People don't understand that there will be people that always exist that have less than family-friendly daydreams. Its obvious in the books we read, the movies we watch, the games we play, and the music we listen to. Socially unacceptable behavior isn't always that uncommon of a desire or fantasy. Sometimes that "unacceptability" of the act may make it that much more desired. I think sometimes the only reason we have whatever balance we've achieved is that those desires that are repressed are allowed out in the various media outlets we have. So, if thats the case as to why they're playing Manhunt, then it shouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. If they have some sort of fascination with killing, I have no problem with them getting their fix from a game. I doubt the game will make them more likely to act out. If anything, the game makes them less likely to act out.
Also, every person who many daydream about stealth killing isn't necessarily fascinated with death. Sometimes its the actual gameplay, technique, skill, and challenge the game offers or requires that makes the game so engaging. Therefore its those characteristics the player is attracted to, not the death.
I mean to put it in a more exaggerated analogy, thats like saying abolitionists would have had a double standard for praising states that started giving up slavery and crying foul when a free-state adopted some slavery.
The open source community wants open source. They'll applaud when a company goes towards that goal and they'll get upset when a company moves away.
I don't think that qualifies as a double standard.
The answer to this would be for the ISPs not to just quit overselling, but to expand capacity to actually deliver what they offer. The internet is becoming the source for virtually everything these days. There's no reason to not continue investing on increasing capacity. The tiered internet is the ISPs response to not wanting to expand capacity. The internet will always continue growing and prioritizing packets and overselling aren't safe in these conditions. Expanding capacity is the only real answer. The internet has grown to more than just some consumer item. It's the lifeblood of many businesses and people. It's not just a luxury, but becoming more of a necessity. The ISPs will have to meet these needs and tiering the network isn't the way to go. Bandwidth should be increased until its not feasible to do so anymore. At that point, packet prioritization would then maybe be a feasible option.
I don't see what they're trying to charge for though. I pay for my bandwidth. The content providers pay for theirs. It sounds like the ISPs just can't actually provide what we actually were told we were paying for. They should expand their bandwidth to handle the traffic. Neither side is actually 'over-using' their bandwidth. Neither side should pay more just because they are actually using what they paid for.
The ISPs screwed themselves over. They let the consumer pay some amount for a specific amount of bandwidth. However, they can't actually guarantee that consumer that bandwidth anymore. For example, cable has various hubs, each with bandwidth that is split amongst its users (usually a town or city will share a number of hubs depending on its size). They told its users they'll get x amount of bandwidth, but they based that amount on the bad assumption that everyone won't be online at the same time. They severely underestimated how drawn to online content the world would be so now they're getting flooded with users and not enough bandwidth to handle it. Instead of blaming themselves, they'll blame the content providers and say thats why they can't handle the traffic anymore. The content providers are somehow unfairly causing too much traffic for them to handle. The problem is, the ISPs promised the world more than they could actually deliver and now they're trying to shift the cost onto someone else. Each side pays for its bandwidth (consumers & content providers), but now the ISPs are actually being burdened with upholding their side of the deal and somehow that's unfair.
The ISPs never should have promised the amount of bandwidth they're offering, and charging for, if they can't actually deliver it.
whether to be in awe or fear of this move. The reasons why one should be wary or afraid of these type of situations are obvious and have probably been stated plenty. But has anyone thought about what kind of feat this really is assuming it actually succeeds? To track *that* many people efficiently enough that its useful for something (good or evil). It is quite an undertaking. I still think they should limit it though. Or maybe give those with good track records an option to opt out for a certain amount of time from tracking or something. Or possibly be allowed to turn it off for small amounts of time a month or something. Privacy is still important and should be protected.
A lot of you are complaining that they are basically strip mining our childhood and taking these awesome shows and turning them into mediocre movies with big-budget special effects. Well, yea, they are, but I don't think its completely their own fault. We're blaming them for not having decent story lines, but lets think about this for a second. Do you *remember* the story lines these shows used to have? We grew up in a different time back then. Personally, I think it was because we were better at having an imagination. We didn't need things like "realism" and "believability". We were fine when some guy was shot in the face, had plastic surgery, and became a crime fighter along with his sidekick: a pontiac grand am that can talk and had a cool red light that flashed back on forth on his hood.
Yea, these guys see nothing but dollar signs with these things. They're not trying to bring a childhood memory to the big screen to make us happy. However, lets remember the scripts the original writers of these shows used to throw at us and realize that maybe the script that went along with Transformers wasn't so bad. In this day and age, people need realism and all that and they *tried* to do that with Transformers. But, come on, how many plausible ideas can you think of for the creation of a talking semi?
I for one am going to see this movie and I'll probably be pleased by the special effects and the nostalgia that will come to mind from my childhood. Let them strip mine my memories... I for one think that awesome explosions, great advances in CGI, and fight scenes are a decent trade-off. Let's not forget Underdog was from our childhood as well. At least they didn't do *that* to Transformers...
I don't think this standardization is being passed for the benefit of the consumers. Microsoft has had a firm grasp on business establishments with MS Office for quite a long time. There was competition, but nothing ever really came close to worry Microsoft. I find it not all that coincidental that now Microsoft has real competition (Google, Open Office, etc.) that they're trying to pass a standard. Microsoft is trying to reinstate a strong presence in the office. It hasn't really lost the one it has, but its teetering over the edge. Especially with all the relatively recent reports of various government offices going to open source, free software suites.
How thorough do these surveys have to be to finally declare a species extinct? I mean, there's a lot of water, isn't there? I mean, I know this isn't the middle of the ocean, but I'm sure there's a lot of space to cover. Logically speaking, to confidently say something is extinct, wouldn't that require a proof of exhaustion. Literally just checking every possible place and not finding any evidence of the animal. I mean, if they haven't checked everywhere, I don't think they should be saying 'extinct' just yet. If this guy is saying there's hope based on the amount of area they haven't checked, I'm guessing that means its a large area. I think its a bit premature. It's not like there haven't been premature announcements of extinction on species before: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/04/28/woodpec ker/index.html and http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2 006-03-09-rat-squirrel-survivor_x.htm
No, I'm not. I stated he didn't see a need to change from IE. I didn't say he didn't see a need to change to Firefox. There's a world of difference there. It has nothing to do with what Firefox does or doesn't have. He's complacent. He's satisfied and therefore content. I honestly believe Firefox is better and he'd be more content, but he's not willing to actually try it. In any case, Firefox offers extra features that *everyone* uses, though few are aware of. it is more secure. But my dad is computer illiterate and therefore is unaffected by this feature.
Just because one doesn't actively seek change doesn't mean they wouldn't benefit from it.
I put Firefox on my dad's computer. I later went back to it to find he went back to IE. I asked him why and he said it didn't have yahoo.
If these are the kind of people they're losing, I'm not all that upset about it. Too many people assume that their homepage is part of their browser. I tried to explain to him that yahoo only opened up as default on IE because it was set to be his homepage and that I could do the same thing with Firefox. He then made up some excuse that he's fine with IE and doesn't need to change.
So, the two problems Firefox is facing are:
1) Stupid people
2) People feeling they don't *need* to change and therefore use that to say they shouldn't.
Another person assumes my post is saying that global warming exists when all I said is that the current information is that you can't say it does or doesn't.
So if Global Warming cannot be confirmed nor denied, is it a secret government program? I said it can't be confirmed nor denied by a simple look at average temperatures. And I don't understand your government program reference.
More seriously, if it cannot be confirmed nor denied, and it can produce both temperature rises and falls, and it's so complex as to cancel out its own effects, then it fails two tests in my book: 1) it is not science and 2) it should not be used for any policy-making. What is your test? Those are two outcomes from some apparent test that you aren't sharing. Global warming doesn't cancel out its own effects. The effective results are canceled out in a look at averages. Example: My friend went years in school without them detecting he had severe scoliosis. This was due to he had a double curve (s-shape) that caused the method used in schools to fail. It only looked for the total curve and since the two curves were opposite, they canceled each other out in the test. According to your logic, this must mean his scoliosis could not exist.
Science is about testable, observable hypotheses. I never said you couldn't test for global warming. I just said since climate is such a complex mechanism (which you misinterpreted me as saying global warming was complex), its foolish to think you can go in with such a simple test as average temperatures.
And policy-making should be done by calm, collected, seasoned minds rather than based on such hype as we see today. You're right. I've seen hype on both sides. Right now I think policy-making should be done with assuming that global warming is a possible risk. You can't prove it doesn't exist and we can't prove it does. If policy-making is made assuming it *may* exist and we later find it does, then w00t. If policy-making is made assuming it *may* exist and we later find it doesn't, well, sucks, but at least we have cleaner air. If policy-making is made assuming it *doesn't* exist and we find it does exist, well, we're absolutely screwed. And finally, if policy-making is made assuming it doesn't exist and we later find it doesn't, well, w00t.
The scores:
Possible outcomes of assuming global warming exists: We win: 2 World dies: 0
Possible outcomes of assuming it doesn't exist: We win: 1 World dies: 1
I'm sorry, but my calm, collected, seasoned mind would rather bet on the 100% we don't kill the world as opposed to your 50% chance.
You get on people's cases about how we have to prove global warming exists before we can act upon it. Well, how about you prove it doesn't exist before you act upon it. I mean, we've been heavily polluting for a relatively short amount of time. It's not right to go making policies assuming its not causing long-term problems. Prove pollution isn't a problem before making it ok.
So global warming can cause anything and everything Well, I stated that global warming could have various effects. That doesn't necessarily cover "anything and everything," but I'm sure people will read what they want.
Also, everything proves global warming. I re-read my post to see where I stated that this proves global warming. Though, its weird. I keep reading that I said this evidence can't be used to prove either side.
That adds up to a useless theory. You're right. The theory that these statistics disprove global warming is ridiculous. It's an equally ridiculous theory that its proves global warming.
Would it perhaps qualify as a tautology? Actually, no, it wouldn't. A tautology is a statement that always reduces itself to "true." This reduces to "unknown".
I'm just stating the current methods and statistics being measured can't be used to prove or disprove. I don't see why you're making this post out to be saying "global warming definitely exists," when in reality I'm just saying you can't say either way.
The fact is, the entire environmental movement is part of an overall socialist agenda to try and deindustrialize western nations so that the third world can be "equal". You guys on the left have your zealots too. Why else would the first world have to pay the third world for the "right to pollute". The whole argument is absurd. Citation needed.
I think the problem with trying to confirm or deny global warming is that global warming can throw climates completely out of whack. it can cause temperature drops in some areas and rises in others. i don't think relying on temperature data alone can help. moreover, changing climates in one area can have more changes around it. its such a complex relationship that it makes it so difficult to study. A rise or a drop in temperature can technically still mean global warming exists.
You can't look at the average temperature across the globe because global warming can actually cancel out its own affects over time. you can't look at an isolated spot because it will be affected by other factors that you will be completely ignoring.
So, honestly, I don't think either side can use this information as any more than circumstantial evidence.
...between the ISPs doing the filtering and software doing the filtering? Wouldn't it ultimately end up being that the ISPs will use software to filter? Therefore won't it have the same pitfalls as individual filters (ie: blocking sites with info on 'breast cancer' etc.)? And won't people eventually find a way around it if they really wanted to? When I was younger, if I was restricted access to something, usually that only made me want it more and go to greater lengths to get it. When will people just trust kids. Tell them they shouldn't, but give them the choice to actually listen. If they get caught, make it known your disappointed in them. I find that if the kid was being raised properly with emphasis on integrity and responsibility, usually they'll feel guilty and enforce the restrictions on themselves.
And I know this will be stately repeated... Why do ISPs have to fill in for parents anyway? Can't they just keep an eye on their own kids?
-It took awhile longer before they became standard is virtually every reasonable PC.
2. The possibility to just copy music to cassette or movies to VHS has existed for ages, and that existed even before CDs gained much adoption. Heck, in the 90's even half the portable stereos, and every self-respecting cassette deck, had room for _two_ cassettes at the same time and a button to copy from one to the other.
-This required either getting a hold of the physical copy of the music OR hearing it on the radio and hitting record at the right time. Both of these restrictions aren't really present in the modern piracy world.
3. If you think people had to wait for the Internet to swap music or movies or programs, I dare say you don't remember high school that well.
-Again, when it was high school, at maximum, you could only trade with your entire school (which I highly doubt you did). Chances are, it was a handful of people you'd trade with. Even if you were the local go-to-guy for music, it was still most likely well under a hundred. Nowadays, you can trade with thousands of people with no hassle at all.
4. Before mass Internet access, there were BBSs. Frankly, now that was a bigger pirate haven than the Internet... or than the Carribeans back in the 1600's;)
-Download speeds back then were ridiculous compared to now. You could download like at most 20-30 songs if you downloaded continuously all day for 24 hours. Nowadays, you could download 24 songs in about half an hour if you're not really trying that hard.
5. Internet access isn't _that_ new and unlike everything before. Sure, only now it may have reached the grandmas or finally gotten very high speeds, but I don't think those were ever the biggest pirates anyway. If grandma wants to listen to folk songs from the 50's or for some good ol' fashioned symphonic music, she can get those for pence legally. Plus she already has her cassette and vinyl collection.
-Again, it was the introduction of broadband that really kicked up the piracy. The method of transport of the pirated music helped a LOT.
The biggest problems are teens who (A) are driven by peer pressure, and have to listen, watch, wear and say exactly what their peers appreciate. Even if he goes for the rebellious punk image, the average teenager won't actually be rebellious at all, he'll be a clone of whatever punk image is currently fashionable among his peers. And (B) face high prices for that image. And (C) don't have that much disposable income. So the pressure was always there to copy the latest fashionable album.
-I don't think the only pirates are people who copy the Billboard's Top 100. Piracy exists for music other than just the "latest fashionable album." Also, I highly doubt pirates are only people who can't afford albums. Sometimes people can afford it, but either A) don't think its worth that much or B) Don't care. I mean, you're basically trying to make an argument that everyone who steals in a store can't afford the goods.
And those already had modems, virtually all universities had Interent as early as the early 90's, and most had access to a hi-fi where they could copy a cassette.
-I'll just repeat for good measure: Took a hell of a lot of work to go through to just copy a cassette as opposed to simply downloading the mp3 nowadays.
Plus, music companies have been complaining about Napster since the 90's, so at least at that point the world was already connected enough to make a difference, according to those music companies.
-I'm fairly certain Napster was released in June of 1999 (hardly what i'd refer to collectively as the 90s). That's what, 5% of th
... that the details of the Geneva Convention won't even come up in court.
I think its pretty apparent that no one can use the red cross unless it falls under the Geneva Convention's rules. If the US signed it, you'd think they'd be obligated to correct the situation. One can make the claim that the US couldn't do a comprehensive search for companies breaking the Convention. However, you cannot claim that this won't get out in the open at this point in time. Someone could make some public statement on a major news network and I doubt anything would actually happen.
This is a blatant breach of the Convention. It's a shame the US doesn't do anything about it.
Wow, they must have been geniuses. I for one would have wondered what are the chances that after being asked about what I would do if I found a gun, that I actually ended up in some strange room with a gun. I mean, that would seem a little odd.
Survey Guy: "What would you do if you found a gun?"
Random Statistic Kid: "Well, I would blah blah blah..."
Survey Guy: "Thank you. Now wait in this room."
Random Statistic Kid: "OOooo, a gun!"
I mean, seriously. If I was ever placed in some room and found a gun, I would tell people about it. I mean, unless they orchestrated some complex scenario for the kid to "find" this room on his own in some place he's familiar with, then yea, I'd believe it. But other than that, any kid who still played with the gun must have been a moron.
"All of these things have their appeal, and arguing for one over the other is as silly as arguing over favorite colors or ice cream flavors."
You lost me there. Cause, I mean, come on... blue is *obviously* the best color. It has so many advantages over the other colors. I mean, look at the frequency on it!
Just to let everyone know, SCEA (electronics & entertainment stuff) and Sony BMG (music stuff) have nothing to really do with each other. They're owned by the same people, but one can't control the actions of the other even if they thought they were being asses.
We can create any sort of categories we want to try and show defense costs aren't that high. Why not just create the categories as "defense" and "not defense" then it's closer to like 1 dollar of defense for every 5 dollars on something not defense related. The person was comparing EDUCATION to DEFENSE. Not Human services to defense. EDUCATION. Don't redefine the person's argument. How someone can say it's justified to spend more on war then on the education of the FUTURE OF THIS COUNTRY, they have to have a screw loose.
Your second set of stats is also very misleading. Yea 5% may have covered 53%. But what percentage of the income does the top 5% make? I know it'll still be off because they do pay more in taxes, but the numbers will be much less drastic.
I've always been under the impression our eyes only see in 2-D. Its the fact that we have two eyes, slightly seperated that gives the 3 mathematical dimensions you speak of. Depth perception degrades over time in those who only have one eye. The brain instead relies on a form of common sense to figure out depth perception when one eye shuts down. You may not notice any difference when you close one eye, but if you continually had that eye closed for an extended length of time, your depth perception will be affected. So, i don't see how seeing any additional wavelengths would increase the ability to see higher mathematical dimensions. Maybe they can see colors we can't possibly imagine. Thats completely understandable. I know people have a condition where as opposed to having an extra cone, they are just sensitive to a different degree. So they're range is the same size as everyone else, just shifted slightly to one direction or the other.
though, this is all based on what i remember from random sources and just compiled over time in memory. I'm not a vision scientist, but I do understand a little bit about higher dimensional mathematics. Though, only from being self-taught. So I'm no expert and again, I can still be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
People don't understand that there will be people that always exist that have less than family-friendly daydreams. Its obvious in the books we read, the movies we watch, the games we play, and the music we listen to. Socially unacceptable behavior isn't always that uncommon of a desire or fantasy. Sometimes that "unacceptability" of the act may make it that much more desired. I think sometimes the only reason we have whatever balance we've achieved is that those desires that are repressed are allowed out in the various media outlets we have. So, if thats the case as to why they're playing Manhunt, then it shouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. If they have some sort of fascination with killing, I have no problem with them getting their fix from a game. I doubt the game will make them more likely to act out. If anything, the game makes them less likely to act out.
Also, every person who many daydream about stealth killing isn't necessarily fascinated with death. Sometimes its the actual gameplay, technique, skill, and challenge the game offers or requires that makes the game so engaging. Therefore its those characteristics the player is attracted to, not the death.
I mean to put it in a more exaggerated analogy, thats like saying abolitionists would have had a double standard for praising states that started giving up slavery and crying foul when a free-state adopted some slavery.
The open source community wants open source. They'll applaud when a company goes towards that goal and they'll get upset when a company moves away.
I don't think that qualifies as a double standard.
If this slashdot post results in that many responses, then obviously this something we'd deem "stuff that matters."
The answer to this would be for the ISPs not to just quit overselling, but to expand capacity to actually deliver what they offer. The internet is becoming the source for virtually everything these days. There's no reason to not continue investing on increasing capacity. The tiered internet is the ISPs response to not wanting to expand capacity. The internet will always continue growing and prioritizing packets and overselling aren't safe in these conditions. Expanding capacity is the only real answer. The internet has grown to more than just some consumer item. It's the lifeblood of many businesses and people. It's not just a luxury, but becoming more of a necessity. The ISPs will have to meet these needs and tiering the network isn't the way to go. Bandwidth should be increased until its not feasible to do so anymore. At that point, packet prioritization would then maybe be a feasible option.
I don't see what they're trying to charge for though. I pay for my bandwidth. The content providers pay for theirs. It sounds like the ISPs just can't actually provide what we actually were told we were paying for. They should expand their bandwidth to handle the traffic. Neither side is actually 'over-using' their bandwidth. Neither side should pay more just because they are actually using what they paid for.
The ISPs screwed themselves over. They let the consumer pay some amount for a specific amount of bandwidth. However, they can't actually guarantee that consumer that bandwidth anymore. For example, cable has various hubs, each with bandwidth that is split amongst its users (usually a town or city will share a number of hubs depending on its size). They told its users they'll get x amount of bandwidth, but they based that amount on the bad assumption that everyone won't be online at the same time. They severely underestimated how drawn to online content the world would be so now they're getting flooded with users and not enough bandwidth to handle it. Instead of blaming themselves, they'll blame the content providers and say thats why they can't handle the traffic anymore. The content providers are somehow unfairly causing too much traffic for them to handle. The problem is, the ISPs promised the world more than they could actually deliver and now they're trying to shift the cost onto someone else. Each side pays for its bandwidth (consumers & content providers), but now the ISPs are actually being burdened with upholding their side of the deal and somehow that's unfair.
The ISPs never should have promised the amount of bandwidth they're offering, and charging for, if they can't actually deliver it.
whether to be in awe or fear of this move. The reasons why one should be wary or afraid of these type of situations are obvious and have probably been stated plenty. But has anyone thought about what kind of feat this really is assuming it actually succeeds? To track *that* many people efficiently enough that its useful for something (good or evil). It is quite an undertaking. I still think they should limit it though. Or maybe give those with good track records an option to opt out for a certain amount of time from tracking or something. Or possibly be allowed to turn it off for small amounts of time a month or something. Privacy is still important and should be protected.
A lot of you are complaining that they are basically strip mining our childhood and taking these awesome shows and turning them into mediocre movies with big-budget special effects. Well, yea, they are, but I don't think its completely their own fault. We're blaming them for not having decent story lines, but lets think about this for a second. Do you *remember* the story lines these shows used to have? We grew up in a different time back then. Personally, I think it was because we were better at having an imagination. We didn't need things like "realism" and "believability". We were fine when some guy was shot in the face, had plastic surgery, and became a crime fighter along with his sidekick: a pontiac grand am that can talk and had a cool red light that flashed back on forth on his hood.
Yea, these guys see nothing but dollar signs with these things. They're not trying to bring a childhood memory to the big screen to make us happy. However, lets remember the scripts the original writers of these shows used to throw at us and realize that maybe the script that went along with Transformers wasn't so bad. In this day and age, people need realism and all that and they *tried* to do that with Transformers. But, come on, how many plausible ideas can you think of for the creation of a talking semi?
I for one am going to see this movie and I'll probably be pleased by the special effects and the nostalgia that will come to mind from my childhood. Let them strip mine my memories... I for one think that awesome explosions, great advances in CGI, and fight scenes are a decent trade-off. Let's not forget Underdog was from our childhood as well. At least they didn't do *that* to Transformers...
I don't think this standardization is being passed for the benefit of the consumers. Microsoft has had a firm grasp on business establishments with MS Office for quite a long time. There was competition, but nothing ever really came close to worry Microsoft. I find it not all that coincidental that now Microsoft has real competition (Google, Open Office, etc.) that they're trying to pass a standard. Microsoft is trying to reinstate a strong presence in the office. It hasn't really lost the one it has, but its teetering over the edge. Especially with all the relatively recent reports of various government offices going to open source, free software suites.
How thorough do these surveys have to be to finally declare a species extinct? I mean, there's a lot of water, isn't there? I mean, I know this isn't the middle of the ocean, but I'm sure there's a lot of space to cover. Logically speaking, to confidently say something is extinct, wouldn't that require a proof of exhaustion. Literally just checking every possible place and not finding any evidence of the animal. I mean, if they haven't checked everywhere, I don't think they should be saying 'extinct' just yet. If this guy is saying there's hope based on the amount of area they haven't checked, I'm guessing that means its a large area. I think its a bit premature. It's not like there haven't been premature announcements of extinction on species before: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/04/28/woodpec ker/index.html and http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2 006-03-09-rat-squirrel-survivor_x.htm
No, I'm not. I stated he didn't see a need to change from IE. I didn't say he didn't see a need to change to Firefox. There's a world of difference there. It has nothing to do with what Firefox does or doesn't have. He's complacent. He's satisfied and therefore content. I honestly believe Firefox is better and he'd be more content, but he's not willing to actually try it. In any case, Firefox offers extra features that *everyone* uses, though few are aware of. it is more secure. But my dad is computer illiterate and therefore is unaffected by this feature.
Just because one doesn't actively seek change doesn't mean they wouldn't benefit from it.
I put Firefox on my dad's computer. I later went back to it to find he went back to IE. I asked him why and he said it didn't have yahoo.
If these are the kind of people they're losing, I'm not all that upset about it. Too many people assume that their homepage is part of their browser. I tried to explain to him that yahoo only opened up as default on IE because it was set to be his homepage and that I could do the same thing with Firefox. He then made up some excuse that he's fine with IE and doesn't need to change.
So, the two problems Firefox is facing are:
1) Stupid people
2) People feeling they don't *need* to change and therefore use that to say they shouldn't.
So if Global Warming cannot be confirmed nor denied, is it a secret government program? I said it can't be confirmed nor denied by a simple look at average temperatures. And I don't understand your government program reference. More seriously, if it cannot be confirmed nor denied, and it can produce both temperature rises and falls, and it's so complex as to cancel out its own effects, then it fails two tests in my book: 1) it is not science and 2) it should not be used for any policy-making. What is your test? Those are two outcomes from some apparent test that you aren't sharing. Global warming doesn't cancel out its own effects. The effective results are canceled out in a look at averages. Example: My friend went years in school without them detecting he had severe scoliosis. This was due to he had a double curve (s-shape) that caused the method used in schools to fail. It only looked for the total curve and since the two curves were opposite, they canceled each other out in the test. According to your logic, this must mean his scoliosis could not exist. Science is about testable, observable hypotheses. I never said you couldn't test for global warming. I just said since climate is such a complex mechanism (which you misinterpreted me as saying global warming was complex), its foolish to think you can go in with such a simple test as average temperatures.
And policy-making should be done by calm, collected, seasoned minds rather than based on such hype as we see today. You're right. I've seen hype on both sides. Right now I think policy-making should be done with assuming that global warming is a possible risk. You can't prove it doesn't exist and we can't prove it does. If policy-making is made assuming it *may* exist and we later find it does, then w00t. If policy-making is made assuming it *may* exist and we later find it doesn't, well, sucks, but at least we have cleaner air. If policy-making is made assuming it *doesn't* exist and we find it does exist, well, we're absolutely screwed. And finally, if policy-making is made assuming it doesn't exist and we later find it doesn't, well, w00t.
The scores:
Possible outcomes of assuming global warming exists: We win: 2 World dies: 0
Possible outcomes of assuming it doesn't exist: We win: 1 World dies: 1
I'm sorry, but my calm, collected, seasoned mind would rather bet on the 100% we don't kill the world as opposed to your 50% chance.
You get on people's cases about how we have to prove global warming exists before we can act upon it. Well, how about you prove it doesn't exist before you act upon it. I mean, we've been heavily polluting for a relatively short amount of time. It's not right to go making policies assuming its not causing long-term problems. Prove pollution isn't a problem before making it ok.
I think the problem with trying to confirm or deny global warming is that global warming can throw climates completely out of whack. it can cause temperature drops in some areas and rises in others. i don't think relying on temperature data alone can help. moreover, changing climates in one area can have more changes around it. its such a complex relationship that it makes it so difficult to study. A rise or a drop in temperature can technically still mean global warming exists. You can't look at the average temperature across the globe because global warming can actually cancel out its own affects over time. you can't look at an isolated spot because it will be affected by other factors that you will be completely ignoring. So, honestly, I don't think either side can use this information as any more than circumstantial evidence.
...between the ISPs doing the filtering and software doing the filtering? Wouldn't it ultimately end up being that the ISPs will use software to filter? Therefore won't it have the same pitfalls as individual filters (ie: blocking sites with info on 'breast cancer' etc.)? And won't people eventually find a way around it if they really wanted to? When I was younger, if I was restricted access to something, usually that only made me want it more and go to greater lengths to get it. When will people just trust kids. Tell them they shouldn't, but give them the choice to actually listen. If they get caught, make it known your disappointed in them. I find that if the kid was being raised properly with emphasis on integrity and responsibility, usually they'll feel guilty and enforce the restrictions on themselves. And I know this will be stately repeated... Why do ISPs have to fill in for parents anyway? Can't they just keep an eye on their own kids?
...and just when you thought Vista was secure, somebody finds some way to break in...
1. CD burners have existed for ages.
;)
-It took awhile longer before they became standard is virtually every reasonable PC.
2. The possibility to just copy music to cassette or movies to VHS has existed for ages, and that existed even before CDs gained much adoption. Heck, in the 90's even half the portable stereos, and every self-respecting cassette deck, had room for _two_ cassettes at the same time and a button to copy from one to the other.
-This required either getting a hold of the physical copy of the music OR hearing it on the radio and hitting record at the right time. Both of these restrictions aren't really present in the modern piracy world.
3. If you think people had to wait for the Internet to swap music or movies or programs, I dare say you don't remember high school that well.
-Again, when it was high school, at maximum, you could only trade with your entire school (which I highly doubt you did). Chances are, it was a handful of people you'd trade with. Even if you were the local go-to-guy for music, it was still most likely well under a hundred. Nowadays, you can trade with thousands of people with no hassle at all.
4. Before mass Internet access, there were BBSs. Frankly, now that was a bigger pirate haven than the Internet... or than the Carribeans back in the 1600's
-Download speeds back then were ridiculous compared to now. You could download like at most 20-30 songs if you downloaded continuously all day for 24 hours. Nowadays, you could download 24 songs in about half an hour if you're not really trying that hard.
5. Internet access isn't _that_ new and unlike everything before. Sure, only now it may have reached the grandmas or finally gotten very high speeds, but I don't think those were ever the biggest pirates anyway. If grandma wants to listen to folk songs from the 50's or for some good ol' fashioned symphonic music, she can get those for pence legally. Plus she already has her cassette and vinyl collection.
-Again, it was the introduction of broadband that really kicked up the piracy. The method of transport of the pirated music helped a LOT.
The biggest problems are teens who (A) are driven by peer pressure, and have to listen, watch, wear and say exactly what their peers appreciate. Even if he goes for the rebellious punk image, the average teenager won't actually be rebellious at all, he'll be a clone of whatever punk image is currently fashionable among his peers. And (B) face high prices for that image. And (C) don't have that much disposable income. So the pressure was always there to copy the latest fashionable album.
-I don't think the only pirates are people who copy the Billboard's Top 100. Piracy exists for music other than just the "latest fashionable album." Also, I highly doubt pirates are only people who can't afford albums. Sometimes people can afford it, but either A) don't think its worth that much or B) Don't care. I mean, you're basically trying to make an argument that everyone who steals in a store can't afford the goods.
And those already had modems, virtually all universities had Interent as early as the early 90's, and most had access to a hi-fi where they could copy a cassette.
-I'll just repeat for good measure: Took a hell of a lot of work to go through to just copy a cassette as opposed to simply downloading the mp3 nowadays.
Plus, music companies have been complaining about Napster since the 90's, so at least at that point the world was already connected enough to make a difference, according to those music companies.
-I'm fairly certain Napster was released in June of 1999 (hardly what i'd refer to collectively as the 90s). That's what, 5% of th
... that the details of the Geneva Convention won't even come up in court.
I think its pretty apparent that no one can use the red cross unless it falls under the Geneva Convention's rules. If the US signed it, you'd think they'd be obligated to correct the situation. One can make the claim that the US couldn't do a comprehensive search for companies breaking the Convention. However, you cannot claim that this won't get out in the open at this point in time. Someone could make some public statement on a major news network and I doubt anything would actually happen.
This is a blatant breach of the Convention. It's a shame the US doesn't do anything about it.
Wow, they must have been geniuses. I for one would have wondered what are the chances that after being asked about what I would do if I found a gun, that I actually ended up in some strange room with a gun. I mean, that would seem a little odd.
Survey Guy: "What would you do if you found a gun?"
Random Statistic Kid: "Well, I would blah blah blah..."
Survey Guy: "Thank you. Now wait in this room."
Random Statistic Kid: "OOooo, a gun!"
I mean, seriously. If I was ever placed in some room and found a gun, I would tell people about it. I mean, unless they orchestrated some complex scenario for the kid to "find" this room on his own in some place he's familiar with, then yea, I'd believe it. But other than that, any kid who still played with the gun must have been a moron.
"All of these things have their appeal, and arguing for one over the other is as silly as arguing over favorite colors or ice cream flavors."
You lost me there. Cause, I mean, come on... blue is *obviously* the best color. It has so many advantages over the other colors. I mean, look at the frequency on it!
Just to let everyone know, SCEA (electronics & entertainment stuff) and Sony BMG (music stuff) have nothing to really do with each other. They're owned by the same people, but one can't control the actions of the other even if they thought they were being asses.
We can create any sort of categories we want to try and show defense costs aren't that high. Why not just create the categories as "defense" and "not defense" then it's closer to like 1 dollar of defense for every 5 dollars on something not defense related. The person was comparing EDUCATION to DEFENSE. Not Human services to defense. EDUCATION. Don't redefine the person's argument. How someone can say it's justified to spend more on war then on the education of the FUTURE OF THIS COUNTRY, they have to have a screw loose.
Your second set of stats is also very misleading. Yea 5% may have covered 53%. But what percentage of the income does the top 5% make? I know it'll still be off because they do pay more in taxes, but the numbers will be much less drastic.
I've always been under the impression our eyes only see in 2-D. Its the fact that we have two eyes, slightly seperated that gives the 3 mathematical dimensions you speak of. Depth perception degrades over time in those who only have one eye. The brain instead relies on a form of common sense to figure out depth perception when one eye shuts down. You may not notice any difference when you close one eye, but if you continually had that eye closed for an extended length of time, your depth perception will be affected. So, i don't see how seeing any additional wavelengths would increase the ability to see higher mathematical dimensions. Maybe they can see colors we can't possibly imagine. Thats completely understandable. I know people have a condition where as opposed to having an extra cone, they are just sensitive to a different degree. So they're range is the same size as everyone else, just shifted slightly to one direction or the other.
though, this is all based on what i remember from random sources and just compiled over time in memory. I'm not a vision scientist, but I do understand a little bit about higher dimensional mathematics. Though, only from being self-taught. So I'm no expert and again, I can still be wrong.