Recent Posts
^A thought: perhaps we're too easily equating 'corporate researchers' with scientists? And 'corporate sponsored research' with science?-40hz (February 08, 2015, 09:18 PM)
Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.
Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.
Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption
1. Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale)
Say what? You want me to let this weed in my garden??? Surprisingly, dandelions – like many weeds – benefit our garden in many ways, the most important of which is fertilizer. Dandelions reach deep into the subsoil with those long taproots, dredge up important nutrients, and store them in their leaves.
Dandelions excel at accumulating potassium, phosphorus, calcium, and a handful of other nutrients in its leaves, which are important for healthy plant growth. When those leaves die back or are cut back and left to decompose, they fertilize the soil.
I let dandelions grow in my vegetable garden and it is common to encourage dandelions to grow in orchards under fruit trees. Dandelions increase earthworm populations, which is good for healthy soil.
About once a month I snip the leaves off and compost them in place, which also discourages the plant from flowering and going to seed. Dandelions are good, but I don’t need a dandelion garden!
Those nutrient-rich leaves aren’t only good for my garden and my soil, but they’re also good for me. Yep, dandelion greens are edible. I add the young, bright green spring leaves to salad mix.
Some market gardeners even cultivate a specific variety of dandelion with giant leaves as a crop. On purpose! Local chefs go nuts over it. Also, apparently, so do chickens. Consider adding dandelion seed to your foraging seed mix.
As if that weren’t enough, dandelion also has medicinal uses. The dried root is an excellent liver and kidney tonic. If dandelions are left to flower, they will attract pollinators and beneficial insects. For all of these reasons and more, dandelion is one of my top 5 weeds to keep in the garden.
Right) Hollywood.
Left) Magic wand.
The tl;dr is that you end up switching a subject and its modifier in order to emphasise where the importance is. However, you may still end up with disagreements between British and American grammarians. FWIW, American grammar delivers more information in this context. @Ren - to your very good point, I've changed the header in the OP to read "a Darknet developer" rather than "the Darknet developer." It's much more accurate to phrase it that way.-40hz (February 06, 2015, 01:07 PM)
Hmmm... I develop software. And I'm on the internet.
... I'm an... internet developer?!-wraith808 (February 06, 2015, 01:34 PM)
I'm an architect. And I'm on the internet.
I'M AN ARCHITECT OF THE INTERNET!-wraith808 (February 06, 2015, 01:34 PM)
But to the point that I was making... it's a developer that uses the Darknet. And I think that's the point that Ren was getting to. Someone using the medium that just happens to be a developer... isn't a developer of that medium.-wraith808 (February 06, 2015, 04:06 PM)
For some reason it reminded me of something from a long time ago. My first thought was "Baby Got Back" for visuals, but not sure.-Renegade (February 04, 2015, 02:42 AM)
Had the same reaction. It's not even really a song. It's more like what you'd call an extended riff in my book. It reminded me of an old clunker from back in the bad ol' 80s (which was pretty much an Ice Age for pop music) called I`m Too Sexy. It was...uh...performed?... by a rather odd saccharin skinhead duo called 'Right Said Fred.'
I could never decide if they were just another not-very-good 80s group - or if they were some elaborate "in" crowd put-down on the whole MTV/music video thing.-40hz (February 04, 2015, 04:21 AM)
Project Meshnet aims to build a sustainable, decentralized, alternative internet. You can help in several ways, from spreading the word, starting up your first Cjdns node, or starting a local meshnet group called a MeshLocal.
Best StackOverflow answer. Ever.
http://stackoverflow...-self-contained-tags
-Edvard (February 05, 2015, 08:34 PM)
My primary concern was that it would be too raunchy/inappropriate.-Deozaan (January 24, 2015, 03:11 PM)
)I messed with someone's video driver at work so it reduced the viewport by 1 pixel every day. Long term pranks are the best.-wraith808 (February 05, 2015, 05:45 PM)
Richard Bennett, a visiting fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, is an expert on Internet technology and public policy. He co-invented Ethernet over Twisted Pair, the Wi-Fi MAC protocol, and miscellaneous network enhancements such as the MPDU Aggregation system for 802.11n, the Distributed Reservation Protocol for UWB, and various tweaks and hacks to the Internet and OSI protocols.
His experience with legislative bodies spans two decades, beginning with expert witness testimony before multiple committees of the California legislature in the 1990s and continuing to recent testimony before the U.S. Congress on Internet privacy.
Apologies if I wasn't clear and you felt offended.-40hz (February 05, 2015, 12:50 PM)
I just figure that you like to poke me a bit every now and then to see how I react (or, go off the rails as it were). I'd be remiss if I didn't! 
I also think I see where some confusion enters into the picture. I wasn't responding to your post immediately above mine. It was a more general question - as in I don't know much about a lot of this, so do you have some good in-depth sources (like an online university level course or two) you'd care to share that puts you in a better position than me to say what's real when it comes to this stuff?-40hz (February 05, 2015, 12:50 PM)
(FWIW I'm broadly pro-vaccine myself, but dubious about the methods used to force it on the populace, and dubious about relations between the FDA and the corporations developing the vaccines.)-tomos (February 05, 2015, 02:13 PM)
While I don't automatically dismiss a lot of what you're saying or arguing for out of hand, I'm still less confident than you are about the validity of a lot of the 'evidence' being presented.-40hz (February 05, 2015, 09:27 AM)
Merck-False-Claims-Act.pdf (944.86 kB - downloaded 288 times.)What You Need[/size]
- Personal computer
- Compatible Web browser (CM/ECF has been tested and works correctly with Netscape 4.7x and 7.0x. and Internet Explorer 5.5 and 6.0)
- Internet access
Am I missing something?-40hz (February 05, 2015, 10:01 AM)
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Maybe you meant Amendments V through VIII?-40hz (February 05, 2015, 10:01 AM)
I don't see anything in any of the above that was clearly (or even obscurely) violated.-40hz (February 05, 2015, 10:01 AM)
Perhaps you're saying that the due process itself is unjust? Well, therein lies the critical difference between what the law actually says - as opposed to what most of us (i.e. non-attorneys) usually think it says or wish it said.-40hz (February 05, 2015, 10:01 AM)
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
). (And I'll check into the docs you posted once I have time.)
Network Working Group R. Callon, Editor
Request for Comments: 1925 IOOF
Category: Informational 1 April 1996
The Twelve Networking Truths
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo
does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of
this memo is unlimited.
Abstract
This memo documents the fundamental truths of networking for the
Internet community. This memo does not specify a standard, except in
the sense that all standards must implicitly follow the fundamental
truths.
Acknowledgements
The truths described in this memo result from extensive study over an
extended period of time by many people, some of whom did not intend
to contribute to this work. The editor merely has collected these
truths, and would like to thank the networking community for
originally illuminating these truths.
1. Introduction
This Request for Comments (RFC) provides information about the
fundamental truths underlying all networking. These truths apply to
networking in general, and are not limited to TCP/IP, the Internet,
or any other subset of the networking community.
2. The Fundamental Truths
(1) It Has To Work.
(2) No matter how hard you push and no matter what the priority,
you can't increase the speed of light.
(2a) (corollary). No matter how hard you try, you can't make a
baby in much less than 9 months. Trying to speed this up
*might* make it slower, but it won't make it happen any
quicker.
Callon Informational [Page 1]
RFC 1925 Fundamental Truths of Networking 1 April 1996
(3) With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is
not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they
are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them
as they fly overhead.
(4) Some things in life can never be fully appreciated nor
understood unless experienced firsthand. Some things in
networking can never be fully understood by someone who neither
builds commercial networking equipment nor runs an operational
network.
(5) It is always possible to aglutenate multiple separate problems
into a single complex interdependent solution. In most cases
this is a bad idea.
(6) It is easier to move a problem around (for example, by moving
the problem to a different part of the overall network
architecture) than it is to solve it.
(6a) (corollary). It is always possible to add another level of
indirection.
(7) It is always something
(7a) (corollary). Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two (you can't
have all three).
(8) It is more complicated than you think.
(9) For all resources, whatever it is, you need more.
(9a) (corollary) Every networking problem always takes longer to
solve than it seems like it should.
(10) One size never fits all.
(11) Every old idea will be proposed again with a different name and
a different presentation, regardless of whether it works.
(11a) (corollary). See rule 6a.
(12) In protocol design, perfection has been reached not when there
is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take
away.
Callon Informational [Page 2]
RFC 1925 Fundamental Truths of Networking 1 April 1996
Security Considerations
This RFC raises no security issues. However, security protocols are
subject to the fundamental networking truths.
References
The references have been deleted in order to protect the guilty and
avoid enriching the lawyers.
Author's Address
Ross Callon
Internet Order of Old Farts
c/o Bay Networks
3 Federal Street
Billerica, MA 01821
Phone: 508-436-3936
EMail: [email protected]
Callon Informational [Page 3]
@Ren - You're still overlooking the 800lb gorilla in the picture.-40hz (February 04, 2015, 10:05 PM)
re: jury nullification
Again, almost always in movies.-40hz (February 04, 2015, 10:05 PM)
R v Morgentaler [1] was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that the abortion provision in the Criminal Code of Canada was unconstitutional, as it violated a woman's right under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to security of person. Since this ruling, there have been no criminal laws regulating abortion in Canada.
The unanimous decision in Krieger was written by Justice Fish and it further demonstrates the Supreme Court of Canada‘s willingness to link law and morality, embracing edicts of natural law. The Supreme Courtaffirmed the not guilty verdict which the trial jury would have rendered because they believed more so in the process than the plain meaning interpretation of the statute. Fish states
It has since then (in 1670, when jurors were fined and imprisoned for a ―not guilty verdict) been well established that under the system of justice we have inherited fromEngland juries are not entitled as a matter of right to refuse to apply the law — but they do have the power to do so when their consciences permit of no other course.
This paragraph is suggestive that the judges of the Supreme Court believe in juries using their own morality. Justice Fish is quick to point out that the process of refusing to apply the law, or nullification is not ― a matter of right but that the power to do so exists, only when it is deemedby that jury to be absolutely necessary. When a jury‘s collective conscience tells them that thereis ―no other course‖ of action this is when nullification is absolutely necessary, as the jury felt in
was the situation in this case. Furthermore, the Court continues into the next paragraph by stating
63
case law from 1784 that they have used throughout Canadian jurisprudence as the base for jurynullification:
It is the duty of the Judge, in all cases of general justice, to tell the jury how to do right,though they have it in their power to do wrong, which is a matter entirely between Godand their own consciences.
Justice Fish indicates that while the Court has decided in this case and going forward that trial judges should not instruct jurors on how to find, that judges should still instruct jurors on what is the most appropriate legal course of action, or how to ―do right. Whether or not a jury chooses to abide by that course of action is, as the Supreme Court decided in this case, up to them.
The trial judge deprived the accused of his constitutional right to a trial by jury when he directed the jury to find the accused guilty as charged. The trial judge’s direction was not a “slip of the tongue” to be evaluated in the context of the charge as a whole; nor is this a matter of assessing the impact of subtle language susceptible to different interpretations. His purpose and words were clear. In effect, the trial judge reduced the jury’s role to a ceremonial one: He ordered the conviction and left to the jury, as a matter of form but not of substance, its delivery in open court.
Attorneys are expected to argue for the law as it applies to the case, and the facts as presented. It's generally been seen as a violation of an attorney's oath (as an officer of the court) for one to ask a jury to ignore the law as it exists when considering their verdict.-40hz (February 04, 2015, 10:05 PM)
And there's also a great deal of legal precedent that says that even though juries may choose to nullify, the courts are under no obligation to tell them they can - or - to allow an attorney on either side to so inform them. And that opinion goes back a number of years, and was the determination made in several different rulings on the subject of jury nullification.-40hz (February 04, 2015, 10:05 PM)
)So while it may seem like a cool idea for juries to take the initiative and override a law they disagree with when reaching a verdict (and they legally can do just that under US law) it's a dangerous road to go down. Because if it becomes commonplace, the entire legal system goes out the door and you have a small-scale version of mob rule in effect. Which means it's not the law, or the facts in a case, but rather the jury selection that becomes the deciding factor in obtaining a judgement. Which is ripe for abuse by both the prosecution and the defence.-40hz (February 04, 2015, 10:05 PM)
