Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: And now for the latest... (Score 1) 517

Looks like the source of the release has identified himself:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html

It would appear from this that there is a high likelyhood that all except one of the documents is genuine.

Of course, there's no indication (as yet) that the "Climate strategy" is not a part of the original documents, but given that one document was received from an anonomous source, and Heartland deny that this specific item originated from them, it'd be interesting to know where it originated from.

Looks like the rest of the documents are probably authentic, though.
Space

The Sun's Odd Behavior 285

Posted by Soulskill
from the to-be-fair-it-was-a-little-tipsy dept.
gyrogeerloose writes "Most of us know about the sun's eleven-year activity cycle. However, relatively few other than scientists (and amateur radio operators) are aware that the current solar minimum has lasted much longer than expected. The last solar cycle, Cycle 24, bottomed out in 2008, and Cycle 25 should be well on its way towards maximum by now, but the sun has remained unusually quiescent with very few sunspots. While solar physicists agree that this is odd, the explanation remains elusive."

Comment: Re:No mention (Score 1) 1046

by khallow (#32136778) Attached to: Climate Change and the Integrity of Science

You do realise the papers talked about in the climategate emails were published and did make it into the IPCC reports, right?

There's still the sticky matter of intent. Those emails make the intent clear. Now, maybe the people in question cooled down after the heat of the moment and didn't carry through on their threats. Or maybe they did, but failed due to obstacles in their path. We don't know from the emails, but it's showing more of that blatant and emotional anti-scientific bias that colored their thinking and probably their research.

Comment: Re:Sadly... (Score 1) 764

by hsthompson69 (#32136714) Attached to: Second Inquiry Exonerates Climatic Research Unit

When you talk about the AR4's "devastating" projections are you taking into account the time frame?

Well, I'm sure you've heard of GlacierGate (2035, and all the glaciers in the himalayas were supposed to disappear). Yes, I know these errors have been already admitted, but they're sort of what IPCC AR4 ended up representing as highlights...which the sensationalist press took on as gospel truth, which when debunked got trumpeted from the rooftops by every right wing kook that thinks evolution is wrong, so on and so on.

When it comes to the rate of change, I'm not convinced that we're looking at accelerating changes from 2000 years to 200 years -> my bet is that climate sensitivity is actually low enough and filled with enough negative feedback effects that our contribution is negligible. Of course, I could be wrong, but from what I can gather of the poor proxies that we have to look at in the past, we've already seen historical abrupt changes before.

On top of that, I'm of the firm belief that if global warming was real, and was happening due to CO2 emissions of man, we should encourage it -> a warm world is a better world for humanity in general, and since even though we might see a dramatic shift in 200 years, the upper bounds for any positive feedback effect will stop it from being a runaway situation. If we could re-enter the medieval warm period tomorrow, and stay there for thousands of years, it would be beneficial to humanity, especially considering the poles end up doing most of the warming -> we're not talking about los angeles become 120C year round, we're talking about the upper latitudes going from 40C to 60C...further, I think there's a pretty good argument that our increased global average isn't because of higher maximums, but more from higher minimums (that is to say, our winter months are getting hotter, not our summer months).

Anyway, in 20 years, you can buy dinner, and I'll buy the drinks :) Thanks for the interesting conversation :)

Comment: Re:Like the Flat Earth Society (Score 1) 1046

by khallow (#32136712) Attached to: Climate Change and the Integrity of Science

Evolution, for example, was crafted with a complete lack of data in its time

This claim has always been wrong. Read Darwin's original works and that of pro-evolutionary contemporaries like Thomas Henry Huxley or Alfred Russel Wallace. They back their claims with copious evidence. Much of it is obsolete with better supporting evidence nowadays or wrong due to mistakes of the time, but this old work doesn't deserve the libel you heap upon it.

Comment: Re:Two Stupid People (Score 1) 291

by socz (#32050490) Attached to: Palin Email Snoop Found Guilty On 2 Charges
This is one of the things I try to get across to so many people, but most just don't realize what a security threat their reminders are. I generally tell everyone "unless you have to put your credit card in, never use your real name." Anymore usually confuses them and they start defending their actions.

Avoiding names and dates etc will keep the majority of people out of your things. Of course, someone who has experience and knowledge of gaining access to unauthorized systems will of course still be able to do so, but the random kid won't be able to.

+ - Vatican funds adult stem-cell research->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes ""The Vatican will fund research into the potential use of adult stem cells to treat disease, a field where Canadian researchers are hard at work. Cardinal Renato Martino said Friday the Vatican fully supports the project because it does not involve embryonic stem cells, which the church opposes because it involves destruction of embryos. In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI said adult stem-cell research respects human life. Canadian researchers are also sidestepping the thorny issue of using clones or embryos, instead exploring the potential of reprogramming adult stem cells to trigger the body to heal itself.""
Link to Original Source
Australia

+ - iiNet Releases Discussion Paper on P2P->

Submitted by mattjpwns
mattjpwns (1796020) writes "iiNet has released a 17 page discussion paper entitled "Hollywood Dreams" on AFACT's proposed "Three Strikes" laws in regards to dealing with repeat copyright infringers on an ISP's network. iiNet has been in the news in recent months for their victory over AFACT in the Australian Federal Court, with an appeal by AFACT still being considered.

From the article:

"We do not believe that switching the internet off will have any material impact on the incidence of content piracy. It is, at best, a clumsy shotgun approach to halting infringements. [...] Prosecutors such as AFACT will continue to say “that’s not good enough” but until rights holders abandon the ‘Charlie Chaplin’ era business model and embrace digital distribution techniques that exploit the power if the internet (rather than demanding it be switched off), the gap between ISPs and rights holders will continue to create tension."

"

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Try harder (Score 1) 526

by mike1210 (#31827138) Attached to: Obama Unveils New Nuclear Doctrine

Oooh! Scarrry communists!

Yes, given their record, some 120 million killed outside of war over the course of the 20th century, I would say that people had damn good reason to be afraid.

They're teaching children to read in Nicaragua

Now that we're talking about post-1980 events with you issuing a nice, pleasant whitewash of Sandinista terror, I'd also like to point out that the Sandinistas were also enslaving the populace, silencing newspapers, kidnapping said children from their families to "educate" them, expanding the secret police, creating neighborhood spy networks, forcibly relocating, torturing and murdering Indians for being Indian (because all Indians were supposedly "CIA agents" or somesuch), etc.

and kicking out our corporations in El Salvador! Quick, someone rape and kill some nuns! For freedom!

People in El Salvador were fighting against the imposition of an alien political ideology and economic system responsible for the deaths of millions and millions, against the clear will of the vast majority of Salvadorans, by those who were armed, funded by, and in the service of the Soviet Union.

Notice how after the USSR fell, these wars in Latin America ended, and democracy was restored. That should tell you who caused these wars, and who was keeping them going.

Is it different from overthrowing a democracy in Iran in 1953 and installing the Shah?

I notice that you're attempting to redirect the conversation, but I'll continue answering your "points".

Mosaddegh came to power after his predecessor was murdered for opposing Mosaddegh's policies. Once in power, Mosaddegh continued to rule without holding elections, as required by the Iranian constitution at the time.

Or funding coups throughout central and south America and in fact, all over the world?

At least three of those examples during the Cold War are pure bullshit, Chile 1973, Argentina 1976 and Turkey 1980 (the only source apparently being Noam Chomsky, and hence, a very high probability that this is a lie). The ones after the Cold War are all bullshit.

Is it different from hand-picking Saddam Hussein to rule the Ba'ath Party,

Bullshit.

In 1963, Saddam Hussein was an obscure student radical that nobody had heard of. He wasn't a rising star in the Baath party until around the 1968 coup, and didn't come to rule over Iraq until 1979.

support his rise to power, removing him from the State Sponsors of Terror in order to arm him with chemical weapons, and then claim America had nothing to do with it when he stops following orders?

Yes, the US did lift export restrictions against Iraq so US companies could sell him dual-use items that he probably used to develop chemical weapons. Many other countries did the same. It was the US, however, that eventually overthrew him.

You're a fucking liar. Again.

All you've shown me is evidence that the Ford administration was guilty of knowing about the invasion beforehand, and not "caring" enough about it. Indonesia has been on and off of US sanctions lists for decades, and weapons sold to Indonesia after the invasion were sold with the stipulation that they not be used in East Timor.

You're an apologist for depraved violence as long as the person holding the gun is wrapped in an American flag and saying some nice words that you don't really comprehend.

Let's compare the "depraved violence" directly committed by America's government throughout the 20th century (the vast majority being in response to real totalitarian threats) with the massive amounts of terror, slavery and mass-murder directly committed by America's enemies against innocent, disarmed people during the same time.

The only difference between you and a soviet apparatchik is that you were born in America, and we're killing scapegoated Arabs and "communists" and adjacent innocents in foreign lands instead of dissenters within our own borders.

Communists were never scapegoated. They really were out to kill and enslave us, as was proven every time and everywhere they came to power. Post Cold War, our enemies are not Arabs, but rather, the followers of militant Islam, whose members include every ethnic and racial group on the face of the Earth.

And what makes you even worse is that you aren't forced to support these actions.

Well, except for taxes.

You volunteer to support the injustice, you willingly kneel at the feet of your leaders and praise them for their willingness to destroy other nations in exchange for the paltry conveniences you enjoy, and you pretend it's for the freedoms you choose to desecrate with your ignorance.

I've only been stating facts about the conflicts that occurred during the Cold War. You see this as "support" only because I'm not brutally condemning America and Americans, for if people like you had your way, people like me would either be dead, or in slave-labor camps.

Comment: Ha Ha Ha Ha (Score 1) 190

by cdrguru (#31719600) Attached to: Print-On-Demand Publisher VDM Infects Amazon

When content is available for free, someone will take it and make money with it.

Here we have a bunch of text often with inaccuracies, distortions and lies. But it is a lot of text. That should be worth something, right? So we have a company taking that because it is free to take and making money from it.

This should be the first guidepost for those that would like to remove copyright protection from things. They will be picked up by companies like this and sold. So if your music is free to download and do whatever with. expect to find someone selling CDs of it somewhere. Might just be at a flea market, might be on Amazon or WalMart.

Is it right? Well, the door WAS left open. If you wanted to retain control you wouldn't have used a Creative Commons license now would you? So without that control, someone is going to make money with it. Maybe not a lot of money and maybe not very ethically, but it will happen. And there is nothing that can be done about it.

Think they will make a lot of money from this? I doubt it. But just wait until the blogs of someone that licenses them with Creative Commons start showing up on Amazon as their "Collected Writings". Going to happen sooner or later.

The sooner all the animals are extinct, the sooner we'll find their money. - Ed Bluestone

Working...