Re: AS/400
S/36 came out after the S/38 - it (the S/36) was a replacement for the S/34 which was, IIRC, announced at the same time as the S/38 but came out about 4 years before the S/38.
107 publicly visible posts • joined 17 Jul 2009
"As top climate scientist Michael Mann of the University of Pennsylvania [...]"
The same Michael E. Mann of the University of Pennsylvania who falsely claimed to have been awarded a Nobel Prize?
The same Michael E. Mann of the University of Pennsylvania who refuses to pay a judgment for costs levied against him in The Supreme Court of British Columbia?
The same Michael E. Mann of the University of Pennsylvania who, along with his co-conspirators at the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, 'hid the decline'?
The same Michael E. Mann of the University of Pennsylvania who uses other peoples money to pursue lawfare against those with the temerity to notice his duplicity?
Thanks are due Myslewski - by treating Michael E. Mann of the University of Pennsylvania as a reliable interlocutor he has made it possible to save the time needed to read the article, knowing it's propaganda dressed up in scientism.
On the balance, when it comes to intrusive surveillance, I rather favour Big Tech than government. Big Tech has some incentive to keep your information under their control. Government? Not so much. If memory serves, the biggest exposures of private data have come from government databases being pilfered.
Seems a bit suspect when an organisation devoted to making energy expensive carries on about something being "too expensive, too slow to build, and too risky to play a significant role in transitioning away from fossil fuels."
What's riskier? A nuclear reactor with all the safeguards producing reliable or intermittent, unreliable, 'renewable' power?
'Well, the operation was a success . . . right up until the wind dropped and the machines shut down. Sorry about your loss.'
"[...] US senator John Cornyn, who in 2022 took to then-Twitter to speak his brains."
Yes, well, given that he is one of the senators from my state, I can assure you he hasn't much in the way of brains to speak.
"[...] either due to memory constraints or perhaps laziness."
Few seem to remember how expensive data storage used to be or how few developers expected their code to be used for decades.
First off, the Union of Concerned Scientists is a former USSR front group that can't accept the failure of the USSR. Like all communists, they lie and, when called on it, lie even more.
Second, the wildfires everyone is worked up about are, in the US, the result of some of the absolute worst forest management possible (soon to be made even worse by new US Forest Service rules).
Third, US carbon emissions have been declining for decades.
All of this is groundwork for giving even more power to people and organisations poorly suited, at best, to wield it.
"It all started with Tesla – Nikola, not the car company – who got fixated on the idea at the start of the 20th century and built a giant tower to test it out. He spent all the money and never made it work, although his disciples still cling to the wreckage. Not that anyone has learned."
There were numerous eye-witness accounts of wireless power transmission in Tesla's New York City workshop. Wardenclyffe was an experiment that perished due to lack of funding.
"Pai will, of course, be most closely associated with the reversal of net neutrality rules. Not only did he undercut the FCC’s own rulings made just two years earlier but he pushed through a predetermined outcome, often with almost comic pretense to running a proper policy process."
McCarthy ignores a couple of things here (actually he ignores or distorts rather a lot but time is limited).
The FCC's ruling that Pai & the other FCC commissioners reversed was itself questionable. What is certain is investment in broadband in the U.S. collapsed with the implementation of 'net neutrality' recovering only after it was reversed.
Pai may not have been perfect, but McCarthy is indulging in partisan excoriation rather than providing an assessment.
"Those same companies that have spent a decade fighting any effort to limit their users' content [...]"
Only if you're counting that decade as being 2006 through 2016. Those 'same companies' started suppressing their users' content in 2016 & the recent actions are just an escalation of what they've been doing for years now.
Why in Heaven's name are we allowing people who are incapable (or lay claim to being) of bearing the slightest adversity - 'safe spaces', 'crying rooms', 'puppy therapy' are not the hallmark of a robust, sane individual - be allowed to distort the language? This is aggression masquerading as powerlessness.
Point the first:
"The emails are labeled "committee confidential" meaning that they should not be shared beyond the committee. But on Thursday they were leaked to the news media and some were then later publicly posted by Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), who argued they were of such significance that their release was warranted due to the broader public interest."
The e-mails were cleared for release on Wednesday per Booker's request & with his knowledge. His (Booker's) claims of putting the public ahead of partisan interest was itself a partisan sham (admittedly, not something alien to Booker).
Point the second:
That Kavanaugh was an associate in the White House during the Bush 43 administration is known, as is his work before & after. His role was to coordinate between various entities in the administration. That he handled documents regarding surveillance post-9/11 is utterly unsurprising & in no way demonstrates knowledge of the actual programs put in place, let alone contradicting his testimony.
Point the third:
Kavanaugh is arguably less a partisan choice than Elena Kagan (I'd be curious to see McCarthy's published objections to that nomination) as Kavanaugh has over a decade on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit whereas Kagan had no prior experience as a federal judge.
It's not difficult to conclude Kieren McCarthy is attempting to manufacture a controversy where none exists to further his own partisan & ideological views. It's not his views that are objectionable but the obfuscatory manner in which they're presented.