Is this real?

A manipulation from Amazon would be nothing new, and this one costs them nothing and has the potential to create a profitable trend. Those Jonses and their Kindles.

But whatever. Let's take it at face value. . .

All those people who got an iPad thingy for Christmas are eager to try it out and never ever get bored with their cool new Buzz Lightyear.

So yeah, they're going to buy media, because that's the whole premise of the device. You don't get a Buzz Lightyear and *not* click his wings open a bunch of times.

And the same way everybody had to replace their album collections with CDs, there is a market spike as new media is adopted.

The question is. . . Will it stick, or is this just another digital watch?

Well, let's consider. . , all those iPads were bought at around the same time. But their batteries will wear out according to usage, and when your digital book stops holding a charge for long enough. . , do you replace it? Was the experience good enough for you? Can you port all your purchased 'books' over to a new reader easily? Do you have to stay brand-loyal just to read your stuff? Will there be law-suits forcing personal library porting because Apple is the new anti-competitive demon? Will people even care? (Do you still have all the same crap you downloaded from Napster or have you moved on, secure in the knowledge that all that old music is basically free any time you want it? Or are you willing to pay a buck to play it on your iPod?)

Will owning an eReader of some sort be like owning a car? Or a phone? Considered a basic necessity just so you can access your stuff?

Maybe.

I think eReaders are probably here to stay, and they will probably be a viable income source for publishers, but I wouldn't let all that limelight blind you. Paper ain't going away. It's just going to have to share.

Remember: Theater never died. There's a half dozen full stages within a ten minute walk from my place, and they're all booked regularly.

-FL

Ah! Now that site is more what I'm talking about.

And, I note, a comparison of the images doesn't exactly hold up to the AGW claims, do they?

Plug in data from the North and South poles for both the Summer and Winter across the full time spectrum from 1979 to 2010.

The ice seems to morph and breathe. I note that in the Summer in the North, there appears to be a greater degree of melt than in 1979, but that in the Winter today, the ice sheets are actually more extensive in some areas than they were back then. Overall, however, ice sheet in square kilometers is certainly less extensive today.

But on the South pole, and here's where it gets interesting, nothing much seems to have changed.

So, is there climate change? Obviously. That's not in question, but those changes behave oddly. Why would green house gasses only affect the North pole?

Now, there are other theories which fit the observations, are less sound-bite simplistic, which are not politically motivated, which are far more compelling to people who know how to read and think objectively, -and which don't have anything to do with pollution.

And anyway, I still wanted to see some photographs! Graphics are okay, but they're still just graphics.

These satellites are flying on public funds, and Yes, of course those photos exist. That's what those satellites DO. They were put in orbit for the express purpose of taking pictures. You make it sound as though organizing those pictures is somehow considered by scientists to be too much trouble. That's silly.

And there are some spectacular images available!

I'd just like to see them organized by date so that I can look at them. That's all. It's not like these satellites don't fly over the same land masses every day as a basic function of their existence.

To be fair, there are some efforts to provide this information, though it is still frustrating to go through, (and that particular collection only documents one year).

-FL

That's a nice assumption. But before I'm willing to accept it, I'd like to see the photographs myself. That's all.

Their absence is very much in keeping with other aspects of AGW which make it questionable.

-FL

Most of these acts of terror are manipulated from the ground up by various secret services precisely so the ignorant masses will have the very reactions you are experiencing.

When are people going to figure this stuff out and stop being so easily fooled?

Do some reading by ex-secret agents to see just to what crazy lengths agencies will go to in order to manipulate the world. There is NOTHING they won't stoop to. No act is too ridiculous. If it is possible to do, (and it usually is with their virtually bottomless budgets), and if it can advantage them in the field of population control and manipulation, then they absolutely WILL do it.

https://wikispooks.com/w/images/9/99/The_Secret_Team.pdf

-FL

Don't make that common and gross error whereby one assumes the scientific community has all the power. Don't discount your own senses and your own powers of reason. And don't forget that scientists are people too; many of them are no more wise, brave or insightful than the average university graduate. I know a lot of very well-educated people who, in spite of having absorbed a great deal of data, remain hopelessly naive and soft-minded in many respects. True insight comes from being able to connect patterns within data and to then map those observations onto the world beyond the safe borders of official culture. Wisdom is a very different animal than that of raw fact recall.

Science starts with our senses, and our eyes are extremely useful measurement tools. I use mine all the time to work out how my world works, and they do a great job.

Deeper analysis might involve using a ruler and overlays of photographs coupled with observations in different spectrum bandwidths and different angles of view. I'd love to have that information, but I don't. And that's my point.

We don't even have the starting materials to work from. We don't even have two photographs to compare.

-FL

If you can post false assumptions, then you also have access to the internet.

Look before you leap.

Seriously. Look up "Leap Second". The Earth's rotation is in fact variable and right now it happens to be slowing.

No. You're supposed to believe in AGW, and you are proceeding accordingly. That's how propaganda and mind-programming works.

I'm just pointing out the truth. Whether you choose to explore that truth and determine how it fits with your existence is entirely up to you. It's not my problem.

The point of the matter is that the evidence for global warming, if you actually explore it, tells a far more complicated story than the one which has been bought and paid for by people who don't actually have your best interests at heart. (Actually, I doubt they even have hearts at all, but that's another issue.)

The facts don't line up, there is real hysteria and momentum preventing clear thought, and there are many scientists who disagree with AGW for exactly those reasons, so there really isn't any global consensus despite what AGW people claim. And there are other facts which are being totally ignored. I have provided a lot of threads and ideas which you can independently verify, and which lead to actual knowledge rather than the kinds of false assumptions you have been conditioned to make.

Thinking independently IS hard, I know. But it's the only way out, because you are NEVER going to be told the truth by big media, nor will you find it on either side of any large populist debate. The truth is the quiet thing off to one side.

Are you a cow or a human?

Most people are cows and they prove it every single day through their preference to being herded over the rigors of independent exploration.

-FL

Be lazy at your own risk.

There's plenty of good thinking and evidence and answers to your questions, but it's not going to be served up on a silver platter, especially with your attitude.

Remember: Your level of awareness is nobody's problem but your own. Put another way: I've got what I need. Why should I care how stupid you are at the end of the day? I just put stuff out there for others who are seeking and curious because I learned from similar efforts. But that's the end of my obligation. Forcing knowledge on people is not my job.

Only fools believe they need validation from muggles.

-FL

There are a couple of satellites which travel regular orbits enabling perfect pictures of Greenland and its glaciers.

They are the Terra satellite and the Aqua satellite.

Terra has been in orbit since 1999 and Aqua since 2002. They have taken some excellent, high-resolution images of Greenland and her ice sheets.

They are both in a perfect situation to take comparative images of the extent of glaciers and ice pack over the approximately 10 year period of their service. It would be quite easy to see just how much ice is and is not there in that given time frame. However, there is a problem. I can't find any images which show these comparisons. Why? It ought to be an obvious course of research. "How much ice is there today verses ten years ago?"

But that question isn't answered with direct photographic evidence.

Instead, we are offered fudge FUDD articles like this one, (widely quoted), based on squishy, confusing math.

Why can't we see some simple photos? I am told over and over that the glaciers are retreating. The ice packs are melting. Polar bears are drowning because the ice is vanishing so quickly. (One wonders why the bears did not just walk away from the water's edge. Greenland didn't sink. So maybe something else was going on. Like creative hysterical journalism perhaps?) But okay, the claims are that the ice is vanishing. Fair enough. I'm open to that. I've been open to that for the whole enthusiastic several-year ride I took on the Al Gore bandwagon. But enough is enough. Show me the pictures. We have the satellites in place, they take excellent images on a regular basis. So show them to me. We could all benefit from this very simple demonstration.

But we don't have those photos. (We do have some curious items like which seem to stand in stark contrast to the AGW narrative.)

But really, I'd like to see those satellite images from then and now. Why has nobody provided them?

Here's one theory:

Global Warming is a giant scam. A one-world-government tax scheme and distraction from what is REALLY going on.

Yes, before you argue, climate change is certainly happening. There is no question about that. But the problem is a LOT more complicated than just CO2 emissions. Consider. . .

1. It's happening not just on earth. (Notice the brand new giant spot on Jupiter? What convenient timing.)

2. Animals are freezing to death in places where this doesn't normally happen. Vietnamese cows. Fish in many parts of the world are dying because they find the water too cold. Even people in India are being hit with weird cold snaps. It is suggested that we are entering another ice-age.

3. Magnetic north is rapidly sliding out of the norm. The airport in Tampa FL just repainted its runway markers to catch up with the change.

4. Greenland experienced its first sunrise after the longest night two days too early. [..]on january 13th (13 minutes before 13:00) of each year, the people of Ilulissat go to welcome back the sun after months of darkness." It's clocked to the exact same minute every year. This year it was off by two days. That's odd. --And of course, the AGW people have quickly leaped to blame the melting ice sheets, saying that with the ice sheets melted down, the sun would of course be seen earlier. But there is a problem with that theory. The Sun's appearance isn't measured over something as changeable as ice. It is measured over rock and ocean. So what might be the real reason? Well, here's an idea which doesn't require hysteria: The Earth's spin has slowed lately. Presumably, as a result the equatorial bulge will have also decreased and plates will have had some extra forces causing them to slide and re-adjust. The top and bottom of the Earth will have changed shape, become less flat, which means Greenland now catches more rays. Just another theory, yes, but it's one which doesn't require people gloss over the obvious facts.

So why is all of this happening? There are answers to that question and they involve the electrical qualities of the solar system, (yes, it has electrical qualities; all of that solar wind which charges the Northern Lights like a neon display has a charge you know. It doesn't go nowhere.) (Listen to James McCanney speak on the electric solar system theory. Part 1 Part 2.) The dark star, (See the "Nemesis theory"), upon entering the system pulls energy out, effectively grounding things. The effects are a slowing down of spins and altering the Sun's behaviors and generally causing planetary climates to alter.

This is not to say that pollution isn't having an effect. It is. But the power elite know that the larger situation involves cycles of comet bombardment and ice ages, and so to distract from this unstoppable fact, they seed the over-simple idea of global warming into culture. People like over-simple ideas in the same way they like their iPod widgets. Sadly, though, reality is a fair bit more complex.

This is just such a situation.

-FL

One department in the ultra-semi-secret world of semi-clandestine operations and general screwing around would have been in charge of building the thing to accomplish whatever task it was designed for, though due to rampant compartmentalization, they probably didn't know where it was being aimed.

Another department was probably in charge of making sure the world found out about it and that the project got plenty of attention so as to continue the psy-ops war against Iran. ("I'm not yet convinced that Iran really is the boogey man we need to spend a trillion dollars going to war against on flimsy evidence made up by a couple of psychopathic war-mongers in England and the U.S.. I need more news stories where Iran is the bad guy.")

And few of the project workers would have been clued into what the other project workers were clued into. Compartmentalization keeps stuff mostly secret but then drops the ball on organization.

Go Team!

-FL

That's it. Two lines.

There is a LOT of media energy being spent focusing on spinning up a ton of confusion based on old, (OLD) news and very little spent asking people who know what they are talking about to clear things up. It's almost as though there is some sort of vested interest in muddying the waters.

I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that Greenland saw the Sun rise two days too early this year. . ?

-A story which actually happens to be HUGELY important because it means our planet is changing significantly, (probably spinning more slowly.)

Though, I notice in the rush to forget about it as quickly as possible, they're actually trying to pin it to Global Warming. (As if they measure the annual sunrise dates against the tops of mutable ice and snow rather than a fixed horizon feature, like the ocean, for instance.)

Whatever the case. . , I smell distraction.

The world is changing in BIG ways, folks. But yes, let's confuse the issue by creating emotional links to nonsense stories that scientifically inclined people will then have to contend with should they ever wake up for long enough to notice the real issues happening around them.

-FL

I'm confused. You KNOW that astrology is bunk, but you don't know enough about it to understand this story?

Sorry. That doesn't parse.

How can you know enough to judge something you don't actually understand?

-Remember all those antagonist characters in stories the hero has to deal with? The ignorant Kafkaesque lunatics in power? Slashdot is full of weenie versions of them.

-FL

In your rush to arrogance, did you stop to consider that Astrologers have known about precession for as long as there has been a word for it?

It's just a labeling problem, and an easy one to solve. Astrologers who know their stuff work from current activity in the night time sky. This is only an issue among the ignorant, of which you are a member. Sorry.

There is as much disinformation among the New Age types as there is among the Science types. The god of Dogma wears all hats.

-FL

The fact that the vast majority of the people reading Slashdot have never done any honest hands-on research into Astrology, and who fall so easily into pack mentality, (laughing because everybody else is laughing regardless of the actual realities involved), speaks clearly as to the quality of the minds in question.

They're children. They are governed by fear of ridicule and they seek public acceptance above ALL else. Science is a powerful tool, but it only works when one is willing to act based on logic and objective observations even when the popular beliefs of the herd insist otherwise.

The simple fact that you have taken the time to actually explore and research Astrology beyond simply memorizing the popular critiques, means you are further developed than those who allow fear of ridicule and rejection by their peers to dictate their actions; to dictate their beliefs.

-FL

I also watch grammar as a means of gauging the competency of the poster. However, the technical flaws you point out are on the forgivable side of the line; that is there are such things as typos, and various colloquial usages which while not technically correct do not actually get in the way of robust communication. Those are okay by me. Your two sentences above, in fact, have a couple of technical flaws of that very sort which I let go for exactly this reason. They're not important and the intelligence of the poster comes through nonetheless. On the grammar side, anyway. In the reasoning side, I take exception. . .

Capitalizing improper nouns for effect is something I do all the time, and I call it "Style". It's like putting vocal emphasis on words when speaking, denoting importance within the context of the discussion. 'Science' and 'Astrology' are both the subjects of the debate, and depending on how I feel like writing on a given day, will get capitalized due to that significance.

Calling the poster's use of capitalization "Rampant" to denote a negative emotional quality to his writing style, which you then use to attack his credibility, is however, a curious thing for you to attack as doing so actually damages your own credibility exactly because it's such an unwarranted nit-pick.

There is no problem with his writing style. His reads as sane and collected. (Though, I'd add some extra carriage returns to make reading a bit easier). If you take issue with his thinking and his subject matter, then do so, but attacking based on flimsy grammar issues is cheap and evasive.

-FL

Because that's a blanket statement which isn't true all of the time, and you know it. There is corruption, greed and ineptness in the world, and to pretend that there isn't simply because we like the fundamental IDEA of vaccines, is foolish. Injecting mercury and formaldehyde and other questionable contaminants is a BAD idea even if it does happen to be done in conjunction with the execution of an otherwise GOOD idea.

In a black & white universe, it's easy to make choices. But our universe is filled with colors and shades, and that is why we give this subject our attention. It's how we learn.

People taking one side with great vehemence without considering the other really doesn't help.

-FL