winsor

Many years ago I was staying with some friends over the Yule holidays. The oldest son was pushing the limits as kids are wont to do, and his father yelled at him to the effect that he should stop doing that right now or there would be severe consequences. The parent then went back to cheerfully doing what he had been doing before. I said "you are not actually angry?" He responded, "nah, but it works better if he thinks I am. If I wait until I actually am angry, I am not in control." Anger, whether "justified" or not, tends to turn very nice people into assholes. If, for instance, someone has done something to really piss me off, I do not tend to be particularly considerate of their feelings or rights if I give in to the emotion. Angry people are also less concerned about the personal consequences of their actions, and will do things that cause themselves harm. Since it is a common tactic to get someone angry enough that they are hoist with their own petard (think Paul Newman in Slap Shot), I get suspicious when someone seems to be trying to get my goat. Kids will often do whatever it takes to get a rise out of their parents, and can have the process of pissing them off developed to a fine art. It is thus a good idea to try to stay one step ahead of them, and to keep them guessing. The punch line to all this is that the guy in this video could have achieved his goal every bit as well without either wasting the computer or wasting ammunition ($1 a round for "hollow point exploding bullets?" Be real). Getting a box that looks just like the computer in question is no big deal - if he works in IT, latching on to one slated for recycle is a piece of cake. As far as the staging and destruction is concerned, he could have shown a bit more flair. Wearing an outfit obtained from the a costume store - a 1960s-era "computer technician" lab coat, for instance - would have provided more entertainment value for the YouTube audience. He could have read the letter, stopping only to explain how it grieves him to have been such a bad person that his poor, underappreciated daughter had a life not worth living. A few theatrical sobs, wiping tears from his eyes would be a nice touch. He could have then explained that he hoped to make it up to her in some small way by fixing her computer. "Gosh, I hope all the software I loaded will somehow gain her forgiveness. I'm burning it in now." "Oh no! I am as incompetent a computer technician as I am a Father!" And so forth. I somehow do not think this would be any less effective an approach than coming off as someone who, when angered, becomes destructive with firearms. "Stay away from that dumb sonofabitch. when he gets confused, he shoots things." BSBD, Winsor

I am puzzled by what possesses you to ascribe to me motives of which I am unaware. "Many people saw them as domestic terrorists?" Argumentum ad Populum - followed, of course, by a false analogy. Let's pick another analogy. Bosnia-Herzogovina seceded from Yugoslavia, and was subjected to an onslaught of troops from other states of Yugoslavia coming in with malice and aforethought. I am sure people in the states providing the troops thought badly of the secessionists, and thought they "started a war," but that does not make it the truth. Do I think one group or the other are "heroes?" Not as far as I can tell, but you may know better. My guess as to what you describe as the "Confederate Flag" is, in fact, the Battle Flag of the Confederacy. You may know what the National Flag of the CSA actually looks like, but it would not surprise me if you did not. The significance of the Battle Flag is similar to that of a Combat Patch on an Army uniform. It was flown in the defense of the homeland against foreign invaders. Having lived in Germany and spent quite a bit of time in discussion with Rabbis having a solid grasp of history, I do not take so simplistic a view of the Third Reich or the Holocaust as is typical. Similarly, having at least as much time in the Occupied Confederacy as I have on Union turf, I do not take so simplistic a view as you seem to suggest. I strongly suggest that you lay off the knee-jerk reactions. I do not suggest, nor do I expect, that you should agree with me, but submit that it is a good idea to understand that which you presume to criticize. BSBD, Winsor

Not quite. The reference to the Confederacy and terrorism resulting in the death of half a million Americans when discussing the adoption of SS runes by Scout Snipers carries a number of ugly implications. The crimes against humanity (above and beyond the usual horrors of war) for which the SS was guilty? The intentional slaughter of many millions of noncombatants. The crimes against humanity for which the Confederacy was guilty? Slavery. The reference was thinly veiled. Do I view the soldiers of one side or another as "heroes?" Nope. There were examples of selfless heroism - as well as unimaginable savagery - on both sides. Although Nathan Bedford Forrest is a distant relative, I consider his actions in many instances to have been entirely loathsome. Whatever tactical genius he may have possessed does not make up for his despicable conduct. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, OTOH, was possessed of an equal level of military skill, but was also possessed of a rare level of personal integrity. If you must be snarky, please do so with a little more skill. BSBD, Winsor

It sure would be a shame if someone would call him a denier, just to try and pigeon hole him so as to minimize the new position and statements of this former alarmist, who is just now emerging from his branch davidian type induced haze to see the truth about AGW. I'll have to check my Thesaurus, but I'm pretty sure "Heretic" and "Denier" are synonymous.

and the turning of this heritic continues.... Heresy! Blasphemy! I shall not stand near thee, lest lightning bolts smite thee!

What you think you know about the Confederacy is grossly inaccurate, and what you do not know about the Confederacy is extensive. Slavery, abhorrent though it may be, was but a flashpoint issue - and largely a red herring when all was said and done. To equate the soldiers who defended their homes against the invaders from the foreign country to the North with the SS is beyond offensive. Ignorance is no excuse.

You have to consider that the store is in New Jersey. In New Jersey, firearms are viewed pretty much the way Harley Davidsons used to be - the only people who have them are cops and outlaws. BSBD, Winsor

Actually, that brings up another point -- can a new-style government-only domestic partnership be limited as to span? I.e. you get married for a 5-year span, and then it's automatically dissolved? I'm not saying it to be a smartass, but it's something that will need to be thought out if we really divorce the concept of marriage from domestic partnership. Wendy P. "Do I want a marriage license? Nah, I'm here for a learner's permit."

I have no family here in the US. It's only a few of us. I think when the time comes I may just take the long walk. I never want to be a burden to anyone and if it comes to that, then it's a simple solution. Remember I'm Persian, I don't fear death. For death is easy, any one can die. Islam is to Persia what Catholicism is to Ireland. The Irish were undefeatable militarily, but were readily conquered by the Church. Similarly, Persia was an historical power of long standing, but was gelded by the influx of Islam. That is a pity for the Irish and the Persians, but to the benefit of their adversaries. It's an ill wind that blows no one any good. I think I would prefer the Persia of Omar Khyyam to the Iran of the Ayatollas. BSBD, Winsor

I hate to break it to you, but the foreclosures that were handled badly by the banks and finance companies were the result of people defaulting on their mortgages. This is a key point. The fact that the foreclosure process was bungled badly in all too many cases does not change the fact that people lost their homes due to nonpayment. People who stayed current with their mortgage and taxes were fine. Those who quit paying were the ones who were out on the street. The issue for which the lenders are being fined is procedural. The unethical behavior on the part of lenders was issuing the bad mortgages in the first place. People who borrowed to buy houses they simply could not afford were, at the very best, stupid. I know you are mad at the financial system, and to some extent it is for cause. This does not, however, make the system guilty of every failing you would ascribe to it. BSBD, Winsor

He knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he... Oh, that's Santa Claus? Disregard.

Like the term, denier, that you use? Who are you calling a denier? I am not!

I, too, am wildly indifferent to what arouses his interests on his own time. The relationship between unconventional lifestyle and security risk, however, has been a longstanding concern by a variety of organizations. For whatever reason, there has been an unusual correlation between homosexuality and treason in modern times. Of the Cambridge Five, only Kim Philby, a devout Communist, was not homosexual. Similarly the Mitchell and Martin defection was seen as being part and parcel with their perceived homosexuality. The last I heard, the EPQ, or embarrassing personal question, was part of the polygraph screening for civilian employment at the NSA, to the effect of "have you ever had an adult homosexual experience?" Any hint of an affirmative answer to that question is grounds for instant disqualification. Since the NSA is Department of Defense, a large part of its staff are active duty military in their respective security organizations. A number of people who were military spooks did not qualify for continued employment on the civilian side after ETS; I have known a few. One issue has more to do with ostracism than homosexuality per se: as a matter of survival, many gays live a double-life, effectively living a lie. One polygraph operator noted that closeted gays were so adept at falsehood that they could lie through their teeth without a blip (anecdotal, I know, but he seemed convinced). This does not seem to be the case with people who were never mistreated for being who and what they were. Gays with whom I worked who had never been closeted seemed to have a very different approach to life than those who had been. In the end I think Bradley Manning's sexual proclivities are immaterial. I do not think he would be any more or less guilty if he had been a faithful, straight husband and father. Either way, I think they should show him some consideration and let him smoke a cigarette in public. And give him a blindfold. BSBD, Winsor

Sounds like a variant of the old joke from Warsaw, back when it was a Socialist Workers' Paradise: "Comerade, what is backing this currency?" "Why it is fully backed by God." "Aha, but you know there is no God!" "So you know there is nothing backing this currency!"

I thought he misspelled "Mormon." Same difference.

The data and code for one of the papers is available here: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/data-and-code-for-foster-rahmstorf-2011/#more-4571 feel free to wag away. That's really all I'm asking from the denialists. If it is all fraud, just dig in and publish a peer reviewed paper showing that. Show that the climate of the 20th century can be explained without CO2 as the dominant driving force. Show up at a scientific conference and give a talk. Hell just show up and ask questions. The skeptical science website published a summary of six, count them, six peer reviewed papers that arrive at the same conclusions using differing data and methods. I guess I just have a bias in favor of that sort of bias. Again, the website to which you linked is about as unbiased as one backed by Scientology, with "peer reviewed," being the votes of Tom Cruise, John Travolta, and Kirstie Alley. When voicing legitimate concerns regarding methodology ensures grants being pulled or contracts cancelled, I am unimpressed by claims of impartiality. Your offer of code review is about as interesting as the opportunity to check the calculations providing the definitive answer to quite how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Why do you think I would waste the time trying to sway the opinions of those who do not see as I do? I do not expect you to agree with me, nor does it really matter. If people at a "scientific conference" want to get together and ooh and aah at each other's work, that's their prerogative. I have no interest whatsoever in participating - either for or against. You are biased toward one particular dogma. I am biased against dogma. Trust me, you have lost your audience.

I agree. But to be fair, atheistic scientists should not peddle their religion in " science class" any more that those who believe in Intelligent Design. No one can prove what initiated the creative forces of the big bang singularity With all due respect, do you have any concept of quite how stupid that statement is - or is that the point?

The one with the buttstock is NFA. Double-check me on this, but I believe the one without the buttstock is NFA. NFA allows for a 26" overall length with the buttstock in the extended position. Unfortunately, I've learned a lot more about weapons than I ever learned about weapon legislation. A stocked, rifled firearm with a barrel less than 16", or a shotgun with a barrel less than 18", is NFA. If you have a Contender or Encore, you can put a buttstock on when using a barrel 16" or longer. You are strongly advised to remove the stock before putting a 14" barrel on. Even with a pistol grip, a shotgun still needs 18" of barrel. This does not apply to blackpowder firearms, antiques or relics. Firearms laws are very location-dependent. When I lived in France I was impressed by the requirement that one must use a silencer if making too much noise violates noise ordinances. Blue skies, Winsor

Pardon my French.

This statement is completely false. There is no tacit assumption. Climatologists look at anthropogenic forcings like: 1) Carbon dioxide 2) Ozone 3) Sulfate aerosols 4) Nitrogen oxides 5) CFC's an HCFC's 6) black carbon/dust 7) land use changes 8) methane and non manmade factors like 1) volcanic sulfates 2) orbital changes 3) changes in sun intensity 4) clouds/water vapor 5) non manmade CO2 6) short term shifts in climate due to AMO, PDO, el Nino/la Nina They haven't just fixated on a single factor; infact they are adding additional factors to the models as fast as computer capacity allows. Having considered a whole range factors, the consensus is that only hypothesis that explains the observed warming is that man made CO2 is driving it. If you want a good summary of recent work in this area I recommend: http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html If you only have time for the sound bite, see the attached graphic. Six independent research groups using different techniques and data arrive at the same conclusion, that humans are driving the observed warming. I find it amazing that, with your background, you are as credulous as you would seem. The site to which you referred is about as unbiased regarding "global warming" as vatican.com would be regarding Catholicism. Don't get me wrong, the Vatican has something together in order to wield so much power for so long, but, as in the case of the website, the level of dogma makes it hard to accept the data at face value. I am not saying they are wrong, but that I do not trust anyone with so blatant a conflict of interest. As far as computer models go, I can make a graph sit up and wag its tail. You know GIGO - Garbage In, Gospel Out. BSBD, Winsor

Shirley, you jest! The fixation on "carbon" as the culprit of Climate Change is well established in the literature. Do your homework and get back to me. Feeeelings, nothing more than feeeeelings... You claim to be an expert in the field yet the only thing you can name in that post is "Inconvenient Truth"?? Please quote where I stated that I was an "expert in the field." If you want to make reference to what I did or did not say, be exact. No fooling? It is also less factually accurate than a decent comic book. Why do you assume that it is my job to do your homework? If you want instruction on the subject, you are free to enroll in a course of study. This presumes that you A) qualify for admission and B) can afford the tuition. Jeers!

Therein lies the rub. When you say "the" issue, all is lost. The heat-transfer characteristics of the planet are complex, and CO2 is a FACTOR. Are there other significant factors? YES! Is the consumption of fossil fuels in heroic proportions a problem? YES! Is CO2 emission the only, or even the most, significant, problem with the consumption of fossil fuels? Not by a long shot! I can not recall the Zen term from the Sanskrit (distarka?), but the rough idea in English is "wrong question"/"would you rephrase the question to become meaningful." BSBD, Winsor

IIRC, the text translates to "be fruitful and multiply" - not exponentiate. I think that item justifies the use of a banner saying "Mission Accomplished!" It's gonna be fun trying to feed everyone when we run out of petroleum (and other finite resources). Whether it is warm or cold while you starve to death is a secondary consideration. When greater than 80% of the global population subscribes to one religion or another, and all religions seem to believe in using sex as a weapon, by trying to out-breed competing belief systems, well, climate change is honestly just a much easier sell. When the churches tell people to go forth and have more sex, and you says less sex, more condoms, well guess who's gonna win. Throw in the evolutionary compulsion to live longer through offspring, and yeah, there go the brakes on this train. We are fundamentally a parasite on this planet. The question is whether our space expansion technology can develop before our population expansion wipes us out. Those who call for conservation of natural resources, reduction of environmental degradation, and slowing of our exponential breeding aren't actually trying to stop those things, they're just trying to give the scientists a few more years to work their magic and save our species. Blues, Dave What is there to suggest that, given our track record in destroying the optimal habitat in which we now find ourselves, we might do any better elsewhere? If we can't get it together here, I'm afraid it's game over. So long as we address consequences rather than causes, we're screwed.

In your opinion, what is the vastly more important problem (or disease for which climate change is a symptom) on which forward thinking folks ought to be focused? Population growth? IIRC, the text translates to "be fruitful and multiply" - not exponentiate. I think that item justifies the use of a banner saying "Mission Accomplished!" It's gonna be fun trying to feed everyone when we run out of petroleum (and other finite resources). Whether it is warm or cold while you starve to death is a secondary consideration.

"What I pointed out was that the climate change cult has latched onto one factor in a particularly complex system, with the tacit assumption that this is the only parameter of interest. " A more substantial evidence backing your accusations would be a start. Shirley, you jest! The fixation on "carbon" as the culprit of Climate Change is well established in the literature. Do your homework and get back to me. Feeeelings, nothing more than feeeeelings...