Forgot your password?

Comment: Oh please, no carbon storage (Score 1) 133

Storing CO2 does not help anyone, and only does harm. The problem is not that there is too much CO2 in the world, the problem is that we convert way too much carbon and oxygen into CO2. Period. If we store all the CO2, we deprive ourselves from oxygen, because we keep on converting it! The Biosphere II experiment has clearly demonstrated that (by using concrete, which, by itself, stores CO2). Storing CO2 is just one more environmental crime to cover up another.

Comment: Re:Economy (Score 1) 576

by Errol backfiring (#47367761) Attached to: Unintended Consequences For Traffic Safety Feature

Please do not mix economy with finance. They are hardly related anymore.


  1. 1 - The market will solve it!
  2. 2 - The money goes to a newly formed group of big companies in bed with a bank (because this allows the bank to create money out of thin air). Off course, the bank demands "securities" (for what?) and society is heavily taxed.
  3. 3 - Problem solved. At least, on the low-traffic pacific island where the "investors" now live.

Massachusetts SWAT Teams Claim They're Private Corporations, Immune To Oversight 534

Posted by Soulskill
from the you-can-trust-us dept.
New submitter thermowax sends a report on how Massachusetts SWAT teams are dodging open records requests by claiming to be corporations. From the article: As it turns out, a number of SWAT teams in the Bay State are operated by what are called law enforcement councils, or LECs. These LECs are funded by several police agencies in a given geographic area and overseen by an executive board, which is usually made up of police chiefs from member police departments. ... Some of these LECs have also apparently incorporated as 501(c)(3) organizations. And it's here that we run into problems. According to the ACLU, the LECs are claiming that the 501(c)(3) status means that they're private corporations, not government agencies. And therefore, they say they're immune from open records requests. Let's be clear. These agencies oversee police activities. They employ cops who carry guns, wear badges, collect paychecks provided by taxpayers and have the power to detain, arrest, injure and kill. They operate SWAT teams, which conduct raids on private residences. And yet they say that because they've incorporated, they're immune to Massachusetts open records laws. The state's residents aren't permitted to know how often the SWAT teams are used, what they're used for, what sort of training they get or who they're primarily used against.

Comment: Re:Pigs at the trough (Score 1) 48

They don't. They operate at different levels, so they may be listening to an extra "backup" data flow. I rather think they use each other. It is too convenient for "intelligence" agencies not to tap into the already existing camera and audio feed from another spy.

Comment: Re:Requisite (Score 1) 29

Well, you may laugh about that, but in the past that is exactly what happened, and we try to cover it up now in scientific circles.

It took a religious liberation to stop people to adhere to ancient texts that could only be interpreted by priests. People started looking for the Creator by investigating the creation. This religiously motivated search has added tremendously to science. For example, the Frederik Ruysch collection in the KunstKammer in St Petersburg is from that period.

Alas, we like to think that science is "neutral", just observing and deducing. Any other motives are left out of the educational system. So we learn that Newton saw an apple falling and wrote his laws. And then deduce Kepler's laws from them. It actually was the other way around: Kepler thought that the creation had to be "harmonic" and therefore brilliantly simple. So planet movements could not be governed by more than second order formulas. That (and being brilliant in measurement of position of celestial bodies) led him to discover his laws, from which Newton derived his.

Now I am not in favour or against religion, but I am very much against rewriting history. Especially in science. Some problems are much easier solved with one school of thought than with another. For example, Pythogoras' theorem is easily solved with greek math, and very hard with arabic math. Even schools of thought that you might considered "flawed" can accidentally yield insightful results. Suppressing any school of thought in science is a crime to science itself, and making even making science into a form of religion (with believers in "neutrality").

When you don't know what you are doing, do it neatly.