Slashback: VoIPersecution, Israel, Plug-in 334
That damn eye of Sauron is just everywhere! Amigan writes "Over a year ago, the Israeli government did a buyout on their contract with Microsoft - and it was hailed as a great opportunity for OSS. It is now being reported that the Israeli government is back in the Microsoft fold - and again licensing software - not outright purchasing."
No good technology goes unpunished by the inertia police. First it was the state of Texas that decided to sue Vonage over consumer impressions of its support of 911 service; now, as kamikaze-Tech writes "Luispr, a member of the Vonage VoIP Forum has posted a TMC.net article titled VoIP E911: Michigan Atty. General Says Vonage Misleads." That article notes Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox's announcement "that Internet-based telephone service provider Vonage Holdings Corporation will now face legal action for misleading consumers about the company's emergency 9-1-1 service."
Note that this is specifically about ads alleged to mislead customers about 911 capabilities, related to but distinct from the objection to VoIP that it doesn't in the first place provide the same location information to 911 operators that conventional telephone service does. See also this earlier story about the FCC pushing 911 requirements on VoIP providers.
Anything you like as long as we already agree. Lawrence Person writes "According to this article, the widely reported study showing unanimous 'scientific consensus' on Global Warming ('not a single paper asserted otherwise') is not only deeply flawed, but that same consensus is artificially maintained by Science and Nature rejecting any papers which disagree with it. 'Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly. Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked to edit his paper for publication - but has now been told that his results have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had been "widely dispersed on the internet."'"
Larger bounty could be a quicker picker-upper. crhylove writes "The good people over at downhillbattle.org have upped the bounty for their gaim filesharing plugin from $500 to a nice $1k. They say their initial developer has gone AWOL, and that there is an additional $332 in the fund for the developers discretion. I myself want this plugin! Go GAIM!"
It's so good that people give it away for free. Beth writes with what may be the most impressive of the various agit-prop, free-labor Firefox marketing campaigns undertaken around the event of the 50 millionth download of the browser; "To celebrate 50 million downloads of Firefox, a crew of six students from Oregon State University painted a 30 foot wide mural in the Memorial Union Quad. With kool-aid. And cornstarch. Over 20 pounds of it."
Cornstarch + Food Colouring + Camera = Slashdotted (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll admit... (Score:5, Insightful)
What happened the last time we, as a nation, took drastic and pre-emptive action based on a "consensus" of highly self-interested "experts?" We invaded Iraq.
I'm amazed at the thought process that leads the typical leftist Slashdotter to decry the forced consensus that there were WMDs in Iraq on one hand, while arguing vociferously in favor of rewiring the entire world's economy based on even slimmer evidence of anthropogenic climate change. Why is wishful thinking, fuzzy reasoning, and bad scientific practice good for environmentalists but bad for the Bush Administration?
At last, the truth exposed! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'll admit... (Score:4, Insightful)
2) If you want to call things "leftist", why not just use "Communist", which is what you're trying to imply?
3) BSAF was happy to report they put 23% less stuff in the air last year, down to 17,000 million tons. Fifty years ago people thought you could put anything you wanted into the ocean and rivers and it would affect anything. BZZZZTTTT. It did. It's common sense that's it's a good long-term move to minimize our effect on the environment, for purely selfish reaons. It's what they call a CONSERVATIVE approach to natural resources.
Now post with a real fucking name next time coward.
On the Global Warming consensus (Score:1, Insightful)
the lie is that there isn't global warming.
the statistics can be easily misused by those who ignore the fact that there is global warming.
and the politics is the fact that Tuvalu will still sink under the waves and their entire population will be forced to move to New Zealand.
When you can buy media wholesale (or own it) as those who deny global warming can, it's easy to come up with an article "proving" it doesn't exist.
But it still does.
Here endeth the lesson
Bounties have the opposite effect (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'll admit... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'll admit... (Score:1, Insightful)
1. You did not *know*, you *believed*, big difference. Even though it's been largely proved incorrect, it was generally treated as a matter of fact by most sources of intelligence that Saddam had and / or was trying to get WMD's. Not that that is necessarily a good reason to invade, but it isn't the straw horse you're looking for.
2. There's a difference? Maybe the moderate left isn't pining for a socialist "paradise", but an awful lot of the lefties are definitely in line for that boat.
3. Reducing our impact on the environment is always a good thing. An income redistribution plan packaged in a flawed environmental analysis is always a bad thing. There's your sesame street lesson for today.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ummm..... ever think there's a reason? (Score:5, Insightful)
A separate team of climate scientists, which was regularly used by Science and the journal Nature to review papers on the progress of global warming, said it was dropped after attempting to publish its own research which raised doubts over the issue.
As with Dr Peiser's study, Science refused to publish his rebuttal. Prof Bray told The Telegraph: "They said it didn't fit with what they were intending to publish."
Prof Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama, a leading authority on satellite measurements of global temperatures, told The Telegraph: "It's pretty clear that the editorial board of Science is more interested in promoting papers that are pro-global warming. It's the news value that is most important."
He said that after his own team produced research casting doubt on man-made global warming, they were no longer sent papers by Nature and Science for review - despite being acknowledged as world leaders in the field.
If they were regularly being consulted for reviewing publications submitted to the very same journal, that suggests that the journal editorial staff considered them reasonably competent -- that is, until they decided to disagree.
Re:on global warming (Score:4, Insightful)
I *do* believe that humans could change the climate since:
* Every time I fly over land I am constantly amazed by how much humans have altered the surface of the earth. In western Europe I'd be suprised if there was a significant percentage of the land cover that wasn't shaped by human hands. And Europe doesn't even have a large percentage of the population of the world- or even the highest densities of people! Does it really suprise you that we might actually change things on an even larger scale than that?
* In the last century and a bit our profile of energy consumption has changed from 'most energy used by humans consumed as food' (either human or livestock) to 'energy consumed by food a small percentage of the energy consumed by a human'. Even our food is more energy intensive (transport, fertilizer, packaging, more meat fewer vegetables). So the environmental footprint of each human (especially in the first world) is simply vast compared to humans only four or five generations ago. And of course our global population is larger than it has ever been (and not likely to start declining for a few more decades).
* The gloabl warming predictions aren't talking about climate changes of 100's or 10's of degrees- they are talking about degrees of change in temperature over the next decades.
Unfortunately that change is different in different places- so sometimes it is up and sometimes it is down! And our infrastructure is often frail in the face of change. A change in the type of snow in the UK affects how trains run (they can't get traction so trains are delayed), small changes in temperature in cold climates make it more likely embankments will collapse leading to road closures, an extra few degrees of temperature can cause dryness which causes dust on power lines that causes arcing and power outages when the first humidity comes along, early frosts affecting crops and general drop in productivity as the regional crop mix changes to adapt to slightly altered local environment.
These aren't thunderous typhoons and dramatic storms. This is the real world of being nibbled to death by ducks. You don't see dramatic changes and societal collapse, you see just... things breaking getting a little worse, bit by bit. Things get a little more expensive overall and oranges are very expensive some times of year. Alright in the first world where we can buy our way out of trouble. Kind of crap in Africa where people die instead.
So I *do* find that believable. And from a practical point of view I'd have thought that caution was the appropriate approach when playing with things like, you know, the global ecology.
When was that? (Score:5, Insightful)
When did that happen? The last time the US invaded Iraq they did it despite the opposition of the experts.
the forced consensus that there were WMDs in Iraq
I don't recall any such consensus from any experts. I recall assertions from the US administration, and a US press that refused to defy him after 9/11, but the international press was less credulous and the experts (particularly the experts who knew the most about it) were in no way weighing in on the side of the WMDs. All the push for invading Iraq because of the presence of WMDs came from the US administration and their suspiciously secret and unconvincing "evidence".
By the time of the invasion even the US administration had quit talking so much about WMDs and more about regime change and what a monster Saddam was, because they knew they weren't getting the consensus they wanted.
In fact pro-WMD side more resembles the anti-Global-Warming side, down to the refusal to provide evidence, ignoring the most knowledgable experts in favor of people who do science by press release, and having the might of the most powerful nation on Earth as their strongest argument.
Meanwhile what we have on the other side is a consensus of experts, not US newscasters and the US administration they don't dare defy, just like when the people trying to force the same kind of consensus in the face of the evidence gave George the maneuvering room to get his invasion of Iraq off the ground.
In other words, it didn't happen, you're making it up.
Scientific Inertia and Stomach Ulcers (Score:5, Insightful)
I am all for less polution in the air and do my best to reduce/reuse/recycle yadda yadda yadda but I can still remember how scared I was as a pre-teen when I learned at school that the earth was cooling off and headed for another ice-age. I am VERY sceptical of the amount of influence we humans have on the climate etc.
Cheers,
_GP_
Re:on global warming (Score:2, Insightful)
What about the appropriate approach when playing with things like, you know, the global economy, y'know, trillions of $ ?
The newer scientific consensus on global warming (Score:4, Insightful)
If you really think about it, it's kind of hard to work out whether you have a consensus on an issue when the group you are polling never meets. And as far as I can tell noone's volunteering to host a meeting of the world's atmospheric scientists so we can have a vote on the matter. A general reading of the literature (and that means reading much more than Nature and Science) suggests that
a) the science says we "should" be having an effect on global temperature, and
b) we are observing long term temperature change.
The consensus is that a) and b) are connected. For sure there are scientists, some prominent, who claim that the consensus is wrong. However claiming there is no consensus is just not a very useful activity, you really do have to go searching to find scientists who just refuse that this connection exists. That alone should tell you something.
Sadly the nature of the debate for the last 30 years over global warming has been a tug-of-war between very vocal and strident people, most of whom seem to have a political axe to grind and aren't too squeamish to let things like facts and good analysis get in the way of a catchy story that might get you into Time or The New York Times. It's a pity really, because like a lot of younger atmospheric scientists, like myself, really worry about what kind of planet our kids are going to be left with.
What a lot of people don't seem to realise is that, in private, the conversation amongst atmospheric scientists is moving on from whether there is an anthropogenic effect in global warming and onto what the hell we are going to do about the likely impacts. The newer consensus that I think is forming is that the political process is so deeply flawed that only a truly cataclysmic disaster is going to bring about change in the global arena. So basically, we know pretty much what's wrong and we're largely powerless to do anything about it. Just so you know, it leaves you with not such a great feeling. If you look around you'll find smaller conferences and meetings now looking at local climate changes, trying to assess how things are changing and discussing how we might ameliorate some of the changes we are already observing. Over time these will probably become more common till, at some point in the future, the general public will realize that the 'debate' has completely moved on from 'is global warming happening?' and on to 'how are we going to save lives?'. Should be interesting times.
Re:I'll admit... (Score:5, Insightful)
-----
The right of "the self-determination of nations" applies only to free societies or to societies seeking to establish freedom; it does not apply to dictatorships. Just as an individual's right of free action does not include the "right" to commit crimes (that is, to violate the rights of others), so the right of a nation to determine its own form of government does not include the right to establish a slave society (that is, to legalize the enslavement of some men by others). There is no such thing as "the right to enslave."A nation can do it, just as a man can become a criminal - but neither can do it by right.
It does not matter, in this context, whether a nation was enslaved by force, like Soviet Russia, or by vote, like Nazi Germany. Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual). Whether a slave society was conquered or chose to be enslaved, it can claim no national rights and no recognition of such "rights" by civilized countries - just as a mob of gangsters cannot demand a recognition of its "rights" and a legal equality with an industrial concern or a university, on the ground that the gangsters chose by unanimous vote to engage in that particular kind of group activity.
Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the nonexistent "rights" of gang rulers. It is not a free nation's duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses.
This right, however, is conditional. Just as the suppression of crimes does not give a policeman the right to engage in criminal activities, so the invasion and destruction of a dictatorship does not give the invader the right to establish another variant of a slave society in the conquered country.
-----
from Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness"
Re:I'll admit... (Score:5, Insightful)
This little chestnut always cracks me up. When I say we went to war for oil, why do people assume that "for the average American" should be tacked on to the end? Let's spell this out. We went to war because the oil companies are going to make out like bandits. According to Yahoo [yahoo.com] the Oil & Gas industry is posting year-on-year revenue growth of almost 30% and profit growth of almost 40%!!! I don't think the oil companies are unhappy with how the economy is doing. And if you don't like it "go fuck yourself" as Dick Cheney likes to say.
Re:Scientific Inertia and Stomach Ulcers (Score:4, Insightful)
And you're exactly the type of person the article is geared towards. Forget the fact that the article doesn't offer any solid evidence or even direct arguments against Global Warming. Just so long as it creates FUD based on the argument that since two studies controverting Global Warming happened to have been rejected by those liberal academic journals there must be a conspiracy going on--thus, Global Warming must be hoax!
Create your own FUD, it's easy!
Just:
1.) Claim to have an objective study refuting X(the actual content/quality of the study is irrelevent since it will never actually come into play. Actually, it's probably good to have poor content since it will help with step 3).
2.) Submit it to a bunch of large mainstream peer-reviewed journals.
3.) Have your papers rejected by the reputable publications.
4.) Claim that there's a conspiracy by proponents of X to silence legitimate studies challenging X. Therefor, X is naturally false.
Re:A skeptic replies... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure! Think infrared, with a bit of infrawhite mixed in.
Consensus on a number that can't be measured? (Score:4, Insightful)
- There is medium term warming since 1700s.
- Human activity is having an effect.
- Natural causes and cycles (solar cycle, 1200 year cycle) are having an effect.
The disagreement is on the weight to assign to natural and human causes. Worse, activists on both sides try to pretend that it is *all* human activity or *all* natural causes.In my opinion, whether the cause is primarily human, or natural, it is pretty much a done deal. We can expect to reach temperatures at least as high as the medieval period in the next few hundred years, more depending on the extent of human influence. Instead of bickering, we should be making long term migration plans. Places like Netherlands and Florida might not be good long term real estate investments. Places like Siberia and Northern Canada might pay off. Looking at what is known about local climates in the medieval temperature maximum would be a good start.
How can such migrations be handled equitably? If the area is currently barren, a homestead policy might be effective. But there will be unforeseen shifts in climate as well. Deserts may bloom. Farmland may become desert.
Re:At last, the truth exposed! (Score:2, Insightful)
If you had a paper proving that there is such thing as an invisible pink unicorn, then there WOULD be a problem with the rejections and the consensus.
Re:At last, the truth exposed! (Score:3, Insightful)
Or perhaps that alarmism sells, and papers which reject alarmism in favor of actual, boring science aren't good for subscription rates.
Max
Re:I'll admit... (Score:3, Insightful)
No you didn't. You assumed you knew.
Why am I being annoyingly nitpicky? Because people claim they know stuff all the time. Yet, I imagine in your case, you've never even been to Iraq.
It's like me saying I knew Episode II was going to suck. I didn't actually know until I saw it. It'd be very arrogant of me to try to pass that little prediction off as some sort of positive attribute to my character.
Re:I'll admit... (Score:2, Insightful)
And I suppose that you're perfectly willing to pay for these efforts out of your own pocket?
Max
Re:I'll admit... (Score:4, Insightful)
Minutiae? It was the reason they wanted you to go to war, remember? No, I guess you don't, you are an expert on doublethink.
There is no such thing as "the right to enslave."A nation can do it, just as a man can become a criminal - but neither can do it by right.It does not matter, in this context, whether a nation was enslaved by force, like Soviet Russia, or by vote, like Nazi Germany.
Or by capitalism, like in the US?
Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen.
I submit, that by Rand logic, any country has the moral right to invade the US based on how they treat the people enslaved in Guatanamo bay.
Re:I'll admit... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Honest question for global warming advocates (Score:4, Insightful)
Global climate is not some over simplified example in a high school text book like you propose here. Rather global climates are a result of a staggeringly complex balance of interconnected factors and Educated environmentalists see that the activities of man are beginning to influence some of these factors. Change some inputs then some of the outputs change.
Educated environmentalists care because the impact of any measurable change to global climate most likely will cause significant changes in the global social and political state.
For example a slight global warming has a number of interesting potential effects like moving America's "Bread Basket" northwards towards Candida and dramatically increasing the area covered by 'tropical' disease vectors like Malaria, Yellow fever, and the African sleeping sickness. Typically the results of upheavals of this sort of magnitude are wars.
Of course there are knee jerk reactionaries on both sides of the issue who have there opinion and never will let anyone change it. And of course this whole thing has been grossly oversimplified so that it can be spoon fed to people of the evening news, sad really.
Still if you are really interested in the topic loose the media supplied moniker "Global Warming" and google about for "Climate Change" it shouldn't take more than a few minutes to find some studies that back your existing opinion up and a couple of evenings to learn about what's being measured, how they apparently interact, and the consequences of the results. Then you can make an informed decision about it.
Hope That Helps
Re:on global warming (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly.
There's also another factor to consider. What if, for instance, in 1960 it had been determined that a gigaflop computing facility was of national importance? Billions of dollars would have been spent, acres of vacuum tube era computers would have been installed and so on... However, by simply waiting 40 years that gigaflop computer fit on one person's desk and cost $3000.
The parallel to global warming is that we could spend untold amounts of money trying to "mitigate" global warming in the short term (which by the way is not expected to have a measurable impact for decades), or we can continue to aggressively study the situation and work on new, advanced technologies that'll allow effective, shorter term, cost effective changes that'll actually fix the problem (if any).
Personally, I vote for plan B.
Re:I'll admit... (Score:2, Insightful)
Evil?
"Behind every great fortune there is a crime."
Honore de Balzac
French realist novelist (1799 - 1850)