Is it just me, or does it seem a little hypocritical for the NYT to be lecturing others about "net neutrality" and insuring that the Internet "remain(s) free, and freely evolving?" The hypocrisy is that the NYT itself has walled off vast areas of its own content which use to be "free" and still is if you go to the library, make a copy and put it in your scrap book. So let's include in the definition of net neutrality the provision that if it's published openly anywhere at any time, and Brewster Kahle for example puts it in his Internet Archive, then its subject to net neutrality and free forever and the NYT can't make "profit-driven choices, rather than users' choices" and can't determine "which sites and methodologies succeed and fail" for its own content.
This Wall Street Journal article Climate Change and Open Science - WSJ .com made the right basic point about liberal hypocrisy in the Climate Change debate, but disappointingly it failed to cite the best sources of real information from an unbiased scientific point of view. I believe that source is Dr. S. Fred Singer & Dr. Craig D. Idso , from the Science and Environmental Policy Project and Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, who coauthored "Climate Change Reconsidered; The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change" published in 2009. In this book, the petition letter shown here from Dr. Frederick Seitz ( Ph . D. Physics) President Emeritus of Rockefeller University was published. Dr. Seitz circulated this letter: urging fellow academics with qualifications in the physical sciences to sign the petition at http://www.petitionproject.com/ and thereby acknowledge their agreement with this statement in the petition: Accor...
Comments