You forgot one, from OP:

I think OP should have ended with the word "DUH."

Pardon me? I don't dispute the moon landing bit of course, but who showed Obama's birth certificate to be real? I do recall claims that artifacts were due to scanning, but that in fact has been proven false.

Now, don't get the idea that I am a "birther", as a certain other person has tried to claim here on Slashdot. I have stated before here at least several times that I do not pretend to know where Obama was or was not born. And Hawaiian authorities have claimed that the information on the certificate copy presented by the White House is accurate. (You will note, however, that none of those statements actually states that the White House document is a genuine copy of it.)

But none of that has any bearing on the fact that the document presented by the White House (and still available online) as his "birth certificate" is indeed fake. That is all I am saying here... I don't claim Obama is not an American. I'm just saying that the White House, for reasons of its own, has put up a faked document.

Numerous attempts to "debunk" the accusations of a faked document have failed to address some of the key evidence of forgery (which is very strong indeed). Nor does it explain the problems with numerous other identification documents that have come to light.

BUT, this is the key thing: even if the presences of a faked document or documents was proven beyond doubt, that does not in itself prove he's not an American citizen. There could be a number of explanations.

It does prove once again, though, that he IS a manipulative liar.

that nothing can be kept secret anymore?

It's hard to say, because in general we don't know about the things that have remained secret. We know the numerator, but not the denominator.

I don't think that's a distinction worth making in most circles. It's only after a few years of study that one starts to see the distinction between the knowledge needed for software development vs. the mathematical aspects of computing theory. And then they keep on re-intersecting anyway, with things like programming language type systems, concurrency, and proving certain qualities of a piece of software. Good software developers need some theory, and most good theoreticians end up programming sometimes.

I stand corrected then. I was under the impression that they moved the fuselage assembly away when they moved headquarters.

You are refusing to acknowledge the whole issue that I originally raised: while it may be "easier than", the fact is that you still have to demonstrate, prior to any judicial proceedings, evidence that you are "innocent" before your SPEECH can be restored. This is not a theoretical argument; we know by now of a vast many people who have had their websites taken down unjustly and with no real evidence, and have had trouble getting them restored.

We also know that the "actual damages" you refer to are more theoretical than real, and require yet another judicial action to initiate.

The fact remains that the DMCA has shifted the burden not just a little, but hugely, onto the defending party. And I repeat: that's not what America is about. We know, from hundreds of years of experience, that is a bad approach to law and justice.

First, as I mentioned to you before elsewhere, it isn't an "article". It doesn't meet any standard definition of "article". It's a rambling, ongoing diatribe that reads like little more than a monument to your ego.

Second, as I have clearly explained to you several times, when I discussed this with you after that time I was also referring to LATER posts of yours, not the first one. Not that it really matters, because afterward is still afterward. You might disagree with my interpretation of "much later" in regard to the original post, but that's your opinion.

After that you gave me no notice at all of most of your distortions, in which you took even more comments of mine out of context, assigned wholly imagined meanings and motivations to them, and "argued" with them all by yourself, where you didn't have any fear of being contradicted. (Why? Because I don't care about you and don't visit your website every day... nor should I be forced to do so in order to incessantly correct your mis-characterizations of my words.)

The rest of your rant is loaded with similar bullshit. Yet again you are trying to mislead people for personal, and apparently rather strange, reasons of your own.

I will repeat what I wrote in another thread: all you are doing by indulging in this obsession is making yourself look foolish. I understand that you don't seem to think so, but that causes me some concern. Others have written about it before here, too.

This is a classic example of your attempts to distort my comments. First, I might have ignorantly denied that C02 increases were due to human activity, years ago. I have not intentionally made any such statement in recent years, since I do not believe any such thing. But more to the point is this:

The "small percentage" I mentioned was in reference to this. You can argue if you like that a ~ 27.3% increase is large but I disagree, since climate sensitivity to CO2 is widely acknowledged to be based on a geometric progression.

We also need to keep in mind, though, what percentage that is of the overall atmosphere: (CO2 % of all atmosphere. Which is a very small percentage indeed, even though Wikipedia puts it higher than NCDC does in the above page.

Further, you appear to be claiming that we have contributed about "200% of the CO2 increase" ourselves, when that is simply not logically possible. While we might have produced 200% as much CO2, if so obviously much of it has been absorbed in one way or another by the environment. While you might have a problem with that, it is a completely separate argument. It is not possible for us to have contributed "200% of the increase", because only 100% of the increase actually exists. Once again you demonstrate a bizarrely weak grasp of logic for someone who presents himself as a scientist.

If my memory serves (and it may not), I linked to that page once in the past. As for accusations of fraud, those are the words of others, not my own. It is possible that Dr. Salby was mistaken in his analysis (I have seen the criticisms of his claims.) On the other hand, I find it highly interesting that Salby's analysis constitutes basically the same criticism that Anthony Watts made of "Steve Goddard's" work. I think it is likely that one is correct, or the other, but not both. I wonder which? I'll take a "wait and see" approach to that one.

You have mentioned this to me. I don't "know" it because I haven't seen any evidence. But it could be true. I'd have to see the evidence before I made up my mind. There is still the fact, however, that nobody has so far effectively refuted the thermodynamic argument presented by Latour at PSI. When Watts tried he bungled it badly.

So while PSI may make mistakes, and even if O'Sullivan is guilty of SkepticalScience-style deliberate distortion of facts (see the "97%" debacle), they still have some strong unrefuted science on their side of the debate.

This is yet another example of the implied distortions you make, when you're not making them explicitly. This question is at the very least grossly misleading. As you admit yourself above, I discussed the Humlum situation with you on your website, and made it very clear that I have no reason to believe either Humlum OR his critics, since all reliable information I have found is behind science-journal paywalls. So since I DID mention this to you, implying that I might repeat his claims is a rather subtle but real and public insult, which I am not inclined to take lightly. THAT is NOT admirable.

Unless you want to pay for copies of those papers and send them to me so I can evaluate them you have no argument with me over this and vice versa. But based on your past behavior I am sure as hell not going to just take your word for it.

Well then we will never agree, because again, logically, we can only discuss 100% of the rise, since 100% is by definition the only rise that exists. In all honestly I don't even know what you're trying to say here. It doesn't make any sense.

But I am going to say this again, and keep repeating it until you get the point: publicly distorting my words and their clear intended meaning is WRONG. It is unethical, and socially unacceptable. You have tried to continue to argue here and on your sebsite with things I wrote 5 years ago. What do you think that accomplishes?

And yet in all this, you did not address even one thing I wrote in my actual Slashdot comment. So despite your pretense at civility and objectivity, you make it crystal clear yet again that your problem with me is personal, not scientific. If you want to have a scientific argument, then address the comments I actually make. Instead, you argue with other things that have taken place elsewhere, and at other times, in many cases years ago. For what appears to be no other reason than to try to make me look bad. But I repeat again that all you are accomplishing is to make yourself look bad.

No, it's not wrong. Although I do admit that I accidentally left out the "low altitude" part. Mea culpa.

But as the judge correctly pointed out, the law clearly states that the FAA has authority over "navigable" airspace, which means roughly airspace that is used for continuous travel by person-carrying vehicles. (This same rough definition is also used for "navigable" waters.)

So it's not even "everything" above a certain altitude. It is the travelable and traveled airways. Which are pretty clearly defined on airplane navigation charts.

Anything lower than that, or away from traveled airways (like airports, where low-altitude flight is common) is fair game. And it doesn't matter in the least whether the drone is being used for commercial purposes.

Even then, the actual legal exceptions for police are fewer and thinner than most people think.

A few years ago, in one state nearby, the legislature clarified that when police are off-duty (off the clock), they have to obey the same laws, and particularly the same firearms laws, as everybody else. There was a huge howl of protest from law enforcement but they failed to make any legitimate case that it was somehow dangerous or unfair.

The reality was, they wanted to have it both ways. They wanted to be able to "be a cop" whenever they damned well felt like acting like one, but not at other times. Now it's clear that under the law (at least in that state), they're cops when they're on the clock and being paid to be cops. ONLY then. When they're off-duty they can carry guns or not just like other citizens, in the same places and under the same circumstances as other citizens, and they can make citizens' arrests, just like other citizens.

This is a fine argument for universal use of full-disk encryption.

And I sincerely hope that real child pornographers get it wrong.

Even so, let's drop political correctness and tell it like it is: our culture embraced "innocent until proven guilty" and "freedom from unreasonable search and seizure" for very good reasons. While we can all agree that harming children is abhorrent, removing those rights and freedoms from society at large does far more harm, to more people, and is the greater evil.

Experiencing a bit of claustrum phobium, perhaps?

Agitation?

In any case, I have. It's available right here.

Do you deny that is says the climate sensitivity for CO2 is lower than they reported before? Do you deny that the projections for increased severe weather events is low labeled "low confidence"? Etc.

Read the damned thing yourself.

Funny. I've had the opposite experience.

I was first introduced to the issue by Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth", and pretty much accepted what he was saying... except that there was some nagging doubt due to things like unlabeled graphs and the like in his presentation.

It was when I started digging into the science that I started changing my mind. I found irresponsible handling of data, bizarre secrecy where there shouldn't be any, and so on. And all this has mushroomed in recent years.

Case in point: the recent admission by NCDC that certain USHCN data had been derived and used improperly, and they had known it for a long time. They said they had "intended to fix it" at some undefined point in the future, but the question is: why was it not fixed already, and why had they not told anyone (including scientists) about it, even though they knew about it?

And how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people?

The IPCC's latest report states clearly that the science supporting their position is weaker than ever... yet they're even more certain that it's true. WTF?

It is shenanigans like these that have fueled my skepticism. Those aren't the actions of responsible scientists.

BUT... and this is about the 4th time I have pointed this out on Slashdot:

A Federal administrative judge has ruled that the FAA has no authority to regulate small drones. Although the FAA has appealed this ruling, I very highly doubt it will be overturned, because the judge made his ruling on the basis that Congress simply hasn't given them any authority to do so.

It the meantime, of course, the FAA is still trying to regulate everything in sight. But it won't last.