pay for sites like google.com or slashdot, and I don't want to see these sites try to fraud me out of my money, so, I like the ad based Internet as it is the least of the rest of the evils.
(Says the guy with adblock enabled)
I already pay my ISP for my browsing experience - I have a bunch of websites that I can maintain advert free because I work for a living. If others have to rely on their advertising models to stay afloat, that's not my problem. The internet will still be here adverts or not.
Says the guy on ad funded slashdot.
I think it's a bit more nefarious than that. Allow me to finish that thought for you:
Google can come back and say, "Well, we've actually got some data on that, and...it appears that without the add blocker, your ad will be seen by 275 billion more people a day. We can add your adds to our "safe list" to allow them to get through our add blocker, but it will raise your rates by 35% in order to cover the administrative costs of maintaining your position on that list".
There are *ads* on the web? I haven't seen one in years!
Exactly! I keep trying different browsers like Opera, Chrome and even Safari, but then I see adds. Now, I don't mind adds and fully appreciate them paying for my browsing experience. It's the blinking, "Punch the monkey and win a prize" that drive me nuts and drive me right back to Firefox and AdBlock+.
No, demodulating a signal is not news. But not encrypting it in the first place ought to be.
(And TFA had a red herring in its focus on the software used to record the signal--the software is probably the easy part, once you've captured the signal).
We were using SINCGARS in the early 90's. SINCGARS is a frequency hopping, encrypted method of voice communication. We were just starting to use it to network military vehicles and personnel with HQ and each other. If SINCGARS could have been cracked, it would have put a beacon on every vehicle and soldier on and off the battlefield, not to mention eavesdropping. However, the inventor of SINCGARS could not decrypt the signal without the software and hardware keys. The software keys were changed at will. Usually weekly, but could easily be done daily. I am shocked that this signal does not use better encryption and/or frequency hopping. This type of communication is critical to tomorrow's battlefield.
OK, HERE is a better write up. Um, also don't hammer me for using a wiki source. As I recall, you used a wiki source as well.
Now, I never said Libby didn't lie. I never said that Libby wasn't innocent. What I did say was that he was innocent of the crime being investigated, and in that entire investigation, he was the only one convicted, or even charged with any crime. They even know who did the crime they were investigating and didn't charge him! Why was he not charge? (forgive me for using another wiki quote):
A close associate of Secretary of State Colin Powell, Armitage was regarded, along with Powell, as a moderate within the presidential administration of George W. Bush.
That's right! He was not an evil neo-con. He simply wasn't conservative enough. Besides, when all this was over, he was retired. No point in dragging some poor Powel fan moderate out of retirement just to convict him for committing this crime we are investigating. Let's go after that evil, no-heart VP's chief of staff.
You are apparently not a truth seeker. I am sorry I misjudged you.
From Wikipedia's United States v. Libby entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Libby
Libby was convicted on March 6, 2007, on four counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements.
In other words, it is intellectually dishonest to say that four is "two." But, if suspending your common sense and believing that Libby was not just prosecuted but also convicted because "The prosecution needed a conviction to show for the money" justifies your hatred, then go for it.
OK, we'll use your math. Four is not "a lot more" than two. It is exactly a "couple more" than two. The argument stands.
Well, my source just listed perjury and obstruction of justice. But, if you want to use your source, that's fine with me. From that source:
Libby was charged with lying to FBI agents and to the grand jury about two conversations with reporters, Tim Russert of NBC News and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine. According to the Indictment, the obstruction of justice count alleges that while testifying under oath before the grand jury on March 5 and March 24, 2004, Libby knowingly and corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct and impede the grand jury’s investigation by misleading and deceiving the grand jury as to when, and the manner and means by which, he acquired, and subsequently disclosed to the media, information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA.
I don't understand how he could mislead the Grand Jury as to when and how he disclosed Plames' employment with the CIA since he wasn't the one to do it. The only way that statement could be true is if Libby lied and said that he was the one to leak the name.
Anyway, my point is that Libby, like Clinton a few years before him, was the victim of a very expensive witch hunt. Except with the Plame case, the only one to go to jail was NOT the one who actually did the crime. That's how you know it was a political witch hunt. Don't you think that if the point was to serve justice to the party guilty of the crime being investigated, that the guilty party would be the one punished? It was as if they found out that it was not a high level Bush appointee/staff member and gave up on the actual investigation and went after whoever they could get that worked for the political opposition.
It doesn't matter if global warming is real or not.
The root question is, does it make sense to pump pollution into a thin atmosphere? No, of course not, it is wrong to keep doing so. Therefore, we need to take steps to stop.
There are monied interests deliberately prolonging this useless debate about "Global warming - real, or not?" Think about why they do that.
Pollution is wrong. Let's come together in some comopolitan city - hmmm, maybe Copenhagen? - and agree to end pollution.
It doesn't matter if global warming happens today or 10,000 years from now. What matters is ending air pollution.
I agree. Pollution is bad. So let's concentrate on pollution to limit it and stop this silly war on CO2!
Now you're telling me that someone is funding international organizations and peer reviewed journals and leading scientists in the field ... so they can slow down the economy with phony climate results? How are they going to profit off that again?
From academia: Tenure, speaking engagements, grants, articles, books, presidential advisory positions, paid contributor to MSNBC.... the list goes on.
From the media: Magazine/Newspaper subscriptions/Nelson ratings (bad news sells. If it bleeds, it leads.) Government contracts (See GE, which owns MSNBC), You primary products becoming mandated and/or pushed by government regulation (See GE and their CFL bulb business), Interviews with top political leaders (how many times has President Obama been on Fox News? How many times on MSNBC?), Scoops/Tips/Leads to your journalists... the list goes on.
And then you say 'green industry'! That's also hilarious! The companies dumping the most money into green tech are also the ones that are already lead players in the energy and fuel sectors! They are the vast majority of the 'green industry.
Great! So the problem is fixing itself. Why do we need government intervention again? Won't government just screw it up for these guys?
Ted Alvin Klaudt
Ted Alvin Klaudt
Ted Alvin Klaudt Ted Alvin Klaudt
Sue me, you piece of shit!