considering what it would do to the existing waste reprocessing industry, yup definitely.

because the NRC has shown themselves to be completely unbiased in the past...

I hadn't noticed that [that climate scientists work for governments -mi]. Do you have a source on these two facts?

Dear, I don't have a source, that the sky is blue. Are you going to deny it until I find one? There are no privately-owned employers for "climate scientists" studying "global warming" — they employed by governments, or government-funded universities.

Florida's not a very large sample space.

Florida is a very large portion of the Atlantic coast, that gets hurricanes at all.

The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes ... globalchange.gov

That link of yours is remarkably lacking in actual data (as in numbers, rather than words). If that's the best you could find, you should start asking yourself some questions...

What do you think needs to be discarded.

The people, who — 10 years ago — predicted the rise of hurricane activity need to be fired from their tax-funded jobs. They failed us and we don't want to keep paying them.

The fact that burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric CO2 concentration?

Plants love CO2. Maybe, the problem — if it is a problem — is not in burning too much fuel, but in not having enough forests to process it?

The fact that increasing the atmospheric concentration of a greenhouse gas will increase the greenhouse effect? You're talking like these aren't well proven points with a century of optics and thermodynamics behind them.

It is even better "proven", that by jumping, I push the rest of Earth in the opposite direction. Is there any danger in our planet changing its orbit from humanity's jumping up and down? Should we be working on reducing such jumping world-wide?

The CO2 did keep increasing for the last 10 years. Yet, no growth in hurricanes materialized and the entire "global warming" is now considered "on hold". Probably, because other — much greater — factors affect climate...

But I intend to stick around for another 10 years. We can continue this discussion then...

It's is a scientific paper about a change to ocean circulation 2.7 million years ago. It doesn't affect your tax dollars.

I was going to say, scientific papers are a dime a dozen, but, unfortunately, they are a lot more expensive.

Since "climate scientists" produce nothing tangibly useful, no private interest would hire them — they are all in government's employ. We, the taxpayers, fund it, but we don't get to decide, whether we want the practice to continue.

And these folk realize — even if just instinctively — that for them to remain employed, they need bigger government. Consequently, any and all measures proposed to fight the climate will lead to the further expansion of government.

As for how these "scientists" actually help, here is one funny tidbit for you... Ten years ago it was in-vogue to predict nor just the sea-water rising by an inch, but also increased hurricane activity. Why, this very site featured a "scientific article" about the matter with "insightful" posts like yours under it. It was all very scientific and convincing — but real life demonstrated the exact opposite to the prediction.

In real science, a theory gets discarded, when its predictions fail to materialize. If only "climate science" were real...

I believe there is a right to anonymous speech, but when you're paying someone else to speak for you, and you're trying to influence the political process, that may be different.

As declared by the Supreme Court several times, money — spent on politics — is speech. "It may be different" as you say — as much as one person's speech may differ from that of another.

Anonymous speech online (or elsewhere) generally doesn't carry with it an air of credibility that advocacy groups and think tanks try to project.

I don't accept, that concerns such as "air of credibility" are valid arguments against anonymity, Grant.

You are making a common mistake in violating (or calling for a violation of) a sound principle, while it serves your cause — not realizing, the violation, once deemed legitimate, will soon be used by your opponents (and enemies) against you too. This is how the worst things come into and stay in existence...

WTF happened to you, libertines? Where is the spirit of "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."? Unlike Voltaire (or his biographer), you are ready — indeed, anxious — to suppress the opponent's speech (or, at least, his anonymity)... ACLU was not like that even a short time ago — what happened to the new generation?

Generally, groups in favor of net neutrality got better transparency grades, but we looked at both. We weren't targeting one side, and a handful of pro-net neutrality groups received mid-level or lower grades.

Considering the obvious sympathies of both you and the rest of this forum, I'll take your "grades" with a dollop of salt, thank you very much. Not that it matters — if anonymity is a right for "poor" Anonymous Cowards, it is also a right for the "rich" astroturfers.

Finally, our reporting, while taking a lot of work, didn't really unmask or shame anyone.

That's good to hear. It may even be true in letter. But reading the write-up or TFA — it does not seem to be true in spirit. You do deem the actions shameful and you are mere half a step away from suggesting a law to make them illegal too.

lack of funding transparency for advocacy groups and think tanks, which critics say subverts the political process.

Wouldn't "critics say" that about a discussion of any other idea as well?

I also seem to recall, that the Slashdot crowd generally supports anonymous speech — indeed, the consensus is, we have a right to remain anonymous, while speaking...

Why wouldn't that same right extend to people talking (and spending money, which is the same thing) in opposition to "net neutrality"? Why must they be unmasked (and shamed) with prejudice, while those talking on other matters enjoy all the anonymity they care to maintain?

what financial interests does the IAEA have that might color their analysis?

Don't get the server confused with the client. Telnet servers should have been put out to pasture years ago except perhaps on small isolated networks. The telnet CLIENT however is an extremely useful debugging tool for connecting to all sorts of text based servers (FTP, usenet, HTTP etc) and I get really pissed off with some distributions that assume because the server is no longer used neither is the client and so remove it.

Also FWIW , telnet is still the default way to access MUDs and some BBSs.

I've been waiting for this fix so I can finally drop SSH

Maybe. Would cities start? Sure. But how long would it take and at what cost? We've had electric cars for a long time now, but no charging stations. The cost is too great to do it for the small few. So fuck them. Basically that's what it amounts too. And rightfully so.

Same with cities and streetlights. It's easy to say they'll change them. They may... over time. But those first self-driving cars will find themselves in horrible fucked up situations. Then what? And of course those bad situations will make it harder to sell the car. Less cars, less incentive to change things over.

And even if the city does change, the rural world won't. Rural towns don't have the money to paint some of the roads. (My town doesn't even have a single stop light actually). Our roads aren't really wide enough for two cars in some places so it takes smart driving skills to know when to move over and off the road, the roads are not painted (no yellow line, never mind a white one) dirt roads, pot holes, snow cover where you can't see the road, and mountain ranges that will even stop a satellite signal.

The point is, there are a lot of situations a self-driving car just won't work so not everyone is going to get one, which decreases the incentive to change things over and incur a large cost for the benefit of a few.

Between road detours, new red lights, which red light is mine in some cities... but the biggest issues are for those of us who live off in the north.

We have add things to avoid. Deer, turkeys, and lots of pot holes. I will swerve to miss a critter, but not at the cost of my life.

As a driver I'm smart enough to avoid the slippery leaves that land on the ground in the fall. There are bridges I can't cross because my truck is too wide to do it at the same time as another oncoming car. I can glimpse the car coming through the trees so I just stop and wait.

Half our roads don't even have a double yellow line, never mind the white line. Hell, we have dirt roads. What is a car going to see then? I have areas (mountains) where even my satellite radio will go out.

Lastly winter. There are times with the new snow fall that I have no idea where the road is and have to drive in the middle of the road. Not because that's where the lines might be but staying away from the edge is safer, driving in the lane where someone else has driven is safer, etc.

Lastly, for Google to originally think they weren't going to put a steering wheel in the car just shows their stupidity. After kids put cones in the road, and paint some lines via detour and watch the cars line up down a dead end street or something like that. It won't end well.

meh, they have pretty solid reporting

I swear, most of the funniest laughs I've had on /. came from those with 6 digit UIDs and lower, particularly under 500k. It's like your generation was simply more well rounded and clever.

Its only major fault was that it was one-process-at-a-time but that would have - IMO - been pretty easy to fix. But instead they came up with the non portable (to other versions of unix) dogs dinner called ALSA. Christ, trying to program with that API is like trying to cycle with your legs tied around your head. It works - just - but it could have been made a LOT simpler.

Personally I think X windows should manage sounds as well as video allowing networked sound apps and there should be just a single sound API across all versions of unix.