And that's why I'm taking this story with a grain of salt. It's exceedingly difficult to prove this, and, as time goes by, it tends towards impossible.
Here's the deal: yes, the US Attorneys serve at the discretion of the president. Yes, they can be fired at will.
Here's the problem: firing US Attorneys because they don't toe the line of the party in power will damage the idea that the judiciary is independent of the executive and legislative branch.
Nobody had an issue with 8 US Attorneys being fired. The shit only hit the fan once it came to light that the firings might have been motivated by political considerations - what's worse, that they might have been motivated by the attorneys not breaking the law to help certain republicans.
One of the greatest strength of the US is the system of independent branches. This, and a host of other things, attempts to break the independence. It's my sincere opinion that any attack on the independence of the three branches is an attack worse than any bombings.
Thank you. The spread of information benefits society in general, while its restriction benefits the inviduals who hold the keys.
Communist countries may forget that society does not function without individuals, but America seems to have forgotten that individuals operating outside of society can bring it down.
BTW, congrats on your new career. I wouldn't call it a common path, but that's besides the point. Nothing like discovering what your true love is.
I actually read that CNW report, and it does sound fancy. However, I have one major quibble with it: nowhere do they state where they got their data from. If I can't trace the source of the data they used, I can't replicate their calculations. If I can't replicate their calculations, I can't verify their report. If I can't verify their report... it might as well not exist. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that they were as thorough as they said they were. Did they really calculate how much it costs to design, manufacture, maintain and recycle the robots it takes to manufacture the different vehicles? I think that even the robot manufacturers themselves don't know this.
Finally, one glaring mistake they made: they used extrapolated values for how long people would drive their cars, then used that to calculate the environmental impact of the car. That's not the environmental impact of the car, that's the environmental impact of the user.
I like what they tried to do, I just don't think they did what they said they did.
Since Toyota is beating GM worldwide, I think it's safe to say that there are some things that American car makers don't understand about making cars. Namely, that the current trend is away from huge street boats, quality matters, and you can't compete when you can barely make a profit on the product you sell.
... and I can vouch for this. Breaking into gaming via QA is not a good idea. Pay is below burger flipping with no health care. Unless you are very good at QA, expect to go through multiple layoff/rehire cycles. It's a mindnumbing job, with mindnumbing hours - especially during crunch time. You don't have to make enemies out of developers, but again, unless you are very good at QA, you probably will.
The end result is this: if you are good enough to break into gaming via QA, you are good enough to break into it via a better job. Someone compared this approach to swimming across a river instead of driving over a bridge, and I agree. It is the crappiest, worst-paid, longest and most draining way to get into a gaming company. That said, it is not impossible. And finally, if you do want to use QA to break into gaming, start at EA. Their testing department is the best I've seen, and you'll be able to leverage that experience into a much better position at another gaming company.
I'm impressed by three things in your voting record: that you owned up to voting for Bush, that you voted for Bush because of a plausible assumption that had nothing to do with his rethoric, and that you didn't vote for him again.
I also agree that while your vision of the future is a little extreme, it isn't because Congress and the IP industry isn't trying to achieve it. I'm guessing that the population will wake up before that and put a stop to this insanity. Primarily, I believe that the IP barons (a nice reference to the robber barons - I'll keep using that one) will price information so that most people can afford most of it. They do intend to maximize their revenue, and they can't price everyone out of it. But I do think that this IP gold rush will ultimately lead to exactly the situation that you describe: IP is owned by corporations instead of individuals, and individuals will be forced to buy back their culture and essential information from said corporations.
Absolutely. Which is whenever anyone tells me that they want to run for president or congress, I suggest they just get rich and buy themselves a Congress critters. It's like having your own Congressional seat, but without pesky things like term limits, conflict of interest investigations, elections or ethics commitees!
This is definitely the one thing that struck from the videos posted on Youtube. Tommy Davies was ice-cool under all situations. When he blew outside and he told Sweeney how mad he was, he was in total control. Every word he said, you could very clearly understand. There was no foaming at the mouth, no contortion of the face, nothing. There was no emotion in his face, even if the words coming out of his mouth were all about rage and justice and righteous indignation.
If there are only a few people more like him in the upper echelons of Scientology, they're gonna be around for a long time. There's a word for people like these, and it's sociopath. And judging from the success of another group of sociopaths (CEOs), I suspect we're gonna have to deal with Scientology for a long time. I wonder if it's gonna take something like what happened to the Knights Templar to deal with Scientology.
A quick look says that your post count in this topic is higher than mine. So either you can't add, subtract or compare, or you made shit up, or just flat out lied. Again.
I always find it amusing to read a reply that says "I stopped replying to you". I find it equally amusing that me replying to you somehow causes you to waste time. All in all, your insanity has been a nice source of entertainment.
"Personally, I believe there is much to be explored from the other side of the global warming debate."
Thank you for spelling that out. I believe it's something important to keep in mind any time someone manages to completely discredit an entire position.
I debated a bit whether I should reply to you. What the heck, what's one more reply. You claim eleven citations, yet in your post history that I have access to, there are 4 unique outside references, only two of which are relevant to the topic. A more complete check shows a total of 6 unique topical references. I'll be generous and keep the ones in there that flat out contradict you in the body of the text, and also leave the one in there that can be summarized by "climate was different 600 million years ago, models have uncertainties, news at 11". Eleven references, my ass.
There is no point in debating Global Climate Change with you if you can't even pretend to be semi-accurate in the stupid small stuff.
My beef with you is quite simple really: when I look at the very basic stuff, the stuff I can check in 2 minutes and which involves only basic addition (single digit, even), you consistently get it massively wrong in your favor. When called on it, you resort to hand waving and insults, and don't even do a little song and dance like "oh, I got you confused with someone else". Then, when I check the somewhat more complex stuff, I get the same mode of operation. You know you made shit up, and can't even come clean about it. From what I can tell, you have the intellectual honesty of a scheister, the debate technique of a grade school bully, and are enough in love with yourself that I suspect you'd propose to yourself if you could. In short, batshit fucking crazy.
I know you're too wrapped up in your own world to get out, but don't think that people don't understand what you're trying to pull. It only works on people who don't know what you're talking about, are confused by big words and intimidated by your attitude. Everyone else just wants you to stop taking up valuable space.
Since you've decided to reply after all... did I provide you with a link to Wikipedia? Oh, I'm sorry, I'm supposed to keep answering your changing assertions, incorrect citations and challenge data that you keep pulling out of your ass. Snicker. Nice try. It's amazing - I'm not even asking you to provide any serious research paper, just to back up one easily verified claim. And you can't even manage that.
I'm still laughing. I've also noticed you went to the trouble of adding me to your list of foes... Since that means you get a +1, I now get to be entertained by you anytime you post. Nice.
See here: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM13apr07.pdf. The beauty of science is that it allows us to not only make predictions about the future, but to also know how likely is that the predictions will come to pass. Current science is saying that the change will hurt a lot. I haven't found anything that causes me to disagree with the summary paper and a lot that makes it very plausible, therefore I am endorsing its conclusions.
Funny. I'll just pick the low-hanging fruit and ask you: where did I cite wikipedia? I'll be here laughing while you go and try to backup that claim. I'm not going to even try and put forth an honest debate anymore, since you're clearly off in your own fantasy land.
I just verified, and the link I provided does include submarine volcanoes. Here's your bad luck: I know more about physics and the climate than you, and my ego is as large as yours. I'm not intimidated by dicks, and I have no problem calling you on being one. It's ok if you simply ignore me - I've given up hope of getting some actual (and accurate) information from you. A shame, really.
True, I made a guess about people having already accounted for positive effects. That's simply because I haven't heard any howling that they haven't. With the attention that some people pay to these reports, I assume that people tried that approach already.
As for the spread of malaria, I was talking of the move of Malaria into Italy.
DDT is a solution to malaria, but not in the way that was advocated earlier (just spraying the swamps). It's far more effective to coat the bed-nettings with it.
"Or did you just miss the half dozen places where I said I was able to read the models, and was doing so at that time? Or the links, the references to work, et cetera?"
I've just managed to browse through the tedium of your entire body of posts in this thread, and I found only two relevant links: the documentary on google video, and the umich.edu page, which you summarily dismissed as supporting your points anyway.
I now officially think that you're batshit fucking crazy, and just forgot to take your meds. I've said it before, I'll say it again - it's nice to know that the opposition to global warming seems to to be comprised almost entirely of paid whores or nutbags off their meds.
The main point to remember is that while chaotic systems can be stable over one range of values, a very small change outside that range can result in dramatic changes in behavior. I'm not going to argue where that tipping point is, merely that the current indicators that we have seem to show that we are past the tipping point (glacier melts in Antarctica, slowing of gulf stream, etc).
Wow. Not a single reference. Not a single discussion about how CO2 absorption works or how it compares to the absorption of other gases. Not a single discussion of the physics of atmospheric warming, the statistics of ice cores and satellite measurements, or even of the carbon cycle. All I see is massive hand waving, lots of statements, lots of posturing. Apparently, it's ok for you to demand - in bold and italics and all caps, no less - data and support, but when it comes to providing it for your claims, it's ok for you to wave your hand and say "it's all here". All there is is vapid posturing.
None of the data is there. All I have is your word that what you say is accurate - and from the brief googling I've done on some of your claims (like the volcanoes - hah!) they're just patently wrong. You make pompous claims about your knowledge, about how science is supposed to work, about how everyone needs to support their claims with data, and then fail every last one of your own boastful demands and statements.
As for real scientists.... I sure hope you don't consider yourself one of them. I've worked with them, and you are so far out in crackpot land that you don't even qualify as an amateur scientist in the Scientic American sense, nor even as someone who has any idea how to interpret data. All you are is a complete waste of time whose only method of debate is intimidation. Shoo.
Personally, I expect reality to be just what it is - reality. Picking two opposite positions and claiming that reality is in the middle is mind-boggingly simple-minded, not to mention generally wrong.
I'll just point out that the problem at hand is not change, but man-made change that will hurt. A lot.
I'm still highly amused that you have not provided a single graph, analysis or paper that supports your position or your claims. This, in spite of a lengthy post that must have taken a good chunk of time to write up. BTW, here's a quick link for you to peruse about volcanic emissions versus human emissions: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volg as.html
Oh how wrong you are about volcanoes. Sucks when you have no data to back you up, doesn't it? For someone who harps on data and models, you are amazingly bad at picking your supporting graphs, your supporting models and your supporting papers.
Slashdot Mirror
And that's why I'm taking this story with a grain of salt. It's exceedingly difficult to prove this, and, as time goes by, it tends towards impossible.
Here's the deal: yes, the US Attorneys serve at the discretion of the president. Yes, they can be fired at will.
Here's the problem: firing US Attorneys because they don't toe the line of the party in power will damage the idea that the judiciary is independent of the executive and legislative branch.
Nobody had an issue with 8 US Attorneys being fired. The shit only hit the fan once it came to light that the firings might have been motivated by political considerations - what's worse, that they might have been motivated by the attorneys not breaking the law to help certain republicans.
One of the greatest strength of the US is the system of independent branches. This, and a host of other things, attempts to break the independence. It's my sincere opinion that any attack on the independence of the three branches is an attack worse than any bombings.
Thank you. The spread of information benefits society in general, while its restriction benefits the inviduals who hold the keys.
Communist countries may forget that society does not function without individuals, but America seems to have forgotten that individuals operating outside of society can bring it down.
BTW, congrats on your new career. I wouldn't call it a common path, but that's besides the point. Nothing like discovering what your true love is.
I actually read that CNW report, and it does sound fancy. However, I have one major quibble with it: nowhere do they state where they got their data from. If I can't trace the source of the data they used, I can't replicate their calculations. If I can't replicate their calculations, I can't verify their report. If I can't verify their report... it might as well not exist. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that they were as thorough as they said they were. Did they really calculate how much it costs to design, manufacture, maintain and recycle the robots it takes to manufacture the different vehicles? I think that even the robot manufacturers themselves don't know this.
Finally, one glaring mistake they made: they used extrapolated values for how long people would drive their cars, then used that to calculate the environmental impact of the car. That's not the environmental impact of the car, that's the environmental impact of the user.
I like what they tried to do, I just don't think they did what they said they did.
Since Toyota is beating GM worldwide, I think it's safe to say that there are some things that American car makers don't understand about making cars. Namely, that the current trend is away from huge street boats, quality matters, and you can't compete when you can barely make a profit on the product you sell.
... and I can vouch for this. Breaking into gaming via QA is not a good idea. Pay is below burger flipping with no health care. Unless you are very good at QA, expect to go through multiple layoff/rehire cycles. It's a mindnumbing job, with mindnumbing hours - especially during crunch time. You don't have to make enemies out of developers, but again, unless you are very good at QA, you probably will.
The end result is this: if you are good enough to break into gaming via QA, you are good enough to break into it via a better job. Someone compared this approach to swimming across a river instead of driving over a bridge, and I agree. It is the crappiest, worst-paid, longest and most draining way to get into a gaming company. That said, it is not impossible. And finally, if you do want to use QA to break into gaming, start at EA. Their testing department is the best I've seen, and you'll be able to leverage that experience into a much better position at another gaming company.
I'm impressed by three things in your voting record: that you owned up to voting for Bush, that you voted for Bush because of a plausible assumption that had nothing to do with his rethoric, and that you didn't vote for him again.
I also agree that while your vision of the future is a little extreme, it isn't because Congress and the IP industry isn't trying to achieve it. I'm guessing that the population will wake up before that and put a stop to this insanity. Primarily, I believe that the IP barons (a nice reference to the robber barons - I'll keep using that one) will price information so that most people can afford most of it. They do intend to maximize their revenue, and they can't price everyone out of it. But I do think that this IP gold rush will ultimately lead to exactly the situation that you describe: IP is owned by corporations instead of individuals, and individuals will be forced to buy back their culture and essential information from said corporations.
Now someone go and mod this guy up.
Absolutely. Which is whenever anyone tells me that they want to run for president or congress, I suggest they just get rich and buy themselves a Congress critters. It's like having your own Congressional seat, but without pesky things like term limits, conflict of interest investigations, elections or ethics commitees!
But should it be so expensive as to be beyond your reach?
This is definitely the one thing that struck from the videos posted on Youtube. Tommy Davies was ice-cool under all situations. When he blew outside and he told Sweeney how mad he was, he was in total control. Every word he said, you could very clearly understand. There was no foaming at the mouth, no contortion of the face, nothing. There was no emotion in his face, even if the words coming out of his mouth were all about rage and justice and righteous indignation.
If there are only a few people more like him in the upper echelons of Scientology, they're gonna be around for a long time. There's a word for people like these, and it's sociopath. And judging from the success of another group of sociopaths (CEOs), I suspect we're gonna have to deal with Scientology for a long time. I wonder if it's gonna take something like what happened to the Knights Templar to deal with Scientology.
A quick look says that your post count in this topic is higher than mine. So either you can't add, subtract or compare, or you made shit up, or just flat out lied. Again.
I always find it amusing to read a reply that says "I stopped replying to you". I find it equally amusing that me replying to you somehow causes you to waste time. All in all, your insanity has been a nice source of entertainment.
The "right" temperature is the one around which we've built about 200 years of rapid industrial expansion.
The problem is really not that the temperature changes, it's that it's changing more quickly than we can easily adapt to it.
The rest of your argument is addressed in the various reports at www.ipcc.ch.
"Personally, I believe there is much to be explored from the other side of the global warming debate."
Thank you for spelling that out. I believe it's something important to keep in mind any time someone manages to completely discredit an entire position.
I debated a bit whether I should reply to you. What the heck, what's one more reply. You claim eleven citations, yet in your post history that I have access to, there are 4 unique outside references, only two of which are relevant to the topic. A more complete check shows a total of 6 unique topical references. I'll be generous and keep the ones in there that flat out contradict you in the body of the text, and also leave the one in there that can be summarized by "climate was different 600 million years ago, models have uncertainties, news at 11". Eleven references, my ass.
There is no point in debating Global Climate Change with you if you can't even pretend to be semi-accurate in the stupid small stuff.
My beef with you is quite simple really: when I look at the very basic stuff, the stuff I can check in 2 minutes and which involves only basic addition (single digit, even), you consistently get it massively wrong in your favor. When called on it, you resort to hand waving and insults, and don't even do a little song and dance like "oh, I got you confused with someone else". Then, when I check the somewhat more complex stuff, I get the same mode of operation. You know you made shit up, and can't even come clean about it. From what I can tell, you have the intellectual honesty of a scheister, the debate technique of a grade school bully, and are enough in love with yourself that I suspect you'd propose to yourself if you could. In short, batshit fucking crazy.
I know you're too wrapped up in your own world to get out, but don't think that people don't understand what you're trying to pull. It only works on people who don't know what you're talking about, are confused by big words and intimidated by your attitude. Everyone else just wants you to stop taking up valuable space.
Since you've decided to reply after all... did I provide you with a link to Wikipedia? Oh, I'm sorry, I'm supposed to keep answering your changing assertions, incorrect citations and challenge data that you keep pulling out of your ass. Snicker. Nice try. It's amazing - I'm not even asking you to provide any serious research paper, just to back up one easily verified claim. And you can't even manage that.
I'm still laughing. I've also noticed you went to the trouble of adding me to your list of foes... Since that means you get a +1, I now get to be entertained by you anytime you post. Nice.
See here: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM13apr07.pdf. The beauty of science is that it allows us to not only make predictions about the future, but to also know how likely is that the predictions will come to pass. Current science is saying that the change will hurt a lot. I haven't found anything that causes me to disagree with the summary paper and a lot that makes it very plausible, therefore I am endorsing its conclusions.
Simple stuff, really.
Funny. I'll just pick the low-hanging fruit and ask you: where did I cite wikipedia? I'll be here laughing while you go and try to backup that claim. I'm not going to even try and put forth an honest debate anymore, since you're clearly off in your own fantasy land.
I just verified, and the link I provided does include submarine volcanoes. Here's your bad luck: I know more about physics and the climate than you, and my ego is as large as yours. I'm not intimidated by dicks, and I have no problem calling you on being one. It's ok if you simply ignore me - I've given up hope of getting some actual (and accurate) information from you. A shame, really.
"Yes, I know I'm aggressive too. " The first arguably true and self-aware statement from you all day. Shame that that approach doesn't stick.
True, I made a guess about people having already accounted for positive effects. That's simply because I haven't heard any howling that they haven't. With the attention that some people pay to these reports, I assume that people tried that approach already.
As for the spread of malaria, I was talking of the move of Malaria into Italy.
DDT is a solution to malaria, but not in the way that was advocated earlier (just spraying the swamps). It's far more effective to coat the bed-nettings with it.
"Or did you just miss the half dozen places where I said I was able to read the models, and was doing so at that time? Or the links, the references to work, et cetera?"
I've just managed to browse through the tedium of your entire body of posts in this thread, and I found only two relevant links: the documentary on google video, and the umich.edu page, which you summarily dismissed as supporting your points anyway.
I now officially think that you're batshit fucking crazy, and just forgot to take your meds. I've said it before, I'll say it again - it's nice to know that the opposition to global warming seems to to be comprised almost entirely of paid whores or nutbags off their meds.
Well, I'll point you to a quick intro on chaotic systems: http://www.physics.upenn.edu/courses/gladney/mathp hys/subsection3_2_5.html
The main point to remember is that while chaotic systems can be stable over one range of values, a very small change outside that range can result in dramatic changes in behavior. I'm not going to argue where that tipping point is, merely that the current indicators that we have seem to show that we are past the tipping point (glacier melts in Antarctica, slowing of gulf stream, etc).
Wow. Not a single reference. Not a single discussion about how CO2 absorption works or how it compares to the absorption of other gases. Not a single discussion of the physics of atmospheric warming, the statistics of ice cores and satellite measurements, or even of the carbon cycle. All I see is massive hand waving, lots of statements, lots of posturing. Apparently, it's ok for you to demand - in bold and italics and all caps, no less - data and support, but when it comes to providing it for your claims, it's ok for you to wave your hand and say "it's all here". All there is is vapid posturing.
None of the data is there. All I have is your word that what you say is accurate - and from the brief googling I've done on some of your claims (like the volcanoes - hah!) they're just patently wrong. You make pompous claims about your knowledge, about how science is supposed to work, about how everyone needs to support their claims with data, and then fail every last one of your own boastful demands and statements.
As for real scientists.... I sure hope you don't consider yourself one of them. I've worked with them, and you are so far out in crackpot land that you don't even qualify as an amateur scientist in the Scientic American sense, nor even as someone who has any idea how to interpret data. All you are is a complete waste of time whose only method of debate is intimidation. Shoo.
Personally, I expect reality to be just what it is - reality. Picking two opposite positions and claiming that reality is in the middle is mind-boggingly simple-minded, not to mention generally wrong.
I'll just point out that the problem at hand is not change, but man-made change that will hurt. A lot.
I'm still highly amused that you have not provided a single graph, analysis or paper that supports your position or your claims. This, in spite of a lengthy post that must have taken a good chunk of time to write up. BTW, here's a quick link for you to peruse about volcanic emissions versus human emissions: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volg as.html
Oh how wrong you are about volcanoes. Sucks when you have no data to back you up, doesn't it? For someone who harps on data and models, you are amazingly bad at picking your supporting graphs, your supporting models and your supporting papers.