It's just that if a huge major catastrophe is well short of extinction, then extinction is not the best word to use. Pointing out exaggerations does not mean that the deadly catastrophe is "OK".
"And considering how close most of the world's population lives to the ocean coasts, and how much we rely on a relatively small number of dwindling species for survival, can we really say that we're not going to be on the extinction list this time around?"
Considering all the people who already live inland (look at all the dense red inside Europe, India, and China on this map), and considering the slowness of the ocean rising (so those on the coast can move inland), we're not talking extinction. Unless maybe this triggers huge nuclear wars or something, but those could be triggered by factors other than global warming.
You seem to lack an understanding of free speech rights. In the United States Bill of Rights, and in later documents such as the UN Declaration of Human Rights, these rights are inherent to human beings. They were not put there in order to have the right influence to serve someone's idea of what government should be (of what a "democratic government" should be). They are just there. This is an important distinction, lest someone think the less of certain free speech because it does not serve the cause of a certain type of government.... which might lead to such speech being censored.
" It reminds me of the time when an apartment complex claimed that the city was forcing them to raise the rates of their lowest priced units, when the reality was that the city was allowing them to raise the rates."
I would not be surprised if that apartment complex owner was forced to pay excessive property taxes, which do have an effect of forcing the rates to go higher.
"Yes, because he has not been charged or convicted of any wrongdoing."
There's quite often a difference between whether or not someone did something and whether or not they have been charge or convicted.
"The first amendment does not grant anyone the right to state, as fact, that Mark Foley is a pedophile. Doing so would be libel/slander"
I checked the definition of "pedophile". It involved love for "children". In some definitions, but not most, high-school agers count into the group that is "children." Thus one appears to fall into "true", but not for the most common usage of the term.
"Encouraging such disregard for the rights of others through immunity to consequences would encourage vigilantism IMO"
I thought you said there was no connection between free speech and vigilantism (which there isn't). Now you assert one (and there still isn't).
"Your right to free speech ends when damage to another person begins"
I actually agree there. The civil system (lawsuits over defamation) should take care of this. However, this does not apply to some "journalist" publishing flying-saucer-nut stuff as "news". Someone else mentioned that as their "sky is falling!" scenario arising from this news item.
"implied that increasing greenhouse gases for China was somehow part of the plan of Kyoto"
It is.
"No one wants China to increase its greenhouse gases."
Except if they sign Kyoto.
"Kyoto acknowledges that it would be very difficult for them to acheive modernization without modest increases in greenhouse emissions"
That's hogwash. They just wanted to be let off easy, and got what they wanted.
"No one expects them to increase their per capita emissions beyond ours, however."
I have no doubt that they can happily meet Kyoto requirements and inrease their per capita emissions to something just short of ours.
"Having said that, the Kyoto Protocol IS flawed"
Yes. I'm in favor of the idea, but want something based on science instead of something that comes across as something designed to hamper some economies and boost others. Re-write it so it includes reductions for all. No increase. Reductions for all.
"The problems are just too numerous: lowering of research and writing standards, dealing with too much or just plain unbalanced information, corporate red-herrings, conflicts of interest, fanboyism, private agendas"
Yes, the news corporations have managed all of this with their wonderful writers, editors, and other staff. It will be a difficult job for the bloggers to stoop down to these standards, but I'm sure they'll strive for it. So one day blogging might become sobad that it can count as (old style) news.
"I beleive this is like the 3rd article on/. that covers the global warming problem, yet I don't remember reading a solution for the the problem yet. So what are the solutions?"
How about the Kyoto protocols?. A dandy solution. To stop global warming caused by greenhouse-gas emissions, the protocols have countries like India and China increase such emissions. That should solve the problem, right?
This details how China and India get to increase greenhouse gasses. In reality, the Kyoto Protocols are all about politics, and not about science. Why else would they be written so a CO2 molecule from the US is evil and one from China or India is good?
"Encyclopedias such as Wikipedia are tertiary sources, with policies that require articles to be verifiable through reliable sources."
No, it doesn't. This "requirement" is actually just a recommendation in practice. I don't know the percentage, but I see many articles that are not verified "through reliable sources."
Then it is time to sign the Kyoto accords, which actually have some major nations such as China increase greenhouse-gas emissions. Since Kyoto is all about the environment, I can only assume that requiring increased greenhouse-gas emissions is part of a strategy to stop global warming.
"The vast majority of them broke in so that/s a moot point right there concerning their law abiding status"
I mean breaking REAL laws. Not ones that amount to jaywalking in their harmlessness.
"Then many of them drive with NO license and NO insurance. They run businesses using their newly arrived relatives and pay NO Taxes and have NO health or disability insurance"
No duh. They'd get busted if they tried to enroll into such programs where they have to pay these fees. It should not be a crime to want to come here and do something productive, and it is insane that it is. OK, fine, let's deal with your first objection. Allow illegals to get drivers' licenses and insurance. Problem solved. Do you agree to that?
"This is why the local property taxes have gone sky high and still the teaching hospital is on the verge of bankruptcy"
Property taxes are sky high all over the country and hospitals go bankrupt as well: even in places with few "illegals" making it difficult to scapegoat those evil greasy brown-skinned bean-eating devils.
"Why don't they publish Windows and Linux viruses side by side, for an objective comparison?"
Did you know that there is an entire version of Wikipedia that contains an encyclopedia of Mac viruses? Unfortunately during a server move, someone downloaded it to a 2k memory segment on a flash drive. Someone sneezed and it got lost in the carpet and has not been recovered yet.
"It was no knee-jerk response. You put words in my mouth"
I went back up through the parent postings. I did not misquote you (no words in your mouth, keyboard, or whatever).
"No accountability" meaning people don't get penalized for knowingly making false or insufficiently researched statements"
Which means realization of freedom of the press because someone is not held "accountable" to the opinions of the censor for disagreeing with the censor.
"Vigilantism is the taking of law into one's own hands. It does not involve law enforcement"
Your second sentence contradicts the first. If someone takes the law into their own hands, they are doing their own "law enforcement." That is how vigilantism relates to the subject of law enforcement.
"and free speech is unrelated to vigilantism. It's clear you don't understand these concepts."
That is quite true: that free speech is unrelated to vigilantism. However, a parent posting way back by anagama said "The first thing that crossed my mind was that this is some kind of vigilantism.". That is where the dubious connection was made.
"I'm sorry you fail to understand the basic concept and I'm sure you'll make up some more false statements attributed to me "
I have yet to do even one. The only time I edit quotes, actually, is to either cut out an unrelated middle part (which I replace with dots) without intent to alter context or content. Sometimes I correct bad spellings (instead of doing a spelling flame).
"The pages who he's supposedly hit on where physically adults and were of the age of consent."
Supposedly....?
"The public, IMO, could not possibly be trusted in such a matter"
The public, in the humble opinion of a higher legal authority, already is trusted in such matters.
"Professionals are required to maintain objectivity; the public will not feel any such obligation."
There is always subjectivity. The problem with the "professionals" is that too often, they are very subjective. But they operate under a cloak of assumed subjectivity.
"Is there ANYBODY working in Lite-On's warranty department?"
You found me. I'm sorry, I've not been in the office. I went on lunch break at 11:30 on May 18th 2002 and have not returned yet. That explains while your phone call has not been answered.
I am quite happy to help you with your problem, however. Most problems with our DVD burners happen when you place DVDs inside them and/or connect them to an electrical source. In fact, both activites violate the warranty.
You did not know this? It was printed right there. In fact, it was etched on one of the white styrofoam packing inserts that your DVD burner came packed in....You actually THREW THESE OUT without reading the etching? We'll I'm sorry, but you are going to have to solve your own problem. Good day.
"And after we "crowdsource" journalism... I think we should move on to "crowdsourcing" NASA, the FAA, maybe even law enforcement! What about the FDA and CDC? "
The Bill of Rights actually contains "crowdsourcing" (freedom of the press and free speech for the people) already. That's not the case for the government agencies you name. You also seem to be confusing freedom to provide information with freedom to enforce the law. As such, there already are amateurs who have a say in "important food quality and disease information..." (a lot of private sector writers writing about both subjects).
"The biggest duopoly that I think Gannett has is the KUSA and KTVD, two competing television stations, both in Denver."
I counted the newspapers in Denver and stopped counting at 6. There's 6 or so stations, and unless Gannett owns all or most of them, how can there be anything "-opoly" in this less-than-majority media share they have?
I checked out Wisconsin. Picked at random Wisconsin Rapids as the first small market to check. Yes, they do have the only locally made paper there. However, I bet if you go there, you will likely find 5 or so daily newspapers routinely available, from places as close as Appleton (a guess) or Milwaukee and as far away as Chicago.
"at a concert. I lost my shoe and my wallet. Last time I did that again"
Oh. that was YOU??? I found the shoe and the wallet. I opened it and found your name and phone number alright, but I looked at the single shoe and considered that its likely came from a peg-legged man, like a pirate. And I was going to be damned if I was going to make the acquaintance of a pirate just to give the wallet back.
I quite enjoyed the remaining Seinfeld DVD boxed sets I bought with the cash.
" it seems the professors who conducted this "research" are both former members of a conservative think tank who set out to quantify how much of a liberal bias there was in the media."
Which puts them on a same par as those from FAIR who "document" conservative bias: they're all just guys who are angry that everyone else does not share their own opinions, let alone express them in the media.
"Where the hell do you get Salem witch trials out of asking the community to get involved"
This is in line with those who have commented in this item that having more people participate in "freedom of the press" is the same as having vigilantes going around enforcing the law. They feel that First Amendment free speech/free press rights should only belong to a special authorized few, and that letting the average person exercise these rights is just like having the average citizen enforce the law on their own (be they vigilante fake-cops or a witch-burning mob).
Seeing as how this idea is really angering those who think that freedom of the press should be for the authorized/approved few, I'm liking this idea more and more.
There's nothing "yuck" about libertarian. Unless you happen to be one of those who sees the phrase "We're from the government and we're here to help you" and gets a happy warm and fuzzy feeling inside. There's also just as much left-wing moderation inside the "same article" as there is right-wing moderation.
"Happily, I wasn't confusing Dan Rather and his producer with being in any way professional"
Dan Rather, however, is a major representative of the old-school journalism, with all of its rock-solid research, that is being defended here. You know what? I have a mini-DVD that someone taped live with a camcorder during some of Dan Rather's early studio appearances in the mid-1970s that will prove it.
Slashdot Mirror
"Que a female astronomer beginning to receive signals from Vega"
Female hearing noises from Vega. I think I heard that on "Car Talk" last Saturday.
"Eastasia^W Iraq"
Iraq is in western Asia.
It's just that if a huge major catastrophe is well short of extinction, then extinction is not the best word to use. Pointing out exaggerations does not mean that the deadly catastrophe is "OK".
"And considering how close most of the world's population lives to the ocean coasts, and how much we rely on a relatively small number of dwindling species for survival, can we really say that we're not going to be on the extinction list this time around?"
Considering all the people who already live inland (look at all the dense red inside Europe, India, and China on this map), and considering the slowness of the ocean rising (so those on the coast can move inland), we're not talking extinction. Unless maybe this triggers huge nuclear wars or something, but those could be triggered by factors other than global warming.
You seem to lack an understanding of free speech rights. In the United States Bill of Rights, and in later documents such as the UN Declaration of Human Rights, these rights are inherent to human beings. They were not put there in order to have the right influence to serve someone's idea of what government should be (of what a "democratic government" should be). They are just there. This is an important distinction, lest someone think the less of certain free speech because it does not serve the cause of a certain type of government.... which might lead to such speech being censored.
" It reminds me of the time when an apartment complex claimed that the city was forcing them to raise the rates of their lowest priced units, when the reality was that the city was allowing them to raise the rates."
I would not be surprised if that apartment complex owner was forced to pay excessive property taxes, which do have an effect of forcing the rates to go higher.
"Yes, because he has not been charged or convicted of any wrongdoing."
There's quite often a difference between whether or not someone did something and whether or not they have been charge or convicted.
"The first amendment does not grant anyone the right to state, as fact, that Mark Foley is a pedophile. Doing so would be libel/slander"
I checked the definition of "pedophile". It involved love for "children". In some definitions, but not most, high-school agers count into the group that is "children." Thus one appears to fall into "true", but not for the most common usage of the term.
"Encouraging such disregard for the rights of others through immunity to consequences would encourage vigilantism IMO"
I thought you said there was no connection between free speech and vigilantism (which there isn't). Now you assert one (and there still isn't).
"Your right to free speech ends when damage to another person begins"
I actually agree there. The civil system (lawsuits over defamation) should take care of this. However, this does not apply to some "journalist" publishing flying-saucer-nut stuff as "news". Someone else mentioned that as their "sky is falling!" scenario arising from this news item.
"implied that increasing greenhouse gases for China was somehow part of the plan of Kyoto"
It is.
"No one wants China to increase its greenhouse gases."
Except if they sign Kyoto.
"Kyoto acknowledges that it would be very difficult for them to acheive modernization without modest increases in greenhouse emissions"
That's hogwash. They just wanted to be let off easy, and got what they wanted.
"No one expects them to increase their per capita emissions beyond ours, however."
I have no doubt that they can happily meet Kyoto requirements and inrease their per capita emissions to something just short of ours.
"Having said that, the Kyoto Protocol IS flawed"
Yes. I'm in favor of the idea, but want something based on science instead of something that comes across as something designed to hamper some economies and boost others. Re-write it so it includes reductions for all. No increase. Reductions for all.
"The problems are just too numerous: lowering of research and writing standards, dealing with too much or just plain unbalanced information, corporate red-herrings, conflicts of interest, fanboyism, private agendas"
Yes, the news corporations have managed all of this with their wonderful writers, editors, and other staff. It will be a difficult job for the bloggers to stoop down to these standards, but I'm sure they'll strive for it. So one day blogging might become so bad that it can count as (old style) news.
"I beleive this is like the 3rd article on /. that covers the global warming problem, yet I don't remember reading a solution for the the problem yet. So what are the solutions?"
How about the Kyoto protocols?. A dandy solution. To stop global warming caused by greenhouse-gas emissions, the protocols have countries like India and China increase such emissions. That should solve the problem, right?
This details how China and India get to increase greenhouse gasses. In reality, the Kyoto Protocols are all about politics, and not about science. Why else would they be written so a CO2 molecule from the US is evil and one from China or India is good?
"Wal-Mart greeters are more dangerous than a hungry polar bear."
I know they are usually huge and white, but other than that....?
"Encyclopedias such as Wikipedia are tertiary sources, with policies that require articles to be verifiable through reliable sources."
No, it doesn't. This "requirement" is actually just a recommendation in practice. I don't know the percentage, but I see many articles that are not verified "through reliable sources."
Then it is time to sign the Kyoto accords, which actually have some major nations such as China increase greenhouse-gas emissions. Since Kyoto is all about the environment, I can only assume that requiring increased greenhouse-gas emissions is part of a strategy to stop global warming.
"The vast majority of them broke in so that/s a moot point right there concerning their law abiding status"
I mean breaking REAL laws. Not ones that amount to jaywalking in their harmlessness.
"Then many of them drive with NO license and NO insurance. They run businesses using their newly arrived relatives and pay NO Taxes and have NO health or disability insurance"
No duh. They'd get busted if they tried to enroll into such programs where they have to pay these fees. It should not be a crime to want to come here and do something productive, and it is insane that it is. OK, fine, let's deal with your first objection. Allow illegals to get drivers' licenses and insurance. Problem solved. Do you agree to that?
"This is why the local property taxes have gone sky high and still the teaching hospital is on the verge of bankruptcy"
Property taxes are sky high all over the country and hospitals go bankrupt as well: even in places with few "illegals" making it difficult to scapegoat those evil greasy brown-skinned bean-eating devils.
"Why don't they publish Windows and Linux viruses side by side, for an objective comparison?"
Did you know that there is an entire version of Wikipedia that contains an encyclopedia of Mac viruses? Unfortunately during a server move, someone downloaded it to a 2k memory segment on a flash drive. Someone sneezed and it got lost in the carpet and has not been recovered yet.
"It was no knee-jerk response. You put words in my mouth"
I went back up through the parent postings. I did not misquote you (no words in your mouth, keyboard, or whatever).
"No accountability" meaning people don't get penalized for knowingly making false or insufficiently researched statements"
Which means realization of freedom of the press because someone is not held "accountable" to the opinions of the censor for disagreeing with the censor.
"Vigilantism is the taking of law into one's own hands. It does not involve law enforcement"
Your second sentence contradicts the first. If someone takes the law into their own hands, they are doing their own "law enforcement." That is how vigilantism relates to the subject of law enforcement.
"and free speech is unrelated to vigilantism. It's clear you don't understand these concepts."
That is quite true: that free speech is unrelated to vigilantism. However, a parent posting way back by anagama said "The first thing that crossed my mind was that this is some kind of vigilantism.". That is where the dubious connection was made.
"I'm sorry you fail to understand the basic concept and I'm sure you'll make up some more false statements attributed to me "
I have yet to do even one. The only time I edit quotes, actually, is to either cut out an unrelated middle part (which I replace with dots) without intent to alter context or content. Sometimes I correct bad spellings (instead of doing a spelling flame).
"The pages who he's supposedly hit on where physically adults and were of the age of consent."
Supposedly....?
"The public, IMO, could not possibly be trusted in such a matter"
The public, in the humble opinion of a higher legal authority, already is trusted in such matters.
"Professionals are required to maintain objectivity; the public will not feel any such obligation."
There is always subjectivity. The problem with the "professionals" is that too often, they are very subjective. But they operate under a cloak of assumed subjectivity.
"Is there ANYBODY working in Lite-On's warranty department?"
You found me. I'm sorry, I've not been in the office. I went on lunch break at 11:30 on May 18th 2002 and have not returned yet. That explains while your phone call has not been answered.
I am quite happy to help you with your problem, however. Most problems with our DVD burners happen when you place DVDs inside them and/or connect them to an electrical source. In fact, both activites violate the warranty.
You did not know this? It was printed right there. In fact, it was etched on one of the white styrofoam packing inserts that your DVD burner came packed in....You actually THREW THESE OUT without reading the etching? We'll I'm sorry, but you are going to have to solve your own problem. Good day.
"And after we "crowdsource" journalism... I think we should move on to "crowdsourcing" NASA, the FAA, maybe even law enforcement! What about the FDA and CDC? "
The Bill of Rights actually contains "crowdsourcing" (freedom of the press and free speech for the people) already. That's not the case for the government agencies you name. You also seem to be confusing freedom to provide information with freedom to enforce the law. As such, there already are amateurs who have a say in "important food quality and disease information..." (a lot of private sector writers writing about both subjects).
"The biggest duopoly that I think Gannett has is the KUSA and KTVD, two competing television stations, both in Denver."
I counted the newspapers in Denver and stopped counting at 6. There's 6 or so stations, and unless Gannett owns all or most of them, how can there be anything "-opoly" in this less-than-majority media share they have?
I checked out Wisconsin. Picked at random Wisconsin Rapids as the first small market to check. Yes, they do have the only locally made paper there. However, I bet if you go there, you will likely find 5 or so daily newspapers routinely available, from places as close as Appleton (a guess) or Milwaukee and as far away as Chicago.
"at a concert. I lost my shoe and my wallet. Last time I did that again"
Oh. that was YOU??? I found the shoe and the wallet. I opened it and found your name and phone number alright, but I looked at the single shoe and considered that its likely came from a peg-legged man, like a pirate. And I was going to be damned if I was going to make the acquaintance of a pirate just to give the wallet back.
I quite enjoyed the remaining Seinfeld DVD boxed sets I bought with the cash.
" it seems the professors who conducted this "research" are both former members of a conservative think tank who set out to quantify how much of a liberal bias there was in the media."
Which puts them on a same par as those from FAIR who "document" conservative bias: they're all just guys who are angry that everyone else does not share their own opinions, let alone express them in the media.
"Where the hell do you get Salem witch trials out of asking the community to get involved"
This is in line with those who have commented in this item that having more people participate in "freedom of the press" is the same as having vigilantes going around enforcing the law. They feel that First Amendment free speech/free press rights should only belong to a special authorized few, and that letting the average person exercise these rights is just like having the average citizen enforce the law on their own (be they vigilante fake-cops or a witch-burning mob).
Seeing as how this idea is really angering those who think that freedom of the press should be for the authorized/approved few, I'm liking this idea more and more.
There's nothing "yuck" about libertarian. Unless you happen to be one of those who sees the phrase "We're from the government and we're here to help you" and gets a happy warm and fuzzy feeling inside. There's also just as much left-wing moderation inside the "same article" as there is right-wing moderation.
"Happily, I wasn't confusing Dan Rather and his producer with being in any way professional"
Dan Rather, however, is a major representative of the old-school journalism, with all of its rock-solid research, that is being defended here. You know what? I have a mini-DVD that someone taped live with a camcorder during some of Dan Rather's early studio appearances in the mid-1970s that will prove it.