If they could, they'd just decrypt his other disks.
Far more relevant here is what justification the judge thought he was using to order the suspect to give up his password. Because in order to do that, according to current legal precedent, the government has to already know, "with reasonable particularity", that the ENCRYPTED disks contain illegal material.
Some different encrypted disk doesn't count. Nor does "reasonable suspicion", nor even probable cause. In order to force the suspect to give up his password, they have to have strong evidence indeed. "Foreknowledge", in fact. And they don't have it.
Again, a different disk doesn't count. The court might reason that "he can't incriminate himself" because they already have child porn, but that's bullshit. Because those still-encrypted disks could contain, just hypothetically and for example, pictures of him murdering somebody. So there is still plenty of room for him to incriminate himself, and forcing him to do so is a direct violation of the 5th Amendment.
Having said that, there is still nothing preventing the FBI from continuing to try to crack the encryption. If they have probable cause, that doesn't violate the 4th or 5th.
"Its a poorly designed flavour of the month language with a poorly designed API intended for web use all wrapped up in a stupid alliterative name"
It's a well-designed and successful framework that has been in mainstream use now for around 10 years.
This "vulnerability" only applies to applications in which the developers did not alter the default value of a cryptographic key, as they are supposed to do. It's roughly the equivalent of leaving your house key in the front door lock.
Why the framework has been catching so much flak over what is actually a developer issue is beyond my understanding. There are, and have been, clear plain-English instructions that the value of that key should be changed for every new application you create.
You blame users for not changing the default password (cryptographic key) on their WiFi router... you don't blame the router manufacturer. So why fault this framework because some people didn't change the default "password"??? Makes no sense.
Interesting, because in getting those URLs I noticed that Anthony Watts, who is very critical of AGW in general, takes issue with those who like LaTour's argument that the physics of the back radiation doesn't work. He doesn't like their claim (according to him) that "the greenhouse effect is bogus".
At this point I have to day that the word "bogus" did appear once, but it is my understanding (which may be inaccurate) that it was used in the context of "the science of AGW CO2-based greenhouse effect is bogus". I don't think anybody seriously claimed that there is no greenhouse effect at all, ever. But Watts seems to have it in his head that they are arguing against the effect itself, rather than the claimed scientific basis for the effect, which are two different things.
So anyway, I saw on his website that he performed an experiment to show that "the Slayers" as he calls them (after the name of LaTour's book) doesn't hold up and that the greenhouse effect is real.
In the process of reading about his "experiment", I was disillusioned. While I have had a great deal of respect for Watts, and his willingness to stand up for scientific argument, his experiment was pretty feeble. He failed to account for a number of factors, and made some woefully (and demonstrably) invalid assumptions. In brief, his experiment doesn't show what he appears to think it does. For just one item out of many, he failed to properly account for convective and conductive effects. There were other serious flaws in his experiment, but I won't go into detail here.
What I think is silly is that he's tilting at his own windmills here. I don't think (again) that anybody is really claiming there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect.
"Cooler things interact with warmer things, warming them, all the time."
Not via direct absorption of their lower-energy radiation. If you disagree, then you put the lie to the first question: "Do you understand the second law of thermodynamics?" It isn't me arguing with you here, it's physics. Please explain how energy -- radiative only, without conductive or convective assistance -- can travel from colder to warmer. I'm all ears.
"That you can't focus light with a cold mirror?"
That's reflection, not radiation, and "black-body" temperature of the light in question has little direct relationship to the surface temperature of the mirror. Again, the question only demonstrates that you do not grasp the issue here. Or -- again -- understand what the 2nd Law is really all about.
"Is it your position that we can't detect cosmic background radiation with antennas warmer than three kelvins?"
Why would it be? Is it your position that we observe these phenomena via direct absorption of radiation at the same wavelengths and energies emitted by the detector? Again, you demonstrate a lack of grasp of the issue.
"Any time you think you've found a basic, obvious, flaw in a scientific consensus, you're wrong."
Hahahaha. Tell that to Copernicus. And Galileo. And Newton. And Einstein.
I'm not comparing myself to these people. For one thing, it wasn't even my idea. I'm merely pointing out that it is ridiculously easy to prove that what you wrote is pretty hilarious.
"I was asking for evidence in addition to what's reported in the media..."
As for that, there are a number of sources. WARNING: I do not claim that the sources are necessarily unbiased. But then, many if not most sources on the "AGW proponent" side are equally as likely to be biased. One must make up one's own mind based on the evidence.
I do not simply believe whatever these sources say. I look at what they present, and do some research myself into the credibility of their claims. So please do not (as many have done) simply dismiss things merely because of the source. Shooting the messenger is as unscientific as uncritical denial or acceptance.
I mention this because there has been a great deal of one-sidedness on the part of many AGW proponents, who insist that everything climate scientists say must be unbiased fact while everybody else can be dismissed out-of-hand because those saying it are biased "deniers". There is no more truth to that than trying to argue the other way around.
So, having said that, one source of "contrarian" information is principia-scientific.org. Member Dr. Pierre LaTour was, I think, the first to point out the problem with the thermodynamics of the "back radiation" concept. Not to beat a horse, dead or otherwise, but it must be said LaTour has ties to the petroleum industry. On the other hand, nobody so far has successfully refuted his explanation of the physics. (Illustrating the essential problem with cries of bias. A genuine scientific argument must be based on the supposed facts being presented, not on who is making the claim.)
Having said that, a criticism that has been leveled at some people pushing this idea is that they claim the "greenhouse effect" is not real. Personally I do not know, as I have not seen that claim, and I do not make that claim myself. My own argument has been about the science behind the claimed greenhouse effect, not about whether it exists at all.
If you look at some of the other members listed by Principia Scientific, few if any have backgrounds that are as suggestive of possible "petroleum industry" bias. But if you cite anything from that site, no matter how much you may have researched and verified it yourself, prepare to be labeled a "denier" by the "other side". Yet in my experience that "other side" seldom bothers to actually address contrary evidence directly, preferring instead to insult and ridicule. (The person I replied to earlier in this thread has been a pretty good example.)
The same claims of "biased denier" have frequently been made of Anthony Watts, and his wattsupwiththat.com website. And yet the AGW proponents have seldom seen fit to actually refute the evidence that is presented there. I once mentioned a critique by a climate scientist of some data from the University of East Anglia that was used in an IPCC report, and which appeared on the Watts Up With That? website. A "climate scientist" I will not name took issue with me here on Slashdot, and on his personal website, saying he had pointed out to me where that other scientist had made a grievous error in his claims, confusing one set of data for another. Typical. But actually the mistake that appeared was not made by the scientist at all, but by the guy who wrote the article. The scientist referred to in the article remains correct (or at least unrefuted) in his assertions. This "scientist" on Slashdot kept telling me I was wrong, even though HE didn't even read the damned article carefully enough to spot who made the actual error. Sigh.
And so it goes. As I say: I make no claims about the credibility of the "contrarian" arguments. You will have to decide that for yourself on a case-by-case basis. The fact is that there are whackos on both sides. The main trick is to look at their actual arguments, rather than being swayed by who they are or what side they are on. I should not have to point that out to someone who is actually scientifically-minded but sadly, for some reason, I have had to do that many times over this particular issue.
"I was asking for evidence in addition to what's reported in the media so you can help me learn something - I've read media reports but I haven't seen any models for myself. I'm not making assumptions about you and your knowledge, I was asking for references."
Pardon me. I misunderstood you. Well, if you try, they aren't hard to find. Here, for example, is a classic diagram from climate models from the IPCC's own website. Note that this is not just a "simplified" explanation for laymen; the diagram is derived from calculations used in actual climate models:
You can find many more examples if you Google for "back radiation" or "climate model" and "diagram".
"And I asked a question about your belief regarding a connection between co2 and gw. You didn't answer. If your answer is "no connection has been demonstrated", that's fine - you just haven't said so."
I didn't answer explicitly because I felt my answer was pretty clear from my earlier statements. I don't claim that CO2 doesn't cause warming. However, I am skeptical about whether it has been a major -- much less the major -- cause of warming in the 20th Century.
I'm not discounting the possibility. But every attempt to actually demonstrate that so far has been pretty full of holes. The burden of proof lies with those who propose the models, and they have fallen short in that regard.
Consider for example the temperature projections made by the AGW proponents in the IPCC reports. EVERY report has had to "adjust" for the fact that projections made by the previous reports just haven't panned out. If temperatures had actually followed ANY of the patterns projected by the AGW proponents, in ANY of the majority opinions in the IPCC reports so far, it would already be much warmer than it is now. And they admit that they cannot explain the discrepancy.
Not to mention the exaggerated claims in the media that went much further than the actual reports. By my argument isn't about the media, it's about the credibility of some of the "science".
Yes, no doubt. I should have read you post more carefully. My point was only that just the fact that it might sound like someone's trade name (or even be the same trade name in some instances), doesn't automatically mean it's squatting.
People do get confused sometimes over those little niceties.
"Do you think there is no link between atmospheric co2 and heat leaving earth and/or global warming?"
I did not claim that. My only claim about this particular thing -- anywhere, at any time -- is that the majority of AGW climate models appear to be fundamentally flawed. That's not the same thing.
"Is there also evidence that the climate scientists haven't accounted for thermodynamics in their models beyond what's been reported in the media?"
My comments weren't about "what's been reported in the media". They have been about what the AGW proponents have claimed themselves, in their own reports and public statements.
"But as for the question of thermodynamics, isn't it true that the claim is simply that increasing the co2 in the atmosphere decreases the amount of heat radiated into space?"
No, it's not.
The "greenhouse gas" models used by most of the AGW climate scientists rely on a concept of "back radiation", in which infrared radiation is either reflected, or (perhaps more accurately) re-emitted back toward Earth.
So far, so good. But here's the problem:
The clouds are colder than the ground, and the infrared radiation they emit is of lower energy than that emitted by the ground (2nd law of thermodynamics again... some energy is lost during the absorbtion and re-radiation). So according to well-known laws of physics, that radiation could not possibly warm the ground.
Yet that is the effect AGW proponents claim is happening. This is their own claim, not mine. It has appeared frequently in their calculations and in their papers. And it has often been presented in diagram form. See statements by Kevin Trenberth, IPCC reports, et al.
Is it possible that something else, that is even cooler than the clouds, is absorbing that radiation and transmitting it to the ground by direct contact? I suppose it's remotely possible. But then, what is it? It's not the air, and it's not the ocean (same thing applies to bodies of water as to dry land).
The whole point is, again, not that there isn't a greenhouse effect. The point is that if there is one, it doesn't work the way the climate scientists are claiming. And if there is such a fundamental error in their models, what does that mean?
"Do you also believe that atmospheric co2 levels reaching 400 ppm isn't an anthropomorphic effect?"
Why would I believe anything like that? Have you seen me anywhere claiming that I do? Don't be ridiculous. The argument above has nothing to do with "what I believe", nor is it my own idea. It is a simple matter of physics, which has been pointed out by physicists.
And what does "the media" have to do with anything?
"I did mean "Verizen" or something similar. For example, if you register "verizxon.com" or "cerizonwireless.com" and put cellphone ppc on them, odds are you will lose the UDRP based on the trademark for "Verizon". Those are two examples among thousands."
Yes, pardon me. You were relying on the "likelihood of confusion" argument. Which is valid, as far as I know. The same concept exists in U.S. trademark law.
But if you had a web domain of the same name ("Verizen"), and it was there for the purpose of selling lawn mowers, then that argument doesn't apply. I know that and you know that, but some people don't.
Well, you wrote "Verizen", and I was operating under the presumption that was intentional, and not a typo. Part (i) is what I was talking about. If they don't own a trademark or some other rights to the name, and someone else is squatting on the name in order to hold it hostage, then they have a case. I agree.
But that doesn't appear to be the case here. At least from the facts as described.
Let me give you a specific example of what I mentioned in my other reply.
Do you understand the second law of thermodynamics? Do you understand that it is not possible for a cooler body to increase the heat of a warmer body via infrared radiation?
Do you understand how this creates a problem for the "back radiation" concept relied upon in many if not most climate models?
Let's not get confused here. This is NOT an argument that there is no "greenhouse effect". What it is, is solid physical evidence that if there is a greenhouse effect, it doesn't work the way the climate scientists persist in saying it does. And that serious a flaw in the model is nothing to sneeze at.
"I'm curious Jane, what's your job? - I only ask because on the subject of AGW your "grasp of math and physics" is just as far away from well established science as those of a YEC. I'm not trying to pick a fight here..."
Yes, you are. You're trolling, even if you're telling yourself you're not.
I have made some mistakes, but so have the climate scientists. Unless you've had your head in the sand, you know that they have been pulling back on their predictions, AND that there is a good bit of evidence (some that I've pointed out before and that has never been effectively refuted) that their models are severely flawed.
If YOU don't understand what I've been saying, then you're the one not understanding math and physics. Let's get something straight here: I do not claim (and have not claimed, for years now) that CO2 doesn't create some warming. What I have argued, again and again and again, are (A) that the climate models relied upon by the IPCC have been flawed, and (B) that humans are probably not the major cause of warming in the last century.
You're arguing your "side" as though it's established and solid fact. But whenever contrary evidence has been presented, you have refused to give it serious consideration. I have not done the same. So who is the Young Earther here?
"Of course, it stands to reason that if they are looking to make this practice legal, they are probably already engaged in it."
I should also be pointed out -- just in case any readers didn't realize it already -- that this "Commission" is not part of government or any official body that I know of.
The very fact that they put "theft" in the name of the Commission is telling. Copyright and patent violations are NOT "theft". They involve a completely different area of the law.
"Registering 'verizen.com' *and* parking it with cellphone ads is squatting."
No, it isn't. That's perfectly legal. Unless, of course, you happen to know that "Verizen" is a registered trademark of "Verizon" (possible but I doubt it).
Real "cybersquatting" has to do with trademarks and real names of people. Not just something that sounds like (or even contains, in some cases) some product. In my opinion it shouldn't even be a thing unless it's a person's real name. If they wanted it, they should have bought it first. If someone else had it first, they should have named their product differently.
To me, this looks more like Microsoft arrogance, simply figuring they can release the product first then force the other guy to give up the name. It would hardly be the first time they've tried that sort of thing.
"If he/she keeps that private and nobody ever figures it out, and his math and physics is solid, no problem with it."
In all honesty, though, I rather doubt you will find many Young Earthers who otherwise demonstrate solid grasps of math and physics... since math and physics pretty much rule out the Young Earth hypothesis.
In fairness I suppose that in large part it's more just a failure or refusal to examine the actual evidence. But in some ways that's just as bad.
"In my world a single entry in an online forum identiofying him as a young earth creationist will eliminate him from the list of candicates for some tasks. Way way worse than having a picture in BDSM fashion or a drunken picture, or a blog entry about cow-tipping."
The problem here (and not with you) is that young-earth creationists are proud of this view and believe it to be "scientific". So they aren't likely to keep it offline.
This is actually fortunate for you, if you want to know these things. But I have 2 comments about the rest of your post:
Google many not exclude a link but you don't have to follow it. If you are reading blog posts about cow tipping, you aren't just looking for academic achievements. You're peeking in windows. And:
"If you exhibit a pessimistic view towards you current employer, then it is a bad sign."
While I don't disagree with this, keep in mind: (A) Sometimes employers deserve to be slammed. This is not a reflection on the employee, BUT (B) this illustrates the basic social need to be able to speak anonymously. Somebody who bad-mouths a current employer under their own name may not be too bright, but many current "social networking" venues actively (and wrong-headedly) discourage anonymity.
Not that there aren't lots of problems with these so-called "free trade" agreements that really aren't... but this would definitely be a violation and would justify sanctions (such as tariffs) from treaty member nations.
What good does a "competitive advantage" do if the "profit advantage" is taken out of it?
Slashdot Mirror
I can answer (2): No.
If they could, they'd just decrypt his other disks.
Far more relevant here is what justification the judge thought he was using to order the suspect to give up his password. Because in order to do that, according to current legal precedent, the government has to already know, "with reasonable particularity", that the ENCRYPTED disks contain illegal material.
Some different encrypted disk doesn't count. Nor does "reasonable suspicion", nor even probable cause. In order to force the suspect to give up his password, they have to have strong evidence indeed. "Foreknowledge", in fact. And they don't have it.
Again, a different disk doesn't count. The court might reason that "he can't incriminate himself" because they already have child porn, but that's bullshit. Because those still-encrypted disks could contain, just hypothetically and for example, pictures of him murdering somebody. So there is still plenty of room for him to incriminate himself, and forcing him to do so is a direct violation of the 5th Amendment.
Having said that, there is still nothing preventing the FBI from continuing to try to crack the encryption. If they have probable cause, that doesn't violate the 4th or 5th.
"Its a poorly designed flavour of the month language with a poorly designed API intended for web use all wrapped up in a stupid alliterative name"
It's a well-designed and successful framework that has been in mainstream use now for around 10 years.
This "vulnerability" only applies to applications in which the developers did not alter the default value of a cryptographic key, as they are supposed to do. It's roughly the equivalent of leaving your house key in the front door lock.
Why the framework has been catching so much flak over what is actually a developer issue is beyond my understanding. There are, and have been, clear plain-English instructions that the value of that key should be changed for every new application you create.
You blame users for not changing the default password (cryptographic key) on their WiFi router... you don't blame the router manufacturer. So why fault this framework because some people didn't change the default "password"??? Makes no sense.
Besides, according to the author, even then it only failed "in spirit", because they still managed to fit 25% more cells on the die than before.
Sounds to me like the author didn't have anything better to do, and this article is the journalistic equivalent of scratching his ass.
"Look, infrared light, when absorbed, warms things. It doesn't matter where it comes from."
Repeat: Please explain how energy -- radiative only, without conductive or convective assistance -- can travel from colder to warmer.
I would be VERY interested to know how you propose to reverse entropy. If successful, you could make an awful lot of money.
Interesting, because in getting those URLs I noticed that Anthony Watts, who is very critical of AGW in general, takes issue with those who like LaTour's argument that the physics of the back radiation doesn't work. He doesn't like their claim (according to him) that "the greenhouse effect is bogus".
At this point I have to day that the word "bogus" did appear once, but it is my understanding (which may be inaccurate) that it was used in the context of "the science of AGW CO2-based greenhouse effect is bogus". I don't think anybody seriously claimed that there is no greenhouse effect at all, ever. But Watts seems to have it in his head that they are arguing against the effect itself, rather than the claimed scientific basis for the effect, which are two different things.
So anyway, I saw on his website that he performed an experiment to show that "the Slayers" as he calls them (after the name of LaTour's book) doesn't hold up and that the greenhouse effect is real.
In the process of reading about his "experiment", I was disillusioned. While I have had a great deal of respect for Watts, and his willingness to stand up for scientific argument, his experiment was pretty feeble. He failed to account for a number of factors, and made some woefully (and demonstrably) invalid assumptions. In brief, his experiment doesn't show what he appears to think it does. For just one item out of many, he failed to properly account for convective and conductive effects. There were other serious flaws in his experiment, but I won't go into detail here.
What I think is silly is that he's tilting at his own windmills here. I don't think (again) that anybody is really claiming there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect.
"Cooler things interact with warmer things, warming them, all the time."
Not via direct absorption of their lower-energy radiation. If you disagree, then you put the lie to the first question: "Do you understand the second law of thermodynamics?" It isn't me arguing with you here, it's physics. Please explain how energy -- radiative only, without conductive or convective assistance -- can travel from colder to warmer. I'm all ears.
"That you can't focus light with a cold mirror?"
That's reflection, not radiation, and "black-body" temperature of the light in question has little direct relationship to the surface temperature of the mirror. Again, the question only demonstrates that you do not grasp the issue here. Or -- again -- understand what the 2nd Law is really all about.
"Is it your position that we can't detect cosmic background radiation with antennas warmer than three kelvins?"
Why would it be? Is it your position that we observe these phenomena via direct absorption of radiation at the same wavelengths and energies emitted by the detector? Again, you demonstrate a lack of grasp of the issue.
"Any time you think you've found a basic, obvious, flaw in a scientific consensus, you're wrong."
Hahahaha. Tell that to Copernicus. And Galileo. And Newton. And Einstein.
I'm not comparing myself to these people. For one thing, it wasn't even my idea. I'm merely pointing out that it is ridiculously easy to prove that what you wrote is pretty hilarious.
"I was asking for evidence in addition to what's reported in the media..."
As for that, there are a number of sources. WARNING: I do not claim that the sources are necessarily unbiased. But then, many if not most sources on the "AGW proponent" side are equally as likely to be biased. One must make up one's own mind based on the evidence.
I do not simply believe whatever these sources say. I look at what they present, and do some research myself into the credibility of their claims. So please do not (as many have done) simply dismiss things merely because of the source. Shooting the messenger is as unscientific as uncritical denial or acceptance.
I mention this because there has been a great deal of one-sidedness on the part of many AGW proponents, who insist that everything climate scientists say must be unbiased fact while everybody else can be dismissed out-of-hand because those saying it are biased "deniers". There is no more truth to that than trying to argue the other way around.
So, having said that, one source of "contrarian" information is principia-scientific.org. Member Dr. Pierre LaTour was, I think, the first to point out the problem with the thermodynamics of the "back radiation" concept. Not to beat a horse, dead or otherwise, but it must be said LaTour has ties to the petroleum industry. On the other hand, nobody so far has successfully refuted his explanation of the physics. (Illustrating the essential problem with cries of bias. A genuine scientific argument must be based on the supposed facts being presented, not on who is making the claim.)
Having said that, a criticism that has been leveled at some people pushing this idea is that they claim the "greenhouse effect" is not real. Personally I do not know, as I have not seen that claim, and I do not make that claim myself. My own argument has been about the science behind the claimed greenhouse effect, not about whether it exists at all.
If you look at some of the other members listed by Principia Scientific, few if any have backgrounds that are as suggestive of possible "petroleum industry" bias. But if you cite anything from that site, no matter how much you may have researched and verified it yourself, prepare to be labeled a "denier" by the "other side". Yet in my experience that "other side" seldom bothers to actually address contrary evidence directly, preferring instead to insult and ridicule. (The person I replied to earlier in this thread has been a pretty good example.)
The same claims of "biased denier" have frequently been made of Anthony Watts, and his wattsupwiththat.com website. And yet the AGW proponents have seldom seen fit to actually refute the evidence that is presented there. I once mentioned a critique by a climate scientist of some data from the University of East Anglia that was used in an IPCC report, and which appeared on the Watts Up With That? website. A "climate scientist" I will not name took issue with me here on Slashdot, and on his personal website, saying he had pointed out to me where that other scientist had made a grievous error in his claims, confusing one set of data for another. Typical. But actually the mistake that appeared was not made by the scientist at all, but by the guy who wrote the article. The scientist referred to in the article remains correct (or at least unrefuted) in his assertions. This "scientist" on Slashdot kept telling me I was wrong, even though HE didn't even read the damned article carefully enough to spot who made the actual error. Sigh.
And so it goes. As I say: I make no claims about the credibility of the "contrarian" arguments. You will have to decide that for yourself on a case-by-case basis. The fact is that there are whackos on both sides. The main trick is to look at their actual arguments, rather than being swayed by who they are or what side they are on. I should not have to point that out to someone who is actually scientifically-minded but sadly, for some reason, I have had to do that many times over this particular issue.
"Consider for example the temperature projections made by the AGW proponents in the IPCC reports."
I should add: not just temperature, but other weather extremes as well. Their projections have simply been way off. Every time.
"I was asking for evidence in addition to what's reported in the media so you can help me learn something - I've read media reports but I haven't seen any models for myself. I'm not making assumptions about you and your knowledge, I was asking for references."
Pardon me. I misunderstood you. Well, if you try, they aren't hard to find. Here, for example, is a classic diagram from climate models from the IPCC's own website. Note that this is not just a "simplified" explanation for laymen; the diagram is derived from calculations used in actual climate models:
Back radiation shown as 324 Wm-2 at lower right
You can find many more examples if you Google for "back radiation" or "climate model" and "diagram".
"And I asked a question about your belief regarding a connection between co2 and gw. You didn't answer. If your answer is "no connection has been demonstrated", that's fine - you just haven't said so."
I didn't answer explicitly because I felt my answer was pretty clear from my earlier statements. I don't claim that CO2 doesn't cause warming. However, I am skeptical about whether it has been a major -- much less the major -- cause of warming in the 20th Century.
I'm not discounting the possibility. But every attempt to actually demonstrate that so far has been pretty full of holes. The burden of proof lies with those who propose the models, and they have fallen short in that regard.
Consider for example the temperature projections made by the AGW proponents in the IPCC reports. EVERY report has had to "adjust" for the fact that projections made by the previous reports just haven't panned out. If temperatures had actually followed ANY of the patterns projected by the AGW proponents, in ANY of the majority opinions in the IPCC reports so far, it would already be much warmer than it is now. And they admit that they cannot explain the discrepancy.
Not to mention the exaggerated claims in the media that went much further than the actual reports. By my argument isn't about the media, it's about the credibility of some of the "science".
Yes, no doubt. I should have read you post more carefully. My point was only that just the fact that it might sound like someone's trade name (or even be the same trade name in some instances), doesn't automatically mean it's squatting.
People do get confused sometimes over those little niceties.
"Do you think there is no link between atmospheric co2 and heat leaving earth and/or global warming?"
I did not claim that. My only claim about this particular thing -- anywhere, at any time -- is that the majority of AGW climate models appear to be fundamentally flawed. That's not the same thing.
"Is there also evidence that the climate scientists haven't accounted for thermodynamics in their models beyond what's been reported in the media?"
My comments weren't about "what's been reported in the media". They have been about what the AGW proponents have claimed themselves, in their own reports and public statements.
"But as for the question of thermodynamics, isn't it true that the claim is simply that increasing the co2 in the atmosphere decreases the amount of heat radiated into space?"
No, it's not.
The "greenhouse gas" models used by most of the AGW climate scientists rely on a concept of "back radiation", in which infrared radiation is either reflected, or (perhaps more accurately) re-emitted back toward Earth.
So far, so good. But here's the problem:
The clouds are colder than the ground, and the infrared radiation they emit is of lower energy than that emitted by the ground (2nd law of thermodynamics again... some energy is lost during the absorbtion and re-radiation). So according to well-known laws of physics, that radiation could not possibly warm the ground.
Yet that is the effect AGW proponents claim is happening. This is their own claim, not mine. It has appeared frequently in their calculations and in their papers. And it has often been presented in diagram form. See statements by Kevin Trenberth, IPCC reports, et al.
Is it possible that something else, that is even cooler than the clouds, is absorbing that radiation and transmitting it to the ground by direct contact? I suppose it's remotely possible. But then, what is it? It's not the air, and it's not the ocean (same thing applies to bodies of water as to dry land).
The whole point is, again, not that there isn't a greenhouse effect. The point is that if there is one, it doesn't work the way the climate scientists are claiming. And if there is such a fundamental error in their models, what does that mean?
"Do you also believe that atmospheric co2 levels reaching 400 ppm isn't an anthropomorphic effect?"
Why would I believe anything like that? Have you seen me anywhere claiming that I do? Don't be ridiculous. The argument above has nothing to do with "what I believe", nor is it my own idea. It is a simple matter of physics, which has been pointed out by physicists.
And what does "the media" have to do with anything?
s/media player/media device
Maybe because it isn't so much "wearable computing" as it is "wearable Google-centric media player"???
"I did mean "Verizen" or something similar. For example, if you register "verizxon.com" or "cerizonwireless.com" and put cellphone ppc on them, odds are you will lose the UDRP based on the trademark for "Verizon". Those are two examples among thousands."
Yes, pardon me. You were relying on the "likelihood of confusion" argument. Which is valid, as far as I know. The same concept exists in U.S. trademark law.
But if you had a web domain of the same name ("Verizen"), and it was there for the purpose of selling lawn mowers, then that argument doesn't apply. I know that and you know that, but some people don't.
s / many if not most climate models / many if not most AGW climate models
Well, you wrote "Verizen", and I was operating under the presumption that was intentional, and not a typo. Part (i) is what I was talking about. If they don't own a trademark or some other rights to the name, and someone else is squatting on the name in order to hold it hostage, then they have a case. I agree.
But that doesn't appear to be the case here. At least from the facts as described.
Let me give you a specific example of what I mentioned in my other reply.
Do you understand the second law of thermodynamics? Do you understand that it is not possible for a cooler body to increase the heat of a warmer body via infrared radiation?
Do you understand how this creates a problem for the "back radiation" concept relied upon in many if not most climate models?
Let's not get confused here. This is NOT an argument that there is no "greenhouse effect". What it is, is solid physical evidence that if there is a greenhouse effect, it doesn't work the way the climate scientists persist in saying it does. And that serious a flaw in the model is nothing to sneeze at.
"I'm curious Jane, what's your job? - I only ask because on the subject of AGW your "grasp of math and physics" is just as far away from well established science as those of a YEC. I'm not trying to pick a fight here..."
Yes, you are. You're trolling, even if you're telling yourself you're not.
I have made some mistakes, but so have the climate scientists. Unless you've had your head in the sand, you know that they have been pulling back on their predictions, AND that there is a good bit of evidence (some that I've pointed out before and that has never been effectively refuted) that their models are severely flawed.
If YOU don't understand what I've been saying, then you're the one not understanding math and physics. Let's get something straight here: I do not claim (and have not claimed, for years now) that CO2 doesn't create some warming. What I have argued, again and again and again, are (A) that the climate models relied upon by the IPCC have been flawed, and (B) that humans are probably not the major cause of warming in the last century.
You're arguing your "side" as though it's established and solid fact. But whenever contrary evidence has been presented, you have refused to give it serious consideration. I have not done the same. So who is the Young Earther here?
"Of course, it stands to reason that if they are looking to make this practice legal, they are probably already engaged in it."
I should also be pointed out -- just in case any readers didn't realize it already -- that this "Commission" is not part of government or any official body that I know of.
The very fact that they put "theft" in the name of the Commission is telling. Copyright and patent violations are NOT "theft". They involve a completely different area of the law.
"Registering 'verizen.com' *and* parking it with cellphone ads is squatting."
No, it isn't. That's perfectly legal. Unless, of course, you happen to know that "Verizen" is a registered trademark of "Verizon" (possible but I doubt it).
Real "cybersquatting" has to do with trademarks and real names of people. Not just something that sounds like (or even contains, in some cases) some product. In my opinion it shouldn't even be a thing unless it's a person's real name. If they wanted it, they should have bought it first. If someone else had it first, they should have named their product differently.
To me, this looks more like Microsoft arrogance, simply figuring they can release the product first then force the other guy to give up the name. It would hardly be the first time they've tried that sort of thing.
"If he/she keeps that private and nobody ever figures it out, and his math and physics is solid, no problem with it."
In all honesty, though, I rather doubt you will find many Young Earthers who otherwise demonstrate solid grasps of math and physics... since math and physics pretty much rule out the Young Earth hypothesis.
In fairness I suppose that in large part it's more just a failure or refusal to examine the actual evidence. But in some ways that's just as bad.
"In my world a single entry in an online forum identiofying him as a young earth creationist will eliminate him from the list of candicates for some tasks. Way way worse than having a picture in BDSM fashion or a drunken picture, or a blog entry about cow-tipping."
The problem here (and not with you) is that young-earth creationists are proud of this view and believe it to be "scientific". So they aren't likely to keep it offline.
This is actually fortunate for you, if you want to know these things. But I have 2 comments about the rest of your post:
Google many not exclude a link but you don't have to follow it. If you are reading blog posts about cow tipping, you aren't just looking for academic achievements. You're peeking in windows. And:
"If you exhibit a pessimistic view towards you current employer, then it is a bad sign."
While I don't disagree with this, keep in mind: (A) Sometimes employers deserve to be slammed. This is not a reflection on the employee, BUT (B) this illustrates the basic social need to be able to speak anonymously. Somebody who bad-mouths a current employer under their own name may not be too bright, but many current "social networking" venues actively (and wrong-headedly) discourage anonymity.
"Unfortunately for the Spainards..."
This is such an egregious typo that I have a hard time believing it wasn't deliberate.
Not that there aren't lots of problems with these so-called "free trade" agreements that really aren't... but this would definitely be a violation and would justify sanctions (such as tariffs) from treaty member nations.
What good does a "competitive advantage" do if the "profit advantage" is taken out of it?