I can think of a whole lot of places more scary to live. At least our enemies are being forced to engage us on somebody else's turf. When was the last time someone blew up something on U.S. soil?
More monitoring than the NSA does is done by many entities in our everyday lives, like your ISP, your bank, your cell phone provider, etc. You give more personal data than this to rent a video or save $0.45 at Albertsons. The NSA can't legally (and no one is seriously alleging they have) done any more than see what phone NUMBER is calling what other phone NUMBER. Anything more intrusive requires a court order and the FBI's involvement.
Since this has been going on since 2001 without apparant cataclysmic consequences to civil liberties (name me one innocent person who was harmed by this), and we have, by NSA's assertion, stopped multiple attacks by mining this data, I really fail to see the harm. Just another excuse to blame Bush for doing his job.
Most of those complaining about it would complain that the government didn't do enough if we were attacked without doing this.
I've had to follow after some of these consultants, since I work in a related industry. I've seen companies so scared to do anything that they're in process paralysis, because some SOX consultant was paid $250/hr to tell them they were going to jail in a handbasket if they didn't lock down everything that moved.
Some listen when I tell them that all they have to have is good logging and a multiple-entity approval/decision tree, but some are just to shell-shocked.
Unchecked Corporate greed has always been around, and does need to be regulated, but SOX is just another another example of something that government made worse.
Boy, our tax dollars at work. Put a bunch of moms in a room and they could have told you what this guy did.
The funny thing is that it really makes no difference in forecasting how a child will turn out. My son was walking at 10 months, which I thought meant he had good physical ability. Nope - he hates sports. He just hated crawling at the time.
He didn't talk more than one word at a time until he was almost 2, at which time he started speaking complete sentences. He'll start college next fall at the age of 15.
Go figure...
How about proving, using statistical rules, that global warming is caused by man? A sample size of ONE and no control group would get you laughed out of any stats class.
Just how did all of the global warming events that occurred between all of the earth's ice ages happen, if man wasn't around to cause them?
You've been brainwashed, and you don't even realize it.
I have respect for science. It is that respect that forces me to look at the tiny sliver of time that we are measuring and wonder: What was it that caused all of those global warming events that must have occurred between all of those ice ages that happened BEFORE the industrialization, or even the presence, of man?
Having no answer, and being unwilling to compromise science by drawing a conclusion and setting policy from a sample size of ONE and no control group, I reject the "Man is causing global warning" argument when it is offerred (or, more often, jammed down my throat), as proof.
If you wish to suggest it as theory, I believe there is enough merit to investigate. Anything more at this stage is simply emotion (and/or political agenda) overriding science and logic.
...which supposes that the CFCs, etc. are the cause of global warming, which is the part that is, so far, anyway, more belief than fact.
Scientific debates can't include a cloud that contains some "then a miracle occurs" event, and still be credible science. I'm open to being proven wrong on this, it just hasn't happened yet.
This is a fundamental disconnect in the predominant global warming argument: That the presence of warming is proof that man is the cause.
Just because A precedes B, A did not necessarily cause B.
It would be interesting to actually read it, so we can determine whether the source data references a historically small slice of time or is able to be corroborated by looking back at past global warming events (like the ones between all of the ice ages we had before man). It would be too easy to make current data support a preconceived end point.
I'm one of maybe the few that is still willing to make a conclusion based on data. I just haven't seen good data supporting the "Humans cause global warming" theory yet.
Slashdot Mirror
I can think of a whole lot of places more scary to live. At least our enemies are being forced to engage us on somebody else's turf. When was the last time someone blew up something on U.S. soil?
More monitoring than the NSA does is done by many entities in our everyday lives, like your ISP, your bank, your cell phone provider, etc. You give more personal data than this to rent a video or save $0.45 at Albertsons. The NSA can't legally (and no one is seriously alleging they have) done any more than see what phone NUMBER is calling what other phone NUMBER. Anything more intrusive requires a court order and the FBI's involvement. Since this has been going on since 2001 without apparant cataclysmic consequences to civil liberties (name me one innocent person who was harmed by this), and we have, by NSA's assertion, stopped multiple attacks by mining this data, I really fail to see the harm. Just another excuse to blame Bush for doing his job. Most of those complaining about it would complain that the government didn't do enough if we were attacked without doing this.
I've had to follow after some of these consultants, since I work in a related industry. I've seen companies so scared to do anything that they're in process paralysis, because some SOX consultant was paid $250/hr to tell them they were going to jail in a handbasket if they didn't lock down everything that moved. Some listen when I tell them that all they have to have is good logging and a multiple-entity approval/decision tree, but some are just to shell-shocked. Unchecked Corporate greed has always been around, and does need to be regulated, but SOX is just another another example of something that government made worse.
Good. Fast. Cheap. Pick any two. You can define the scope, the deadline, or the budget. Pick one. Not two. Not three. One.
Boy, our tax dollars at work. Put a bunch of moms in a room and they could have told you what this guy did. The funny thing is that it really makes no difference in forecasting how a child will turn out. My son was walking at 10 months, which I thought meant he had good physical ability. Nope - he hates sports. He just hated crawling at the time. He didn't talk more than one word at a time until he was almost 2, at which time he started speaking complete sentences. He'll start college next fall at the age of 15. Go figure...
How about proving, using statistical rules, that global warming is caused by man? A sample size of ONE and no control group would get you laughed out of any stats class. Just how did all of the global warming events that occurred between all of the earth's ice ages happen, if man wasn't around to cause them? You've been brainwashed, and you don't even realize it.
I have respect for science. It is that respect that forces me to look at the tiny sliver of time that we are measuring and wonder: What was it that caused all of those global warming events that must have occurred between all of those ice ages that happened BEFORE the industrialization, or even the presence, of man? Having no answer, and being unwilling to compromise science by drawing a conclusion and setting policy from a sample size of ONE and no control group, I reject the "Man is causing global warning" argument when it is offerred (or, more often, jammed down my throat), as proof. If you wish to suggest it as theory, I believe there is enough merit to investigate. Anything more at this stage is simply emotion (and/or political agenda) overriding science and logic.
...which supposes that the CFCs, etc. are the cause of global warming, which is the part that is, so far, anyway, more belief than fact. Scientific debates can't include a cloud that contains some "then a miracle occurs" event, and still be credible science. I'm open to being proven wrong on this, it just hasn't happened yet.
This is a fundamental disconnect in the predominant global warming argument: That the presence of warming is proof that man is the cause. Just because A precedes B, A did not necessarily cause B.
It would be interesting to actually read it, so we can determine whether the source data references a historically small slice of time or is able to be corroborated by looking back at past global warming events (like the ones between all of the ice ages we had before man). It would be too easy to make current data support a preconceived end point. I'm one of maybe the few that is still willing to make a conclusion based on data. I just haven't seen good data supporting the "Humans cause global warming" theory yet.
And I'm sure that they'll be delivered in black helicopters, too. This doesn't even meet the standard of a decent conspiracy theory.