Given the history of terrorism in spain and the nature of the conference (free speech related) and the france issues, they probably used mirrors at an entry point of the conference and did a once over in all cars parking in the event lot on entry. They likely did this looking for cars rigged to explode and found this tracking device and investigated it.
Its a quick and easy way to show a security theatr is present.
Idealy they will use a tonsilometer but baring that, the oldschool five knuckle multiplyer will work.
Or purchase a burner phone, call it from the devicevwith the sim and record the number on the caller ID. From there you can track down who owns the number.
Of course it probably sends GPS coordinates via sms. You could attempt to study the format and send bogus location reports like saying it is at the center of the fukishima reactor, the rim of some volcano, or in the middle of the ocean.
Just hope it is not a rental car and the car company starts charging you credit card for excess mileage or out of boundry insurance coverages.
Or someone crying in a corner telling her friend that he said he loved her but she couldn't be with him on the secretive trip out of town and not to call while he was gone.
This tech is availible to anyone. There are a ton of possible explainations.
It has some logic behind it.
A failed state doesn't have the resources to waste on the suffering, so euthanasia, and eventually enforced euthanasia, becomes a valid option.
Sarah Connor is supposed to come accross as an unreasonable, crazy sociopath, because she is. She is a bad mother, is quick to resort to violence and killing, and has an irrational hatred of men, however much we might understand how she was driven to that perspective. In that quote there she bangs on about the mystical power birth and pregnancy and its life affirming power shortly after trying to murder a man in cold blood in the house his wife and children are sleeping in. You are not supposed to like her, pity her maybe, but not like her.
Compare her to Ripley from Alien and Aliens, who is a far more idealized. Connor from Terminator 2 is a critique of a particular brand of feminine fetishizing feminism, not an endorsement of it.
Alright everybody - if you think Firefox is better at everything, step over to this side of the line. If you think that Chrome is better at everything, step over to *this* side of the line. Yes sir? Yes, you. Opera? Listen - you just get the hell out of here, and leave your meal ticket on the table. Everybody else: being shouting!
As studies get expanded, results get more precise. Some policies can be drawn from older studies and are available from an early date, but other policy recommendations require further studies. What's so difficult to understand about that?
There is nothing difficult about that. However, that has nothing to do with the fact that they have been using the information and results to shape policy in government and take freedoms away for quite a while and more specifically, when the information was being sought after and refused.
IPCC uses a wide range of studies to arrive at policy recommendations, not one study from a single institution such as the CRU, and beyond that, I've already mentioned that the CRU results weren't invalidated by any investigation. So what is it that you're arguing for here? Either including the CRU results (if they're valid) or excluding them (if they aren't) won't change anything.
Ok, it's obvious that you are more interested in pushing your beliefs than discussing what was said. You fail big time too because all it does is reinforce the skepticism people have when you completely ignore what they say in order to preach your narrative.
I "seem more bent out of shape about anything making it look bad"? I'm not sure I understand that, but I'm simply arguing that if claims that make something look bad are later found to be invalid, there's no point in perpetuating them. Had those claims been vindicated, that obviously would have been a reason for taking steps against the CRU. You still haven't said what I'm "skirting". We've already concluded that the claims about CRU were found to be unfounded, what else is there to discuss?
I've said what you are skirting in every post I have replied to you. I've said it 5 different ways and you keep ignoring it in order to run the CRU's defense.
You can suspect anything about anyone. That's no reason to take action before the truth is found out. Regarding "suspicions", see below.
So if someone is suspected of a crime, no one should arrest them until the truth is found out?
Except they weren't. Climate change deniers don't need any reason for mistrust.
Lol.. Well, they certainly had enough reasons for it whether they needed it or not.
Even with full transparency, they'd still throw accusations at climate scientists that they're conning people to get grants. They're doing that all the time. They were doing that even before the CRU "affair". So that wouldn't prevent the problem in the first place
Yup, they were doing that before the CRU emails were made public- you know, back when democrat staffers cut the AC on capital hill and scheduled James Hansen to talk to congress about global warming on a day they specifically picked to be historically one of the hottest days of the year. You know, the day the hockey stick which has since been revised was introduced to America in large scale. Yep, they were making those claims when statisticians were trying to get the data and being told no because they will just pick it apart. Yep, they were making those claims when it was discovered by someone who was denied access to that data that there was mathematical problems with the claimed temperature records which was dubbed the y2k bug because it became obvious at the year 2000 mark. Yep, they have been making those claims when people started saying meteorologist should lose their credentials if they said something was not because of global warming.
Yeppers, as I said, an entire industry of skeptics has cropped up over the years because of the lack of transparency and appearances of improprieties.
The information wasn't available 25 years ago for the simple reason that this was a different line of research that would happen in the future. I'm sure there will also be a lot of research going on 15 years from now but that doesn't mean we can't draw any conclusions now.
And yet claims were being made from it, demands that policy and law be shaped because of it, and you would have us believe that 15 years ago, it was all infantile studies not worthy of that? And yes, I said 15 years, you seem to be fixated on 25 years (probably because of when you were converted).
That is irrelevant since nobody forces you to shape public law with CRU's research either. You're perfectly free to completely ignore CRU even exists, and the relevant scientific landscape won't change.
It is completely relevant as it was being used to impose changes and this is exactly what the repeatability and availability requirements are for.
If you're calling accepted research performed by multiple independent parties over many decades as "religion", it's obvious 1) where you stand and 2) that any reasonable discussion with you is out of question. Is evolution "a religion"? Is general relativity "a religion"? What kind of science isn't "a religion" to you?
It doesn't matter where I stand but I'm calling your actions religious as you seem more bent out of shape about anything making it look bad than any fundie I have seen when you throw evolution in their face. You are completely skirting issues and talking past them trying to imagine how that makes things perfect now or something. It's the functional equivalent of "the bible says".
The topic you raised was people (those "skeptics" you talked of) unqualified to make judgments on that affair because they lack either the necessary knowledge, intellect, or both. (And if not, pray tell, what else was the topic?)
The topic I raised was that they largely wouldn't exist today if the information was available then and people were not legitimately running around saying they lost the original data or they will not share the data so it is impossible for them to validate their conclusions. Saying there is nothing wrong with what the CRU and other scientists did is the same as saying there is that is perfectly acceptable. I'm saying it caused an entire industry of skeptics to rise which would not be there if this law was in place and followed at the time.
That's like arguing that just because a person had to go to court to face charges proves the prosecutor's point. It's utter rubbish.
No, it's arguing that just because a person had to go to court to face charges proves that people suspected him of committing the crimes. I never said their claims were valid, I said they were created by the mistrust caused by the lack of transparency.
Except that as I have demonstrated, that is a logically wrong conclusion to make.
15 years after the fact, yes. Are we to ignore those years when the information wasn't available and those opinions and positions were formed? There is an entire work of art revolving around the mistrust that is now in place because of that. You would be a fool to dismiss it.
Without semantics, sentences are meaningless, even grammatically correct ones. You can't NOT use semantics in communication. I'm not sure what your point is there.
I can see you actually are daft. The point was obvious.
Researchers don't often print or show or present everything. Especially if ongoing research is involved. The Rosetta probe photos, for example, also have a period in which they're available only to the PI's team so that someone else wouldn't steal their thunder before they publish. There's nothing inappropriate about that, especially if you have dozens of lines of independent research about the same going on in different places.
You know, this is like saying busses are yellow. No one was trying to create or shape public law with Rosetta probe photos. No one was or is trying to take freedoms away with them either. It's a little different when you say I found a cure for cancer and no one can do X because it causes cancer. The first, it would be perfectly fine with the information being hidden. With the later, it would create all sorts of skepticism and revolt over the idea when the information is withheld and hidden. You are correct, there is nothing inappropriate about withholding information obtained by the Rosetta probe photos. There is however, all sorts of problems about withholding information obtained by the Rosetta probe photos and using that information to impose penalties and restrict freedoms as a matter of law and government policy.
It's like you are holding an apple and an orange and trying to talk about cars and cannot see that all three are different.
Nothing was "withheld" or "shrouded by secrecy" when I made my decision a quarter century ago. ANYONE could have done so at that point. So how is it relevant?
Nobody cares about when you found religion. It's not important and others not finding it at the exact same time is not important either.
You don't care about people doing flawed reasoning? How can we have any serious discussion on any topic, then?
It appears we cannot because you cannot even stay on topic in the first place. You have not addressed any point I made, you just dance around it proclaiming when you got religion and that numerous official panels declared nothing was done wrong. Hell, the fact that there had to be an investigation and declaration by multiple sources proves my point but you want to change the narrative to how much you believe and how good of a disciple you are.
If you play music, my code will go to crap, since I'm trying to do two things with the same set of neurons.
Some of the most amazing brain work is done by
For some reason, instrumental is fine for me and talk radio is fine for me, but lyrical music does not work at all. Maybe I'm programming more in the 'song' region.
'Geek' is more the 'script kiddie' version of a nerd. Nerds know what a wire-wrap gun is, even if they're more into grinding lenses for homemade telescopes.
This is fairly well-trodden territory. Nerds are hard-core specialists, fascinated with particular topics. Math nerds, bio nerds, telescope lens nerds (sure, why not?), etc. It's possible to be a multiple-nerd, but Geeks are more obligatorily generalists and tend to be makers.
Prohibit them from carrying out a single transaction until they comply with Federal requirements.
You'd be less incensed if you read the summary. And you'd have fewer upmods if the moderators did too. Sheesh.
Interesting, but the first link shows that CRU scientists would be lousy lawyers, and the second is unrelated to CRU completely. And now for a dose of facts about the CRU affair:
lol.. are you daft? those facts are irrelevant as I already stated. No one is arguing or disputing them. You however appear to be dismissing the years of shrouded appearances of impropriety that fueled skepticism about global warming as if it never happened because nothing technically happened that was wrong. It completely misses the entire issue of mistrust it caused a lot of people to generate. You could at this point link to Professor Jones risking his life to save two nuns and an orphan from falling off a cliff to certain death and parade him around as a public hero and it would not change what happened or the skepticism that grew from it one bit at all.
No, I'm not a global warming pusher, CO2 is a global warming pusher. I have no interest in contributing to global warming.
Hmm.. using semantics to deny the obvious. Well, I guess this thread is about the appearance of deceit and proprietary.
No, it isn't. It's about you and presumably some other people apparently being unable to grasp basic principles of reasoning. Even if if you found out evidence of gross academic misconduct having happened within CRU (which didn't happen), it still wouldn't prove anything about global warming (or the lack of it).
Actually, it appears to be moving towards you doing anything possible to ignore what was said just so you can impress what you want into the conversation. Here is a hint, NO ONE SAID IT PROVED ANYTHING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING. I certainly did not, I Specifically said it created two classes of skeptics that would not be skeptical and mistrustful today had it been open and available.
Now before you reply, reread what was just said. Your knee seems to be jerking so hard it knocked the sense right out of you as you seem insistent on arguing something that was never said in order to protect your beliefs instead of realizing the fact that there are people right now who are considered skeptics who would not be if the information was not withheld or shrouded by secrecy in the past. Perhaps this claim I am making is something that is not in the playbook and your scripts doesn't exactly follow so you have to approximate with whatever is closets. I don't know but you certainly are ignoring what was said in order to protect the reputations of some idiots and global warming.
The rest of your drivel is off topic to my point. I do not care about it one bit at all.
IS that what happened? As far as we can tell from the provided links is that the guy in question has copyright in the kernel and somehow the VMware software uses parts of the kernel and can be graphed to look similar to the operations of the linux kernel. I have yet to find anything detailing the exact claim of infringement involved as in what files where.
Today is a good day for information-gathering. Read someone else's mail file.
