amigoro writes: "The story so far: NOAA reports that 2006 growth rate of CO2 concentration is 2.64 ppm/year. This is an increase from 2.42ppm/year in 2005 and 1.65ppm/year 2004, and The Guardian, using this data, reports that Earth will soon turn to Venus because of runaway greenhouse effect. Then NOAA tells the Guardian it ain't so, that the figures are only preliminary and pulls the December data, bringing the value down to 2.05ppm/year. But they tell others that the wrong value was published because of a computer bug.
The way I see it, three things could be happening here
It was a genuine computer bug
They are trying to stop people getting alarmed about Earth atmosphere becoming inhabitable
They are trying to cover up because someone from the top ordered them to do so
ffejie writes: Verizon has announced that it will be spinning off rural assets to FairPoint Communications. The deal will close sometime in 2007 and is worth $2.7 Billion. 1.6 Million phone lines, 234,000 high speed (DSL) subscribers and 600,000 long distance customers will be moved to FairPoint in an effort for Verizon to shed it's low margin lines in rural areas. The sale has been rumored since at least the summer. With Verizon offering high speed FiOS (FTTP) to only it's local service areas, what will happen to the consumers stuck with a smaller telco like those moving to FairPoint? In the future, will there become an even deeper digital divide between the rural users and the high revenue areas?
tcahill writes: "tcahill thinks Senator Feinstein's new PERFORM act requires some audience participation. The Senator's Website is set up to receive email (1), perhaps slashdot readers might want to send her some appropriate audience feedback. Most politicians are more impressed by individually written letters than mass mailings. For example, here is what tcahill sent:
Regarding the PERFORM Act, it fundamentally offends the principle of free speech that you would contemplate mandating that only certain forms of communication (those using approved DRM) would be permitted for those broadcasting over the Internet. You can only do harm by persisting in seeking to impose controls over — not what information — but how information itself is disseminated. Beyond the constitutional offense inherent in what you contemplate, there are anti-market and anti-innovation assumptions inherent in your assumption that you can dictate exclusively which forms of technology are to be used. Finally, you clearly endanger the principle of fair use by mandating all internet broadcasts must be protected by DRM, which, by law, may not be circumvented. As I know you to be a progressive I am confident you will see the error in your approach and stand down.