i just asked this in the 2nd v 4th amend post, but this is prbly a more appropriate thread for it... in the 'boundless informant' slides @ the guardian, what does the 'SI' stand for? as far as i can tell, it's not a standard classification type acronym... and wikipedia tells me there is something called 'the si organization, inc'... i have asked about this in a few different forums, have not yet gotten any feedback...
i'm hoping that's bcuz it's either a stupid question or no one knows, as opposed to the chilling effect living under a surveillance state has on free expression.
don't know if you're aware of the recent exchanges between some leftish types n the 'new atheists' but i was wondering if you'd care to weigh in... if you haven't heard about it, it was triggered by an al jazeera english post regarding the islamaphobia of sam harris, which led to an exchange between glenn greenwald and harris in both the guardian and on harris's site, along w/ mentions here n there on other sites by other folks. the main players seem to be greenwald on the one hand and harris/dawkins/and a very dead hitchens on the other.(seems like dan dennett is in the clear) if you've already addressed this in some form, link plz? (also, i don't believe i HAVE ever read a book on islam, thanks for the esposito thing, i'll check it out)
plenty of carbon involved in the life cycle(mining, refining, waste storage, whatever) same is true of renewables of course, tho i don't think there's much consensus on which is more carbon intensive... not a fan of nuclear, but i'd be willing to settle in short term in interest of getting SOMETHING accomplished. i agree w/ juan's general point that wind/solar would allow for quicker pivot from fossil fuels, but, again, whatever gets us there. (in terms of co2 reductions)
something of a defeatist about this myself... if u.s. congress can't even agree on funding the government for the next year, paying our bills n so forth, how can you expect them to take the long view(tho, not SO long, really) on climate change? as to obama, he's STILL considering keystone pipe. not to suggest we can't walk n chew gum at the same time, but this(climate) issue is really the ONLY issue worth organizing around at this moment in history in my view, yet, as you mention, "the almost complete lack of interest in the issue and the lack of urgency the public feels". i support marriage equality and oppose ss cuts, but what's the value of it if co2 driven permafrost melt releases enough methane to cause a mass extinction event? anyway, good on ya, ontario.
hey, sorry for being off topic, just wanted to follow up on your(Juan's) reply to my comment on 'threat of White Supremacists' post from the 4th.(comments for that are closed, i guess) While the context SHOULD be clear, and certainly is for those familiar with 'patriot' euphamism(not to mention the plain ole 'militia groups'), I don't think it would be clear to a general public that may not follow the issue, or even much in the way of news at all.(ie my extended facebook family) To be fair, the rather large Thornton clan and it's offshoots may not be your target audience. š
Anyway, since I'm here and should probably say something more relevant... in addition to fact that nuclear plants "are very expensive, provoke a lot of opposition, and take a long time to build," they're entirely too centralised for my taste.(natural monopolies) I favor the idea of an 'electranet' which al gore invented. š
I came across this post via alternet in my facebook feed... I don't disagree with anything you said and was about to 'share', until I saw 'patriot n militia groups' along the bottom of the infographic. Much of my extended family would probably take issue w/ refering to 'militias' as white hate groups. (tho it sounds about right to me) I realize you didn't create the graphic, but I thought I'd bring this issue to your attention for future reference. (If it had said 'White Supremesist Groups' or whatever, I think it would have made the exact same stats more palatable to a wider audience... feel free to pass that along to the relevant folks, if you see any value in it) Thanks!
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
i understand juan doesn't have a security clearance or anything, but maybe another of you fine folks would know:
link to guardian.co.uk
what does the 'SI' in the headers stand for? i'm thinking the defense contractor of the same name, maybe?
i just asked this in the 2nd v 4th amend post, but this is prbly a more appropriate thread for it... in the 'boundless informant' slides @ the guardian, what does the 'SI' stand for? as far as i can tell, it's not a standard classification type acronym... and wikipedia tells me there is something called 'the si organization, inc'... i have asked about this in a few different forums, have not yet gotten any feedback...
i'm hoping that's bcuz it's either a stupid question or no one knows, as opposed to the chilling effect living under a surveillance state has on free expression.
any reply is welcome,
thanks!
95 comments in less than 24hrs... someone hit a nerve.
juan,
don't know if you're aware of the recent exchanges between some leftish types n the 'new atheists' but i was wondering if you'd care to weigh in... if you haven't heard about it, it was triggered by an al jazeera english post regarding the islamaphobia of sam harris, which led to an exchange between glenn greenwald and harris in both the guardian and on harris's site, along w/ mentions here n there on other sites by other folks. the main players seem to be greenwald on the one hand and harris/dawkins/and a very dead hitchens on the other.(seems like dan dennett is in the clear) if you've already addressed this in some form, link plz? (also, i don't believe i HAVE ever read a book on islam, thanks for the esposito thing, i'll check it out)
plenty of carbon involved in the life cycle(mining, refining, waste storage, whatever) same is true of renewables of course, tho i don't think there's much consensus on which is more carbon intensive... not a fan of nuclear, but i'd be willing to settle in short term in interest of getting SOMETHING accomplished. i agree w/ juan's general point that wind/solar would allow for quicker pivot from fossil fuels, but, again, whatever gets us there. (in terms of co2 reductions)
something of a defeatist about this myself... if u.s. congress can't even agree on funding the government for the next year, paying our bills n so forth, how can you expect them to take the long view(tho, not SO long, really) on climate change? as to obama, he's STILL considering keystone pipe. not to suggest we can't walk n chew gum at the same time, but this(climate) issue is really the ONLY issue worth organizing around at this moment in history in my view, yet, as you mention, "the almost complete lack of interest in the issue and the lack of urgency the public feels". i support marriage equality and oppose ss cuts, but what's the value of it if co2 driven permafrost melt releases enough methane to cause a mass extinction event? anyway, good on ya, ontario.
hey, sorry for being off topic, just wanted to follow up on your(Juan's) reply to my comment on 'threat of White Supremacists' post from the 4th.(comments for that are closed, i guess) While the context SHOULD be clear, and certainly is for those familiar with 'patriot' euphamism(not to mention the plain ole 'militia groups'), I don't think it would be clear to a general public that may not follow the issue, or even much in the way of news at all.(ie my extended facebook family) To be fair, the rather large Thornton clan and it's offshoots may not be your target audience. š
Anyway, since I'm here and should probably say something more relevant... in addition to fact that nuclear plants "are very expensive, provoke a lot of opposition, and take a long time to build," they're entirely too centralised for my taste.(natural monopolies) I favor the idea of an 'electranet' which al gore invented. š
Juan,
I came across this post via alternet in my facebook feed... I don't disagree with anything you said and was about to 'share', until I saw 'patriot n militia groups' along the bottom of the infographic. Much of my extended family would probably take issue w/ refering to 'militias' as white hate groups. (tho it sounds about right to me) I realize you didn't create the graphic, but I thought I'd bring this issue to your attention for future reference. (If it had said 'White Supremesist Groups' or whatever, I think it would have made the exact same stats more palatable to a wider audience... feel free to pass that along to the relevant folks, if you see any value in it) Thanks!