![]() TheINQUIRER publishes daily news, reviews on the latest gadgets and devices, and INQdepth articles for tech buffs and hobbyists. Crackit.info - 2017 SEO tools collection! Download most popular cracked SEO tools, internet marketing software and moneymaking techniques 100% FREE!The 5 Craziest War Stories (All Happened on the Same Ship)But obviously no one was going to let the Porter get anywhere near a high- profile mission ever again.So they sent them to the only campaign no one ever really cared about: Alaska.They got exiled to the Aleutian Islands, with the U. . S. Navy figuring they couldn't possibly screw anything up over there. CyberGhost vpn crack is a best software to go undercover on the web or hide your country and real IP address. There are practically zero presidents to assassinate in Alaska. Wikipedia. The land only grows oil wells and disenfranchised moose. After surviving in the freezing cold for nearly a year with nary a disaster, everything was going well. Right up until they were about to leave for reassignment, that is. ![]() One of the sailors on board had gotten drunk and decided to give the big guns a whirl. Unfortunately for that sailor, the shell was steered by the powers of bad luck right into the base commander's front yard, exploding in his flower garden, obviously ruining the flowers and further demolishing what was left of the ship's reputation. Wikipedia"We were just trying to send over a gift basket in the most efficient way possible."This would have been bad enough, except the sailor fired it while the commander had other officers and their wives over for a party. By this point, the Porter was the latrine duty of the Navy - - serving on it was considered a punishment. But it was OK, because the war was drawing to a close and the ship was getting reassigned to the Pacific! She would finally have a real chance at redemption! That is, until it .. By 1. 94. 5, the ship's reputation had not improved. Her crew was often welcomed with the phrase "Don't shoot! We're Republicans!" and raucous laughter. Her reputation sank even lower after she riddled another sister ship with gunfire during the early stages of the Battle of Okinawa. Wikipedia"Yes, we shot it, and yes, it sank in that battle, but they were probably two very separate events."Finally, the Porter was stationed on the perimeter of the battle, where they were sure to not kill anyone. And they actually did alright out there. They used their anti- sub and anti- aircraft weapons correctly, avoided sinking allied ships, shot down five Japanese planes and never once attempted to assassinate the president. Not bad, all things considered. Being the USS William D. Porter, however, you know this fairy tale wouldn't last. Among the enemy planes were wood and canvas bombers - - there was so little metal on the Japanese planes that they easily slipped past radar. So when this one plane aimed for a ship near the Porter, the Porter took evasive maneuvers. YAY! SUCCESS! FINALLY! The plane crashed into the ocean without exploding, and the high- five party began. Sadly, three more ships exploded during the party, but everyone agreed it was totally worth it. What they didn't realize was that the kamikaze plane kept on its trajectory under water - - then exploded beneath the Willie Dee, with the force of the explosion lifting the destroyer smack out of the ocean. In other words, the ship was accidentally killed by an airplane that had already crashed. That spelled the end for what was the most hilariously incompetent ship in the history of the world. It sank three hours later, without the loss of a single crew member. We think the Porter kept them alive so they would forever have to live with the fact that they served on the Porter. Luckily all the humiliation and hatred they were subjected to made them perfect for the postal service. For more out- of- the- blue shenanigans, check out 7 Modern Dictators Way Crazier Than You Thought Possible and The 5 Greatest Things Ever Accomplished While High. Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Date. 17 November 2. Location. Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia. Also known as"Climategate"Inquiries. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK)[1]Independent Climate Change Email Review (UK)International Science Assessment Panel (UK)Pennsylvania State University (US)United States Environmental Protection Agency (US)Department of Commerce (US)Verdict. Exoneration or withdrawal of all major or serious charges. The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as "Climategate")[2][3] began in November 2. Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) by an external attacker,[4][5] copying thousands of emails and computer files, the Climatic Research Unit documents, to various internet locations several weeks before the Copenhagen Summit on climate change. The story was first broken by climate change denialists[6] with columnist James Delingpole popularising the term "Climategate" to describe the controversy.[7] Several people considered climate change "skeptics" argued that the emails showed global warming was a scientific conspiracy, that scientists manipulated climate data and attempted to suppress critics.[8][9] The CRU rejected this, saying the emails had been taken out of context and merely reflected an honest exchange of ideas.[1. The mainstream media picked up the story as negotiations over climate change mitigation began in Copenhagen on 7 December 2. Because of the timing, scientists, policy makers and public relations experts said that the release of emails was a smear campaign intended to undermine the climate conference.[1. In response to the controversy, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released statements supporting the scientific consensus that the Earth's mean surface temperature had been rising for decades, with the AAAS concluding, "based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway.. Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[1. However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests.[1. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[1. Timeline of the initial incident[edit]The incident began when a server used by the Climatic Research Unit was breached in "a sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack",[5] and 1. MB of data[8] were obtained including more than 1,0. The University of East Anglia stated that the server from which the data were taken was not one that could be accessed easily, and that the data could not have been released inadvertently.[1. Norfolk Police later added that the offenders used methods that are common in unlawful internet activity, designed to obstruct later enquiries.[5] The breach was first discovered on 1. November 2. 00. 9 after the server of the Real. Climate website was also hacked and a copy of the stolen data was uploaded there.[2. Real. Climate's Gavin Schmidt said that he had information that the files had been obtained through "a hack into [CRU's] backup mail server."[2. At about the same time, a short comment appeared on Stephen Mc. Intyre's Climate Audit website saying that "A miracle has happened."[2. On 1. 9 November an archive file containing the data was uploaded to a server in Tomsk, Russia,[2. Internet.[8] An anonymous post from a Saudi Arabian. IP address[2. 4] to the climate- sceptic blog The Air Vent[2. That same day, Stephen Mc. Intyre of Climate Audit was forwarded an internal email sent to UEA staff warning that "climate change sceptics" had obtained a "large volume of files and emails". Charles Rotter, moderator of the climate- sceptic blog Watts Up With That, which had been the first to get a link and download the files, gave a copy to his flatmate Steve Mosher. Mosher received a posting from the hacker complaining that nothing was happening and replied: "A lot is happening behind the scenes. It is not being ignored. Much is being coordinated among major players and the media. Thank you very much. You will notice the beginnings of activity on other sites now. Here soon to follow." Shortly afterwards, the emails began to be widely publicised on climate- sceptic blogs.[2. On 2. 0 November the story emerged in mainstream media.[8]Norfolk police subsequently confirmed that they were "investigating criminal offences in relation to a data breach at the University of East Anglia" with the assistance of the Metropolitan Police's Central e- Crime unit,[2. Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) and the National Domestic Extremism Team (NDET).[2. Commenting on the involvement of the NDET, a spokesman said: "At present we have two police officers assisting Norfolk with their investigation, and we have also provided computer forensic expertise. While this is not strictly a domestic extremism matter, as a national police unit we had the expertise and resource to assist with this investigation, as well as good background knowledge of climate change issues in relation to criminal investigations." However, the police cautioned that "major investigations of this nature are of necessity very detailed and as a consequence can take time to reach a conclusion."[2. On 1. 8 July 2. 01. Norfolk police finally decided to close its investigation because they did not have a "realistic prospect of identifying the offender or offenders and launching criminal proceedings within the time constraints imposed by law". They also said that the attack had been carried out "remotely via the internet" and that there was "no evidence to suggest that anyone working at or associated with the University of East Anglia was involved in the crime".[5]Content of the documents[edit]The material comprised more than 1,0. According to an analysis in The Guardian, the vast majority of the emails related to four climatologists: Phil Jones, the head of the CRU; Keith Briffa, a CRU climatologist specialising in tree ring analysis; Tim Osborn, a climate modeller at CRU; and Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. The four were either recipients or senders of all but 6. A few other emails were sent by, or to, other staff at the CRU. Jones, Briffa, Osborn and Hulme had written high- profile scientific papers on climate change that had been cited in reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[2. Most of the emails concerned technical and mundane aspects of climate research, such as data analysis and details of scientific conferences.[2. The Guardian's analysis of the emails suggests that the hacker had filtered them. Four scientists were targeted and a concordance plot shows that the words "data", "climate", "paper", "research", "temperature" and "model" were predominant.[2. The controversy has focused on a small number of emails[2. Kevin Trenberth said, "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t".[2. This was actually part of a discussion on the need for better monitoring of the energy flows involved in short- term climate variability,[3. Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1. World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well- discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by global warming sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[3. John Tierney, writing in The New York Times in November 2.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
November 2017
Categories |