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).
From In-Q-Tel's website:
In-Q-Tel identifies, adapts, and delivers innovative technology solutions to support the missions of the Central Intelligence Agency and the broader U.S. Intelligence Community. - In-Q-Tel Website
In-Q-Tel sold 5,636 shares of Google Inc., worth over $2.2 million, on Nov 15, 2005. The stocks were a result of Google’s acquisition of Keyhole, the CIA funded satellite mapping software now known as Google Earth - Wikipedia: Wikipedia
I don't care how people want to spin it, but Google is nothing more than a U.S. Gov't CIA start-up with a civilian face. And to say that Google no longer remembers who In-Q-Tel is (or vice-versa) because they sold their shares would be a joke, and an assault on most peoples' intelligence. This is like saying the corporations who buy and pay for politicians, have no say in what the politician does once they get into office. We all know it doesn't work this way.
"Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence only increases in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will show the immensity of the first power compared to the second" - Thomas Malthus, 1978 in his "An Essay on the Principle of Population"
"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer." - Ehrlich in his book, The Population Bomb (1968)
The UN Population Division 2001 report, World Population Monitoring 2001, studied the relationship between population growth and development. Contrary to Malthusian doomsday predictions, this U.N Report stated: "From 1900 to 2000, world population grew from 1.6 billion to 6.1 billion persons. However, while world population increased close to 4 times, world real gross domestic product (GDP) [actual output of goods and service] increased 20 to 40 times, allowing the world not only to sustain a fourfold population increase but also to do so at vastly higher standards of living."
In 1990, the UNFAO Report on the State of Food and Agriculture estimated that with present technologies fully employed, the world could feed 30 to 35 billion people. Roger Revelle, Director of the Harvard Centre for Population Studies, estimates that the world's agricultural resources are capable of supporting 40 billion people. Indian economist Raj Krishna estimates that India alone is capable of increasing crop yields to the point of providing the entire world's food supply. India, it is worth noting has four times as much arable land per person as Japan and twice as much as Britain.
And the solution if you still believe there is a population problem?!.. Well, look no further than Obama's science czar Mr. John Holdren with his 1,000 book "Ecoscience" where he suggests we forcefully sterilize people and put drugs in the water to sterile entire populations without consent. Or simply implant you with a strilizaition "device" which would only be removed with government aproval.
"Of course, a government might require only implantation of the contraceptive capsule, leaving its removal to the individual's discretion but requiring reimplantation after childbirth. Since having a child would require positive action (removal of the capsule), many more births would be prevented than in the reverse situation.Holdren and his co-authors also tackle the problem of illegitimacy, recognizing that it could be one consequence of a society which, in its effort to limit births, downgrades the value of intact nuclear families and encourages lifelong bachelorhood: Responsible parenthood ought to be encouraged and illegitimate childbearing could be strongly discouraged. One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption -- especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone...It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us what exactly "below health concerns" is? Is it the same type of harmless radiation that the U.S. government said was present at the Three Mile Island nuclear facility? Because that "safe" radiation caused an increase in lung cancers all over the area in a span of SIX YEARS, and yet you come out nearly 2 weeks after a much bigger accident in Japan and declare everything is safe, but have zero proof.
That's fine, I can see you're not here to actually present any credible proof or a coherent argument, you're just here to act cool because it's trendy to laugh in the face of possible danger (we don't know just how dangerous or not this "plume" will be). So you sir, have yourself a good day, and I really wish you are right and all the best to yourself and your family - I hope the plume misses all of us, and has no effect on anyone.
Yes, it's baloney, though I doubt..
Really? That's it?!.. This is your entire argument? Basically whatever I say is true because I said so... so there!
Really, no effort at all put into any sort of coherent counter argument.
I guess the fact that nuclear fall out from Chernobyl made to it the U.S. and Canada in about 11 (ref 3) days and covered almost all of Europe totally escaped you (ref 1). Or the fact that grains of sand from the Mongolian deserts make it over to the U.S. each year even though it is much farther than the eastern coast of Japan(ref 2). But God forbid people take precautions, that would be un-American I guess.
If you're so against protecting yourself, at least do it for your children, or the people around you, don't be so self-fish.
The Obama administration's reported push for stronger federal oversight over online privacy is likely to be welcomed by privacy advocates increasingly concerned about the data-collection and data-sharing practices of big Internet companies and marketing companies.
There you go, this is what it's all about, always has been, and always will be.
....overseen by an independent board (much like Australia's Reserve Bank the Fed
Yes, and we all know how well Federal Reserve banks manage things.