Rewriting Environmental Science 500
Aqua OS X writes to tell us CBS News is reporting that government scientist James Hansen recently spoke out against the White House in an appearance on 60 Minutes. From the article: "Hansen is arguably the world's leading researcher on global warming. He's the head of NASA's top institute studying the climate. But this imminent scientist tells correspondent Scott Pelley that the Bush administration is restricting who he can talk to and editing what he can say. Politicians, he says, are rewriting the science."
imminent scientist? (Score:3, Funny)
Is that better than eminent?
Re:imminent scientist? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:imminent scientist? typo (Score:3, Funny)
Re:imminent scientist? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:imminent scientist? (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you expect from the network that brought us: "OK. I admit it was forged, but it's still true." and is courting that nasty little hatemonger Katie Couric to be an anchor.
Most mainstream journalists have stopped even pretending they care. It's all about smearing your enemies and promoting your agenda. The simple ability to communicate in English is far less important than pledging allegiance to political agenda of the editors-in-chief or network news vice-presidents.
Re:imminent scientist? (Score:3, Funny)
Proof Provided in Thornburgh Report (Score:4, Informative)
The documents were proven to be forgeries by Peter Tytell, proof of which was even included in CBS's own Thornburgh-Boccardi report. It's in Appendix 4 [cbsnews.com].
Re:imminent scientist? (Score:3, Funny)
Well send them a letter, then. You have to confront these people in the language they use.
Deer See B.S.;
Eye half red yore web sight on globe all warming and wood like too way inn on the topic. If you're imminent scientist is write, the precedent must be immanently in-preached.
Than queue.
(The preceding article passed a spell chequer test.)
Re:How to quote a misspelling (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's clear that neither the submitter or editor recognized it. Also, as the summary text, though verbatim from CBS, wasn't an explicit quote, "sic" would be needlessly pedantic; they should just have silently fixed it.
Re:How to quote a misspelling (Score:3, Informative)
Sigh. No good deed goes unpunished.
Instead of just complaining about the bad spelling and grammar around here, I thought I would take a moment to show how it should have been done. There are a great many SD readers whose native language is not English. (Unfortunately they are learning the language from SD posts.) Not all of them, at least, would know about "sic".
As to your point, it doesn't matter where the submitter's italicized text came from; the relevant point is that it is verbatim and not the su
Re:How to quote a misspelling (Score:3, Funny)
Re:imminent scientist? (Score:2)
Parallels with Easter Island (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, they also brought rats with them on their canoes.
The rats ate the birds and bird eggs. The trees were cut down for timber and kindling. The land was farmed to exhaustion. And the entire civilization that arose there quickly collapsed under its own weight.
The whole time, people thought things would last forever, but they couldn't see the end coming.
We have our rats too.
Re:Parallels with Easter Island (Score:5, Funny)
Do you think the Polynesians elected theirs too?
Re:Parallels with Easter Island (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Parallels with Easter Island (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Parallels with Easter Island (Score:3, Insightful)
Corporate lobbyists pay for the elections so that they have leverage to "get their way" on issues that impact their business -- like environmental awareness.
Re:Parallels with Easter Island (Score:4, Interesting)
A couple of years ago I read about a large permanent settlement which Archeologists discovered here in Australia. It was occupied by Aboriginal people for a period of time and then abandoned.
The implication was that indiginous Australians tried to follow the natural progression from hunter gathering to large scale settlement, but it somehow failed.
I too wonder if this will happen here again.
Re:Parallels with Easter Island (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Parallels with Easter Island (Score:3, Funny)
Because you can't make beer out of a dead woodchuck.
On a more serious note, because farming is more dependable, and causes less wear and tear on people, than hunting and gathering.
You said it yourself, farmers have more children. Do you really think they reproduce more, or that their children have a better survival rate?
Indian Wisdom: "The Earth Does Not Belong to Man." (Score:2, Insightful)
ExxonMobile and its supporters in Washington state, " The earth belongs to man; he can wreck the earth in any way that he sees fit ".
Before 2050, we will know which bit of wisdom is the right wisdom. By 2030, we will have burned up all easily retrieved oil. Significant portions of Artic and Antartic ice shelves will have melted away.
Unless we do something now to create carbon-neutral ener
Re:Indian Wisdom: "The Earth Does Not Belong to Ma (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Indian Wisdom: "The Earth Does Not Belong to Ma (Score:2)
http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/nwopopcontrol.sht
Re:Indian Wisdom: "The Earth Does Not Belong to Ma (Score:3, Interesting)
Environmentalists say that the best thing you can do for the earth, the best way to conserve resources, is to not have more than two children. In retrospect, this is obvious
Re:Indian Wisdom: "The Earth Does Not Belong to Ma (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, if not for immigration, most of the first world would already be in population decline. When people get reasonably comfortable, and childhood mortality is negligible, children are deferred and one or two are sufficent for most to satisfy their need for procreation. We've got one and that was enough for us.
Re:Indian Wisdom: "The Earth Does Not Belong to Ma (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Indian Wisdom: "The Earth Does Not Belong to Ma (Score:3, Interesting)
Schools in Japan are shutting down in a wave, starting with the first grades, and then pushing onward through the school. Sometimes, they just shut down entire floors in their schools.
This is happening elsewhere, as well.
People are seriously freaked out about this. [japanesestudies.org.uk]
The thing I find amusing, is that many environmentalists have problems with this.
In the 1990's, a bunch of environmentalists got together, and said, "What do we need to do? We need
Re:Indian Wisdom: "The Earth Does Not Belong to Ma (Score:2)
Unfortunately they have painted themselves into a corner. The future of mankind is exactly like japan today. This pyramid scheme where the young work to finance the old is going to collapse sooner or later. We can hold if off for a while by opening up the floddgates and letting the
Whoops. (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, Japan has the highest percentage of forestation of any first world country (almost 70%) [worldinfozone.com].
As for other imports of Japan, you are more correct: they import much of their food, including staples like rice and seafood. This puts the population of the island at risk in the event of instability of their trading network. The modern economic environment, however, means that the population of
Re:Indian Wisdom: "The Earth Does Not Belong to Ma (Score:2)
Environmentalists (even most from t
Re:Indian Wisdom: "The Earth Does Not Belong to Ma (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know what kind of environmentalists you hang out with, but as a born and bred son of Oregon hippies, I think you are full of shit.
Re:Mankind does not belong to Man (Score:5, Insightful)
The same four people also supported the thesis that the earth is round. This does not mean that the earth is flat. Just because evil people can see the obvious does not mean that the obvious isn't obvious. The earth has only so much stored energy; it receives only so much energy from the sun. The more people the energy has to be shared with, the less there is for each. The faster we use up the stored energy, the sooner we're forced back onto just the energy we get from the sun. That's just straightforward.
We cannot sustain our present rate of population increase; we probably cannot even sustain our present population indefinitly, once cheap energy runs out. This is obvious; so obvious that you don't need to be an evil genius to understand it.
What you may need to be an evil genius to do is to come up with a good solution, because this problem looks intractable in a free society.
There are indeed. Their names are Famine, Pestilence, Predation and Death. If we don't come up with a better solution, the Four Horsemen will be along shortly with one of their own.
Re:Mankind does not belong to Man (Score:3, Interesting)
Thank you, I was going to point out that according to Thomas Malthus' explanation of carrying capacity, a species does not ease up comfortably to the carrying capacity as a limit graph would show; the species will grossly overshoot the carying capacity of the environment it lives in, and will die off rapidly, dip under the carying capacity, flourish, and overshoot it again. The real graph depiction is something approaching an oscilating sine wave, where as time increases, the modulation decreases, but is e
Re:Mankind does not belong to Man (Score:2)
As for the how, there's a number of innocuous steps you could take right now. Education is an obvious first step. Then there's monetary incentives; perhaps we could remove the dependent tax credit after the second child, or at least decrease it. If it gets really bad, forced sterilization mi
Re:Mankind does not belong to Man (Score:2)
Stalin, Hitler, Sanger, Blavatsky..
It's nice to see that Slashdot is still a centre of logic and rational debate...
Easy Way to Limit Population (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a long-observed direct corrolation between poverty and birth rate. Societies with greater poverty have higher birthrate. Even in China it's commom for city-dwellers to observe the 1-child rule, but poor farmers still have families of 6 or 7 simply because they need all the labor to help create an income. The same is true in the slums of Calcutta where children are needed to rifle through trash piles looking for recyclable goods. This happens across all the great poverty centers: Manilla, Bangkok, Mumbai, Calcutta, Nairobi, Cairo, etc.
Japan is a perfect example of the opposite. They have a NEGATIVE birthrate because the affluence of their society has led many to chose not to have children.
The solution to overpopulation will come hand-in-hand with our solution to many other injustices: great a fair distribution of resources and we'll be able to live sustainable on our planet.
Re:Easy Way to Limit Population (Score:2, Informative)
I'm busy trying to work out how it is possible to have a negative birthrate. The best I can do is imagine some kind of reverse aging field affecting parts of Japan, where adults become children, children become babies, and babies crawl back into... No, better stop right there.
Negative population growth, on the other hand, is easier to explain.
Re:Easy Way to Limit Population (Score:2)
Re:Easy Way to Limit Population (Score:2)
Tradition, Religion (Score:3, Interesting)
If a society traditionally has large families, then it doesn't matter whether they live in poverty or health - they're likely keep that tradition.
As for religion - there's highly catholic families here who have 7-9 children. Not because they're poor - in fact, most of them lived in wealth
Of course these probably don't even begin to offset all
Re:Easy Way to Limit Population (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, you came so close. "Fairness" has nothing to do with it. The key to reducing population growth, is, as you deduced, more wealth. Redistributing resources contrary to the efficient allocations determined by free markets, however, consumes wealth. To counter population growth, you need economic growth, and the absolute best grower of economic wealth is free markets.
Re:Indian Wisdom: "The Earth Does Not Belong to Ma (Score:5, Funny)
If you want to cut birthrates, it's not the men who are going to have to swallow.
Thanks for the laugh (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm a hair over 20 years old and I've heard people bitch and moan about the end of the world, global warming, WW3, etc, since I was born. And frankly, I'm a lot more afraid of WW3 than global warming. While I'm all for alternative energy, recycling, minimizing fossil fuel consumption, and what not, all the bullshit from BOTH SIDES of the global warmi
Re:Thanks for the laugh (Score:3, Informative)
ah, the noble savage myth again (Score:2)
Native American sayings are not a good guideline for modern policies. Tackling issues of sustainability will require science and technology.
Re:Indian Wisdom: "The Earth Does Not Belong to Ma (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Parallels with Easter Island (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.livescience.com/history/060309_easter_
KFG
T Minus 5 minutes (Score:4, Funny)
Re:T Minus 5 minutes (Score:4, Funny)
Editing Environmental Science
Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Tuesday March 21, @02:36AM
from the nothing-to-worry-about dept.
Aqua OS X writes to tell us CBS News is reporting that government scientist James Hansen recently spoke out against the White House in an appearance on 60 Minutes. From the article: "Hansen is a disgraced researcher on global warming. He was the head of NASA's top institute studying the climate before resigning under controvercial circumstances. But this scientist tells correspondent Scott Pelley that the Bush administration may have been restricting who he may talk to and editing what he might have wanted to say. Politicians, he says, could be editing minor insignificant sections of science."
There - that's better.
Re:T Minus 5 minutes (Score:2)
Re:T Minus 5 minutes (Score:5, Insightful)
Comrade Lysenko believes in Michurianism, and Michurin believes in Lamarckism! So don't try to fool us with Darwin, the People's Science teaches that acquired traits can be inherited. It is by this inheritance of acquired traits that the Proletariat will triumph over the Bourgeois Revanchist "science"!
We will win with out half-human, half-ape battalions! [mosnews.com] (Seriously, the Soviets really did try to breed human-ape crosses for "super-soldiers".)
From the first link: Lysenko called Mendelian genetics "reactionary and decadent" and Mendelians or Darwinists "enemies of the Soviet people". It wasn't until 1965 that soviets were allowed to even begin to catch up in biology.
The Nazis proposed their own "German Science" in reaction to what they called the "Jewish Science" of, among others, Albert Einstein and (the ironically non-Jewish) Werner Heisenberg. The "Jewish Science" was nothing other than modern physics, of course. [reference.com]
And when the Jewish scientists fled Nazi Germany, many came to America to work on the atomic bomb -- a bomb originally intended for use against Germany.
So as the Bush Administration and the Kansas school board repress honest science in America in favor of ideology and religion, ask yourself where we'll be in five or ten or fifty years.
Will any great biologists come out of Kansas if they need, at best, several semesters of remedial training to disabuse them of the lies of "Intelligent Design"? Will the breakthroughs in stem-cell research -- breakthroughs that could cure numerous diseases and extend human life for decades -- happen here, under the Christian eyes of Dr. Frist, or in freer and more open lands like India and Korea?
Or will that not matter at all, as global warming and environmental collapse literally drown America for the profit of the oil companies?
For a hundred years or more, America has been at the forefront of scientific research and development. Scientific leadership has been a pillar supporting our country's wealth and power. Will you let that pillar be chopped down so a few plutocrats can profit while science-hating fundamentalists cheer?
In the next several elections, you'll be voting not just for Representatives or a President -- you'll be voting on the future, or the future decline, of your country. Will you emulate the courage of Dr. Hansen, or will you surrender to an American Lysenkoism of ignorance, ideologically-fettered science, and superstition?
Privitization? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is this under a "more-reasons-to-privitize" department? I'm all for private ventures going into space, but you're quite delusional if you expect there to be any large scale investment in global warming research by the private sector. Yes, I know there might be some exceptions, but privitization is not going to give us better research.
Better rockets, cheaper missions, maybe... but, in general, this sort of basic scientific research is *exactly* the sort of thing the government should be doing. Of course, in a perfect world, the government wouldn't be trying to stifle the scientists either...
Re:Privitization? (Score:2, Insightful)
> thing the government should be doing.
The inherent nature of the State is that it screws up what it does. State run enterprise is bloated, inefficient, expensive and a political football.
Medicare, Medicaid, spending bills, the FDA...
Research would go exactly the same way if the Government took it over.
Re:Privitization? (Score:3, Insightful)
So while government may inherently screw things up, it seems to be the case that some matters are guaranteed to be screwed up even worse by any private enterprise.
Re:Privitization? (Score:3, Insightful)
The inherent nature of the state is that, whatever it does, there is always some smartass who thinks it is bloated, inefficient, expensive, and a politial football. Let me break it to you: the government does a lot of valuable things nobody else would do. That they always could be done better is trivially true, as pretty much everything anyone ever does could b
Re:Privitization? (Score:2)
The shockingly poor public transport system, British Telecom actively working to slow ADSL adoption and competition to protect its ISDN investment, the 25% hikes in natural gas prices this year, the predicted water shortages in the south-east due in part to not enough investment in infrastructure improvements, ad nauseum. You could argue that they are all
Re:Privitization? (Score:2)
So was the Manhattan Project.
But that was literally a matter of life and death. Had the Nazis gotten the Atomic Bomb first, imagine the consequences.
In the case of global warming, we're faced with a environmental collapse that reasonable scientists believe could threaten the very existence of all human civilization on the globe.
An "expensive, inefficient" solution to that is infinitely preferable to no solution.
consequences (Score:2)
(and it would suck)
Re:Privitization? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's because if you invent a new spaceship you can make lots of money, but if you invent a new device to clean the air you can't make a dime, even though there is clear value in it. All you have to do is change this problem with the economy and suddenly the air will start getting a whole lot cleaner. That was the point of the Kyoto
Video of 60 Minutes Report (Score:5, Informative)
Quicktime [crooksandliars.com]
Re:Video of 60 Minutes Report - Link Here (Score:5, Informative)
Safe Havens (Score:3, Insightful)
However we now live in an age when even this is being eroded and where the forces of politics, never the most rational of disciplines, feel safe in attempting to pervert its path. Will anyone really care? Will anyone notice? Scientific learning is looked down on. You are more likely to be admired in society for your knowledge of baseball scores than buckyballs.
I would suggest to our american colleagues that they look elsewhere for those that will value their work. The US isn't going to get better any time soon, whatever the shade of the next party in power. It's either that or organise your own political party and take control...
Re:Safe Havens (Score:2)
That is already happening. Just last week, University of Colorado (CU) lost a nobel laureate physics prof(Carl Wieman) who loves science. He went to Canada. Why? Funding and the hassles of fighting the state. But mostly funding.
In Colorado, our gov. (owens) cut back state support of state schools, while at the same time allowing the christian colleges to be able to get funding from the state.
In add
Re:Safe Havens (Score:2)
As to sources, well google them. There have been plenty of sources that speak of USA losing its edge. Personally, I do not think that we are losing it yet. But I do see that we are erroding the base that is needed for it.
I did talk about a CU
interesting counterpoint... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:interesting counterpoint... (Score:2)
Some notable quotes and comments from the article (Score:5, Informative)
The other important, if not newsworthy, quote was
An organization with a culture like that might be right about something someday, but only by coincidence.Re:Some notable quotes and comments from the artic (Score:3, Insightful)
Who is trying to gain more power -- the politician or the scientist? Surely the fact that being a politician is the business of wielding power implies the former? Who has the greater vested interest -- a scientist working for the government whose coming to the press could at best get him a book deal, or the politician representing
Meh (Score:2, Insightful)
It's because the scientists are rewriting the theology.
Re:Meh (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Meh (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Meh (Score:3, Interesting)
wait, I think I see the problem... (Score:2)
Well, when the imminent scientist actually becomes a real scientist, maybe then people will start listening to him
Socialist trees (Score:3, Insightful)
While the common wisdom is that each individual trees need space around it to grow, the theory was that this was only true for capitalist trees. Rather than compete with each other for resources, socialist trees would cooperate for the common good.
Every official report from the forestry shows that the experiment was a great success.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Socialist trees (Score:2)
Politics and Science (Score:5, Insightful)
We've seen it everywhere from the debate on Global Warming (where scientists have joined forces with ecologists to engage in massive social engineering in the form of the Kyoto accord) to the debate on evolutionary science (where fundamentalists attempted to redefine science with Intelligent Design) to the debate on gun control (where researchers have attempted to show a direct causal link between guns and crime) and pesticides (Alar, anyone?)
Now, whenever I see a news report on a political topic start quoting "scientists" or "researchers", I generally don't think "oh, good; a concerned scientist trying to weigh in on an important topic", but "whose special interest money is paying for this guy?"
It's hard to play in the mud and not get muddy yourself.
Re:Politics and Science (Score:2)
Re:Politics and Science (Score:2)
Your argument appears to be that scientists should not publish information that could effect public policy. This would mean that they should not talk about vaccination programmes being able to save millions of lives, of smoking causing cancer, of smog causing breathing problems, of the reduction of salt-marshes increasing the risks of flooding nor the other million or so things that have changed public policy based on science.
Out of interest, what should be used as a basis for public policy if not science?
Not limited to right-wing america (Score:5, Interesting)
The scientists, knowing what would happen, leaked this result immediately to the press, but the final report got stowed away in a very deep drawer. Parliamant had a tough job to get the report out of this drawer again.
But. Then came the obligatory environmental impact study. In this study, the former report is completely ignored. The vast increase of congestion is not taken into account in an evironmental impact assessment!
If the politicians have it their way (and they must be quick, everyone knows they will get their asses kicked next elections) we'll have a road that increases the congestion, costs about a billion euro's of tax money and will terribly damage the environment and landscape. But the construction firms will be very happy.
Impeachment? (Score:2)
these people didn't get elected by accident (Score:3, Insightful)
The average person in this country couldn't even begin to tell you what science is, what it's useful for, or what scientists do. To be fair, it's not a question with a simple answer like 42. But it's not surprising that people who make policy decisions at all levels of government know nothing whatsoever about science. It's mis-portrayed almost completely in the media, and probably mis-taught at all levels of education. Scientists are not valued by society in any meaningful way.
Any scientist whose work is in the popular press probably has a story about how their work was portrayed in a way to mislead, not inform people. Perhaps someone will repost the link to that recent insightful article about how few science reporters have any science background.
The government has been rewriting science more blatantly in environmental sciences than in other areas. But it's the other kind of rewriting that's more insidious and harmful. Necessarily, most science funding comes from the government. They decide what to fund and what not to fund. Serious scientists get input into this decision, but not the last word. What's insidious about it is that no individual scientist is doing what they do because the government told them. But since there's such an oversupply of scientists, including a healthy supply interested for their own reasons in doing the specific things the government would like, the government can shape science to whatever extent they want without there ever being a single scientist who was specifically influenced.
Re:Science section? (Score:2)
Re:Science section? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is all throughout the scientific community (Score:2)
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:MoreBadAnalogies (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This is all throughout the scientific community (Score:2)
Re:This is all throughout the scientific community (Score:5, Insightful)
I am all for listening to both sides of a story, but where did scientists worried about the future of the planet exactly do wrong? If someone except the politicians are to blame here, it is the sheep public who lets this happen. Or write posts like yours.
Re:This is all throughout the scientific community (Score:5, Interesting)
Does poor science qualify? How about Michael Mann's Hockey Stick work? From this week's New Scientist (subscription only article)
Though McKitrick and MacIntyre's paper is hidden behind Nature's subscription firewall, McKitrick shows the graph [uoguelph.ca] on his webpage. Note that McKitrick and MacIntyre aren't saying global warming isn't happening, they're just pointing out Mann's method is suspect.The New Scientist article goes on to cite poor data sources such as tree rings with known variability issues and inherent bias in data selection. When Mann was asked to divulge his source code so it could be inspected for methodology errors, he declined saying it was proprietary code. Revealing methodology is inherent in good science and Mann violated that key precept.
You should be skeptical of climatology in general given that it's even more removed from model failure than meteorolgy. Meteorologists are well acquainted with their models failing because they get feedback on a daily basis. Climatologist don't get that feedback because there's only one climate so they retrofit their models to fit past performance of the climate - a methodology that meteorologists have demonstrated doesn't work very well.
Even worse, they can't even agree on what's going to happen. One model has Europe roasting, another freezing. It can't be both but regardless of which outcome we eventually encounter, climatologists will claim they predicted it.
At it's core, the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis has relied on CO2 emissions as being causative. You have to be skeptical of a claim that an incredibly complex atmosephere which we can't fully model is being driven by variations of a single gas. A gas whose concentration is less than a tenth of one percent.
Re:This is all throughout the scientific community (Score:3, Insightful)
Science is of course very respected in our societey, and therefore dangerous for certain politicians and other with a rigid, fundamentalistic world-view were facts is not of importance. The reason science is so respected is because the sci
Re:This is all throughout the scientific community (Score:4, Interesting)
There are valid criticisms of current climate science, and they are coming from within the scientific community, including the IPCC. The field of research is moving fast and the near-consensus from the people who know the most is that we're in trouble.
Did you read McKitrick's recommendations for climate science? Basically this: "Boy, math sure is hard, so let's all give it up and go home and have drinks with our friends." I really wish I was joking.
Re:This is all throughout the scientific community (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is all throughout the scientific community (Score:2)
I agree with him in one aspect of this, in that we'd be stupid to sign Kyoto and become involved in making transfer payments to other nations because we polute more than they do. Better to simply vow to reduce our own CO2 emissions, and spend the dollars here doing so.
Of course, we didn't do that, either.
Re:We must act now to save the scientists!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Specifically the parts that note he was permitted from discussing a number of things and he had to give the interview with a NASA watchdog recording and overseeing the interview.
Re:forget the politicians, we can't wait (Score:2)
So basically the worst thing we can do right now is nothing (as you point out 10 years isn't long at all).
I guess a heck of a
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How many trees would it take? (Score:3, Interesting)
Dynamically, some of it is retained (new trees hopefuly grow, as old die and rot) in forests, but forest fires can dramatically change that.
Besides, some experimental research had shown that plants have upper limit on CO2 atmospheric concentration they can handle. After that limit is breached, ph
Re:Censorship huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now most of these people just h