Arctic ice is floating. It won't cause sea levels to rise at all. It's that experiment if you put ice cubes in a glass of water filled to the brim, and part of the ice cube stick out of the top, when they melt they still fit in. (That's not entirely true...the ocean is salt water, and the ice is freshwater, so there might be some slight weirdness as it melts, but not enough to notice.)
Greenland (which has now started melting) and antarctic ice, OTOH, are on land, and when they melt they will raise water levels.
Um, because current farmlands becoming wastelands will result in the deaths of millions of people? Because coast cities being uninhabitable will not only result in the destructions of millions of homes, but also our current ports? (Those things we ship oil and food in with?)
Yes, there will be new farmland. And new coast cities, and new ports, and all sorts of crap.
But I want you to do a thought experiment. Imagine that the US, magically, turns into a replica of Australia. Same cities, same climate, everything. It's roughly the amount of housing if you were to remove the coastal cities from America, and it's reasonably the same amount of farmland if you raise the temperature.
Australia has a population of 22 million. The US had a population of 300 million.
Guess what's going to happen to most of the excess population?
The whole 'We can must move' is a) rather stupidly unamerican (I, for one, care that my country is actually inhabitable), and b) utterly dumb if the change happens at any reasonable speed. Houses, farms, ports, roads, all take time to build.
It not only was an excellent choice, it's what he's supposed to do with it. Winners are supposed to take the prize money and use it to further their work. That is the point of the prize money.
It's not to give 'to' charity, as some of the people trying to imply the money is for and that this isn't a 'real' charity. The money is charity, for their work.
It's so hard to know, when the timeline between the doing and the analysis of the result is short. So while I'm comfortable with the award, I have considerable tolerance of those who doubt the propriety of giving this award at this time. Probably they're just saying the timeline of the award should, in general, be longer. And yet, the good effect of the short timeline might be to affect an ongoing situation in a pro-active way, not merely to comment on history (as are so many of the other Nobel awards).
All you have to know is that Kissinger was giving the Nobel Peace Prize to realize that, just maybe, they should hold off on some of the winners until all the results are in.
But, yeah, the prize, and the cash, are supposed to help promote that person's work, so it would be pretty stupid to wait until said work was over. I think they should wait a bit longer in many circumstances, but there's a fine line between 'waiting until the results are in' and 'waiting until all the work is finished'.
While not very common today, war over resources have been common in history, and that is what they are warning about. Not to mention the destabilizing effect vast numbers of migrants have on poor nations.
Hehe. Not very common today. Oh, man you should do standup.:)
You have absolutely no idea who he was up against, as the Nobel Committee doesn't make deliberations or nominations public.
Yes, sometimes people nominate people and tell everyone, and the Committees actually ask for nominations, but there is actually no official set of people that can 'nominate' people...any fool can do it. All you have to do is write them and suggest a person. They run the thousand or so names through a filtering to get only a few dozen.
The idea that the contest this year was between Irena Sendler and Al Gore is just idiotic. Nobel Prizes do not work that way. It's not an Emmy. All we know is that possibly the Polish legislature nominated her. We have no idea if she even made the short list.
And I will note that Nobel Peace Prices are supposed to be awarded for 'work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses'. Nobel Peace Prizes are not awarded for saving children, no matter how unfair that seems. You want a Nobel Prize for saving children's lives, try for the one in Medicine.
In addition, Nobel Peace Prizes are usually immediate. You don't get one 60 years after your actions. That's not a rule, that's just generally how they work. Literature tends to go for lifetime awards, the science awards waits until things have settled down and everyone knows they're right, but peace prizes tend to happen within five years at most, and normally within 18 months. They don't happen 60 years later.
And even if she was qualified, and prizes were being awarded now for actions during WWII, the Nobel Committee has had 60 years to reward her, so pretending that this year it's horrible she got denied it is idiotic. You want to get upset about a specific person getting it instead of her, get upset they awarded the 1973 one to that war criminal Kissinger instead of her. (A good reason Peace Prizes shouldn't be immediate.)
To be clear about this "debunking", what it is in-fact saying is that there is evidence solar irradiance led to a rise in temperatures early this century.
I believe you will find the early 20th century was actually last century. Early last century, in fact. Somewhere between 100 to 80 years ago, depending on how early 'early' is.
Which also means that the magnitude of the warming problem might have been largely underestimated (the particles in the atmosphere do not trap heat but tend to create clouds with smaller water droplets that have a higher albedo and reflect more sunlight).
We already know it's underestimated. All you have to do is look at Greenland and the Arctic for evidence. As that ice melts, it's going to cool the ocean somewhat, which fools will point to as evidence global warming isn't happening. This is already happening.
Sorta like if you put a glass of lukewarm water, with ice in it, in the sun, and aim a magnifying glass at the ice to melt it, you can lower the water temperature, which demonstrates the glass isn't heating up. I guess.
As someone with poor circulation, I've ended up having to immediately walk back out of places after I walk into them in August and they'd running the temperature at what I swear has to be 62 degrees. I cannot handle a 30 degree change in temperature like that in shorts. My system appears to have a hot mode and a cold mode, but does not switch quickly between them, so after about two minutes in such a place I'd be turning blue. (I am not joking. My fingers would actually change color.)
And, no, I can't wear pants and long sleeves, I'd overheat walking around outside.
It's not as bad in the winter going the other way around. The lack of humidity inside helps, plus clothing insulates from the sudden change more. (Remember, insulation works both ways.) And it's often possible to take jackets off inside (I only wear short-sleeves, even in winter.), whereas walking around outside with a jacket draped over your arm while wearing shorts in August tends to strike people a little odd, and it's even odder when you walk inside and put it on.
Granted, I'm an anomaly, but I wonder how many old people have exactly the same problem?
Oh, and incidentally, all climates, except maybe Greenland, need air conditioning. Sure, they don't need it 99.99% of the time. And then one day out of every four years they do need it, and a non-insignificant amount of the population dies from the heat.
I was just talking to someone in New York about this a while ago. They were making fun of someone who had a window air conditioner, and I asserted that people in New York should at least have one, even if they didn't bother to set it up, and they laughed at me. Two week later? Heat wave, a dozen people died.
Having it!=using it. Anyone somewhere the temperature has ever reached over 80 degrees for more than a day needs the ability to run AC, even if it's a window AC unit sitting in the box in the closet. (No, you can't buy one when the heat wave happens, it doesn't work that way.)
The same thing applies to heaters, but almost everyone in the US has some means of generating heat in their house. Like their oven. The people who die in cold snaps are people who've had their gas or electricity cut off.
However, even here in Georgia, something like 90% of the air-conditioning use could be cut in half with some basic sanity in the process. A movie theater has people sitting in close proximity to each other for hours, and is running hot projectors. (Which is why they were the first place an entire generation first saw AC.) Blockbuster, OTOH, does not, and could keep the temperature at 80, as long as they kept it circulating and dehumidified, without anyone complaining.
Except that a) Everyone 'violates' this standard, and b) 'violating' this standard does not harm anything, and, most importantly, c) it's not actually a violation.
Why? Mail servers can reject or defer mail for whatever reason they want at any time, and this overrides all other considerations in the RFC except mail to postmaster. I quote It is a well-established principle that an SMTP server may refuse to accept mail for any operational or technical reason that makes sense to the site providing the server.
And, perhaps more the point, RFCs are just suggestions, and almost every mail server does this, just like they 'violate' that part of the RFC in a dozen ways. Almost no one has left that limit at 100, and it harms no one. Multi-recipient SMTP was a nice bandwidth saver when all mail was valid and there were only a few dozen email servers, but now it's almost entirely used by spammers, and I, personally, have cut it down to 10 peopl ein my server.
But here's the relevant line: The minimum total number of recipients that must be buffered is 100 recipients. Rejection of messages (for excessive recipients) with fewer than 100 RCPT commands is a violation of this specification.
Here's the next line: The general principle that relaying SMTP servers MUST NOT, and delivery SMTP servers SHOULD NOT, perform validation tests on message headers suggests that rejecting a message based on the total number of recipients shown in header fields is to be discouraged.
That's right, almost all 'reject during delivery spam' filters are in violation of the RFC. Despite them being one of the safest form of spam-filtering because senders of actually-valid email get a little notification about it from their own server. It's the only way to notify blocked senders without a bounce that sends spam to forged addresses. And it's a total violation of the RFC.
RFCs are just suggestions on how to behave. In the case of spam fighting, mail servers almost always operate in violation of the RFC, if you ignore the fact, according to the RFC, you can refuse to accept mail whenever you want.
That's nothing. Bob Jones University doesn't allow New Age music. Most of which has no lyrics and no driving beat, it's fricking relaxation music. It's a wonder they haven't banned 'meditation' music because they think it's Buddhist or something.
But it was already fun to watch them condemn Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, not for violence, which I would understand, not for homosexual themes (Although they did that too.), but because of various really stupid misunderstanding.
Like, for example, Buffy had a lunatic ex-priest as a villain in the last season working for 'The First Evil', which is the closest thing to 'Satan' there is. They caught on that he dressed like a priest and started complaining about some total gibberish, apparently thinking he was a real one or something. Apparently, in their universe, non-Christians commonly portray priests as murdering consorts of Satan. (They might not have noticed 'The First Evil' thing, as it always looks like someone who's died, and spent most of that season looking like Buffy.)
Meanwhile, over on Angel, the antichrist, a beautiful 'power-that-be' that had let heaven and was gathering followers by stripping their free will and was being worshiped by everyone, those she wasn't eating, but, as she wasn't ever called 'the antichrist', they didn't appear to notice any sort of biblical analogy. One of the episodes was even named 'Sloughing towards Bethlehem', but, nope, it didn't even register on their radar.
It's like they have no ability to understand fiction or analogy. (Thank goodness that they didn't grasp the idea that Buffy was using magick as a metaphor for sex or we'd all be in trouble.)
Neither of them were an 'unwitting courier for terrorist organizations', so I have no idea how to respond to that.
And I'm not engaging in anything. I was simply pointing out that the Bush administration is detaining people who voice opinions it doesn't like. It is, of course, doing that by making up charges against them.
If I were to assert that my brother had been pulled away by the CIA when entering the US from Canada and is currently being detained at GTMO, it'd be hard for you to demonstrate otherwise. (Except that neither of my brothers are actually missing.)
OTOH, if I assert that, oh, Nick Berg, who is in Iraq, is missing, first the government will deny it, and then 'release' him, where he ends up dead a day later.
What the government does not appear to be doing yet is detaining Americans within America who voice opinions it doesn't like, although it refuses to reveal who it's detained and refuses any sort of oversight of detention facilities so we really are just guessing that no one important appears to be missing. (This assumes we know who 'important' people are.)
What it appears to be doing with Americans is simply arresting protesters and then releasing them.
The case of Sami al-Haj is complicated, and he may be innocent.
'may'? No, he is innocent. It's not even debatable. The charges were absurd to start with and have been disproven even to the government's satisfaction.
Actually, scratch that. He's innocent because he hasn't been proven guilty in a court of law, period.
Nevertheless, he wasn't imprisoned because he uttered some anti-Bush statements.
No, he was imprisoned because he works for an organization that 'utters anti-Bush statements'.
If you don't like him, how about Badr Zaman Badr, who wrote satire aimed at Pakistan and US, was picked up by Pakistani military and turned over the US?
Or just don't tell them it's free. Tell them that it's a $40 product and that a few months back they gave away a bunch of copies as a promotion, and you can get a hold of them. Be sure to emphasizes these are real legal copies with some of the bells and whistles stripped out, for security experts to play with to get them to buy company licenses. (This is all literally true, except you're implying the supply of free copies was somehow limited.)
Pretty soon they'll be telling their friends about the 'free copies you have', and asking if you have any more left and can their friend have one.
It is perhaps worth pointing out that no antivirus could every be uninstalled without an uninstaller, not even ones on a Mac, as, duh, antivirus hook into various operating system functions. Antiviruses are not applications, they are system utilities.
That said, it's only Norton that is consistently broken during uninstall.
Lawyers are required to share all facts with the court and the opposing counsel. Hence they often 'do not want to know' about things when asking their clients questions. They have inferred that there is evidence somewhere that could harm the case, but aren't required to tell anyone if they've just guessed it might exist, only if they know it does.
They are not required to share legal interpretations they don't like, except where they conflict or overturn things they use. I.e., if you cite something in court, you damn well better not cite it if it's been overturned, or fail to cite a later decision that narrowed the ruling.
Of course, the correct way to fight in court is to figure out what your opponent is going to say and disprove it before they get there, so if there is a ruling that seems to hurt your case, it's probably a good idea to mention it and explain why it doesn't hurt your case. (And if a case is sufficiently obviously applicable to criminal defense, and the defense doesn't mention it, the prosecutor should, only because he's risking a mistrial when it comes out that the defense is incompetent.)
Different lawyers might have different access to the facts and whatnot. Prosecutors have access to the evidence well before the defense lawyers. (They have access before they even decide who to charge.) Lawyers have to share factual information to make the system work.
But every lawyer is presumed to have the same access to case law and actual law, and thus sharing there is not that relevant. What is relevant is that you don't mislead judges. The opposing counsel is supposed to stop you from using misleading legal interpretations to mislead the judge. But you don't get to do it even if they fail to stop you.
Which is, sadly, what the RIAA did here. They cited a case, which was all well and good, but then failed to mention it was overruled during the trial. Which, in practice, means they were 'citing' it when they knew it was invalid. Which means the judge is very very pissed at them. I doubt it's grounds of any sort of disbarment, unless they explicitly based on arguments on the overturned ruling after it was overturned, but it's exactly the sort of crap that will cause the judge to keep them on a very short lease.
And considering how idiotic their lawsuits are, basically means they lost this one, because now they're going to have the judge, in addition to the defense, poking holes in their arguments.
They aren't required to cite legal cases that do not help theirs.
However, what the RIAA did here was cite a legal ruling that went their way, and then failed to mention, later on in the case, that said ruling had been overturned. (And they don't get the excuse of not knowing about it, because said case involved them.)
It's not an example of failing to mention a ruling, it's an example of continuing to base legal arguments on a ruling they knew had been overturned.
Um, no, actually, if you snuck onto a movie lot and filmed a movie, you might be in trouble for trespassing, but it's no sort of copyright violation I can think of, and you could even sell said movie. It's not even theft to use props and whatnot, as long as you weren't actually attempting to make off with them, any more than it's theft to sit on a bench in someone's front yard. (And if it was theft, it still wouldn't be illegal to sell the movie.)
In fact, there are actually 'illegally filmed' movies out there, including some big ones, where they thought they had permission to film somewhere and didn't ask the right people. They sometimes get charged with various things, like obstructing traffic, but none of them are 'copyright violation', because you can't copyright reality and it is explicitly legal to take pictures of whatever the hell you want in public.
The only exception is sometimes you can't use photographs of people for profit without consent. Only people, not their stuff. And, of course, taking a photograph of a copyrighted image counts as copying it, so need to be careful there.
Your example is even stupider than normal examples comparing copyrights to property rights. You've managed to come up with something that isn't illegal at all.
Yeah, that's why I said 'at the end'. People might, and I emphasis might because YouTube has a lot of brand awareness, leave if ads started showing before videos, or on top of videos.
But an static ad at the end of the video instead of the 'similar videos' thing? No one would give a damn.
Yeah, I can just see users leaving YouTube enmass.
Wait, no I can't.
And it doesn't even have to be part of the 'video'. That's a flash application, and if Google wants to show an ad, they could just roll down an ad from the top or whatever, that's clearly on top of the stopped video and not part of it, if they didn't want there to be 'confusion'.
And I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if google put ads on the end of videos, too. Maybe not even motion ones, just a single frame at the end that sits there when the video is done.
If you are talking about oil company subsidies, isn't eliminating them a better solution? Further distortion to cancel out distortion seems inefficient. And I realize that these subsidies include asset protection in the middle east, I am willing to stop that too.
No, I was talking about the distortion of the MPG controls by including SUVs as 'light trucks' instead of passenger cars.
We already have perfectly functional ways of reducing low-mileage vehicles on the road, it's called CAFE. It and things like it upped gas mileage from 20 mpg to almost 35 over the last three of decades. We just stopped using them.
I find it doubtful that much of the extra revenue this would generate for battery and solar cell manufacturers will go to research. I don't see why they would have an incentive, in fact, it is rather possible that they would divert money from research to production, to meet artificially inflated demand.
Solar panels don't actually need a lot of research at the moment. They just need a price drop. Get them out in the public, installed on buildings, and the research to make them better will happen by itself.
And the government using hybrid cars would, indeed, cause battery research as the government tends to lease cars from manufacturers. They don't want to end up with a bunch of five-year old cars with non-working batteries they have to replace. However, I'm not as attached to this idea as the solar panels...but I do think it would be helpful for the government to use only cars that exceed CAFE by, say, 15 mpg (And only then get the lowest bid.) to help drive the market.
Just because they use less gas per person does not mean they are less dependent on foreign oil and natural gas imports. They consume nearly five times as much oil as they produce. In fact, they would be hurt more by an oil shock than us, because they have already taken up every measure to conserve oil, there is nothing else they can do to cut down usage. Because of this, Europe is just as sensitive to political threats from oil producing countries as we are, despite all of these anti-consumption measures.
Um, no. I don't know in what universe Europe is more unable to cut back on oil than us, but it isn't the one I live in. Europe tends to have rail service to almost every small city, or at least within 20 miles of every small city. They may do a lot of shipping over roads, but they could certainly switch that to rail in an emergency.
Read a Sherlock Holmes story. 100 years ago, England was crisscrossed with enough rail service that you could get anywhere in a day, and Europe was the same. Those rail lines are still there, and still used for commuter services, although obviously they run a good deal less trains over them.
We, OTOH, can't ship food using rail outside of major cities, because we don't have any rail lines at all except between ports and major cities. (And we don't get food from ports, we get it from 100,000 square miles of farmland.)
Slashdot Mirror
Arctic ice is floating. It won't cause sea levels to rise at all. It's that experiment if you put ice cubes in a glass of water filled to the brim, and part of the ice cube stick out of the top, when they melt they still fit in. (That's not entirely true...the ocean is salt water, and the ice is freshwater, so there might be some slight weirdness as it melts, but not enough to notice.)
Greenland (which has now started melting) and antarctic ice, OTOH, are on land, and when they melt they will raise water levels.
Um, because current farmlands becoming wastelands will result in the deaths of millions of people? Because coast cities being uninhabitable will not only result in the destructions of millions of homes, but also our current ports? (Those things we ship oil and food in with?)
Yes, there will be new farmland. And new coast cities, and new ports, and all sorts of crap.
But I want you to do a thought experiment. Imagine that the US, magically, turns into a replica of Australia. Same cities, same climate, everything. It's roughly the amount of housing if you were to remove the coastal cities from America, and it's reasonably the same amount of farmland if you raise the temperature.
Australia has a population of 22 million. The US had a population of 300 million.
Guess what's going to happen to most of the excess population?
The whole 'We can must move' is a) rather stupidly unamerican (I, for one, care that my country is actually inhabitable), and b) utterly dumb if the change happens at any reasonable speed. Houses, farms, ports, roads, all take time to build.
By 'the economy', the GOP actually means 'rich people'.
It not only was an excellent choice, it's what he's supposed to do with it. Winners are supposed to take the prize money and use it to further their work. That is the point of the prize money.
It's not to give 'to' charity, as some of the people trying to imply the money is for and that this isn't a 'real' charity. The money is charity, for their work.
It's so hard to know, when the timeline between the doing and the analysis of the result is short. So while I'm comfortable with the award, I have considerable tolerance of those who doubt the propriety of giving this award at this time. Probably they're just saying the timeline of the award should, in general, be longer. And yet, the good effect of the short timeline might be to affect an ongoing situation in a pro-active way, not merely to comment on history (as are so many of the other Nobel awards).
All you have to know is that Kissinger was giving the Nobel Peace Prize to realize that, just maybe, they should hold off on some of the winners until all the results are in.
But, yeah, the prize, and the cash, are supposed to help promote that person's work, so it would be pretty stupid to wait until said work was over. I think they should wait a bit longer in many circumstances, but there's a fine line between 'waiting until the results are in' and 'waiting until all the work is finished'.
While not very common today, war over resources have been common in history, and that is what they are warning about. Not to mention the destabilizing effect vast numbers of migrants have on poor nations.
Hehe. Not very common today. Oh, man you should do standup. :)
You have absolutely no idea who he was up against, as the Nobel Committee doesn't make deliberations or nominations public.
Yes, sometimes people nominate people and tell everyone, and the Committees actually ask for nominations, but there is actually no official set of people that can 'nominate' people...any fool can do it. All you have to do is write them and suggest a person. They run the thousand or so names through a filtering to get only a few dozen.
The idea that the contest this year was between Irena Sendler and Al Gore is just idiotic. Nobel Prizes do not work that way. It's not an Emmy. All we know is that possibly the Polish legislature nominated her. We have no idea if she even made the short list.
And I will note that Nobel Peace Prices are supposed to be awarded for 'work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses'. Nobel Peace Prizes are not awarded for saving children, no matter how unfair that seems. You want a Nobel Prize for saving children's lives, try for the one in Medicine.
In addition, Nobel Peace Prizes are usually immediate. You don't get one 60 years after your actions. That's not a rule, that's just generally how they work. Literature tends to go for lifetime awards, the science awards waits until things have settled down and everyone knows they're right, but peace prizes tend to happen within five years at most, and normally within 18 months. They don't happen 60 years later.
And even if she was qualified, and prizes were being awarded now for actions during WWII, the Nobel Committee has had 60 years to reward her, so pretending that this year it's horrible she got denied it is idiotic. You want to get upset about a specific person getting it instead of her, get upset they awarded the 1973 one to that war criminal Kissinger instead of her. (A good reason Peace Prizes shouldn't be immediate.)
To be clear about this "debunking", what it is in-fact saying is that there is evidence solar irradiance led to a rise in temperatures early this century.
I believe you will find the early 20th century was actually last century. Early last century, in fact. Somewhere between 100 to 80 years ago, depending on how early 'early' is.
Which also means that the magnitude of the warming problem might have been largely underestimated (the particles in the atmosphere do not trap heat but tend to create clouds with smaller water droplets that have a higher albedo and reflect more sunlight).
We already know it's underestimated. All you have to do is look at Greenland and the Arctic for evidence. As that ice melts, it's going to cool the ocean somewhat, which fools will point to as evidence global warming isn't happening. This is already happening.
Sorta like if you put a glass of lukewarm water, with ice in it, in the sun, and aim a magnifying glass at the ice to melt it, you can lower the water temperature, which demonstrates the glass isn't heating up. I guess.
As someone with poor circulation, I've ended up having to immediately walk back out of places after I walk into them in August and they'd running the temperature at what I swear has to be 62 degrees. I cannot handle a 30 degree change in temperature like that in shorts. My system appears to have a hot mode and a cold mode, but does not switch quickly between them, so after about two minutes in such a place I'd be turning blue. (I am not joking. My fingers would actually change color.)
And, no, I can't wear pants and long sleeves, I'd overheat walking around outside.
It's not as bad in the winter going the other way around. The lack of humidity inside helps, plus clothing insulates from the sudden change more. (Remember, insulation works both ways.) And it's often possible to take jackets off inside (I only wear short-sleeves, even in winter.), whereas walking around outside with a jacket draped over your arm while wearing shorts in August tends to strike people a little odd, and it's even odder when you walk inside and put it on.
Granted, I'm an anomaly, but I wonder how many old people have exactly the same problem?
Oh, and incidentally, all climates, except maybe Greenland, need air conditioning. Sure, they don't need it 99.99% of the time. And then one day out of every four years they do need it, and a non-insignificant amount of the population dies from the heat.
I was just talking to someone in New York about this a while ago. They were making fun of someone who had a window air conditioner, and I asserted that people in New York should at least have one, even if they didn't bother to set it up, and they laughed at me. Two week later? Heat wave, a dozen people died.
Having it!=using it. Anyone somewhere the temperature has ever reached over 80 degrees for more than a day needs the ability to run AC, even if it's a window AC unit sitting in the box in the closet. (No, you can't buy one when the heat wave happens, it doesn't work that way.)
The same thing applies to heaters, but almost everyone in the US has some means of generating heat in their house. Like their oven. The people who die in cold snaps are people who've had their gas or electricity cut off.
However, even here in Georgia, something like 90% of the air-conditioning use could be cut in half with some basic sanity in the process. A movie theater has people sitting in close proximity to each other for hours, and is running hot projectors. (Which is why they were the first place an entire generation first saw AC.) Blockbuster, OTOH, does not, and could keep the temperature at 80, as long as they kept it circulating and dehumidified, without anyone complaining.
Except that a) Everyone 'violates' this standard, and b) 'violating' this standard does not harm anything, and, most importantly, c) it's not actually a violation.
Why? Mail servers can reject or defer mail for whatever reason they want at any time, and this overrides all other considerations in the RFC except mail to postmaster. I quote It is a well-established principle that an SMTP server may refuse to accept mail for any operational or technical reason that makes sense to the site providing the server.
And, perhaps more the point, RFCs are just suggestions, and almost every mail server does this, just like they 'violate' that part of the RFC in a dozen ways. Almost no one has left that limit at 100, and it harms no one. Multi-recipient SMTP was a nice bandwidth saver when all mail was valid and there were only a few dozen email servers, but now it's almost entirely used by spammers, and I, personally, have cut it down to 10 peopl ein my server.
But here's the relevant line: The minimum total number of recipients that must be buffered is 100 recipients. Rejection of messages (for excessive recipients) with fewer than 100 RCPT commands is a violation of this specification.
Here's the next line: The general principle that relaying SMTP servers MUST NOT, and delivery SMTP servers SHOULD NOT, perform validation tests on message headers suggests that rejecting a message based on the total number of recipients shown in header fields is to be discouraged.
That's right, almost all 'reject during delivery spam' filters are in violation of the RFC. Despite them being one of the safest form of spam-filtering because senders of actually-valid email get a little notification about it from their own server. It's the only way to notify blocked senders without a bounce that sends spam to forged addresses. And it's a total violation of the RFC.
RFCs are just suggestions on how to behave. In the case of spam fighting, mail servers almost always operate in violation of the RFC, if you ignore the fact, according to the RFC, you can refuse to accept mail whenever you want.
That's nothing. Bob Jones University doesn't allow New Age music. Most of which has no lyrics and no driving beat, it's fricking relaxation music. It's a wonder they haven't banned 'meditation' music because they think it's Buddhist or something.
But it was already fun to watch them condemn Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, not for violence, which I would understand, not for homosexual themes (Although they did that too.), but because of various really stupid misunderstanding.
Like, for example, Buffy had a lunatic ex-priest as a villain in the last season working for 'The First Evil', which is the closest thing to 'Satan' there is. They caught on that he dressed like a priest and started complaining about some total gibberish, apparently thinking he was a real one or something. Apparently, in their universe, non-Christians commonly portray priests as murdering consorts of Satan. (They might not have noticed 'The First Evil' thing, as it always looks like someone who's died, and spent most of that season looking like Buffy.)
Meanwhile, over on Angel, the antichrist, a beautiful 'power-that-be' that had let heaven and was gathering followers by stripping their free will and was being worshiped by everyone, those she wasn't eating, but, as she wasn't ever called 'the antichrist', they didn't appear to notice any sort of biblical analogy. One of the episodes was even named 'Sloughing towards Bethlehem', but, nope, it didn't even register on their radar.
It's like they have no ability to understand fiction or analogy. (Thank goodness that they didn't grasp the idea that Buffy was using magick as a metaphor for sex or we'd all be in trouble.)
Neither of them were an 'unwitting courier for terrorist organizations', so I have no idea how to respond to that.
And I'm not engaging in anything. I was simply pointing out that the Bush administration is detaining people who voice opinions it doesn't like. It is, of course, doing that by making up charges against them.
If I were to assert that my brother had been pulled away by the CIA when entering the US from Canada and is currently being detained at GTMO, it'd be hard for you to demonstrate otherwise. (Except that neither of my brothers are actually missing.)
OTOH, if I assert that, oh, Nick Berg, who is in Iraq, is missing, first the government will deny it, and then 'release' him, where he ends up dead a day later.
What the government does not appear to be doing yet is detaining Americans within America who voice opinions it doesn't like, although it refuses to reveal who it's detained and refuses any sort of oversight of detention facilities so we really are just guessing that no one important appears to be missing. (This assumes we know who 'important' people are.)
What it appears to be doing with Americans is simply arresting protesters and then releasing them.
The case of Sami al-Haj is complicated, and he may be innocent.
'may'? No, he is innocent. It's not even debatable. The charges were absurd to start with and have been disproven even to the government's satisfaction.
Actually, scratch that. He's innocent because he hasn't been proven guilty in a court of law, period.
Nevertheless, he wasn't imprisoned because he uttered some anti-Bush statements.
No, he was imprisoned because he works for an organization that 'utters anti-Bush statements'.
If you don't like him, how about Badr Zaman Badr, who wrote satire aimed at Pakistan and US, was picked up by Pakistani military and turned over the US?
Three words: Sami al-Haj
Or just don't tell them it's free. Tell them that it's a $40 product and that a few months back they gave away a bunch of copies as a promotion, and you can get a hold of them. Be sure to emphasizes these are real legal copies with some of the bells and whistles stripped out, for security experts to play with to get them to buy company licenses. (This is all literally true, except you're implying the supply of free copies was somehow limited.)
Pretty soon they'll be telling their friends about the 'free copies you have', and asking if you have any more left and can their friend have one.
It is perhaps worth pointing out that no antivirus could every be uninstalled without an uninstaller, not even ones on a Mac, as, duh, antivirus hook into various operating system functions. Antiviruses are not applications, they are system utilities.
That said, it's only Norton that is consistently broken during uninstall.
spiritraveller is only mostly right.
Lawyers are required to share all facts with the court and the opposing counsel. Hence they often 'do not want to know' about things when asking their clients questions. They have inferred that there is evidence somewhere that could harm the case, but aren't required to tell anyone if they've just guessed it might exist, only if they know it does.
They are not required to share legal interpretations they don't like, except where they conflict or overturn things they use. I.e., if you cite something in court, you damn well better not cite it if it's been overturned, or fail to cite a later decision that narrowed the ruling.
Of course, the correct way to fight in court is to figure out what your opponent is going to say and disprove it before they get there, so if there is a ruling that seems to hurt your case, it's probably a good idea to mention it and explain why it doesn't hurt your case. (And if a case is sufficiently obviously applicable to criminal defense, and the defense doesn't mention it, the prosecutor should, only because he's risking a mistrial when it comes out that the defense is incompetent.)
Different lawyers might have different access to the facts and whatnot. Prosecutors have access to the evidence well before the defense lawyers. (They have access before they even decide who to charge.) Lawyers have to share factual information to make the system work.
But every lawyer is presumed to have the same access to case law and actual law, and thus sharing there is not that relevant. What is relevant is that you don't mislead judges. The opposing counsel is supposed to stop you from using misleading legal interpretations to mislead the judge. But you don't get to do it even if they fail to stop you.
Which is, sadly, what the RIAA did here. They cited a case, which was all well and good, but then failed to mention it was overruled during the trial. Which, in practice, means they were 'citing' it when they knew it was invalid. Which means the judge is very very pissed at them. I doubt it's grounds of any sort of disbarment, unless they explicitly based on arguments on the overturned ruling after it was overturned, but it's exactly the sort of crap that will cause the judge to keep them on a very short lease.
And considering how idiotic their lawsuits are, basically means they lost this one, because now they're going to have the judge, in addition to the defense, poking holes in their arguments.
They aren't required to cite legal cases that do not help theirs.
However, what the RIAA did here was cite a legal ruling that went their way, and then failed to mention, later on in the case, that said ruling had been overturned. (And they don't get the excuse of not knowing about it, because said case involved them.)
It's not an example of failing to mention a ruling, it's an example of continuing to base legal arguments on a ruling they knew had been overturned.
Oh, I know. I'm sure it is some sort of copyright violation without a license.
I has just taking issue with that idiotic analogy.
Um, no, actually, if you snuck onto a movie lot and filmed a movie, you might be in trouble for trespassing, but it's no sort of copyright violation I can think of, and you could even sell said movie. It's not even theft to use props and whatnot, as long as you weren't actually attempting to make off with them, any more than it's theft to sit on a bench in someone's front yard. (And if it was theft, it still wouldn't be illegal to sell the movie.)
In fact, there are actually 'illegally filmed' movies out there, including some big ones, where they thought they had permission to film somewhere and didn't ask the right people. They sometimes get charged with various things, like obstructing traffic, but none of them are 'copyright violation', because you can't copyright reality and it is explicitly legal to take pictures of whatever the hell you want in public.
The only exception is sometimes you can't use photographs of people for profit without consent. Only people, not their stuff. And, of course, taking a photograph of a copyrighted image counts as copying it, so need to be careful there.
Your example is even stupider than normal examples comparing copyrights to property rights. You've managed to come up with something that isn't illegal at all.
Yeah, that's why I said 'at the end'. People might, and I emphasis might because YouTube has a lot of brand awareness, leave if ads started showing before videos, or on top of videos.
But an static ad at the end of the video instead of the 'similar videos' thing? No one would give a damn.
Yeah, I can just see users leaving YouTube enmass.
Wait, no I can't.
And it doesn't even have to be part of the 'video'. That's a flash application, and if Google wants to show an ad, they could just roll down an ad from the top or whatever, that's clearly on top of the stopped video and not part of it, if they didn't want there to be 'confusion'.
And I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if google put ads on the end of videos, too. Maybe not even motion ones, just a single frame at the end that sits there when the video is done.
If you are talking about oil company subsidies, isn't eliminating them a better solution? Further distortion to cancel out distortion seems inefficient. And I realize that these subsidies include asset protection in the middle east, I am willing to stop that too.
No, I was talking about the distortion of the MPG controls by including SUVs as 'light trucks' instead of passenger cars.
We already have perfectly functional ways of reducing low-mileage vehicles on the road, it's called CAFE. It and things like it upped gas mileage from 20 mpg to almost 35 over the last three of decades. We just stopped using them.
I find it doubtful that much of the extra revenue this would generate for battery and solar cell manufacturers will go to research. I don't see why they would have an incentive, in fact, it is rather possible that they would divert money from research to production, to meet artificially inflated demand.
Solar panels don't actually need a lot of research at the moment. They just need a price drop. Get them out in the public, installed on buildings, and the research to make them better will happen by itself.
And the government using hybrid cars would, indeed, cause battery research as the government tends to lease cars from manufacturers. They don't want to end up with a bunch of five-year old cars with non-working batteries they have to replace. However, I'm not as attached to this idea as the solar panels...but I do think it would be helpful for the government to use only cars that exceed CAFE by, say, 15 mpg (And only then get the lowest bid.) to help drive the market.
Just because they use less gas per person does not mean they are less dependent on foreign oil and natural gas imports. They consume nearly five times as much oil as they produce. In fact, they would be hurt more by an oil shock than us, because they have already taken up every measure to conserve oil, there is nothing else they can do to cut down usage. Because of this, Europe is just as sensitive to political threats from oil producing countries as we are, despite all of these anti-consumption measures.
Um, no. I don't know in what universe Europe is more unable to cut back on oil than us, but it isn't the one I live in. Europe tends to have rail service to almost every small city, or at least within 20 miles of every small city. They may do a lot of shipping over roads, but they could certainly switch that to rail in an emergency.
Read a Sherlock Holmes story. 100 years ago, England was crisscrossed with enough rail service that you could get anywhere in a day, and Europe was the same. Those rail lines are still there, and still used for commuter services, although obviously they run a good deal less trains over them.
We, OTOH, can't ship food using rail outside of major cities, because we don't have any rail lines at all except between ports and major cities. (And we don't get food from ports, we get it from 100,000 square miles of farmland.)