After the Fall of the Soviet Union it was found that McCarthy had underestimated the degree of communist penetration - once archives were available. Today the White House has substantial Muslim Brotherhood penetration (and probably a great deal more competing agents, but not to the same degree as the Ikhwan).
McCarthy was *right*. It is the Collectivist Matrix that controls the media that tell you he was wrong. A great book to read is "Disinformation" by Lt Gen Ion Mihai Pacepa. It explains who killed Kennedy and why - and why the Conspiracy Theories are the conspiracy. The media marinates you in Cultural Marxism these days so that people cannot see the truth in plain sight. America has gone off the rails because the Collective (run by a 'political elite') is now valued over the Individual. The Government now feels it can micro-regulate every aspect of your life and treat you like a child. This is Marxism with a smile - and it is what is bankrupting America - yet anyone who opposes the collective is smeared by the media, the academics, the elites and by all the people still in the Collectivist Matrix. McCarthy was right, and is even more right today. Hint: who did Hillary Clinton write here senior thesis about? the same person Obama moved to Chicago to find acolytes of.
There is no substitute for Liberty!
FALSE. The jihad has been going on for 1400 years and is just gaining up a head of steam again due to petrodollars and the obvious pathetic 'leadership' of the West. The reason the jihadis attack on 9/11 each year is to reverse the defeat at the Gate of Vienna on 9/11 *****1583****.
Bleating about Sykes-Picot is a distraction so you never understand the fourteen century war that is commanded in Qur'an Sura 9:29, 9:5 and hundreds of other verses. Unfortunately, many smart Slashdotters fall for this ruse.
In order to understand jihad you must listen to what they say for the benefit of other jihadis - not the projections that Westerners place as the motivations of the jihadis:
For an example of how the jihadis see history, please see the following: "Why We Are Afraid - A 1400 Year Secret : Dr Bill Warner" [45 mins]
Citation: An Illegal Arab Settlement in the West Bank?
G'day Ozzie. I'm a kiwi. How about you check out the statistics of carbon emission, and see whether destroying your economy with a carbon tax that achieves absolutely nothing for the environment:
"What an Engineer Finds Extraordinary about Climate" http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
We all want to preserve our environment. But we have to look at it objectively rather than emotionally. Please also note that ***pollution*** (which everyone rightly shuns) is not the same as CAGW in any way.
The Guardian spends a huge amount of effort banning 'mavericks' from its comment boards regarding things like 'Global Warming'. Where you stand on the 'Anthropic Global Warming' (AGW) is less important than understanding that both proponents and opponents can provide insights into the issue. What matters is not 'consensus' (which is only invoked if the observations don't support a hypothesis), but the *data*
It is thoroughly excellent the Guardian are promoting Free Speech for science, through their 'maverick' meme. I really just wished they'd put what they preach into practice - as we all should
There is *no substitute* for Free Speech. And Free Speech is not about what we all agree one, but the right of a 'maverick' to disagree and voice their opinion - and the right of many many more to listen to that maverick and then make their own minds up. Without this we have *no* Liberty - no matter how well intentioned the censors are.
Haha! Shuttleworth now agrees with Richard Stallman's assessment of the situation from thirty years ago.
Hopefully more IT leaders (and users!) also wake up to this.
If you can't control your device all the way down to the hardware, then bad guys will (and very sadly, bad guys now includes the NSA).
- "Faster Zombies!" [Valve Linux] - http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/linux/faster-zombies/
- "The AMD Radeon Performance Is Incredible On Linux 3.12" - http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_linux312_major&num=1
- "Here's Why Radeon Graphics Are Faster On Linux 3.12" - http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_312_performance&num=1
Both NVidia and AMD have lifted their game a lot recently for Linux. Plus Valve has been working hard to improve things - with its Steam Box in the pipeline (which is Linux based). I suggest you take a look at Linux drivers again, they are very competitive on modern GPUs.
Funny thing is, Sarah Palin knew Obama would be a disaster for "traditional America". Now, you are free to hate "traditional America" if you wish (particularly if you strongly identify with Obama's political tribe rather than the nation) - but you cannot say that Sarah Palin did not spot him a mile away. Incidentally, you may be laboring under the "media version" of Sarah Palin (eg. attributing Tina Fey's caricature of Palin to Palin herself). If you are, then please remind yourself to look up the statements from the authentic source rather than the ridiculous statements made by someone else for laughs but often falsely attributed to the real thing.
As Palin said, "How's that hopey changey thang workin out for ya?". The US debt is 17 trillion and after the fiasco where Harry Reid shut down the government (by refusing to vote in the Senate of the 14 bills the House passed to fund the Government) there is now no apparent limit to the spending that the Executive can do (despite the US Constitution explicitly prohibiting the Executive from raising taxes like the ObamaCare mandate). The week after the shutdown US spending went up by 0.328 Trillion. With ObamaCare the economy is about to take another 2.6 Trillion hit on top of the 17 trillion debt. US citizens cannot pay this back, particularly at the rate Obama is spending (now that the Tea Party failed to constrain his spending by prompting the Constitutional law that would do this). Plus there is the lowest participation by women in the workforce in 28 years. Then you have unbelievably high youth unemployment (particularly among blacks). Then you have the US military getting ripped apart (NSA spying has been used to dismiss 9 commanders of brigadier or higher rank). Meanwhile, the DHS is being outfitted with the same military gear that the US Army had to pacify Iraq (but of course, the DHS is controlled by political elites, not the representatives of the citizens, and is not constrained by the same Constitutional limits as the Army is). Then we have the mobs of black youths that have been targetting and killing otehr races, and the media does not report this.
The writing is clearly on the wall for the US Constitutional system. Palin predicted that Obama's character would lead to this disasterous kind of "change". You can slam Palin if you want - but it turns out she was far more right than the stuck up political analysts and media "lapdogs" (openly partisan media no longer acting as watchdogs) infesting the US these days.
"But there is no way in hell Democrats would ever call themselves Socialists, even if they have adopted Socialist ideas."
The Democrats call themselves "progressives" while championing the political elite expanding Government taking the "fruits of production". Technically this is what is called "fascism" (in economic terms). Note that Fascism is actually a *left wing* socialist ideology, which is why Democrats are installing it, and not a right wing ideology (which goes from the individualism of libertarians to the no-government anarchy of the real "Far Right"). Yes, yes, I understand that you've been told that "fascism" is "far right" but it turn out that meme was disinformation from the Left that wanted to distance itself from *National Socialism* (notice the second part of that name, that's what makes it a Leftist ideology, but not as far Left as Marxism).
Since this is probbaly new to you - and you initial reaction will be of resistance - I don't ask you take my word for it, here's the great economist Thomas Sowell explaining how the system Obama is installing is not Marxism, it is what fits the *economic* definition of "Fascism" (please forget the loaded and overloaded use of the word, I'm talking economic definitions):
I still don't get it. You say that (a) a few fraudulent scientists are acting as a gateway to bad data, and (b) I can look at the data and see for myself. It seems to me that, if I can look at data, numerous other scientists can too. Most of these are going to be honest (since most scientists are honest), and many are going to see the opportunity to write a paper that gets them some attention.
Scientists are writing papers that point out that the Global Warming consensus is wrong. They get labelled as "deniers". This is a classic tactic of the political Left and their allies (of which the environmental movement is an undeniable part), the tactic is: "Do not address the facts, but slander the message bringer".
For example, Richard Lindzen of *MIT* finds the IPCC report "hilarious":
"You have politicians who are being told if they question this, they are anti-science. We are trying to tell them, no, questioning is never anti-science."
What matters is not whether there is or is not global warming. What matters is that a particular political view (which in this case, happens to come from the Left; but would be just as wrong as if it had come from the Right) is trumping science. The [Cultural Marxist] Politically Correct view is that there is Global Warming. Now that the evidence is against Global Warming there is no big pronouncement that the models were wrong. Instead, the Politically Correct terms is changed to the scientifically meaningless "Climate Change" (nb: the climate is *always* changing - being alarmist about this natural and normal process is anti-scientific, and well, political).
So, unless you can explain my observations of the scientific community, I'm going to continue to accept its consensus.
As you wish, but understand this is a *political* decision, and not based on the observed data. Like I said, look at that lovely sinusoid - alone it is enough to *destroy* the Global Warming hoax): http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/nasa-spokesman-reacts-to-the-spectacular-growth-in-arctic-ice/
And there are plenty more predictions of the Global Warming Theory that have not met observation (eg. *zero* hurricanes in the US in the last season; global warming theory predicted larger and more frequent hurricanes; then there was a record number of states in the US that had below average winter temperatures; then we have both the Arctic and Antarctica putting on more ice; sure, we have variability like my own New Zealand having a very warm winter this year - but one year is natural variation. When it is 15 years without global warming that is a trend.
A scientist must change their position based on *all* the observations. If the observations were for global warming I'd be more than happy to promote this theory. I have nothing ideological nor political against global warming theory. All I can say is that there are significant sets of observations that are against global warming - that means the theory cannot be accepted as is. Then I couple that with the fact that it is now known that scientists have been manipulating data (indicating that their case is very weak). That leads me to conclude Global Warming is, at best, an unproven and weak theory - and there is a higher statistical probability that the null hypothesis (no warming) is correct than the probability that warming is happening (when evaluating the untampered data). Consensus doesn't enter it.
Finally, to address you real question (sorry I didn't get to it yet). Please consider what happens to those scientists (particularly the grad researchers) who do put their head above the parapet and question global warming? they get shot. Look at famous naturalist David Bellamy who was fired for questioning global warming - after decades of service and a high TV profile. Shot down. As I said, the global warming movement is political, not scientific. That's why political measures are used to silence critics rather than robust scientific debate.
If you really want to scratch the surface of what is going on then you can start to get an inkling if you look at the "Cultural Marxism" video on YouTube. There are many things in the video I don't care for (eg. I'm a rationalist and atheist, so religious sentiments mean nothing to me), but it is a good introduction to the movement's origins. It is Cultural Marxism that is underlying the modern environmental movement (sure, there are layers above this, but this is the driving force behind the politicization of it).
many scientists have their salaries (many are tenured professors, for example),
Tenure merely means you can personally eat. Research grants are required to have a decent lab, lab equipment, field trips, grad students, etc. It is grants that matter. And it's hard to get grants if you go against political orthodoxy - particularly one so viciously fought as this.
I'm doing sort of a meta-scientific analysis here to see if it's worth my time to look at your data.
Huh? it takes 60 seconds to look at and analyse that sinusoidal graph of ice cover in the Arctic as published by the Danish center for ocean and ice (original link: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php). Since Arctic Ice cover is the *litmus test* of AGW then I'm surprised that you would not consider *as much time as was needed* to view and understand what the graph is telling you. That's what a real *scientist* would do. I'm afraid you will burn your scientific street cred making statements like that. We're all busy men, but getting to the truth is worth spending time on (fortunately, it will only take you 60 seconds to look and understand how the Danish data destroys the obsolete AGW meme).