Russia is actually working WITH Iran on their nuclear program - have been for a couple of decades now. That's the reason they didn't take part in the coalition in the first Gulf war; they were trading nuke parts for oil. This is just misdirection on the part of the U.S. - a denial that is a form of confirmation. I recently spoke to someone who works at a DoD facility devoted to cyber-security. Our conversation was going fine until the word Stuxnet left my lips. At that point, he didn't utter another word. And I wasn't asking him for information, just expressing my admiration for the handiwork - whoever's it was. Another denial that looks like a confirmation.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Actually, the problem is that the entire process replicates a circular argument. A study is done, and peer reviewed by scientists who already agree with the premise, making it pretty likely that they won't have major problems with the conclusion or the methods used to achieve it, since they use the same ones. The study is blessed as long as it agrees with the accepted conclusion.
So rather than a rigorous winnowing process, we end up with a mutual admiration society, or a secret scientists club to which only those in one camp are allowed full membership.
This interview with Dr. Vincent Gray, a former expert reviewer for the IPCC, illustrates other problems with the IPCC's "scientific method". They wouldn't know objectivity if it jumped up and bit them in the ass. Couple that with the U.N.'s statements that AGW is really just a means to a global governance end, and it's difficult to see an unadulterated, pure, trustable process here.
$20? TWENTY FREAKING DOLLARS? My God, if T-Mobile survives this PR hit, I'll be surprised. They should pull out all the stops to do whatever they can to win back the confidence of their customers, because if they lose those, and the inevitable class-action lawsuit, it will cost them far more both in the short and long term.
The incident is a huge blow to the reputation of the Sidekick and is a reminder of the dangers of trusting a single provider to safeguard information.
The phones are made by a Microsoft Corp. subsidiary and sold by T-Mobile USA, which say many Sidekick owners' information is "almost certainly" gone. T-Mobile is offering customers $20 to refund the cost of one month of data usage on the phone."
Link to Original Source
Hail to our iPhonian captors...err...I mean Debian liberators! Death to the iNfidels!
Zealots don't care about science, or facts, or anything that stands in the way of their beliefs.
That our current administration is sympathetic to their cause, if not their tactics, is what's frightening.
Parents who can and will take the time to teach their children about the world around them and how to act and interact within it will, more than likely, end up with children who are well-adjusted, relatively well-educated and prepared children. Parents who believe that it's someone else's job to do all of those things will more likely end up with entitlement babies who will be leeches on society.
Some kids will be well-educated because of our public schools, and some will end up well-educated in spite of them. The same can be true of any other learning environment, if poorly and carelessly administered. My 15 year old, who none of us think is a genius, scored as post-high school in almost every subject. My son, who is very smart, started college at 16, because we had nothing left to teach him. Both would have been bored in public school, as I was.
The point is that parents should have the ability to choose that which works best for their children, so long as that choice produces acceptable results.
I'm no astrophysicist, but it would seem that a decaying planet, or a planet in a decaying orbit, wouldn't spiral in in an orderly manner. Rather, its orbit would become less stable and more elliptical, until it either tore apart from a close brush with its gravitational master, or collided with it.
Perhaps someone with more knowledge than I on the subject could set me straight?
I have often said that AGW could not be even proven to be happening in a court of law. Bring in one good statistician, and the entire case is thrown out for lack of:
1) Relevant control data supporting the assertion.
2) Enough relevant data to even produce a sample size of ONE (which would still be statistically irrelevant).
When so-called scientists stop trumpeting 30 years of data as "all of recorded history" (which, when referring to the Arctic Ice, they regularly do), they can begin to be taken seriously. Until then, their data only makes sense, as with all conspiracy theories, when kept apart from the necessary (though inconvenient) context of opposing data.
Then throw in Al Gore's admission that the whole AGW issue is about giving the U.N. control over the planet (while he makes billions off of C&T), and any credibility in support of this "cause" is gone.
Actually, in the last decade, we have NOT had a temperature spike. Over the last 10 or so years of little solar activity, the global mean temperature has actually declined slightly. During the previous period of very high solar activity, temperatures rose. Seems too soon for a clear cause and effect, but certainly enough to investigate further.
I knew global warming zealots were poor students of science, math, and history, but I did think they were better at paying attention to CURRENT data than this...
A useful application for this is when terrorists/insurgents, who have been known to take cover in populated houses, open fire from them. Standard procedure for clearing a house from which fire is taken is to use grenades. This has the unfortunate effect of causing regrettable, but unavoidable civilian casualties.
So what if a small device could be put into a building that would show the Marines how to direct their fire to not only protect themselves, but any noncombatants that might be in the building? Probably more useful in someplace like a mosque or school than a small house, but there are applications aplenty for someone with an imagination.
There is waste in any bureaucracy, and the military is no different. How a liberal, who generally is in favor of bigger government, can rail against the waste that is endemic in a big government and yet cannot recognize the dissonance between those two desires and grow up is beyond me, but that's an aside for now.
What say you put YOUR life on the line, and then tell others they are spending too much to protect you, hmmm?
Did this study compare the degrees of government regulation over rates, taxes, fees, etc.? In the U.S., upwards of 20% of the average bill is just that.
You really are a poorly read bigot, you know that? A study was recently done on the demographics of the U.S. military, and to the author's surprise, every socio-economic, geographic, racial, ethnic, religious, and gender group was represented in the military to a rough extent to its proportion in American society. Except one.
Northeastern liberals were very underrepresented. Thankfully, people like you probably are, too.
It primarily has to do with maintaining operational security. Young men have sweethearts and families back home, and sometimes more information gets out than is good for him or his fellow Marines. Censoring sensitive information from personal mail has been SOP since the Civil War.
The other concern was with those networks being used as inroads for viruses and such that could compromise the effectiveness of the Marine Corps network infrastructure. I'm not well-versed in that technology enough to know how viable that threat is, but I bet there is something to it.
Bottom line: if it jeopardizes the health of the Marines more than it helps, it's probably not a good thing.