World peace is an unusually simple problem: it's entirely a marketing problem. We don't even have to get people to buy anything, all we have to do is get them to want it. The marketing is the whole problem. Once everyone wants it, then the problem is solved because no one will fight anymore. It really is that easy.

In talking to people, I have observed three broad 'market segments' that need to be addressed, three types of people. Maybe there are more, but this is what I have found so far:

1) Those who think that humans are violent by nature, and thus war is inevitable. These are believers in the 'killer ape' theory or perhaps they've just seen too much violence in their lives. Fortunately men are not violent by nature, the 'killer ape' theory is discredited, and in any case we are capable of choosing our destinies.

2) The second group are those who would stop fighting, but the 'other guys' won't stop. These are most Americans. They didn't want to attack Afghanistan originally, but the Afghanis struck first, so what choice was there? These people happily would support peace if they saw it as a viable possibility. Fortunately, peace is viable because it is the most profitable solution, we just need to help the world see that. The more people start supporting peace, the more this group will become convinced that peace is possible.

3) The third group is the most difficult group, because they actually have something to gain from war. In this category was Slobodan Milosevic, who wanted to consolidate power in his country, or warriors on the edge of the Sahara who want to take others' land for their own cattle. Some people fight because it is exciting, they like the thrill. These people need to see that there is a better way, and that their children will want to live in peace, and sometimes compromise is worth it. Anyone who has loved has learned the value of compromise. These people can too.

Try to talk to everyone you can about world peace, because word of mouth is the best type of marketing.

It happened once again. After this round of mass downmodding, I haven't been able to post from this account for about 2 weeks. The email complaint that the posting denial page gives is useless. Well, that is unless an editor is behind the mass down modding. That wouldn't surprise me because much seeing how the down mods are coming in at something like 10 and 15 at a time. I know some mod points are awarded at 10 instead of five and editors have unlimited points. I guess it's either a pissed off editor abusing their power because he or she cannot win an argument on the facts or a tightly knitted group of idiots who think quieting anything apposing their viewpoints is somehow winning an argument.

Oh well, it's ok, I can still post from my other accounts and have done so since the down modding. It's sort of interesting that almost identical posts under other accounts are either modded up or untouched by moderation. This and the fact that the downmods all come within a day or so each time locks the entire mass modding just to quiet an apposing viewpoint theory. I remember when slashdot was about conversations not who can yell the loudest or stop someone else from being heard. And my points weren't all that controversial either, things like there is no reason why someone cannot separate science from religion and practice both within their respective natures without being stupid or ignorant, that evolution as in speciation is still just a theory and not an observed fact even though the evidence points to it being likely, and the last one was that just because it's written in the bible doesn't mean it's mandated to certain religions to do. Oh, and I forgot about the conversation with the guy who wasn't aware that Microsoft was a separate incorporated company from Microsoft's licensing division which is incorporated and operated in an entirely different state altogether. Of course with that last one, once the guy discovered that they were two separate companies being run as separate companies, he agreed with my original assertions that it would be difficult if not impossible for Washington to apply a tax on the MS licensing operations.

I find it funny that I'm constantly being group modded by trolls who seem to think that ruining someone's karma is a legitimate way to counter an argument they do not agree with. This is probably the tenth time since late '09 that I have received an attack on messages I have posted. This time, in less then 24 hours, I went from having no comments moderated at all on my comment page to comments posted over a week ago with no mods at all and comments posted a few days ago being modded down for reasons obviously counter to the mod claim.

As for being obviously counter to the modded claim, Here is a post modded redundant when it is explicitly addressing the person I replied to about his misunderstanding of the post I mentioned. Could someone please explain how replying to someone about their inaccurate understanding of a post is redundant? And it isn't like I fifteen other people corrected him either, it was a dialog specifically between me and another person who admitted to mistaking my post for saying something else.

Anyways, this has typically happened only after I comment to someone who is commenting on some sort of religion or evolution post who has it wrong in some way. Is it really that important to people who do not like religion or people who have placed evolution as their religion the they need to take steps like this in order to suppress opposition to their wrongful opinions? I mean it's not like I'm saying Creation is correct or anything, I'm generally pointing out that they are doing the same things they blame the religions of doing when they make absolute statements about Evolution being an undisputed fact instead of composed scientific theory or when they have some sort of incorrect interpretation of the bible or whatever. I find it's typically easy to trip them up when I ask if anything could come along and make evolution different as in for our understanding of speciation or common descendant thoughts. When they say no, then it's obvious they are not following science because science allows for that regardless of how improbable it might be. For instance, the posts I believe that started this round of mass down-modding stems from some idiot who reposted a bunch of nonsense from a few websites about a few bibles verses they found and then took everything out of context in order to create some demonesque image of God. There are plenty of verses in the bible which one can legitimately question the compassion or loving nature of a god, but to take something completely out of context in order to make your point is a little intellectually lazy as well as dishonest.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised about the down-modding. When dealing with idiots who want to cite a few verses and ignore the context before and after it (whether they are for or against the bible) and draw completely one sided conclusions that do not remotely fit the story context, we aren't really dealing with articulate or intelligent people. It really does seem that the less intelligent the person is, the more dirty and underhanded shenanigans you should expect from them and like minded people. Maybe slashdot should have a system for their mods where someone could complain about the mass modding or a script that checks mods made to a single account within a certain time frame and then flag the comments for further review. It wouldn't need to be anyone special reviewing it either, just make sure they come up for metta moderation.

So, I added my ha'penny worth to the debate on AGW:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1559622&cid=31242422
Some guy says:

The head of the CRC (that group that fudged their data) has made a personal fortune from it

And I reply:

1. Perhaps you mean CRU (The University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit)?
2. Where do you find evidence that they "fudged their data"?
3. Where do you get the idea that Phil Jones (assuming that's who you're talking about) "has made a personal fortune" from being an "AGW proponent" (or anything else - hint: UK universities don't pay enough for people to make personal fortunes)

And it gets moderated:

A user has moderated your comment "Interesting" (+1).
A user has moderated your comment "Insightful" (+1).
A user has moderated your comment "Informative" (+1).
A user has moderated your comment "Informative" (+1).
A user has moderated your comment "Informative" (+1).
A user has moderated your comment "Troll" (-1).
A user has moderated your comment "Troll" (-1).
A user has moderated your comment "Troll" (-1).
A user has moderated your comment "Overrated" (-1).
A user has moderated your comment "Insightful" (+1).

Personally I think that comment was maybe a tiny bit insightful, the only information it contained was the correct name of the CRU, but what of the troll nature does it have? If people think I'm being sarky maybe they could mark it flamebait, but troll? Does anyone around here have a clue what "troll" means any more?

So, I see this: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1552564&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=nested&cid=31170808

I do not agree that the IPCC is 99.999% correct, I have very low confidence in the IPCC

Meteorologists' models make huge assumptions, they must. I won't believe a thing they've said until they clearly state their assumptions and make at least some attempt to find error bounds.

As an example, what do they use for the C02 absorptivity of sea water in their climate models? What temperature sea water? What salinity sea water? At what rate does the sea water mix? What percentage C02 in the water? What percentage in the Air? What temperature air? What wind velocity?

He's obviously read lot's of the literature, and seems to have some relevant questions, so I ask him what papers he's read that give him such a low opinion of climate scientists rigour:

That's the problem, I haven't even been able to find the papers to read. There are some whitepapers on the IPCC site, but I would like to find peer reviewed papers.

So, how, if he hasn't found any papers can he make such claims?

Anyway, let's leave that to one side for the moment. It's rather sad that it's so hard to find papers that answer his questions about the assumptions and error bars used by climate scientists. His main preoccupation seems to be modelling, so let's go check out what the IPCC said in Assement 4, WG1, Chapter 8 Climate Models and their Evaluation .

Why lookee there. There's a section of references. That's a surprise.

There are hundreds of papers referenced there. But "a skeptic" couldn't find one?

Because I have a blog at http://fyngyrz.com/.

It kind of makes the whole journal thing redundant. If you really want to see what I have to say about random things, by all means, you're invited to the blog. If not, well, it seems you're in substantial company, if nothing else. :)

From http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file46772.pdf pp76

There is evidence however that nuclear plant can be designed to vary its output if required. In the case of France there are currently 58 Pressurised Water Reactors (PWR) operating, representing about 70% of the installed generation capacity and such plant has to provide flexible output. In load following mode these reactors can vary its output between 25% and 100% of rated output[29]. Load following can be done twice a day acting directly on the nuclear reaction or/and the cooling system. In 2002, 48 PWRs in France operated in a load following mode[30].

The most recent nuclear plant in France (Flamanville 3, in Lower Normandy, EPR design currently under construction) will have considerable response capability[31] being able to maintain its output at 25% and then ramp up to full output at a rate of 2.5% of rated power per minute up to 60% output
and at 5% of rated output per minute up to rated power. This means that potentially the unit can change its output from 25% to 100% in less than 30 minutes.

[29]
      âoeProgrammation pluriannuelle des investissements de production électriqueâ, 29 Janvier 2002, MinistÃre de lâ(TM)économie, des finances et de lâ(TM)industrie
[30]
      âoeRapport sur la durée de vie des centrales nucléaires et les nouveaux types de réacteursâ, 13-14 mai 2003, Parlement franÃais)
[31]
      âoeRapport préléminaire de sÃreté de Flamanville 3, version publiqueâ , EDF, Pg 26 http://www.edf.fr/html/epr/rps/chap01/chap01.pdf

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1301347&cid=28687519

Religions are falsifiable (science is the un-falsifiable thing: it is a tool, not a proposition. How do you falsify a hammer? How do you falsify science?). Any decent religious system has ideas of the type, if you do X, then Y will happen. Let's investigate a bit, and see what some religions say:

Buddhism: if you follow the eight-fold path, your suffering will end. Extremely testable. If you follow the eight-fold path, and you are still suffering, then man, they led you astray.

Tantric yoga: do these exercises and meditations and eventually you will have a kundalini rising (enlightenment). So if you do them, and you don't have a kundalini rising, then you know tantra is worthless (either that or your teacher sucks).

The Bible: Those who believe shall be able to do miracles, such as drink poison and not get hurt, or heal the sick (Mark 16:17). So if you follow Christ and you can't do those things, then......yeah, you've just falsified it.

Daoism: 99% of the battle of daoism is figuring out what you are supposed to do. That is an ancient Chinese way of teaching.....but, if you ever do figure out what it is you're supposed to do, then you will be able to tap into the mysterious power of the Dao. If you figure out what you are supposed to do, and do it, and still can't tap into that power, then you've just falsified Daoism.

Mormonism: fast and pray oft, grow in humility, and you will be filled with joy and consolation. I really like Mormonism because it is even more scientific: it says all over the place things like, "if you have faith, God will give you anything that is good." It gives examples of people who became good enough that God gave them anything they asked for, and it says that you can do it too. It even directly gives an example of how to test these claims, and verify/falsify them. I like it because the more clear the promises, the more easily it is falsifiable.

See? If all you are saying is that some being out there exists who affects life on earth in some undetectable way, then yeah, it's pretty pointless. But any preacher who preaches that doesn't know his religion.

Also see:

http://interviews.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=39406&cid=4207448

http://interviews.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=39406&cid=4208176

I predict that within four years, the US federal government will make a serious attempt to nationalize and/or directly destroy/reorganize the Free Software Foundation and/or EFF.

So Obama is "Worse than Bush" with respect to Warrantless Wiretapping. Well, it's not like we didn't see this coming.

edit 9/24/09: It appears that the Senate Judiciary Committee will be looking again at telco immunity and executive wiretapping authority. The EFF hires lobbyists, too, and needs your support to take advantage of this opportunity.

If you're not yet a member, please go now to the EFF support page and make a contribution.

If there's one nonprofit you can trust to use your money in your interest, its EFF. If you have money to make only one donation this year, please make it the EFF. If you donated to the Obama for America campaign, and now object to what he's doing with respect to warrantless wiretapping, torture memos, or even Wall Street, donate to the EFF to restore your conscience, karmic balance or service to liberty (take your pick, choices are nonexclusive).

Addendum: I don't regret voting for him, but he hasn't received a dime from me since his July 2008 Senate vote, and he won't until he upholds the 4th Amendment.

There is a time when everything you prepare for comes true and you find it still lacking. Recently with the ice and Snow storms, A remote site I do IT work with suffered some power outages. The battery backups held, the Generator kicked over and the only problem was that we needed to change to hold time before the generator shuts off after power was restored to around 10 minutes instead of 5 because of failed attempts from the power company lasting only 6 or 7 minutes.

Anyways, things went down hill from there, the phones went out but we still had internet. A T1 line that somehow is routed from another direction then the regular phone lines. Verizon isn't able to set up VoIP or run the phones through the T1 in the area so the 6 lines were completely dead even though we still had the T1 working. I had a backup plan though, we have the 800 number forwarded to the home office of the owner and used VoIP that I connected with a Asterix to forward some calls and a VPN to run programs and all. This worked well the first two days but now the T1 is out and Verizon is telling me that it won't be until Monday (I talked to them last on friday morning) before they can do anything about it. We do have a business contract with them that states something about 24 hour turn around for techs but it appears the problem is something like a Tree fell through the CO and they have some major repairs they need to do before anything between me and them will make a difference.

So off to plan C, we hacked together a cell phone amplifier using a combination of a mobile amp I use in my truck and a internal building amplifier kit that was used at another site I administrate until they relocated and I scavenged the equipment and got cell phone service in pretty good shape at the facility. It normally has spotty reception but between the two kits, we got all the major services covered and started using employee phones as "extensions" by answering the 800 number being forwarded to the owners cell phone and then doing a call back from an employees phone at our expense. This went swimmingly for about 3 hours until the cell towers took a total dump in the area. Apparently, it has been going on and off and with our spotty reception, we didn't notice it.

For now, we have "voice mail" at Verizon's facility giving a message describing the problems and people two towns away checking the voice mail and doing call backs but they are severely limited because the computers and data can't be transferred without disrupting what little in house work that can be done and without internet access, we can't even sync the data. Last I heard, someone was going to run price sheets and availability requests ever couple of hours until something comes back on line.

I've done everything I can think of outside of using the CB radio which would limit what we could do anyways because I couldn't legally put enough power across them to connect the sites as well as transmitting personal information. I need to know, is there something like that in which I can use a radio or something for relatively cheap when all else fails like this? We can't even get emergency services in the area without driving 6-8 miles away on a still snow covered and icy road that twists and turns quite a bit so I hope no one has a heart attack and nothing catches on fire.

I'm thinking there has to be something that could be done using radios of some sort. Another Client uses parts of the 800mhz spectum for county services and they have the ability to send data as well as patch calls from the office to the radio in the vehicles. But, they are a government office and their equipment costs quite a bit. What I would need is something that I can either send data over in a protected way to give network access like a VPN or to carry "phone lines" from about 20 miles away where the phones actually work to the office. They will probably lose about 250-300 grand in sales if the phones or something close to it goes back up by Monday morning. Cost is an issue but there is no need not to expect to spend money- especially when public safety is involved. However, we can't be doing a million dollar investment or anything like that for a worsts case scenario situations. This is the first time I have had it get this bad. I have a truck that I can mount an antenna mast on for the remote location, fixing an antenna at the site won't be a problem, I can be hidden in the trees on the back side of a hill.

Any thoughts on what else could be done? It doesn't have to be something to cover this situation but I feel lost when I can't pull a rabbit out of my hat and make everyone smile. I'm not against looking into different radio tech myself but I think for what we need, I would have to get licensed at both places which makes a mobile state sort of hard to accomplish, I'm pretty sure I would have to purchase a channel or channels to operate on, and I'm not even close to knowing what would be needed as far as equipment goes or what the terminology to use when asking. I'm not even sure if I can get the speeds needed to accomplish what I want from radio either.

Another thought I had was using dry wire or the lines used to remote alarm system monitoring and patching voice over it with an Asterix box or something. It doesn't depend on power from the CO and is supplied by the customer much like an ISDN line. I think it can be connected point to point similarly to a T1 but without the need for the equiptment on the telco side of life. I'm still not positive on that though. However, I'm afraid it might have been effected by the same issues that the CO has with the tree and all knocking everything out. I'm not sure there is equipment was damages or if it was just power issues though.

This is the best summary of the great global warming fraud I've yet seen, and published in the most unlikely of places.

Although I feel Harold Ambler makes some good points, he misses what I've always felt was the most important. Given that the climate will change (as it always has), do we want it to be warmer, or colder? As glaciers covering Europe (the norm for the ice age we've been in for the past 100M years) seems to me far worse than rising sea levels, I've never understood why we'd want to fight warming in the first place.

I think the whole global warming fraud started by ignoring all of the available evidence and blindly asserting that the climate is naturally stable, so therefore if man did something to break that stability we'd be creating an otherwise-avoidable catastrophe. What BS. The only thing historically unprecedented is the inexplicable stability of the climate for the past 10K years. Change is unavoidable, with or without the actions of man.

"I'd crawl over an acre of 'Visual This++' and 'Integrated Development That' to get to gcc, Emacs, and gdb. Thank you." (By Vance Petree, Virginia Power)

Amen.

Re:God, please let this be true.

Last I checked, the score was a 5, and I don't even have the benefit of my +1 Karma modifier for this post.
It's been moderated as:

• Troll
• Overrated
• Underrated
• Insightful
• Interesting

Those are the ones that I know of. It definitely got more attention than I anticipated something on idle would achieve.

Was something else entirely when looking at the different replies, and noticing that with each new reply, the score had changed. Those anti-gun types are definitely more vocal than the pro-gun types. Or it could be that most of the US was asleep and the majority of the posts were coming from somewhere in Europe.

Yes, of course.
Who has time?
Who has time?
But then if we never *take* time, how can we have time?