...let's be serious [...] Just because he ran his business into the ground doesn't mean that he's run his own finances into the ground. Who cares about the success or failure of a company when you're sipping champagne on your yacht?
Okay. Let's be serious...if you think there's merit to being a rich, renowned, low-life, money-losing pariah, then either _you_ are stupid or _you_ are missing "the point".
There's little good in Benjamins, boats and booz when even your mother would be ashamed to be seen with you.
For the possibility that you are being sincere...it's a frequently used Unix command that, in some of its simpler usage forms, copies the contents of a file to another file, or to a communications port (such as the serial port as discussed here), or to the computer's screen.
Ignore the "Troll" rating. It comes from the dogmatic many who, upon inferring that your political leanings differ from theirs, summarily dismiss all your points, however reasonable they may be, without further consideration.
The GP was thoroughly disingenuous in suggesting that religious groups are trying to impede "reproductive healthcare". He/she was in fact referring to efforts to deter abortion. He/she tried to distort that fact so as to mis-portray people as being more extreme than they really are. (In fact, almost all of his points are greatly exaggerated and overreaching.)
Though I am pro-abortion-rights (and a-religious and politically moderate), I found the poster's wording as warped and laughable as you. But then, you must be one of those people who has "taken over U.S. politics." How does it feel to be in control?
The GP demonstrates common rhetoric of a powerful majority that sees itself as victim to a vocal but obviously subordinate minority. He/she/they do successfully kid themselves about whom is prevailing with respect to what.
Re:Enjoy pop-up blocking while you can
on
Window Pain
·
· Score: 1
You can't block ads on the iPad.
That seems okay...to allow pop-ups on an Apple device...I'm sure they'd be done tastefully.
...like only one company would be allowed to pitch a given kind of product...and the ads would be wrapped in little black turtlenecks.
Here is a link to the court's decision. It is not a judgment against Solo, but a denial of their request to dismiss the case.
The judge argues the problem of incorrect markings here:
Congress has given to the inventor opportunity to secure the material rewards for his invention for a limited time [...] Patent markings are an essential component of this system. The "Patent No. XXX" imprint is, in effect, a "no trespassing" sign.
The plaintiff, i.e. the "troll", has not yet made his case. In order to prevail he has to prove that Solo used the incorrect markings "for the purpose of deceiving the public." That remains to be determined.
But therein, it is not clear to me what's really going on here with Solo (for example). It seems that laziness about cleaning up one's patent markings has a distinct reward, i.e. to scare off copy-cat competitors (which is exactly the kind of subsequent activity that the publicly filed/expired patent is intended to encourage). I'm not so sure that these are just mistakes, and in fact, I find it unlikely that there isn't some willfulness here. The corporate counsels that insist on taking advantage of adding the patent markings don't consider the correctness of removing them once they are no longer valid???
It may take a crack of the whip to clean up the rampant "laziness" that leaves these wrong and discouraging markings in use.
So, if a parent told their children, 'We're going to be out for an hour. We're leaving you in charge of the house while we're goine,' and they came home and the house was burned down... how happy do you think they'd be with their children?"
The better analogy would be that the parent comes back and finds that the kids have turned up the heat from 68 to 72.
But now you've moved from a weak, over-dramatized metaphor to a realistic perspective.
Analogies like yours can turn a sensational story in a bunch of not-particularly-exciting facts.
(Please forgive me for having attempted to model you through pejorative forms...you understand my inclination to do so.)
You have significantly obfuscated your position in the way that you have employed the language (and partially, the logic) of science without having emphasized your deeply skeptical views of empiricism. It appears that, for tactical reasons, you hide your essential rejection of empiricism (which you could have stated at the outset). I don't know...perhaps this tactic of obfuscation sometimes leads people to unexpectedly leap outside their boxes. But it is likely to leave behind the most able of minds (i.e. the most skeptical of thinkers...ones capable of going where you're pointing). For them, you need to preface your _alter-logic_ as being such so that a willing critical thinker can fabricate a temporary bridge that allows him to continue along your [alleged] thread.
For some of us, for me, Science is something of a religion. It doesn't explain much, but if treated with due modesty and skepticism, it at least offers a set of unbreakable techniques...an island of logic that endures by way of its endless attempts at self-correction. You could have saved me a lot of time by having warned early in your argument that we weren't really talking about the "same" "thing". I understand that language is inherently imprecise and that we're all going our own ways, but the difference that you surreptitiously introduce is so fundamentally wide and clear as to render your most important underlying assertions to be, quite simply, off topic. (Not wrong...just off topic.) And I think you know this.
Suggestion: put forth challenges to the view that science has significantly informed our understanding of, for example, the biological effects of EMF. The available evidence _has_ done much to demonstrate how little we understand (e.g. Becker), and at the same time has provided scant explanation of what we observe.
Science _does_ offer the lexicon and semantics needed to explain the limits of science. I think you should more energetically use them to make some of your points.
I've taken some time to read some of your past postings on Slashdot.
It wouldn't be wrong to describe you as being brilliant. You don't just appear to understand many things; you really do understand. And especially, human nature. You use common language with great dexterity.
Question: In your adult life, have you sustained any healthy, long-term, intimate relationships with anybody that wasn't characterized by by a highly unequal dominant/subordinate positioning in which you were the dominant party? (Let's not count those brief moments of humility you felt when they told you why they had to get away from you.)
Yours is the voice of a highly skilled manipulator. Your emotional supremacy is as impenetrable as it is essential to your sense of self. (I only do your kind of thing during momentary demonstrations at somebody's request; lord knows I'd never want to live all the way up there in your parts, nor to view people from that vantage point; it's too cold and lonely.)
My speculative presumption here could be very wrong. But your overbearing psyche speaks so crisply in your writings that I feel that if I were a psychiatrist, I would be able to cite a DSM diagnosis for which you would be archetypal. (I suspect you know what that diagnosis would be; care to share?)
Interesting...despite all your Dr. Becker's theories and attempts at therapeutic protocols, I am not able to find one of his protocols that was demonstrated to be sufficiently effective to be worthy of widespread adoption. He, like you, never coughed up the science. Long on theory, short on substance.
I didn't know that non-ionizing RF can burn. I'll have to educate myself a little more. Can you offer a nugget or two to send me in the right direction?
I have never known of a peer-reviewed study that is not available, at least in abstract form, on the web. (Perhaps you can tell me of one?) There is no need to burn fuel getting to a library; no need to waste paper; no need to buy books from Amazon.
Citations, please?
You advanced a testable theory of molecular excitation. We, as scientists, move from theory to knowledge through testing. Since we can't all be on location at testing time, we depend upon the validity of the tests and assertions being validated by trusted parties (read: peer review). Your assertion is base on a theory that has been tested and proven, has it not?
Citations, please?
All good scientists have extremely compelling reasons to publish their works on the web: to most widely disseminate their findings, and to have their findings carry the kind of weight that only accrues by being scrutinized and by withstanding that scrutiny. You do value your assertions being scrutinized, don't you?
Citations, please?
I research and read voraciously, ESPECIALLY the things that may teach me what I don't already know. You throw up needless barriers to moving this along. I have never known a scientist who played dodging games like you. I've only seen the charlatans do that. If you are not a charlatan, what is your purpose in behaving like one?
I was interested to see, after your initial post and the challenge to show evidence, whether you had any substance behind your position.
You offered nothing.
The challenger nailed your deficiencies. You show no awareness of the substance of those deficiencies.
You may know much _about_ science, but you have no stomach for its underlying rigors and the tightly measured increments by which it informs our understanding of the universe. You _know_ (certainly believe) much more than science tells us. For a scientist, your purported awareness is not just a cruel joke, but a powerfully distorting force in the awareness of the many who simply trust "those who know better."
And in case you believe some kind of equivalence of smugness between yourself and your challenger, please try to understand your challenger's position...he does not assert that cell phone radiation is safe. He asserts no claim other than that there is no substantive case to support that they are dangerous. In essence, he claims to know nothing. You, on the other hand, claim to know something, i.e. that cell phones emit damaging radiation. And yet, you provide no substantive support of that claim.
Your challenger needs to prove nothing because he makes no substantive assertion. But you do make a substantive assertion.
The article summary (and the Guardian articles) mis-state that countries are being cited "because they encourage the use of open source software." In fact, in reading IIPA's Special 301 recommendations for Indonesia and Brasil, those countries are being cited because they are trying to require by law the use of open source (in government usage). That's very different from simply encouraging FOSS use as the summary suggests.
What would one expect the position of an intellectual property trade organization to be regarding countries that are trying to outlaw the use of commercial intellectual property?
Further, as indicated in the linked briefs, the issue of open source treatment is only a small one in the context of much larger intellectual property issues. To suggest that countries would be put on a watchlist simply "because they encourage the use of open source software" is to ignore the many other and weightier intellectual property concerns that have nothing to do with open source software. (Just because we're an open source community doesn't mean everything is an open source issue.)
I think I do understand. As long as the loss occurs after my death, it is external (at least insofar as I may ignore those costs). I mis-stated my understanding of that.
That being said, I have never seen a high-level corporate executive, an elected politician nor a major government figure who did not perceive an uninhabitable earth to be very costly and undesirable prospect. I don't doubt that there may be a few nuts who hide their nefarious motives, but such people are highly exceptional and unlikely to accumulate significant power.
But let us say that all costs after one's death are external. This fact of externality does not then explain [to me] why [in my observations] people generally show a strong disinclination to make their habitats uninhabitable.
Have you observed otherwise? Perhaps you can cite significant examples of people engaged in a calculation of success that includes rendering the earth uninhabitable?
There is no "externality" in an "uninhabitable" earth (the OP's proposition). One cannot rationally profit from an uninhabitable earth.
(One can, however, profit while the earth remains inhabitable.)
Again, awareness/certainty of risk determines whether or not costs are deemed to be external.
Yes. But then, that predicament would only occur when the risks and their magnitudes are significantly uncertain.
It is falsely argued that we face a populace that will [knowingly] walk to its demise. In fact, we divide not over our inclination toward self-preservation, but over the magnitude of risk that we believe we face.
"If it's economically advantageous to individuals to make the planet uninhabitable, that is what will happen"
Picture that...me, a rich man, with the waters rising slowly, year after year. It stands to reason that by the time the surf hits my lower teeth, it'll be too late. So one would think that some time before that, when the waters would perhaps only be lapping at my ankles, I'd have reason to alter my course?
No. NO, you say. I will cling to my "economic advantage", you say.
Please, Sir...show me the man of whom you speak, whose ilk would worthy of a thought.
First, it is very wrong to characterize the media by citing Fox. Overwhelmingly, the media (broadcast and print) has been sensitive to the issues of climate change and, quite pointedly, affirms the theories of AGW. In the U.S., I would cite CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Boston Globe, USA Today, and many others as all having editorial stances that are not simply sitting on the fence, but in fact, favoring IPCC findings. I regret that the dominant convention of "balanced reporting" does, as you indicate, give presence to poorly supported opposing positions. But in so doing, they've spared you an even worse fate: presenting more nuanced and well-supported counter positions instead of the poor ones as they do.
It is a fool who declares with certainty that warming is not occurring. And it is similarly a fool who declares with certainty that human born CO2 is not affecting climate. And yet, these are the "skeptics" that news organizations parade before us. Yes. Stupid "deniers". Perhaps if the news media presented the intelligent skeptics and the much narrower arguments that they are advancing, you would more readily acknowledge that the issues of global climate, particularly with respect to public policy and action, are not empirically deduced.
Second, per this Pew survey, only 33% of Americans believe global warming isn't happening. 57% state definitively that they believe it is. And, yes, only 41% believe with certainty that the warming is anthropogenic. Overall, I'd say that's not a bad cheering section for such a complex issue.
All that said, the focus on the deniers is a focus on the fools, and will not help you to understand why ground is being lost. It's being lost because the IPCC, many scientists, many politicians, governments, the news media (and you) are mixing science with politics, inferring public policy, and intimating that all this falls empirically from the tree of SCIENCE. Who is kidding whom? One need only read the IPCC's Summary for Policy Makers to witness this despicable breach of the borders of science. Imagine if an author of a study describing a clinical trial of the efficacy of a cholesterol-lowering drug published in his findings that people should take the drug. That would be absurd. The job of the scientist would be to report his methodology and results, perhaps showing a statistical correlation of mortality with the use of the drug. That's it. The scientist's job is done (and his integrity stands on the shoulders of the scientific method itself). Thereafter, it would be the job of pharmaceutical marketeers to use that information to get people to take the drug. The IPCC mixes the research with the marketing, and demonstrably blurs the lines between the two.
As a lifelong consumer of good science, and as a tireless advocate of the application of empiricism and rational thinking, I teach people that the IPCC is only partially related to the doings of science. I teach them to look skeptically upon its guidance just as they should look skeptically upon the guidance of a pharmaceutical advertisement. I teach them how to spot the differences between deduction and inference. And I use the IPCC's own work products to demonstrate where empiricism ends and uncertainty (and falsely certain statements) begins. I teach them to look for the measurements, to assess provenance, to demand the well-established traditions of discipline in methodology. I explain to them the limitations of simulation and the challenges of establishing causation.
Yes, you can swallow the conclusions of alleged experts. But that's dogma, and it's a poor substitute for looking behind the curtain, for there and only there is where you get to see and feel the true authority of science.
I find the theory of anthropogenic global warming to be very compelling. Having spent some time examining its basis, I am not feeling significant inclination to doubt its u
The popular news media is not an outlet for dissemination of "science." This is appropriate...its audience has little interest in the tight details that are the realm of science.
Instead, the news media is a platform for dissemination of information and entertainment that, in so doing, provides sufficient gratification to its audience that they choose to come back for more. I would guess, for example, that though you make many remarks about Fox News, you probably watch very little of it. (And it's not clear to me that you distinguish the news part of Fox's programming from the opinion/commentary parts.)
So we should understand that putting a scientist in front of a camera and having him opine does not constitute the dissemination of scientific information; it constitutes the dissemination of a scientist's opinions. Effectively, the real science exists only in the form of the publications that constitute peer-reviewed research. Even the authors' remarks about their own papers stand outside the very critical borders of the peer-reviewed piece (that is presumed to have been produced through rigorous application of the scientific method).
The bias of the media is more insidious than you suggest. While bias is obviously reflected in the opinions of the people speaking to the cameras, it is less obviously reflected by the choices of which people to put in front of the cameras, end EVEN MORE INSIDIOUSLY, in the choices of which stories to cover. Science news is in very small part a production of scientists, and in large part, a production of news editorial boards and science reporters (neither of whom is likely to be a scientist).
In my lifetime, I have not seen any scientific theory get the kind of media support and air time that AGW has received. Even with the media's powerful inclination to make AGW a major public concern, the issue does get thrashed about and chewed apart by Joe Q. Public and his spinster aids.
It is within this comfortable relationship between media outlet and audience that you want to see more what? Ahhh...yes...you want to see more bias toward what you believe. Oh. Wait. No. You want to see more bias toward "what science believes." No. Wait. You want more bias toward the "scientific consensus."
Whatever it is that you want the media to put out, it isn't science. It's opinion. It's your opinion. And it's the opinion of many others. And you're just trying to help the "good guys" win.
And to that, I say, get in line. Ethnic violence, civil wars, and totalitarian governments terrorize many millions of people in the world. Infectious disease plagues various regions, and the risks of future virulent epidemics are as real to me (and statistically more dangerous by my estimates) as potential damage due to climate change. Infant death is its own scourge. Proliferation of weapons fuels many destructive activities today and portends more destruction in the future. And the greatest scourge of all is the difficulty BILLIONS of people face TODAY in getting hooked up into an economy that can provide reliable access to food, sustenance, and social cohesion...for themselves and their families.
Yes, the AGW battle is losing ground in the general public. That's no more a fault of media than are all our political problems. But if you want to score more wins for your side (yeah, yeah..."our" side), I suggest you dispose of your characterization of your opposition as being simple-minded "deniers", biased media, and the lack of science in the public consciousness. Those narratives are just the rhetoric that belie the greater political truths that they sustain: that we've got a bunch of really big challenges in this world and the funding of climate control quite reasonably faces formidable competition.
In the debate about how to move forward in the world, I think climate science has already contributed about as much as it productively can.
One of the problems I see, is that there hasn't been one single valid argument from the "deniers" or whatever you want to call the armchair folks.
You describe a layperson who wants to examine the methodology behind a climate model as a "denier". You even use faux quotes and, in the style of passive-aggressive communication, intimate that that characterization came from elsewhere (that's what _you_ want to call them).
Your implication: questioner equals denier. Do I misunderstand?
Your bias and bigotry are dripping. You probably should have checked your baggage at the door. Anyway, thanks for revealing your position in your opening line...it should save many readers the trouble of reading the rest of your post.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay. Let's be serious...if you think there's merit to being a rich, renowned, low-life, money-losing pariah, then either _you_ are stupid or _you_ are missing "the point".
There's little good in Benjamins, boats and booz when even your mother would be ashamed to be seen with you.
Seeing that even this explanation of yours was modded down, we can infer that at least some Slashdot moderators are curmudgeons.
Cheers.
For the possibility that you are being sincere...it's a frequently used Unix command that, in some of its simpler usage forms, copies the contents of a file to another file, or to a communications port (such as the serial port as discussed here), or to the computer's screen.
Ignore the "Troll" rating. It comes from the dogmatic many who, upon inferring that your political leanings differ from theirs, summarily dismiss all your points, however reasonable they may be, without further consideration.
The GP was thoroughly disingenuous in suggesting that religious groups are trying to impede "reproductive healthcare". He/she was in fact referring to efforts to deter abortion. He/she tried to distort that fact so as to mis-portray people as being more extreme than they really are. (In fact, almost all of his points are greatly exaggerated and overreaching.)
Though I am pro-abortion-rights (and a-religious and politically moderate), I found the poster's wording as warped and laughable as you. But then, you must be one of those people who has "taken over U.S. politics." How does it feel to be in control?
The GP demonstrates common rhetoric of a powerful majority that sees itself as victim to a vocal but obviously subordinate minority. He/she/they do successfully kid themselves about whom is prevailing with respect to what.
That seems okay...to allow pop-ups on an Apple device...I'm sure they'd be done tastefully.
...like only one company would be allowed to pitch a given kind of product...and the ads would be wrapped in little black turtlenecks.
You are a cynic and a gentleman.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Here is a link to the court's decision. It is not a judgment against Solo, but a denial of their request to dismiss the case.
The judge argues the problem of incorrect markings here:
The plaintiff, i.e. the "troll", has not yet made his case. In order to prevail he has to prove that Solo used the incorrect markings "for the purpose of deceiving the public." That remains to be determined.
But therein, it is not clear to me what's really going on here with Solo (for example). It seems that laziness about cleaning up one's patent markings has a distinct reward, i.e. to scare off copy-cat competitors (which is exactly the kind of subsequent activity that the publicly filed/expired patent is intended to encourage). I'm not so sure that these are just mistakes, and in fact, I find it unlikely that there isn't some willfulness here. The corporate counsels that insist on taking advantage of adding the patent markings don't consider the correctness of removing them once they are no longer valid???
It may take a crack of the whip to clean up the rampant "laziness" that leaves these wrong and discouraging markings in use.
I prefer baseball metaphors. They are more fun, and yet, equally worthless in arriving at a substantive assessment of the issue at hand.
...which is to say that your metaphor amounts to little more than rhetorical detritus.
But now you've moved from a weak, over-dramatized metaphor to a realistic perspective.
Analogies like yours can turn a sensational story in a bunch of not-particularly-exciting facts.
Yes, yes. That makes sense.
(Please forgive me for having attempted to model you through pejorative forms...you understand my inclination to do so.)
You have significantly obfuscated your position in the way that you have employed the language (and partially, the logic) of science without having emphasized your deeply skeptical views of empiricism. It appears that, for tactical reasons, you hide your essential rejection of empiricism (which you could have stated at the outset). I don't know...perhaps this tactic of obfuscation sometimes leads people to unexpectedly leap outside their boxes. But it is likely to leave behind the most able of minds (i.e. the most skeptical of thinkers...ones capable of going where you're pointing). For them, you need to preface your _alter-logic_ as being such so that a willing critical thinker can fabricate a temporary bridge that allows him to continue along your [alleged] thread.
For some of us, for me, Science is something of a religion. It doesn't explain much, but if treated with due modesty and skepticism, it at least offers a set of unbreakable techniques...an island of logic that endures by way of its endless attempts at self-correction. You could have saved me a lot of time by having warned early in your argument that we weren't really talking about the "same" "thing". I understand that language is inherently imprecise and that we're all going our own ways, but the difference that you surreptitiously introduce is so fundamentally wide and clear as to render your most important underlying assertions to be, quite simply, off topic. (Not wrong...just off topic.) And I think you know this.
Suggestion: put forth challenges to the view that science has significantly informed our understanding of, for example, the biological effects of EMF. The available evidence _has_ done much to demonstrate how little we understand (e.g. Becker), and at the same time has provided scant explanation of what we observe.
Science _does_ offer the lexicon and semantics needed to explain the limits of science. I think you should more energetically use them to make some of your points.
I've taken some time to read some of your past postings on Slashdot.
It wouldn't be wrong to describe you as being brilliant. You don't just appear to understand many things; you really do understand. And especially, human nature. You use common language with great dexterity.
Question: In your adult life, have you sustained any healthy, long-term, intimate relationships with anybody that wasn't characterized by by a highly unequal dominant/subordinate positioning in which you were the dominant party? (Let's not count those brief moments of humility you felt when they told you why they had to get away from you.)
Yours is the voice of a highly skilled manipulator. Your emotional supremacy is as impenetrable as it is essential to your sense of self. (I only do your kind of thing during momentary demonstrations at somebody's request; lord knows I'd never want to live all the way up there in your parts, nor to view people from that vantage point; it's too cold and lonely.)
My speculative presumption here could be very wrong. But your overbearing psyche speaks so crisply in your writings that I feel that if I were a psychiatrist, I would be able to cite a DSM diagnosis for which you would be archetypal. (I suspect you know what that diagnosis would be; care to share?)
Interesting...despite all your Dr. Becker's theories and attempts at therapeutic protocols, I am not able to find one of his protocols that was demonstrated to be sufficiently effective to be worthy of widespread adoption. He, like you, never coughed up the science. Long on theory, short on substance.
Clinical trials, baby. It's all about outcomes.
You got NOTHING.
Here's a citation: "Heat Stress Due to R.F. Radiation", Mumford, W.W., Proceedings of the IEEE, Feb. 1969. You can find a nice little synopsis on page 371 here.
Now, then...can you cite ANY studies that support YOUR claim?
Citations, PLEASE?
Okay. I did some research of stuff produced by your cited author, Dr. Robert O. Becker. (Why cite the guy and not the research?)
I don't see any evidence of him having tested the theory that you advance.
Citations, please?
As the challenger requested: citations, please?
I have never known of a peer-reviewed study that is not available, at least in abstract form, on the web. (Perhaps you can tell me of one?) There is no need to burn fuel getting to a library; no need to waste paper; no need to buy books from Amazon.
Citations, please?
You advanced a testable theory of molecular excitation. We, as scientists, move from theory to knowledge through testing. Since we can't all be on location at testing time, we depend upon the validity of the tests and assertions being validated by trusted parties (read: peer review). Your assertion is base on a theory that has been tested and proven, has it not?
Citations, please?
All good scientists have extremely compelling reasons to publish their works on the web: to most widely disseminate their findings, and to have their findings carry the kind of weight that only accrues by being scrutinized and by withstanding that scrutiny. You do value your assertions being scrutinized, don't you?
Citations, please?
I research and read voraciously, ESPECIALLY the things that may teach me what I don't already know. You throw up needless barriers to moving this along. I have never known a scientist who played dodging games like you. I've only seen the charlatans do that. If you are not a charlatan, what is your purpose in behaving like one?
Citations, please?
I was interested to see, after your initial post and the challenge to show evidence, whether you had any substance behind your position.
You offered nothing.
The challenger nailed your deficiencies. You show no awareness of the substance of those deficiencies.
You may know much _about_ science, but you have no stomach for its underlying rigors and the tightly measured increments by which it informs our understanding of the universe. You _know_ (certainly believe) much more than science tells us. For a scientist, your purported awareness is not just a cruel joke, but a powerfully distorting force in the awareness of the many who simply trust "those who know better."
And in case you believe some kind of equivalence of smugness between yourself and your challenger, please try to understand your challenger's position...he does not assert that cell phone radiation is safe. He asserts no claim other than that there is no substantive case to support that they are dangerous. In essence, he claims to know nothing. You, on the other hand, claim to know something, i.e. that cell phones emit damaging radiation. And yet, you provide no substantive support of that claim.
Your challenger needs to prove nothing because he makes no substantive assertion. But you do make a substantive assertion.
And you offer NOTHING.
Go home.
The article summary (and the Guardian articles) mis-state that countries are being cited "because they encourage the use of open source software." In fact, in reading IIPA's Special 301 recommendations for Indonesia and Brasil, those countries are being cited because they are trying to require by law the use of open source (in government usage). That's very different from simply encouraging FOSS use as the summary suggests.
What would one expect the position of an intellectual property trade organization to be regarding countries that are trying to outlaw the use of commercial intellectual property?
Further, as indicated in the linked briefs, the issue of open source treatment is only a small one in the context of much larger intellectual property issues. To suggest that countries would be put on a watchlist simply "because they encourage the use of open source software" is to ignore the many other and weightier intellectual property concerns that have nothing to do with open source software. (Just because we're an open source community doesn't mean everything is an open source issue.)
There's nothing significant here.
I think I do understand. As long as the loss occurs after my death, it is external (at least insofar as I may ignore those costs). I mis-stated my understanding of that.
That being said, I have never seen a high-level corporate executive, an elected politician nor a major government figure who did not perceive an uninhabitable earth to be very costly and undesirable prospect. I don't doubt that there may be a few nuts who hide their nefarious motives, but such people are highly exceptional and unlikely to accumulate significant power.
But let us say that all costs after one's death are external. This fact of externality does not then explain [to me] why [in my observations] people generally show a strong disinclination to make their habitats uninhabitable.
Have you observed otherwise? Perhaps you can cite significant examples of people engaged in a calculation of success that includes rendering the earth uninhabitable?
There is no "externality" in an "uninhabitable" earth (the OP's proposition). One cannot rationally profit from an uninhabitable earth. (One can, however, profit while the earth remains inhabitable.) Again, awareness/certainty of risk determines whether or not costs are deemed to be external.
Yes. But then, that predicament would only occur when the risks and their magnitudes are significantly uncertain.
It is falsely argued that we face a populace that will [knowingly] walk to its demise. In fact, we divide not over our inclination toward self-preservation, but over the magnitude of risk that we believe we face.
Picture that...me, a rich man, with the waters rising slowly, year after year. It stands to reason that by the time the surf hits my lower teeth, it'll be too late. So one would think that some time before that, when the waters would perhaps only be lapping at my ankles, I'd have reason to alter my course?
No. NO, you say. I will cling to my "economic advantage", you say.
Please, Sir...show me the man of whom you speak, whose ilk would worthy of a thought.
Thank you for getting (and re-conveying) the point.
You're mis-stating the dynamics here.
First, it is very wrong to characterize the media by citing Fox. Overwhelmingly, the media (broadcast and print) has been sensitive to the issues of climate change and, quite pointedly, affirms the theories of AGW. In the U.S., I would cite CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Boston Globe, USA Today, and many others as all having editorial stances that are not simply sitting on the fence, but in fact, favoring IPCC findings. I regret that the dominant convention of "balanced reporting" does, as you indicate, give presence to poorly supported opposing positions. But in so doing, they've spared you an even worse fate: presenting more nuanced and well-supported counter positions instead of the poor ones as they do.
It is a fool who declares with certainty that warming is not occurring. And it is similarly a fool who declares with certainty that human born CO2 is not affecting climate. And yet, these are the "skeptics" that news organizations parade before us. Yes. Stupid "deniers". Perhaps if the news media presented the intelligent skeptics and the much narrower arguments that they are advancing, you would more readily acknowledge that the issues of global climate, particularly with respect to public policy and action, are not empirically deduced.
Second, per this Pew survey, only 33% of Americans believe global warming isn't happening. 57% state definitively that they believe it is. And, yes, only 41% believe with certainty that the warming is anthropogenic. Overall, I'd say that's not a bad cheering section for such a complex issue.
All that said, the focus on the deniers is a focus on the fools, and will not help you to understand why ground is being lost. It's being lost because the IPCC, many scientists, many politicians, governments, the news media (and you) are mixing science with politics, inferring public policy, and intimating that all this falls empirically from the tree of SCIENCE. Who is kidding whom? One need only read the IPCC's Summary for Policy Makers to witness this despicable breach of the borders of science. Imagine if an author of a study describing a clinical trial of the efficacy of a cholesterol-lowering drug published in his findings that people should take the drug. That would be absurd. The job of the scientist would be to report his methodology and results, perhaps showing a statistical correlation of mortality with the use of the drug. That's it. The scientist's job is done (and his integrity stands on the shoulders of the scientific method itself). Thereafter, it would be the job of pharmaceutical marketeers to use that information to get people to take the drug. The IPCC mixes the research with the marketing, and demonstrably blurs the lines between the two.
As a lifelong consumer of good science, and as a tireless advocate of the application of empiricism and rational thinking, I teach people that the IPCC is only partially related to the doings of science. I teach them to look skeptically upon its guidance just as they should look skeptically upon the guidance of a pharmaceutical advertisement. I teach them how to spot the differences between deduction and inference. And I use the IPCC's own work products to demonstrate where empiricism ends and uncertainty (and falsely certain statements) begins. I teach them to look for the measurements, to assess provenance, to demand the well-established traditions of discipline in methodology. I explain to them the limitations of simulation and the challenges of establishing causation.
Yes, you can swallow the conclusions of alleged experts. But that's dogma, and it's a poor substitute for looking behind the curtain, for there and only there is where you get to see and feel the true authority of science.
I find the theory of anthropogenic global warming to be very compelling. Having spent some time examining its basis, I am not feeling significant inclination to doubt its u
The popular news media is not an outlet for dissemination of "science." This is appropriate...its audience has little interest in the tight details that are the realm of science.
Instead, the news media is a platform for dissemination of information and entertainment that, in so doing, provides sufficient gratification to its audience that they choose to come back for more. I would guess, for example, that though you make many remarks about Fox News, you probably watch very little of it. (And it's not clear to me that you distinguish the news part of Fox's programming from the opinion/commentary parts.)
So we should understand that putting a scientist in front of a camera and having him opine does not constitute the dissemination of scientific information; it constitutes the dissemination of a scientist's opinions. Effectively, the real science exists only in the form of the publications that constitute peer-reviewed research. Even the authors' remarks about their own papers stand outside the very critical borders of the peer-reviewed piece (that is presumed to have been produced through rigorous application of the scientific method).
The bias of the media is more insidious than you suggest. While bias is obviously reflected in the opinions of the people speaking to the cameras, it is less obviously reflected by the choices of which people to put in front of the cameras, end EVEN MORE INSIDIOUSLY, in the choices of which stories to cover. Science news is in very small part a production of scientists, and in large part, a production of news editorial boards and science reporters (neither of whom is likely to be a scientist).
In my lifetime, I have not seen any scientific theory get the kind of media support and air time that AGW has received. Even with the media's powerful inclination to make AGW a major public concern, the issue does get thrashed about and chewed apart by Joe Q. Public and his spinster aids.
It is within this comfortable relationship between media outlet and audience that you want to see more what? Ahhh...yes...you want to see more bias toward what you believe. Oh. Wait. No. You want to see more bias toward "what science believes." No. Wait. You want more bias toward the "scientific consensus."
Whatever it is that you want the media to put out, it isn't science. It's opinion. It's your opinion. And it's the opinion of many others. And you're just trying to help the "good guys" win.
And to that, I say, get in line. Ethnic violence, civil wars, and totalitarian governments terrorize many millions of people in the world. Infectious disease plagues various regions, and the risks of future virulent epidemics are as real to me (and statistically more dangerous by my estimates) as potential damage due to climate change. Infant death is its own scourge. Proliferation of weapons fuels many destructive activities today and portends more destruction in the future. And the greatest scourge of all is the difficulty BILLIONS of people face TODAY in getting hooked up into an economy that can provide reliable access to food, sustenance, and social cohesion...for themselves and their families.
Yes, the AGW battle is losing ground in the general public. That's no more a fault of media than are all our political problems. But if you want to score more wins for your side (yeah, yeah..."our" side), I suggest you dispose of your characterization of your opposition as being simple-minded "deniers", biased media, and the lack of science in the public consciousness. Those narratives are just the rhetoric that belie the greater political truths that they sustain: that we've got a bunch of really big challenges in this world and the funding of climate control quite reasonably faces formidable competition.
In the debate about how to move forward in the world, I think climate science has already contributed about as much as it productively can.
You describe a layperson who wants to examine the methodology behind a climate model as a "denier". You even use faux quotes and, in the style of passive-aggressive communication, intimate that that characterization came from elsewhere (that's what _you_ want to call them).
Your implication: questioner equals denier. Do I misunderstand?
Your bias and bigotry are dripping. You probably should have checked your baggage at the door. Anyway, thanks for revealing your position in your opening line...it should save many readers the trouble of reading the rest of your post.