KCLUG

kclug@kclug.org

1 participants
3241 discussions

Wikipedia editors spread Global Warming Propaganda
by Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO 14 Jul '08

14 Jul '08

Whether you believe in Global Warming or not, I disagree with the form of editing/bullying that is going on in this case. If Wikipedia is to survive as a reliable source of information, uncluding scientific info, then they need to folow their own rules. Science should be honest or truth-seeking, no matter where it leads you. Brian P.S. Sorry for the HTML format. ________________________________ Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 3:24 PM <http://e2ma.net/oz/1189762965/1080694/spacer.gif> <http://e2ma.net/oz/1189762965/1080694/spacer.gif> <http://e2ma.net/map/view=Forward/ID=22952.1189762965/rid=b0e84081500bdd 2cf5c231ba9c81a767/send_to_friend> GreenWatchAmerica<http://e2ma.net/userdata/22952/images/e1214872374.jpg> Dear Brian, Today Lawrence Solomon, author of The Deniers <http://e2ma.net/go/1189762965/1080694/39603805/goto:http://e2ma.net/go/ 1189716471/1080616/39601790/goto:http://www.richardvigilantebooks.com> , has a great piece on National Review Online exposing how the editors of Wikipedia (supposedly the "people's encyclopedia") have become part of the global warming propaganda machine. And it's not just on Global Warming that Wikipedia pushes the left-wing line. As Larry says "Wikipedia is the people's encyclopedia only if the people are not conservatives." We reprint Larry's NRO piece in full below. Our petition to urge John McCain not to get sucked into the myth of Global Warming continues to gather steam. Next week we will do our biggest mailing yet in our push to get 100,000 names by mid-July and half a million before the GOP convention. Meanwhile GreenWatchAmerica will continue to update you on what is now clearly the Left's favorite weapon for pushing its agenda: Environmentalism twisted into an excuse for seizing control of more and more of the economy, and forcing Americans to live out the Left's dream of the good life, even if it strikes us as a nightmare. As some of you know, I got motivated on the global warming issue by the experience of editing and publishing Larry Solomon's book, which demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt, not only that "the science is not settled", but that the most eminent climate scientists also tend to be the most skeptical of Global Warming hysteria. As book publishers we can only do so much. GreenWatchAmerica gives us a vehicle to pitch into the fight in a much more timely way. Richard Vigilante Publisher Wikipropaganda By Lawrence Solomon Ever wonder how Al Gore, the United Nations, and company continue to get away with their claim of a "scientific consensus" confirming their doomsday view of global warming? Look no farther than Wikipedia for a stunning example of how the global-warming propaganda machine works. As you (or your kids) probably know, Wikipedia is now the most widely used and influential reference source on the Internet and therefore in the world, with more than 50 million unique visitors a month. In theory Wikipedia is a "people's encyclopedia" written and edited by the people who read it -- anyone with an Internet connection. So on controversial topics, one might expect to see a broad range of opinion. Not on global warming. On global warming we get consensus, Gore-style: a consensus forged by censorship, intimidation, and deceit. I first noticed this when I entered a correction to a Wikipedia page on the work of Naomi Oreskes, author of the now-infamous paper, published in the prestigious journal Science, claiming to have exhaustively reviewed the scientific literature and found not one single article dissenting from the alarmist version of global warming. Of course Oreskes's conclusions were absurd, and have been widely ridiculed. I myself have profiled dozens of truly world-eminent scientists whose work casts doubt on the Gore-U.N. version of global warming. Following the references in my book The Deniers, one can find hundreds of refereed papers that cast doubt on some aspect of the Gore/U.N. case, and that only scratches the surface. Naturally I was surprised to read on Wikipedia that Oreskes's work had been vindicated and that, for instance, one of her most thorough critics, British scientist and publisher Bennie Peiser, not only had been discredited but had grudgingly conceded Oreskes was right. I checked with Peiser, who said he had done no such thing. I then corrected the Wikipedia entry, and advised Peiser that I had done so. Peiser wrote back saying he couldn't see my corrections on the Wikipedia page. I made the changes again, and this time confirmed that the changes had been saved. But then, in a twinkle, they were gone again. I made other changes. And others. They all disappeared shortly after they were made. Turns out that on Wikipedia some folks are more equal than others. Kim Dabelstein Petersen is a Wikipedia "editor" who seems to devote a large part of his life to editing reams and reams of Wikipedia pages to pump the assertions of global-warming alarmists and deprecate or make disappear the arguments of skeptics. I soon found others who had the same experience: They would try to squeeze in any dissent, or even correct an obvious slander against a dissenter, and Petersen or some other censor would immediately snuff them out. Now Petersen is merely a Wikipedia "editor." Holding the far more prestigious and powerful position of "administrator" is William Connolley. Connolley is a software engineer and sometime climatologist (he used to hold a job in the British Antarctic Survey), as well as a serial (but so far unsuccessful) office seeker for England's Green party. And yet by virtue of his power at Wikipedia, Connolley, a ruthless enforcer of the doomsday consensus, may be the world's most influential person in the global warming debate after Al Gore. Connolley routinely uses his editorial clout to tear down scientists of great accomplishment such as Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service and a scientist with dazzling achievements. Under Connolley's supervision, Wikipedia relentlessly smears Singer as a kook who believes in Martians and a hack in the pay of the oil industry. Wikipedia is full of rules that editors are supposed to follow, and it has a code of civility. Those rules and codes don't apply to Connolley, or to those he favors. "Peisers crap shouldn't be in here," Connolley wrote several weeks ago, in berating a Wikipedian colleague during an "edit war," as they're called. Trumping Wikipedia's stated rules, Connelly used his authority to ensure Wikipedia readers saw only what he wanted them to see. Any reference, anywhere among Wikipedia's 2.5 million English-language pages, that casts doubt on the consequences of climate change will be bent to Connolley's bidding. Nor are Wikipedia's ideological biases limited to global warming. As an environmentalist I find myself with allies and adversaries on both sides of the aisle, Left and Right. But there is no doubt where Wikipedia stands: firmly on the Left. Try out Wikipedia's entries on say, Roe v. Wade or Intelligent Design, and you will see that Wikipedia is the people's encyclopedia only if those people are not conservatives. -- Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers. If you are interested in Larry's book, The Deniers is available at RichardVigilanteBooks.com <http://e2ma.net/go/1189762965/1080694/39603806/goto:http://e2ma.net/go/ 1189716471/1080616/39601791/goto:http://www.richardvigilantebooks.com> , or at Amaz <http://e2ma.net/go/1189762965/1080694/39603807/goto:http://e2ma.net/go/ 1189716471/1080616/39601792/goto:http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ 0980076315/richardvcom-20/> on <http://e2ma.net/go/1189762965/1080694/39603808/goto:http://e2ma.net/go/ 1189716471/1080616/39601793/goto:http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ 0980076315/richardvcom-20/> or Barnes and Noble <http://e2ma.net/go/1189762965/1080694/39603809/goto:http://e2ma.net/go/ 1189716471/1080616/39601794/goto:http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Denier s/Lawrence-Solomon/e/9780980076318/?itm=1&afsrc=1&lkid=J24537183&pubid=K 158729&byo=1/> online. Eventually we will have it up on the Green Watch America site too. GreenWatchAmerica 3033 Executive Boulevard | Suite G10 | Minneapolis, MN 55416

6 8

David Nicol Spins Global Warming Propaganda
by David Nicol 14 Jul '08

14 Jul '08

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:35 AM, David Nicol <davidnicol(a)gmail.com> wrote: > under a thick ice sheet don't think of it as an ice age, think of it as hockey season that never ends!

1 0

Re: Usenet NEWS vs. Bittorrent
by Jonathan Hutchins 13 Jul '08

13 Jul '08

On Sunday 13 July 2008 03:09:56 pm Leo Mauler wrote: > 11,000,000 messages a DAY in *current* NetNews traffic is not "me and a > couple of buddies". My own numbers were mere guesses, as I expect Mr. Watts' are. Yours would carry a stronger authority if you cited a source. I agree with your premise, the "Usenet News" community is not insignificant, nor is the medium obsolete for either filesharing or conversation.

2 1

monitor not returning from power saving mode Debian etch
by David Nicol 12 Jul '08

12 Jul '08

The situation is as follows: The monitor displays POST, then LILO, then booting, but somewhere in the init process the monitor shuts off and remains off until it wakes up on shutdown -r now, at which point one can switch between virtual consoles and see the messages that root has echoed to for instance /dev/tty4. Any ideas? It's not a wiring problem. -- But some very large rats, Ate his coats and his hats, While that futile old gentleman dozed. http://cronos.advenge.com/pc/nonsense/nonsense27.html

5 5

Re: Usenet NEWS vs. Bittorrent
by Luke -Jr 12 Jul '08

12 Jul '08

On Wednesday 09 July 2008, Jeffrey Watts wrote: > Well, to be honest nobody uses USENET News. "Nobody" meaning an > insignificant percentage of users. I bet 99% of the folks using the > Internet have never even heard of it. > > I don't think they should give a discount for a service that nobody > was using, but others may disagree. They were still providing the service, and incurring the cost of doing so. Presumably, they passed that cost onto the customers. Now they are removing the service, which saves them the cost of maintaining it. Why shouldn't that savings be passed on?

4 3

ISPs, Newsgroups, etc. ...OH MY!!!
by Julie 12 Jul '08

12 Jul '08

While I comprehend Jonathan's explanation of "The AOL Ruling", etc. I totally and completely agree with Ty in that the ISPs are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. First it's Newgroups. WHAT will be NEXT????? No, I don't use a newsgroup.... ... ...don't even know how or have any interest in them. But what I do know is that Draconian laws like the AOL Ruling are what ISPs should be fighting, not us...their PAYING customers!!! <Steps up onto soapbox> Think about this: Back in the day, the internet was a GREAT thing!!! People could _*freely*_ learn and exchange ideas with ease. The Genie had been let out of the bottle!!! Now, govs all around the world are desperately trying to re-bottle that Genie! Simply look at _*all*_ the new laws being drawn up and put into place to stiffle the internet in just about every country in the world. It doesn't stop with the internet, either. Look at TV programing and the way that Cable and Satellite companies "tier" their channels into sections with the least educational channels being at the cheapest levels while the most educational channels are a lot more expensive. NOW, with DTV becomming *law* the poorest must pay just to get what is SUPPOSED to be FREE and has been since its inception. Yet _more_ 'censorship'/whatever you want to call it. Radio is coming next. Just watch and see.......... It seems that with all of this, the NWO is becoming closer and closer to completely shutting down the freedom of electonic expression except for their own nefarious purposes. After all, a dumb population is an EASIER population to CONTROL!!!!! Yes, Ty, I'll call TW and rant the daylights out of them. But ya know what? MOST people probably don't even know their libertys are being taken away from them in this way. Therefore, the few of us who do AND *ACTUALLY* let our voices be heard are going to seem somewhat moot. In addition, where are we to go to get back what we lost? Just look at the way we have runaway gov "victimizing" our Constitutional Rights as it is and you'll see the answer clearer than you already $do. <Steps down off of soapbox now> Please excuse the rant, but I feel better now. ; ) Freedom means you are free to be responsible ~ Russell Means 'Free to be Responsible' Speech: http://www.russellmeans.com/ ("Speeches" button > scroll down - wink) If you talk to the animals they will talk with you and you will know each other. If you do not talk to them you will not know them, and what you do not know you will fear. What one fears one destroys. ~ Chief Dan George: http://www.indigenouspeople.net/dangeorg.htm Everything the Power of the World does is done in a circle. ~ Black Elk, Oglala Lakota Holy Man: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Black_Elk

13 41

Prices and costs
by Luke -Jr 09 Jul '08

09 Jul '08

On Wednesday 09 July 2008, Jeffrey Watts wrote: > Remember, costs are always going up, but our prices haven't. Costs of what are going up? Bandwidth just gets cheaper and cheaper. I pay $30/mo for a dedicated server that includes 1 TB of bandwidth on a 100 Mbit link. Why is it that I can only get (just bandwidth) 12 Mbit (bursted; 2.17 TB/mo, based on 7 Mbit cap) for $45/mo, recently raised from $42/mo? Keep in mind that my $30/mo dedi also covers costs for electricity and UPS+machine rental. Also relevant is the common availability of 100 Mbit DSL and 10 Mbit wifi internet service in Eurasian countries for cheaper than we pay for cable here. > You had sent me this email privately, and I had privately responded. > I already said that I was going to stop talking about this on the > list, so please stop trying to drag the list back into it. Sorry, I didn't realize that was intentional. Since the topic has changed with this email, I hope you don't mind my getting the list's comments on it.

2 1

open positions
by Brian Kelsay 09 Jul '08

09 Jul '08

Hope this helps out someone here who is qualified. In case you know of anyone… *From:* Novacek, Marcia [mailto:Marcia.Novacek@ModisIt.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, July 08, 2008 3:24 PM *To:* Brian *Subject:* RE: Embarq position Brian, How are you? I hope things are going well. I wanted to touch base with you and see if you know of anyone that might be interested in a 6 month contract. My client in Overland Park has 11 immediate openings for 6 month contract positions. The client is doing a SAN migration project. The one manager has 3 SUN admins and 2 AIX admins. I have copied the details below. Please review and feel free to pass along to anyone that might be interested. Thank you! ** 3 SUN Admin positions – * Must be proficient in the use of the Solaris 8.9 and 10 Operating System. Advanced Troubleshooting skills, knowledge of patching, firmware, filesystem maintenance using Veritas. Solaris system Administrator work. Support EMBARQ SUN UNIX systems in a Tier 2 suppport role. ** 2 AIX Admin – * Advanced IBM AIX Operating System skills Advanced troubleshooting skills, Ability to install/support HACMP, install/support HMC's, install/management of system and firmware patches, Advanced Filesystem maintenance including ability to work with SAN at the O/SAIX server administration and maintenance in an environment consisting of a variety of applications, data bases and hardware platforms. Responsibilities include proactive/preventive maintenance, fault analysis and restoration, vendor interface, hardware/software upgrades/maintenance, server/system security, system lifecycle management, disaster recovery implementation, performance tuning and metrics, system scripting/automation and system test and acceptance support. There are also 4 storage area network experts and 2 back up recovery engineers needed. I can provide description on these soon. *Marcia Novacek | Recruiting Director* |* Modis* 6800 College Blvd., Ste. 750 | Overland Park , KS 66211 | office: 913.905.3268 | cell: 913.207.2609 | fax: 913.345.9955 | marcia.novacek(a)modisit.com | www.modisit.com | http://www.linkedin.com/in/mnovacek ------------------------------

1 0

Re: In need of a terminal
by Arthur Pemberton 09 Jul '08

09 Jul '08

On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Don Ellis <deltadotepsilon(a)gmail.com> wrote: > So, can you share the solution with the rest of us? Is the workstation a > loaner (and will return to the general pool) or an acquisition (which may be > jettisoned sometime in the future)? I opted for a donated monitor. I have an PII 850Mhz in my office that I can connect to it, should be a good enough text editor + IDE for a kid learning to code. Thanks for all the offers, accepted the one that was closet to my work. -- Fedora 7 : sipping some of that moonshine ( www.pembo13.com )

1 0

Semi-OT: Congress about to limit artists' copyright rights
by Leo Mauler 08 Jul '08

08 Jul '08

Normally I find something like this and discover that the complainer either is making most of the problem up in his or her head, or actually wants to get rid of something else in the bill before Congress. However, this appears to be an issue of genuine concern for artists, especially poor artists who can't afford the "registry fees". http://www.sellyourtvconceptnow.com/orphan.html It would appear that Congress is already considering two bills, one in the House (H.R. 5889, "The Orphan Works Act of 2008") and one in the Senate (S 2913, "The Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008") which would require all artists to register their artwork in private registries, none of which would be free to the artist. The claim made by the bill is that this will help people wanting to use artwork to avoid a future lawsuit by making it easier for them to "find" the artist. The difficulty for artists everywhere is that if your artwork is not listed in any of the registries (possibly because you couldn't afford the fees), the person wanting to use your artwork can consider the artwork to be an "orphan work" and thus part of the public domain. No matter how well-known your work is throughout your region, the country, or the world, if your artwork is not in any of the registries then it would still *legally* be an "orphan work". If you do take the infringer to court over using your artwork, the law strips you of your right to copyright infringement damages, instead allowing the infringer to pay whatever s/he/it feels is fair for use of the artwork. This law was attempted in 2006 and failed due to pressure from creators such as artists, illustrators, textile companies, and the like. Apparently these new laws are on a fast track to get passed into law before the election campaigns of Congress members start in the late summer. Just to underline that the government no longer cares about the rights of content creators, here's an excerpt from a letter (full text in the URL above) sent around by Brad Holland of the Illustrator's Partnership, a group which successfully opposed the 2006 bill: ========================================= Q: Where did we get the idea that the Copyright Office wants to impose for-profit registries? A: That proposal has been there from the beginning. Two examples (with emphasis added), the first from page 106 of the Copyright Office’s 2006 Orphan Works Report: “[W]e believe that registries are critically important, if not indispensable, to addressing the orphan works problem...It is our view that such registries are better developed in the private sector..." http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/orphan-report.pdf ========================================= And on January 29 2007, twenty visual arts groups met in Washington D.C. with attorneys from the Copyright Office. The attorneys stated that the Copyright Office would not create these “indispensable” registries because it would be “too expensive.” So I asked the Associate Register for Policy & International Affairs: ========================================= Holland: If a user can’t find a registered work at the Copyright Office, hasn’t the Copyright Office facilitated the creation of an orphaned work? Carson: Copyright owners will have to register their images with private registries. Holland: But what if I exercise my exclusive right of copyright and choose not to register? Carson: If you want to go ahead and create an orphan work, be my guest! - From my notes of the meeting ========================================= This exchange suggests that if Copyright Office proposals become law: - Unregistered work will be considered a potential orphan from the moment you create it. - In the U.S., copyright will no longer be the exclusive right of the copyright holder. ========================================= Under existing law, “[a] copyright gives the owner the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, perform, display, or license his work…Under current law, works are covered whether or not a copyright notice is attached and **whether or not the work is registered** (emphasis added).” http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Copyright#copyright:_an_overview =========================================

10 42

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

KCLUG