Russia is actually working WITH Iran on their nuclear program - have been for a couple of decades now. That's the reason they didn't take part in the coalition in the first Gulf war; they were trading nuke parts for oil. This is just misdirection on the part of the U.S. - a denial that is a form of confirmation. I recently spoke to someone who works at a DoD facility devoted to cyber-security. Our conversation was going fine until the word Stuxnet left my lips. At that point, he didn't utter another word. And I wasn't asking him for information, just expressing my admiration for the handiwork - whoever's it was. Another denial that looks like a confirmation.
Actually, the problem is that the entire process replicates a circular argument. A study is done, and peer reviewed by scientists who already agree with the premise, making it pretty likely that they won't have major problems with the conclusion or the methods used to achieve it, since they use the same ones. The study is blessed as long as it agrees with the accepted conclusion.
So rather than a rigorous winnowing process, we end up with a mutual admiration society, or a secret scientists club to which only those in one camp are allowed full membership.
This interview with Dr. Vincent Gray, a former expert reviewer for the IPCC, illustrates other problems with the IPCC's "scientific method". They wouldn't know objectivity if it jumped up and bit them in the ass. Couple that with the U.N.'s statements that AGW is really just a means to a global governance end, and it's difficult to see an unadulterated, pure, trustable process here.
Parents who can and will take the time to teach their children about the world around them and how to act and interact within it will, more than likely, end up with children who are well-adjusted, relatively well-educated and prepared children. Parents who believe that it's someone else's job to do all of those things will more likely end up with entitlement babies who will be leeches on society.
Some kids will be well-educated because of our public schools, and some will end up well-educated in spite of them. The same can be true of any other learning environment, if poorly and carelessly administered. My 15 year old, who none of us think is a genius, scored as post-high school in almost every subject. My son, who is very smart, started college at 16, because we had nothing left to teach him. Both would have been bored in public school, as I was.
The point is that parents should have the ability to choose that which works best for their children, so long as that choice produces acceptable results.
I'm no astrophysicist, but it would seem that a decaying planet, or a planet in a decaying orbit, wouldn't spiral in in an orderly manner. Rather, its orbit would become less stable and more elliptical, until it either tore apart from a close brush with its gravitational master, or collided with it.
Perhaps someone with more knowledge than I on the subject could set me straight?
I have often said that AGW could not be even proven to be happening in a court of law. Bring in one good statistician, and the entire case is thrown out for lack of:
1) Relevant control data supporting the assertion. 2) Enough relevant data to even produce a sample size of ONE (which would still be statistically irrelevant).
When so-called scientists stop trumpeting 30 years of data as "all of recorded history" (which, when referring to the Arctic Ice, they regularly do), they can begin to be taken seriously. Until then, their data only makes sense, as with all conspiracy theories, when kept apart from the necessary (though inconvenient) context of opposing data.
Then throw in Al Gore's admission that the whole AGW issue is about giving the U.N. control over the planet (while he makes billions off of C&T), and any credibility in support of this "cause" is gone.
Actually, in the last decade, we have NOT had a temperature spike. Over the last 10 or so years of little solar activity, the global mean temperature has actually declined slightly. During the previous period of very high solar activity, temperatures rose. Seems too soon for a clear cause and effect, but certainly enough to investigate further.
I knew global warming zealots were poor students of science, math, and history, but I did think they were better at paying attention to CURRENT data than this...
A useful application for this is when terrorists/insurgents, who have been known to take cover in populated houses, open fire from them. Standard procedure for clearing a house from which fire is taken is to use grenades. This has the unfortunate effect of causing regrettable, but unavoidable civilian casualties.
So what if a small device could be put into a building that would show the Marines how to direct their fire to not only protect themselves, but any noncombatants that might be in the building? Probably more useful in someplace like a mosque or school than a small house, but there are applications aplenty for someone with an imagination.
There is waste in any bureaucracy, and the military is no different. How a liberal, who generally is in favor of bigger government, can rail against the waste that is endemic in a big government and yet cannot recognize the dissonance between those two desires and grow up is beyond me, but that's an aside for now.
What say you put YOUR life on the line, and then tell others they are spending too much to protect you, hmmm?
Did this study compare the degrees of government regulation over rates, taxes, fees, etc.? In the U.S., upwards of 20% of the average bill is just that.
You really are a poorly read bigot, you know that? A study was recently done on the demographics of the U.S. military, and to the author's surprise, every socio-economic, geographic, racial, ethnic, religious, and gender group was represented in the military to a rough extent to its proportion in American society. Except one.
Northeastern liberals were very underrepresented. Thankfully, people like you probably are, too.
It primarily has to do with maintaining operational security. Young men have sweethearts and families back home, and sometimes more information gets out than is good for him or his fellow Marines. Censoring sensitive information from personal mail has been SOP since the Civil War.
The other concern was with those networks being used as inroads for viruses and such that could compromise the effectiveness of the Marine Corps network infrastructure. I'm not well-versed in that technology enough to know how viable that threat is, but I bet there is something to it.
Bottom line: if it jeopardizes the health of the Marines more than it helps, it's probably not a good thing.
Power companies have, for decades, been advocating energy conservation, through rebates, in part because it's less expensive for them to do that than to build new power plants.
Now a power company is saying that the rebates THEY offer to prevent construction THEY don't want is only desirable up to the point...where they can't make as much money off of it? Is the objective to reduce power grid usage, or to maximize revenue? Sounds like they are reaching that decision point. Thoughts?
There is more to SAAS and Cloud computing than the technical aspect. People, in general, are averse to change, and introducing another technology into the Peter Principle must be factored in as well. As our cultures become more complex and risk-averse, that is more enhanced, meaning that there has to be a very tangible REASON to change that is worth the upsetting of the status quo.
So for the short term, only early adopters are going to dip their toes in this water, by putting hot-swap sites on a cloud (though the reliability of the cloud service still needs some upgrading). The mid-term will see server hosting on the cloud, using the same applications and processes they would have anyway. Only when SAAS can be presented as a viable economic model to the companies paying for it will they look at it.
I know some of the guys at Amazon who are working on this. Without giving any secrets away, there are some technical and security issues that will take some re-architecture to overcome before client/server software could be reliably and easily hosted there. Amazon moves as quickly as anyplace in resolving such things, but it will take some time.
TSA's system is inefficient, though they are, in their sluglike bureaucratic way, moving every so slightly towards the illusion of efficiency.
The problem with Clear is that most of the people who travel enough to make it worth getting the card already get a shortcut through security by their membership in one or more elite airline programs. So there turned out to be little real ROI. Half the time, the airports I fly through didn't have much of a security line anyway, so there was no point in using the card except to give the people manning the station some practice.
This company shut down for "financial" reasons. Like they took the money and ran?
I'm not surprised, the TSA and its money grubbing sycophantic associates are a steaming pile of shit.
All this company does is do background checks and issue a plastic card, and they can't do it for 51 million gross?
Typical government contractor type boondoggle (strictly speaking, they were not a contractor).
They did more than that. They had to install, operate, and man (overman, IMO) stations in each of the airports in which they offered service.
The promise is that it would speed a pre-vetted traveler through airport security lines. The problem is that there was little value add to its most likely customer base, most of whom were elite members of one or more airlines that already granted them that privilege. I signed up because my hotel chain gave me a free year, but I sometimes didn't even bother to use it, because it would have just made me look like some hoidy-toidy silver spoon jerk, which I am not.
When the economic downturn caused those security lines to be even shorter, there was even less ROI on that $199. Which is why few bothered to renew.
I spoke to a Verizon rep about this about a year ago. He said that Apple and Verizon were talking about an exclusive agreement before they went with AT&T, but the money wasn't right for Verizon to do the deal.
I understand that the major complaint from most iPhone users is the network, and Verizon's is the best, but is that enough to warrant the agreement with Apple, now that Verizon is doing pretty well with the BB Storm and some of the other competitors?
Frankly, I think that losing the iPhone would kill AT&T as a major competitor. The iPhone is really about the only reason to consider them as a network.
is that they treat all nations with relatively equal standing (except the members of the security council).
Only when they only admit freedom-based societies as voting members will it be a body that can work for actual good. Fear-based societies, who mistreat their own people, have no business telling other countries how to treat their people.
What's the difference between the two? If a citizen of a country can stand in what amounts to the town square and criticize his/her government without fear of reprisal, it's a freedom-based society. If not, it's fear-based.
It's not that owning private firearms save or defend a country, but a government that takes away that right from its citizenry has historically been an oppressive fascist one that then takes away all other rights.
Thomas Jefferson said it best:
A government big enough to give you all you want can also take away all that you have.
Someone shot people with a gun, so the UK outlawed guns. Crime went up anyway, only now they're apparently using knives. Take away knives, and they're down to blunt instruments.
An intimate encounter with which is the only plausible explanation for loonies like the ones running the UK thinking that they can control every part of a person's life in the name of security.
Thomas Jefferson said it best:
"A government big enough to give you all you need is big enough to take away all you have".
Well, I would posit that the "hate literature writ big" would accurately describe your entire post. That anti-religion thing has sure made you a better person, huh?
Christianity, properly practiced, is none of the things you describe it to be. I go to a church that practices it properly. Not one full of legalistic judgmentalism, just full of serving one another and our community. Can your atheistic "community" say it does that? For free?
Religions more than carry their weight in society. They don't pay taxes, but they do provide services to the community that more than make up for that, which would cost the state far more to provide on its own than the tax revenue it would gain.
Furthermore, many of the great institutions in America were started by churches, including most hospitals and the primary school system. All were run as non-profits, and most still are. If a church is making a profit that they aren't re-investing in ministry to the community in which they live, there's something wrong with that church.
Slashdot Mirror
Russia is actually working WITH Iran on their nuclear program - have been for a couple of decades now. That's the reason they didn't take part in the coalition in the first Gulf war; they were trading nuke parts for oil. This is just misdirection on the part of the U.S. - a denial that is a form of confirmation. I recently spoke to someone who works at a DoD facility devoted to cyber-security. Our conversation was going fine until the word Stuxnet left my lips. At that point, he didn't utter another word. And I wasn't asking him for information, just expressing my admiration for the handiwork - whoever's it was. Another denial that looks like a confirmation.
Actually, the problem is that the entire process replicates a circular argument. A study is done, and peer reviewed by scientists who already agree with the premise, making it pretty likely that they won't have major problems with the conclusion or the methods used to achieve it, since they use the same ones. The study is blessed as long as it agrees with the accepted conclusion.
So rather than a rigorous winnowing process, we end up with a mutual admiration society, or a secret scientists club to which only those in one camp are allowed full membership.
This interview with Dr. Vincent Gray, a former expert reviewer for the IPCC, illustrates other problems with the IPCC's "scientific method". They wouldn't know objectivity if it jumped up and bit them in the ass. Couple that with the U.N.'s statements that AGW is really just a means to a global governance end, and it's difficult to see an unadulterated, pure, trustable process here.
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32
Hail to our iPhonian captors...err...I mean Debian liberators! Death to the iNfidels!
Zealots don't care about science, or facts, or anything that stands in the way of their beliefs.
That our current administration is sympathetic to their cause, if not their tactics, is what's frightening.
Parents who can and will take the time to teach their children about the world around them and how to act and interact within it will, more than likely, end up with children who are well-adjusted, relatively well-educated and prepared children. Parents who believe that it's someone else's job to do all of those things will more likely end up with entitlement babies who will be leeches on society.
Some kids will be well-educated because of our public schools, and some will end up well-educated in spite of them. The same can be true of any other learning environment, if poorly and carelessly administered. My 15 year old, who none of us think is a genius, scored as post-high school in almost every subject. My son, who is very smart, started college at 16, because we had nothing left to teach him. Both would have been bored in public school, as I was.
The point is that parents should have the ability to choose that which works best for their children, so long as that choice produces acceptable results.
I'm no astrophysicist, but it would seem that a decaying planet, or a planet in a decaying orbit, wouldn't spiral in in an orderly manner. Rather, its orbit would become less stable and more elliptical, until it either tore apart from a close brush with its gravitational master, or collided with it.
Perhaps someone with more knowledge than I on the subject could set me straight?
I have often said that AGW could not be even proven to be happening in a court of law. Bring in one good statistician, and the entire case is thrown out for lack of:
1) Relevant control data supporting the assertion.
2) Enough relevant data to even produce a sample size of ONE (which would still be statistically irrelevant).
When so-called scientists stop trumpeting 30 years of data as "all of recorded history" (which, when referring to the Arctic Ice, they regularly do), they can begin to be taken seriously. Until then, their data only makes sense, as with all conspiracy theories, when kept apart from the necessary (though inconvenient) context of opposing data.
Then throw in Al Gore's admission that the whole AGW issue is about giving the U.N. control over the planet (while he makes billions off of C&T), and any credibility in support of this "cause" is gone.
Actually, in the last decade, we have NOT had a temperature spike. Over the last 10 or so years of little solar activity, the global mean temperature has actually declined slightly. During the previous period of very high solar activity, temperatures rose. Seems too soon for a clear cause and effect, but certainly enough to investigate further.
I knew global warming zealots were poor students of science, math, and history, but I did think they were better at paying attention to CURRENT data than this...
A useful application for this is when terrorists/insurgents, who have been known to take cover in populated houses, open fire from them. Standard procedure for clearing a house from which fire is taken is to use grenades. This has the unfortunate effect of causing regrettable, but unavoidable civilian casualties.
So what if a small device could be put into a building that would show the Marines how to direct their fire to not only protect themselves, but any noncombatants that might be in the building? Probably more useful in someplace like a mosque or school than a small house, but there are applications aplenty for someone with an imagination.
There is waste in any bureaucracy, and the military is no different. How a liberal, who generally is in favor of bigger government, can rail against the waste that is endemic in a big government and yet cannot recognize the dissonance between those two desires and grow up is beyond me, but that's an aside for now.
What say you put YOUR life on the line, and then tell others they are spending too much to protect you, hmmm?
Did this study compare the degrees of government regulation over rates, taxes, fees, etc.? In the U.S., upwards of 20% of the average bill is just that.
You really are a poorly read bigot, you know that? A study was recently done on the demographics of the U.S. military, and to the author's surprise, every socio-economic, geographic, racial, ethnic, religious, and gender group was represented in the military to a rough extent to its proportion in American society. Except one.
Northeastern liberals were very underrepresented. Thankfully, people like you probably are, too.
It primarily has to do with maintaining operational security. Young men have sweethearts and families back home, and sometimes more information gets out than is good for him or his fellow Marines. Censoring sensitive information from personal mail has been SOP since the Civil War.
The other concern was with those networks being used as inroads for viruses and such that could compromise the effectiveness of the Marine Corps network infrastructure. I'm not well-versed in that technology enough to know how viable that threat is, but I bet there is something to it.
Bottom line: if it jeopardizes the health of the Marines more than it helps, it's probably not a good thing.
Power companies have, for decades, been advocating energy conservation, through rebates, in part because it's less expensive for them to do that than to build new power plants.
Now a power company is saying that the rebates THEY offer to prevent construction THEY don't want is only desirable up to the point...where they can't make as much money off of it? Is the objective to reduce power grid usage, or to maximize revenue? Sounds like they are reaching that decision point. Thoughts?
There is more to SAAS and Cloud computing than the technical aspect. People, in general, are averse to change, and introducing another technology into the Peter Principle must be factored in as well. As our cultures become more complex and risk-averse, that is more enhanced, meaning that there has to be a very tangible REASON to change that is worth the upsetting of the status quo.
So for the short term, only early adopters are going to dip their toes in this water, by putting hot-swap sites on a cloud (though the reliability of the cloud service still needs some upgrading). The mid-term will see server hosting on the cloud, using the same applications and processes they would have anyway. Only when SAAS can be presented as a viable economic model to the companies paying for it will they look at it.
I know some of the guys at Amazon who are working on this. Without giving any secrets away, there are some technical and security issues that will take some re-architecture to overcome before client/server software could be reliably and easily hosted there. Amazon moves as quickly as anyplace in resolving such things, but it will take some time.
TSA's system is inefficient, though they are, in their sluglike bureaucratic way, moving every so slightly towards the illusion of efficiency.
The problem with Clear is that most of the people who travel enough to make it worth getting the card already get a shortcut through security by their membership in one or more elite airline programs. So there turned out to be little real ROI. Half the time, the airports I fly through didn't have much of a security line anyway, so there was no point in using the card except to give the people manning the station some practice.
$199 x 260,000 customers = $51,740,000.
This company shut down for "financial" reasons. Like they took the money and ran?
I'm not surprised, the TSA and its money grubbing sycophantic associates are a steaming pile of shit.
All this company does is do background checks and issue a plastic card, and they can't do it for 51 million gross?
Typical government contractor type boondoggle (strictly speaking, they were not a contractor).
They did more than that. They had to install, operate, and man (overman, IMO) stations in each of the airports in which they offered service.
The promise is that it would speed a pre-vetted traveler through airport security lines. The problem is that there was little value add to its most likely customer base, most of whom were elite members of one or more airlines that already granted them that privilege. I signed up because my hotel chain gave me a free year, but I sometimes didn't even bother to use it, because it would have just made me look like some hoidy-toidy silver spoon jerk, which I am not.
When the economic downturn caused those security lines to be even shorter, there was even less ROI on that $199. Which is why few bothered to renew.
I believe that "Good Samaritan" laws would cover an instance of indifference to life when help could have easily been given.
I spoke to a Verizon rep about this about a year ago. He said that Apple and Verizon were talking about an exclusive agreement before they went with AT&T, but the money wasn't right for Verizon to do the deal.
I understand that the major complaint from most iPhone users is the network, and Verizon's is the best, but is that enough to warrant the agreement with Apple, now that Verizon is doing pretty well with the BB Storm and some of the other competitors?
Frankly, I think that losing the iPhone would kill AT&T as a major competitor. The iPhone is really about the only reason to consider them as a network.
How does one keep a HOUSE "private" from street or satellite view? How do you keep YOURS from public view?
Oh, yeah - your mom's basement is probably safe.
is that they treat all nations with relatively equal standing (except the members of the security council).
Only when they only admit freedom-based societies as voting members will it be a body that can work for actual good. Fear-based societies, who mistreat their own people, have no business telling other countries how to treat their people.
What's the difference between the two? If a citizen of a country can stand in what amounts to the town square and criticize his/her government without fear of reprisal, it's a freedom-based society. If not, it's fear-based.
It's not that owning private firearms save or defend a country, but a government that takes away that right from its citizenry has historically been an oppressive fascist one that then takes away all other rights.
Thomas Jefferson said it best:
A government big enough to give you all you want can also take away all that you have.
Someone shot people with a gun, so the UK outlawed guns. Crime went up anyway, only now they're apparently using knives. Take away knives, and they're down to blunt instruments.
An intimate encounter with which is the only plausible explanation for loonies like the ones running the UK thinking that they can control every part of a person's life in the name of security.
Thomas Jefferson said it best:
"A government big enough to give you all you need is big enough to take away all you have".
Well, I would posit that the "hate literature writ big" would accurately describe your entire post. That anti-religion thing has sure made you a better person, huh?
Christianity, properly practiced, is none of the things you describe it to be. I go to a church that practices it properly. Not one full of legalistic judgmentalism, just full of serving one another and our community. Can your atheistic "community" say it does that? For free?
Religions more than carry their weight in society. They don't pay taxes, but they do provide services to the community that more than make up for that, which would cost the state far more to provide on its own than the tax revenue it would gain.
Furthermore, many of the great institutions in America were started by churches, including most hospitals and the primary school system. All were run as non-profits, and most still are. If a church is making a profit that they aren't re-investing in ministry to the community in which they live, there's something wrong with that church.