Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:About time NASA gets back to Fundamentals... (Score 0) 667

So exactly who is paying you Anonymous Cowards to claim it will just be moved to NOAA? There's no evidence to that effect, and plenty of statements from Lord Trump and his mouthpieces to indicate that no money will be spent on climate change research in the future.

Comment Re:HAHAHAH (Score -1, Flamebait) 667

You apparently didn't notice that Trump was elected by a minority of the voters, the Republicans in the House of Representatives were elected by a minority of the voters, and the Republicans in the Senate were elected by a minority of the voters.

It's not surprising. Authoritarians rarely have much regard for the will of the majority. But minority rule can't last for long. The real majority will have its way, one way or another.

Welcome to permanent minority status, white man. You'd better hope the majority doesn't treat you as badly as you treated them when you had power

Comment Re:HAHAHAH (Score 3, Informative) 667

You do realize that most of what you posted is a lie, right? Of course you do. Lying is what you do.

The earth has been cooler for the entire period during which anything resembling human beings evolved. Antarctica wasn't in its current position when it was warmer than it is now. And, without human carbon releases the planet maintains a relatively temperate climate over long periods of time through the action of the carbonate-silicate cycle. Of course when you dig up half a billion years worth of stored organic carbon and burn in in a century, the carbonate-silicate cycle ain't gonna fix that.

And of course, continuing to release more CO2, that's your fault, not mine.

NASA is doing climate research because 4 decades of political leaders decided NASA should be doing climate research. If you are deluded enough to think Trump is just going to move things around to NOAA rather than eliminating inconvenient research, you deserve what you get. Good luck with that.

Comment Re:"Investigation" doesn't mean "harrassment" (Score 1) 282

That's an excellent and relevant question.

There is a balance that needs to happen here - on one hand, an understanding that law enforcement will need to legitimately poke their noses into people's business from time to time. It is certainly to society's benefit that law enforcement be allowed to act with a degree of preemption rather than purely reactionary.

But at the same time, there must also be an understanding that law enforcement is composed of *people*, who are every bit as fallible and subject to moments of weakness, temptation, and corruption as any other people - and so accordingly must be required to act out in the open, subject to inspection. And when law enforcement *does* overstep their bounds, they must be held accountable.

We, as a society, have been lax on the latter. We've allowed some elements of law enforcement to run amok (motivated by mostly good intentions to be sure). Those transgressions are slowly being corrected, and constant vigilance is good practice.

By the same token though, assuming that *all* law enforcement activity is unjustified and harmful is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The pendulum cannot swing too far over in the other direction.

And most of the top comments in this thread are just mindless shoves at the pendulum. More balance and moderation is required.

Comment "Investigation" doesn't mean "harrassment" (Score 5, Insightful) 282

And as a corollary:

"Hello, Authorities? I think this man is up to No Good. I'm seeing behavior that leads me to think a Plot is Afoot.".

"Thank you Sir. We'll check it out."

[an Investigation is Conducted]

"Well, it turns out that there's nothing going on that contravenes the law. No Nefarious Plot. We'll file this in our archives and move on to something else."

The fact that an investigation was conducted in response to a complaint is *to be expected*. That's what the "I" in "FBI" is all about. The good news here was that when the investigation turned up nothing illegal, it was shelved.

Now it is certainly true that during the McCarthy Era, there *were* investigations that went too far, and innocent people suffered consequences even when they were never charged and convicted. There was much for law enforcement and government to learn during this time period. I'm certainly no fan of witch hunts - especially ones where the definition of "witch" is not well defined.

But it is also true that there *were* foreign agents about, and they *were* seeking to do harm. Investigating leads that might end up in a legitimate conviction is a good thing. Dropping an investigation that proves unfounded is also a good thing.

But Oh Noes! Government! Security! These things must be bad, right?

Comment Re:FOIA isn't meant to support a business model. (Score 1) 139

Why "ride the coattails" rather than "stand on the shoulders of giants"?

Is it so terrible that someone might benefit from someone else's work? That multiple eyeballs see the same info, multiple brains ponder meaning, multiple voices tell its story?

Attempting to protect exclusivity with public information is not the right answer.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." -- The Wizard Of Oz