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).
Just because you walk onto the field in the all star MLB game does not mean you actually are competent enough to truly be there. .
At best when this situation arises the news agencies are children playing in a professional league of a game they do not even understand or know that is going on.
If anyone gives confidential, secret, top secret etc they are personally responsible for that information being COMPLETELY breached.
Doing so could still be considered a worthwhile whistle blow, but you go into the situation knowing that you are personally, morally and legally responsible for exposing the whole worth to the information. Denying this a child's lie.
" My main point was this: if the press deals with top secret information all the time (and very definitely get away with it), why are THEY not facing charges and prison time, along with the Washington insiders who leak to them?"
No they dont. and No they dont. Above I let you pretend that News agencies get exposed to top secret information often. That is simply not true (luckily) The average reporter in their lifetime will never get access top secret information. A more valid estimate would be something like maybe 2 or 3 a decade. They do get ahold of information which is considered secret and confidential a bit more than that.
Also when the authorities do find about this heads do, and should roll. Some do unfortunately get away with it, but it is not, nor should that be the standard.
You are absolutely morally and legally responsible if you give crazy old grandma a gun and let here loose in a shopping mall. WHEN NOT IF things go terrible it IS YOUR FAULT. THE MEDIA IS NOT, I REPEAT NOT QUALIFIED IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM TO DO ANYTHING WITH INFORMATION EVEN CLOSE TO SECRET.
"Luckily for the world, your paranoid fantasies do not match reality. Disclosing to a reliable media source is the time-honored way of responsibly reporting government malfeasance. In your fantasy world where a responsible press does not exist then there is no way for the press to act as a check on the government because only "stupid fools" would trust the press."
Have you learned nothing from this whole situation. Everything you do is being watched and monitored. Are you being willfully ignorant or just enjoy your childlike innocence ? The US intelligence services without a question monitor all major media channels both internal and foreign......and guess what? So do the Russians and Chinese and to the best of their ability any and every other nation on this planet. We are not the only ones in this game and its beyond pathetic to think its that one sided that only the US has the resources to monitor these things.
Dont be silly and try and twist my words into pretending they support you. We both know that is a fabrication and I have no intention but to speak my honest opinion. Yes in the face of crimes a patriots blood will be spilled. But that is exactly what is NOT happening. Manning nor Snowden really revealed anything to the common man. Everyone who did not have their head up their own ass assumed/knew these programs were already in place. Many people are just behaving all upset kind like a "40 year old man who its all huffy because someone told him Santa Clause is not real". Anyone and everyone should have already known better. If you were surprised...the joke is on you.
"If you were a soldier and you witnessed flagrant war crimes and violations of the Constitution by your superiors, what would you do? Would you uphold your oath [about.com] to support and defend the Constitution by "stupidly and foolishly" "
If there was something meaningful to fight I would gladly do so at all personal cost. But again that is not at all what has happened here. You hear that silence on the issue? Did you notice the lack of people storming the streets in protest? You notice the lack of change on this issue? You notice the complacency of the American population? You notice the Supreme court signing off on these actions? All these realities are the sound of society stomping down on you, you on the fringe. As final proof of this, I dare you and any one else to try and take real action against these polices. Try and steal more these kind of documents and release them. You will find yourself in a box without any hope of society freeing you. You and I both know this is true and this is the final proof of our society supporting these policies.
Its like sticking a group of children in a room full of knives and blaming the children when someone gets hurt.
But that opinion surmounts to a "its worth it to toss the baby out with the bath water" . The question becomes is it really that bad? Are the intelligence services really that corrupt that it is better to completely negate any secrecy these agencies have, than so allow them to continue their operation? That is a judgement call we all have to make.
My personal answer is no, and that any one who acts on that is too far gone and that they need criminally punished. And that is the judgment call we as a society have made.
There will always be someone on the fringe yelling that we have torch this place and start anew. Laws are in place so that, that fringe element is not allowed to run amok.
Additionally I am providing verifiable facts and points.
It does not appear as if you are doing any of those. Go back to your box troll child.
Glad to see someone "from the other side" engaging in honest discourse. I'll start out with saying I do not have all the answers but the general situation is that even as a collective we do not have the exact answers the cost of inaction is estimated to be VASTLY larger than the cost of action. (A ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure)
1a) I am unaware of any studies about the optimum planetary temperature. But there are several other points which would likely entierly negate any benafitfrom "re calibrating"
1aa)Massive calibration costs. Society has spent many hundreds of years with the climate relatively stable. The costs of adjusting to a slightly different (even slightly more optimal) situation. New Orleans is a prime example, as stupid as it may have been to build a city with much of its land subject to such major fluds, moving the whole city now is not exactly a cheap prospect. Multiply this by millions to to get an estimate of how much it would cost to adapt to significant sea level changes.
1ab) Who's to say the the optimum is not lower?
1ac) The best counter point is that the best science aviliable suggests that it will not be a "modest change" It will be a fright train and we have no idea where it will stop.
1b) There are two main ideas for reducing global warming. Cap and trade, and a carbon fee. There are ways to combine these and other methods to best optimize for the "unknown" exact amount. Any way most in the environmentalist camp... I guess I would consider myself in it situation....would be happy with the LOWEST POSSIBLE ESTIMATE. The estimates are so very high and dire that even adapting to the lowest possible estimate (while having some valid research behind it) would be a massive step and a place most would be happy to start with
1c) Yes people will die. If we find 1b) and apply it, a free marketer would estimate the correct number of people would die.
1d) This is more a political issue. But if you were to take bare minimum reasonable actions, it is reasonable to assume that everyone who "puts in" by "cutting emissions" would get more back via cost savings to make it worth while for everyone.
2) The cost of taxing or capping and trading on the oil production itself would be low ish if we it directly at the resource production level. The costs would be spread out into the industry as a whole as economics dictate. The overhead of taxation really is not that huge. And from the estimates I have seen for the cost per KG of carbon (in environmental damage) would far far outweigh the overhead.
3) Yes a global agreement could be a problem. But..... As much as we talk about global warming as a GLOBAL problem. It is also a local problem. The effects of these emissions are much more intense in the immediate area.
Economists have studied this rather intensively. Just to give a taste if you are in the relative vicinity of a major carbon source. Your walls need to be painted more often, your car breaks down quicker and you are less healthy. Economists have put a lot of effort into modeling this and they do have values for this.
If you account for these local costs, each individual nation should already be taking MASSIVE steps to curb pollution.
In short the details you want, while theoretically important, only would become relevant in a much more ideal situation. If we took the bare minimum steps to meet and deal with the bare minimum estimates from economists and climate change experts the effect of the details would by stunningly minor in comparison to what has already been achieved.
Your view point is like a child's. Constantly yelling "i know better" meanwhile experts all around you are the ones making the world livable for you.
Chances are your life has no value. But people who are actually making important decisions must trust the expertise of others. Time has long since passed the point where someone can be a "jack of all trades" and make significant achievements.
In the big boys league you have to play well with others, The skills that are required to compete at that level require you to be highly specialized.
Its fine if you dont really want to compete in that league but in that case you should at least be aware of your limitations and understand that the important decision makers the majors, require more refined skills than the minors.
But there are MANY MANY issues which require action and requiring some level of understanding to formulate a correct response.
The problem with global warming is those who are truly informed have some sort of general consensus about the problem and needed solution yet people who are not at all "in the know" are actively fighting this consensus without any form of information or understanding.
As a scientist you probably have the capability to understand if you put enough effort in. But from your description. You have not. Are you going to wait 10 years to get your Md before before you let a Dr take out your spleen and give you some meds to fight infections?
Short of that you are still just giving your Dr blind faith. so your questions are mostly pointless.
For such a important issue, and one where there is near total scientific agreement it is unreasonable to ever hope that a majority of the population understands what is going on.
Its nuts that even after all our scientific understanding that we still have these crazy bastards making a political issue of what should be a scientific issue.
The F=MA part is a nuanced point which you failed to grasp. There are fantastic and interesting reasons to question F=MA. However the average person will never be able to even come close to understanding any of a real response. Short in at least having a masters in a related field. Any answer will simply go over the questioners heads.
Ill put myself in this position. I am not qualified to demand a 100% proof on how my antibiotics work. Its beyond stupid for the average person to even ask that a Dr. tries to explain it to them. Its reasonable to ask. Hey was there a peer reviewed study of this and its effects? If so its time to shut the fuck up and take your medicine
Whoever told you "there is no such thing as a stupid question" is wrong.