After reading the quotes of 'scientists' like those mentioned in this article I AM 100% SOLD! Man is bad! They sound so positive (and smart) so there's no need to even study the issue any more. IT'S DONE.
But....
There actually is a large counter argument (not profiting like the pro argument which includes everyone from Al Gore to the energy companies). To me it’s suspicious that the pro side keeps getting caught lying and colluding and has been forced to backtrack on their fear mongering claims and arguments. If it is found that this is a for profit fraud which is raising energy prices, food prices, etc. then those profiting from the possible deaths and starvation of others should be held responsible.
And the 95% agree reported in this article or 97% agree 'fact' tweeted by the president seems to actually be the complete opposite upon peer review. 0.3% instead of 97%.
"Cook et al. (2013) stated that abstracts of nearly all papers expressing an opinion on climate change endorsed consensus,which, however, traditionally has no scientific role; used three imprecise definitions of consensus interchangeably; analyzed abstracts only;excluded 67% expressing no opinion; omitted some key results; misstated others; and thus concluded that 97.1% endorsed the hypothesis as defined in their introduction,namely that the “scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)”. The authors’ own data file categorized 64 abstracts, or only 0.5% of the sample, as endorsing the consensus hypothesis as thus defined. Inspection shows only 41 of the 64, or 0.3% of the entire sample, actually endorsed their hypothesis. Criteria for peer review of papers quantifying scientific consensus are discussed."
They sampled the data. Just because they didn't review every paper doesn't mean that the papers they didn't review disagree with their assessment. Furthermore, the fact that 67% didn't express an opinion simply shows that they were scientists. One goal of scientific publications is to not editorialize, to not express opinions. However, the results of their research still point to anthropogenic climate change.
OK. I too am already tired of hearing about this Snowden stuff but felt this was interesting to share because it mentions a (new to me) method / technology / "project" (i.e. 'Quantum Insert') which I hadn't seen before in previous releases.
"According to the slides in the GCHQ presentation, the attack was directed at several Belgacom employees and involved the planting of a highly developed attack technology referred to as a "Quantum Insert" ("QI"). It appears to be a method with which the person being targeted, without their knowledge, is redirected to websites that then plant malware on their computers that can then manipulate them."
In some ways iOS7 looks cleaner and more subtle but to me it is generally MUCH worse for understanding what to do (like when MS Office went away from menus and to the tool strip junk). The old version used blank space better, it was clear what elements could be clicked as buttons were clearly buttons, content was more separated from control, etc.
Some of the icons/fonts/colors are clearly improved but in general I think it’s a fail. And, to me, flat looks cheap.
I'd was going to make the same point. Yes, I think that changes things completely -- if you are an owner than you are being loyal to yourself (premise holds).
I have a little different take. So, let's assume that you can combine 5+ encryptions / encryption points and hide the contents of you communication on someone else's network. IT IS STILL SOMEONE ELSE'S NETWORK. What happens when the network owner becomes China (game already over), UK (now blocking porn, next political speech, etc. >> game over), USSR, USSA, etc. and decides that your packets look like something we don't transfer. Or what about the old proposal to require a license to use the Internet? -- see http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100204/1925188060.shtml and http://business.time.com/2010/01/30/drivers-licenses-for-the... and a million other links.
Solutions built on top of some existing (OWNED) platform are inherently fragile until there's a private (P2P-like HAM radio to smoke signal) transfer pipe.
"Yet the reality is, governments may have to reconsider such an requirement. It may not fly today, but don't be surprised if it becomes reality in the near future. Every device connected to the Internet will have a permament license plate and without it, the network won't allow you to log in."
The point is that people have been calling for this for 10 years and it's going to happen SO why would you expect that the "Internet police" would allow you to move around in any manner (speed, intoxication level, destination, type of transport, etc.) that you see fit?
And, this is the reason that Bing and other search engines will never be able to compete with Google. ANALYTICS! This free 'software crack' just keeps getting more addictive.
A few years ago I built what I think is a revolutionary privacy solution (applied for a patent but never released it publicly) and as part of that I loaded the top 1M web sites by Alexa rank. I can tell you that more than 70% include this script -- from Aljazeera to Zillow -- all the Russian sites, all the Chinese sites, etc. The privacy game was never about search results. It's about in-site logging and THOSE analytics. Think about that the next time you're browsing YouPorn -- someone else is watching you, looking at what you click on, how long you watch for, how many times you replay a certain part, etc. G knows more about your fetishes that you could articulate yourself!
Not to criticize but is this the worst code you've ever seen or what? (OK, that was a criticism...)
This article ( http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/obamacare-healthcare-go... ) and the headline was:
"Obamacare website cost more than FACEBOOK, TWITTER, LINKEDIN, INSTAGRAM..."
Is this a comedy?