bascule

It would prevent ISPs from blocking access to sites like Wikileaks or degrading the traffic. Imagine, for example, that Wikileaks posted information about Comcast executives having sex with child prostitutes in Thailand. Without net neutrality legislation, Comcast could decide it didn't want its customers looking at this information, and block it. Without net neutrality legislation, there isn't unregulated speech. ISPs are free to censor whatever they desire. An ISP could decide it wants to deliver Republican emails but not Democrat emails. It could decide if you want access to the NRA's web site you have to pay an extra $5/mo. Net neutrality would help protect free speech online.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/technology/07net.html A federal appeals court ruled unanimously that the FCC does not have the legal authority to regulate the Internet under present law. I can't say I disagree with the letter of the ruling. I don't know what powers present legislation grants the FCC in this regard. However, I would certainly like to see the FCC's authority expanded to include net neutrality. I see no reason why ISPs shouldn't be considered common carriers in the same way telephone companies are.

I think Fox News is the larger problem when it comes to "inflaming the tea party movement". Also, the anti-war protests were protesting war, whereas the tea party protests seem to be protesting Democrats in power

Pangloss, I don't know what to say, besides I can pretty much guarantee you we'll see an investigation into the content of this video, and I predict the outcome for the US military will not be a positive one.

I try to not bust this out indiscriminately, but... I feel it's warranted here. Who the crap was ever saying that every nuke on earth would be detonated in a realistic scenario? All that talk was about total hypothetical yields, compared to hypothetical scenarios about weaponized viruses. I ALSO try to not bust this out indiscriminately, but... Modern nuclear weapons are thermonuclear. The weapons dropped on Japan during WW2 were fission bombs. Thermonuclear bombs utilize nuclear fusion. The total yield of modern devices is several orders of magnitude more than the weapons dropped on Japan. In absolutely no way does this make the fallout safer. It only increases the total quantity of fallout produced.

Try Asahi Super Dry

And my point is this sort of argument exists entirely in the realm of hypotheticals. If you're talking about practical means of wreaking mass destruction, all the way to the level of annihilating the entire human population of earth, nuclear weapons would far and away be #1 on my list.

Although I can't find specific references off hand, the fallout cloud created by detonating every nuke in the existing nuclear stockpile in specifically selected locations should be more than enough to generate a fallout cloud capable of killing all humans on earth who don't seek shelter in locations that would prevent them from being exposed to fallout. And even then, time to live will be limited based on stockpiled resources.

The indiscriminate and nonchalant "video game"-like killing of unarmed civilians and journalists doesn't bother you?

While that's possible, I'd find it highly unlikely. A few dozen thermonuclear warheads, placed directly on major population centers, and the resulting fallout cloud should be enough to do the trick. You're seriously suggesting anyone, in the age of modern immunology, could infect 95% of the population of 3 continents with a disease, and given that achieve a 100% lethality rate? I'm no virologist but I find that concept extremely aggressive at best. The nukes required to wipe out massive amounts of the Earth's population ready to go in missile siloes right now, as opposed to some hypothetical disease to be dispersed in a hypothetical manner. All of that said, getting back to the topic at hand, you think that a nuclear response would ever be warranted against a biological attack?

You're talking about native populations in the 19th century. I'm talking about... America in the 21st century. Among other things we have modern immunology and the CDC. There's no comparison here. I strongly doubt any biological agent exists today which can wreak the same havoc as a thermonuclear ICBM. Yeah seriously... people are actually complaining that Obama has said he will not threaten nations without nukes with nukes? Is there something wrong with you? Do you really think that's a bad thing? If so, I think you either don't understand the effects of nuclear weapons, or you're morally deficient in some manner. Maybe I've just been to the Hiroshima Peace Park and witnessed the devastation of a nuke firsthand... and that was a simple fission bomb, not a thermonuclear device. Nukes are not something you just nonchalantly lump into the same category as anthrax.

What? Aside from the extremely vague nature of statements like "chemical and biological agents", the fallout cloud that would arise from a MAD-type nuclear scenario with large numbers of warheads detonated around the globe certainly brings with it the potential to wipe out humanity. That threat exists today and has existed since the cold war. Can you point out a similar scenario with chemical or biological weapons that exists today? Sure, you can dream up hypothetical scenarios like grey goo converting the entire earth to a big silver ball. But that can't happen today. Global thermonuclear war can. I really cannot believe the response to this thread. I do not think any of you who are equating chemical and biological agents to nuclear weapons have really thought through what you're saying. Not only is the destructive potential of nuclear weapons far greater, but are you forgetting about fallout? I think you'd be hard pressed to find a chemical weapon which can emit such a destructive substance into the air en masse that occurs after the detonation of a thermonuclear weapon. For those of you who continue to insist that nuclear weapons should be equated to chemical and biological weapons, can you name a specific chemical or biological weapon you think compares to, say, a Minuteman III?

What? You think the use of a chemical or biological weapon against the US justifies using a nuclear weapon in response? I don't see how you can just lump chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons into the same category as if they're the same thing. They're certainly not.

I prefer news aggregators where people vote for the top stories, like reddit

To anyone suggesting sampling bias, no excuse... this "study" is rife with it

Hint: it's on the banner, yes... it's an (animated with a bunch of weird crap on it) banner that just dumps you right onto the scientology.org front page

South Dakota has passed a resolution which effectively calls for a "teach the controversy" approach to climate change: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/02/21/you-cant-resolve-away-climate-change/ It's full of gems like... WHEREAS, the earth has been cooling for the last eight years despite small increases in anthropogenic carbon dioxide; Yes, they're completely right, the earth has been cooling during the warmest decade on record... for EIGHT YEARS! </sarcasm> Never mind 2005 was the warmest year on record and it's only been 5 years since then. More debunking of these silly, unscientific claims can be found in the Bad Astronomy article. In passing a resolution like this, South Dakota contradicts the opinion of every scientific organization of national or international standing. Furthermore, no scientific organization of national or international standing has their back. This is effectively the State of South Dakota vs. science... We have, of course, seen this sort of thing before with the teaching of evolution. While a state opposing that seems almost quaint in this day and age, it seems state governments have found new areas where they can promote anti-science. Perhaps the US government could respond to this sort of thing by pulling all federal funding for science and education from the state until the state government pulls its head out of its *ss...

It seems like a good idea conceptually, however given the recent atrocities committed with Alcor including things like playing games with frozen heads, in practice I'm not sure it's really worth it.

And oddly enough, Fox News is one of the few US "news organizations" carrying anything about it at all: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/05/video-appears-forces-firing-unarmed-suspects-baghdad/ Wikileaks site on the incident here Wikileaks is an organization reminiscient of the "data havens" seen in William Gibson and Bruce Sterling novels (or the CryptNet in Neil Stephenson) They provide a proxy organization between whistleblowers and other sources of information and the outside world, allowing people to release classified information without threat of litigation. Recently Wikileaks released a video apparently showing US soldiers gunning down Iraqi civilians and two Reuters journalists from a helicopter. The US government maintains it obeyed proper rules of engagement. I think this event is interesting if only because it shows how the way information is disseminated is changing thanks to the Internet. I've been reading about this sort of thing in sci-fi for awhile and it's pretty interesting to see it happening in the real world.

What? That's not a claim? You're just tossing that one out there as a hypothetical that you completely absolve yourself of? The word "might" means it's not actually a claim? Perhaps I should talk about the millions of conservatives who might rise up against the government in armed insurrection...

Knowledge is built on hierarchical structures of commonality

It says... between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6% Omitting context, are we? Yes, the slippery slope, they will slip down it... Do you have any evidence to support your claims that certain changes in drug policy will lead to increased use?

For what it's worth, I did click the banner just to see where it went... guess where!

Seriously?

You really think 1 out of every 10 Americans wants to try crack? And seriously, you think crack dealers are going to open up shop in malls? The real-world situation in Portgual serves as an excellent counterexample to your crack-sold-in-malls hypothetical