Page 75 of 228 FirstFirst ... 2565737475767785125175 ... LastLast
Results 741 to 750 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #741
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Most unfortunate: https://www.google.com/amp/amp.daily...-isis-student/

    Unfortunately, as long as schools are vulnerable and/ or viewed as such we're going to have a problem. I'm not suggesting anything about guns, but rather the target of choice.
    Last edited by ironyusa; 03-07-2018 at 07:53 PM.

  2. #742
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Northern, VA
    Posts
    359
    Supports Inception Designs
    Quote Originally Posted by d0cwho View Post
    I just actually read that hot air article - it's about a guy who tried to detonate a fake bomb given to him by the FBI. Doesn't remotely support the assertion "The FBI CAN investigate and remove firearms and take into custody people who are planning to be active shooters." The comparable situation would be an active shooter walking onto school property with a loaded firearm, not merely planning it. Prosecutors like individuals to take affirmative action towards completing their plan before charging someone with attempt.
    Very true. I thought the exact same thing.

  3. #743
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Northern, VA
    Posts
    359
    Supports Inception Designs
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    Most unfortunate: https://www.google.com/amp/amp.daily...-isis-student/

    Unfortunately, as long as schools are vulnerable and/ or viewed as such we're going to have a problem. I'm not suggesting anything about guns, but rather the target of choice.
    It's not just that they're viewed as vulnerable but also that any attacks on them will generate such a huge media response.

  4. #744
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Profiling = necessary for protection. Always has been, always will be.

  5. #745
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Yeah, we should be questioning pretty much any white male who gets near School.
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  6. #746
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Race baiting troll attempt?

    You're profiled every second you're online. You're profiled every time you make a purchase. Why jump to any implications of race? Your habits have implications. Monitoring those habits sacrifice privacy for security. It's a trade-off.

  7. #747
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    Race baiting troll attempt?

    You're profiled every second you're online. You're profiled every time you make a purchase. Why jump to any implications of race? Your habits have implications. Monitoring those habits sacrifice privacy for security. It's a trade-off.
    Not race baiting, just trying to point out how ridiculous that comment is given the context of school shootings.

    What groups would you profile to prevent school shootings?
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  8. #748
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Psychological PROFILE. I think it's rediculous that people automatically jump to race when it is a played-out conversation. Socioeconomic profiles are more telling than skin pigment, but can we not agree that giving up a bit more privacy to give insight into mental history is probably necessary?
    Last edited by ironyusa; 03-08-2018 at 06:29 AM.

  9. #749
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    I'm going to be blunt.

    I don't think you've actually read the paper.
    May I surprise you with one thing you can be sure you are wrong about today. I had access to papers like this when I was at Colgate, because their server had bought a general use license for papers like this. So I was able to read it.
    I don't think you've closely read it for yourself, closely and understood what they're actually saying the data fingerprints.
    I didn't back check his work or anything, but I understand the context of this far more than you seem to realize. Again, I am not some kid just new to the internets.

    I don't blame you; it's quite dense.
    It wasn't really. I don't blame you for thinking it was. :P

    A decent fraction of my job is systems modeling and experimental statistical analysis for, and *I* struggled to get through it.
    PLEASE stop politely calling me stupid. I am not.

    This paper has a very certain irony. In fact, you nailed it below:

    To explain for the third parties, yes, the paper does square with Josh's claim that the observed warming is less than what Santer's models previously predicted. No argument there.
    Lets add one bit: The amount of warming that Santer downshifts to is inline with the amount of warming the Skeptics have been saying exists for decades. It removes large feedback or forcings in an an attempt to catch up with reality. Because a model that doesn't track with reality is worthless, and so far all RCP models, the ones IPCC use, are worthless. This paper is a result of that problem.

    There is not a reason to delve deeply into the minutiae of the paper, as you feel I need to Ryan - this paper is not unique for that reason. Really. If you want, read thought the Harry_readme files some time and see how the sausage really is made. Also read up on the climategate emails, which show how uncertain they are of energy balances, how to adjust the data of both the official history records and the models. This is a lot of spit and prayers people won't see it. Not saying it is an easy job - the data coming in is total crap. Huge. Even then, they make some decisions there that are not acceptable.

    It is unique because Santer and Mann start using real life data for once. Here, let me fix this for you:

    They then dig into the structure of the data, and THEORIZE that the differences between the observed data and the models are not consistent with an error in the overall CO2 feedback function, but rather are consistent with other external factors. The point is that we can use data to correct models, and the data tells us how to do that. We then use refined models to assess the risk of climate change, with ever greater confidence.
    The data also tells us that there is a negative feedback for water vapor - yet the models don't take that into account, and Santer doesn't either. The empirical data also says the CO2 is absorbed in 5-7 years, yet the IPCC has it at 100. The data also shows TSI varies, and there are other solar feedbacks from clouds related to cosmic radiation linked to it. Yet that is rejected for a solar model with no variation PMOD TSI, they still can't get clouds right, and many other fudge factors. There are too many variables, and to try and isolate CO2, a very small variable, they have locked down points as static in the IPCC models. The 2016 Santer paper did similar, but then he went and used a whole different set of data to justify that premise also. That they are trying for a perfect model is a worthy goal, but they do not have it, nor are they close. In fact, they structurally have a pieced together model that is somewhere closer to where they should have been in the 2001 IPCC report if Santer, this same Santer, hadn't tried to do exactly the opposite of what he did here. That is the irony.

    The Perfect Model is a noble goal. But right now the IPCC and Santer use a layer cake model to stack up to get a certain level of warming. They just pile on bits till they feel happy, and then run it. For 20 years they have piled it up way too high, and they screwed up every prediction.Every single one, no exceptions. That is a big deal. F-ing HUGE. Now the injected some real world data and deflated positions of the model to try and reign back their positions. They still hold some areas level (hence the use of PMOD TSI the Gordon thinks is reality) so that they can isolate the signal. Shoot, the forcing from aerosols alone is a stack of self admitted fudge factors to dial up or down the conclusion. Just like in my last post - in 1995 they were trying to isolate the signal. As I have said numerous times over, the models used the Hass Method to hold as many variables stable as they can to see the effect of another variable. That is how the models are built. This "perfect model" still is trying to isolate the signal because it hold too many variables as constants. If they take out the forcings, then the feedback can remain, because the cake is just that much lower. But since, and I have shown this several times here, the water level at 300mb has dropped, then the forcing does not exist. They should be looking at that data and removing the feedback and leaving the aerosol forcings. They don't.

    If they still use the same assumptions, and still hold the majority of variables stable, the models, no matter how Santer pretties it up, are still a layer cake of fixed values on variable items. Even if some of the items are still now actual empirical inputs. Finally.

    Better? Yes. Good? We will see. I doubt it. Does it hold up my position? Yes Ryan, it does.

    I am not going to delve deep into their assumptions because, due to the water level at 300mb, their foundation assumption is still flawed. Even if they call it "Perfect." They just took out a forcing for a feedback. It is not worth a huge amount of either of our time. Like looking into the Otto et al paper of 2014. Instead of trying to change the forcings, he turned back the Feedback, because his models we not tracking reality either.

    The models are flawed. No matter how much they claim confidence, we need models that have a variance of assumptions, and allow more variables to be empirical, not modeled. We need to look at a water feedback of .5, of 1. of 2, we need to track aerosol levels and put that in, we need to track TSI and put that in. We need, like they said in 1995, decades. We need to do better science.

    Santer 2017? A step in the right direction. But taking this as cannon, as a foundation stone in that building of understanding is a mistake. It is just a start that Santer should have done 25 years ago.
    __________________

    boom.

    you lose.
    Taking something OUT of context much? I lose nothing, you had to clip a sentence, like the news did, that said the ACLU also opposed it, and WHY they did. Your only return is that? You are worthless. Way to cherry pick Lincoln, you make no point, and are from this point on, nonsensical and not worth having in a debate. If you don't know why, ask Ryan. I have stopped feeding this Trolling.

    _________________

    I just actually read that hot air article - it's about a guy who tried to detonate a fake bomb given to him by the FBI. Doesn't remotely support the assertion "The FBI CAN investigate and remove firearms and take into custody people who are planning to be active shooters." The comparable situation would be an active shooter walking onto school property with a loaded firearm, not merely planning it. Prosecutors like individuals to take affirmative action towards completing their plan before charging someone with attempt.
    Just a quick link, I am sure you or I can find others. I took 10 seconds finding it. I have a 5 on 1 debate here man, and a cold and 4 kids. I can't do all the work. :P Though I can going to save time by ignoring Gordon, since he really is a waste of my time to have any discussion with.

    But it is my anniversary, and I going to spend the rest of it with my wife of 10 years. Good night Gentlemen, Gordon.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  10. #750
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Very true. I thought the exact same thing.
    Since I had a few moments this morning, I took a whopping 2 minutes to cut and paste this. YES, the FBI arrests people who they suspect of causing a mass shooting, even before they get weapons. Here are 4 examples. Do we need more? Why can't you guys google "FBI Arrest Mass Shooting" yourselves instead of having to take my word for it? :P

    http://archive.jsonline.com/news/cri...366609371.html

    A terrorist-style plot intended to kill dozens of people with automatic weapons at a Masonic center in Milwaukee was foiled this week by FBI agents, federal prosecutors said Tuesday.

    Samy Mohamed Hamzeh discussed his plan to attack the center with two others, detailing how they would quickly and quietly kill the first people they saw and then methodically move through the building, "eliminating everyone" they encountered, according to a federal criminal complaint.

    Hamzeh, 23, has been charged with possessing a machine gun and a silencer. Despite indications of an attempted act of terrorism, Hamzeh is not charged with any terrorism counts.
    http://www.abc12.com/home/headlines/...342565292.html

    Three teens planned to carry out the shooting at Linden High School and Linden Middle School on Oct. 30.

    Argentine Township Police and the FBI were able to stop it before students were put in harms way.

    *They had access to firearms,* said Argentine Police Chief Dan Allen.

    ABC12 News talked to Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton off camera Monday.

    He said the plan started with a post to social media made by a teen girl.

    It negatively mentioned one of the suspects, 18-year-old Randy Stevens, of Linden.

    He is a former student at Linden High School.

    Once Stevens saw the post, investigators say he started planning to shoot not only that girl, but other students, too.

    *I reviewed the information and it appeared very credible to me,* Allen said.

    Investigators say once the threats from Stevens and his two 15 year old accomplices, Lamar Dukes and Cody Brewer, started to get more detailed, the girl got spooked and went to police.
    http://www.firstcoastnews.com/articl...r/77-496753289

    JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - A 69-year-old Jacksonville man who has been arrested after allegedly planning a mass shooting at a local Islamic center was denied bond Tuesday because a federal judge considered him a flight risk.

    The Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, along with the FBI of Jacksonville, started investigating Bernandino Gawala "Nandie" Bolatete in October after a source tipped JSO. The source told police that Bolatete expressed strong anti-Islamic sentiment, including how he wanted to conduct a mass shooting at the Islamic Center of Northeast Florida, 2333 St. Johns Bluff Rd. S.

    JSO said an undercover detective met with Bolatete and confirmed the information they received.

    During the investigation, Bolatete made plans to conduct the mass shooting, including obtaining the weaponry to complete the attack, according to JSO Sheriff Mike Williams.

    The undercover detective also learned that Bolatete made arrangements to get access to a gun silencer - a prohibited firearm accessory - delivered to his home on December 1.

    During the delivery, JSO's SWAT Unit raided Bolatete's home on the 13000 block of Eucalyptus Drive and took him into custody.

    Bolatete is now in FBI custody and he's been charged with knowingly receiving and possessing a silencer not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. The investigation is ongoing.
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-arres...155910342.html

    A man has been arrested for allegedly threatening to shoot and kill *fake news* CNN employees.

    Brandon Griesemer is said to have called the television news channel 22 times last week to make the death threats, according to CBS46.

    According to court documents, the 19-year-old told a CNN operator: *Fake news. I*m coming to gun you all down.*

    The FBI were called in and were able to trace the call and arrested Griesemer over the threats.

    Griesemer, from Michigan, is also accused of making derogatory and racially motivated comments about black people and Muslims in the calls.

    CNN said in a statement: *We take any threats to CNN employees or workplaces, around the world, extremely seriously. This one is no exception.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •