Comment Re:How do you know? (Score 5, Insightful) 546
Anything anyone related to a spy agency says should be considered a lie until proven true. It's in their job description.
Not only that but there are actually a lot of people who are very perceptive of long term threats.
Yes there are, generally many of them are research scientists and other highly educated people. You can't picture long term threats if you cannot conceive of the concepts.
These people typically suffer from various forms of anxiety disorders and/or various chondrias. The worst ones typically hang out at 911truth.org, infowars.com, or prisonplanet.com, constantly pester the bilderberg group, and believe that there's an active global conspiracy by completely imagined groups like NWO or Illuminati.
I'd say an equal number or more hang out watching fox news etc. Neither are related to the first group.
What if you create a backdoor by creating an encryption method that accepts 2 decoding keys instead of one? Obviously the encryption is now twice as easy to bruteforce, but this doesn't seem to be a big deal. Are you worried about this factor of two, or is the theoretical weakening more severe?
There is now a key that is under the door mat, so to speak. Do you feel safe enough to leave your house key under the door mat, with an arrow pointing to it?
I look at the author of the article, Lee Siegel, that Wikipedia says attended Columbia University. That school is a private ivy-league school currently and charges $51,008 per year.
No more needs be said, really. Lee needs to pay up.
I too would have loved a pricey private school's name printed on my degree. My wallet said "no".
I'd say losing 10-20 feet (in depth) of land is a significant cost.
Keep in mind that the current rate of loss is less than a foot a century! Where's the evidence that this will change?
Some Evidence:
You don't have to look to far for other evidence either. Yes, I know the timeline there - 100 years minimum, there was another article that predicts a 5 year timeframe for the collapse of a different shelf, which was not predicted to melt for many decades. Basically they're all guessing at the rate, and sometimes apparently even the most pessimistic are far too optimistic.
There's a lot more oil in there than you think, and OPEC will also run out of oil eventually, maybe even around the same time
I agree that getting off of fossil fuels is the better option all around, for pollution, global warming, and international relations sakes.
Yep, skype is perfectly good at:
What the gods would destroy they first submit to an IEEE standards committee.
