Kyoto is politically motivated, and also imperfect
We're still 'outsourcing' social costs like pollution to the third world (what a shock!)
omg socialism
Politicians are politically motivated
Solar power sucks because it was invented a long time ago
Nobody gives a crap about Kyoto *now*. You think people are going to care more about it when the polar ice caps are gone, and we have much larger problems to deal with? At one point you say "even if global warming is real". So I can understand why you think this is a lot of scaremongering. All I can suggest is that you read more on the topic. The science side of it, since you seem to be well versed in the history/politics.
Global temperatures have been increasing. No, it's not increased solar output. No, it's not just natural cycling: past climate trends have had satisfactory explanations outside of human activity, these do not. Yes, there is a consensus (cf. survey studies by Schulte and Oreskes). No, they don't have it backwards and the globe is cooling off. And so on and so on. The science is out there if you care to read it. And Dyson being an underdog doesn't automatically make him right. Neither does the politically-charged nature of Kyoto. You are basing your view about what is happening physically on the political response to it. That needs to be reversed.
Also, please read up on solar power. Photovoltaics date back to the 1950s, not the 1800s. And every decade has seen improvements to the cost and effectiveness of solar power. It is by no means "outdated" or the dead end that you proclaim it to be.
The majority of scientists (in this field) believe that the evidence supports the idea of anthropogenic global warming. This isn't science vs. the people.
Obviously "more study is needed". It's happening as we speak. But the reality is that no matter how good your figures are, the politicians will twist it around. But at least for me, I'd rather listen to what the actual scientists are saying. And what they're saying is that an alternative hypothesis that fits better with the data doesn't exist. Many have been tried, of course.
Note that Dyson does not have any data here, he is whining about not being taken seriously by the scientific mainstream, vaguely criticizing the methods of a generation of scientists, and basically making the assumption that because he's the underdog, he's at least "useful" if not correct.
But the nice thing about science is that the evidence decides if you're correct. Clarke's law is, of course, not an actual "law" of physics but the observations of a (granted, brilliant) science fiction author. It is too general to help us here.
And if you let TinyURL store a cookie then you can turn previews on for everything.
I like the greasemonkey script you linked to better. But turning on previews for all TinyURL links has the advantages of catching them if they're coming in from, say, a twitter client.
The Hebrew scriptures are not in the Bible because Christians believe in the same god as the ancient Hebrews. They are included because supposedly certain passages of the Old Testament foretell the coming of Jesus and specifically his status as the Messiah.
For me, it's history's largest example of the "Texas sharpshooter" problem. But that's opinion. In any case, it's a common thing for a religion based on scripture to do. Hebrew prophets would "namedrop" of previous prophets and kings. The Qur'an does this is as well with Hebrew, Jewish and Christian scripture. Religions that come later must establish their legitimacy, and they do so by creating a link to the area's existing religion. That and killing lots and lots of people.
In Job, Yahweh creates a bet with the devil that he can't make Job's life so horrible that Job will lose his faith. Basically, God fucks with someone for sport. "Sola fide" Christians eat that stuff up as examples of true faith. It doesn't have to make sense. It's an emotional crutch which many of us had some insight into and then finally shed. It doesn't have a monopoly on morality, or beauty, or enlightenment. It doesn't even have to not be evil, as long as it does someone the service of saving them from questioning their presence here on an existential level.
You give the average Christian far too much credit by assuming that they (a) know about what's in the Bible or (b) knows why it's there. And absolutely don't make the assumption that everything in the Bible gets equal weight, because I don't think anyone approaches it that way, despite what many claim.
There are a lot of intelligent Christians. I have met many Catholic priests and brothers with PhDs. They are some of the most worldly and insightful people I have met. But these days, for the average American, what makes you Christian or not is whether you approve of gay marriage. The rest is details.
I agree with you. I just thought saying "why" was a bit much. You or I may not agree with the arguments in favor of gun controls, but the arguments do exist, and we both know that they exist and what they are. I think a safer attitude to have would be to say that (a) people have good reasons for wanting to control guns but (b) a lot of them aren't constitutional.
Maybe you were curious about the parent's specific reasons, and not just challenging him to come up with *any* reason at all, in which case I misread you.
The problem is that once they do sue you, you will need those records to prove your innocence. Not having them is pretty much going to be the end of your legal defense.
Yeah, it's a shakedown. But the only real way to avoid it is to have your licenses in order. I mean, if they show up, tell 'em where to shove it. But then when they sue you, you're going to need every bit of written proof that you have that you actually own the software, and if you have a solid case then you can probably counter-sue for court costs (I think, but IANAL).
It's all good advice, of course, there's no reason to let them search the place out of the kindness of your heart.
But it still needs to be said that once they actually do sue you, all of your licenses are going to be subpoenaed anyway. Kicking them out the door will give you a couple of days to get your defense in order, but it's not a substitute for actually owning the licenses.
Owners of corporations have limited financial liability, not legal liability.
Corporations are still bound by the law, and so are the individuals that make them up. "Limited liability" just means that stockholders aren't forced to file for personal bankruptcy if the company can't live up to its financial obligations. Only the corporation goes bankrupt. Whatever assets it has at the end get divvied up by the creditors. The owners get to walk away but they lose their initial investment.
As far as employees having limited legal liability, I suppose that would get more complicated. I really don't know. I'm guessing that in criminal cases it doesn't matter...if your boss tells you to kill someone and you do it, you've still got blood on your hands.
They're by no means a small company. Wikipedia says $40 million gross / yr.
But I agree, being small isn't going to help unless small = someone's garage. If you have twenty workstations and none of them have a legit copy of Office, I really doubt they'll look the other way if someone tips them off. In any case, it's not worth the risk.
If you're large enough that you can no longer trust every single employee not to rat you out to the BSA, then you're probably also large enough to have them come knocking.
From what I understand the fines are a lot more than what the software is actually worth. And it's not as if that the majority (if any) of that money is going to the software authors. It's going to BSA lawyers.
It's ethical at only the most vague surface level. When you consider the actual behavior of the BSA and the fact that someone's getting paid to potentially cost a large number of people their jobs (depending on if the company can weather the fines and legal fees), it stops seeming so black and white.
It's rather like being a police informant in a world where you can be guaranteed that the cops are going to beat the crap out of whoever you turn in, even if it's a small offense. And somehow there's a car involved. Maybe that's the prize they give you.
but think of an independent coffee shop owner who should not have to be a networking guru
That's the thing...everyone gets mad that networking (and often computers in general) aren't so easy and magical that you can just set up an AP without knowing what you're doing. I think maybe people are made to feel dumb if they can't do this, because you can walk into a department store and see a router (something that requires expertise) on a shelf next to a CD player (something that doesn't).
It's like plumbing or roofing or anything else. Lots of people do it themselves. But that doesn't mean you don't have to know anything about it. It's a skill that people build up, even go to school for. A CCNA takes very little time to acquire if that's your thing, but frankly it's a little insulting when people imply that even that short time is worthless, that any coffee shop owner should be born with those skills.
Eh, that's sort of like trading the devil you don't know (and maybe only imagine) for the devil you do. Specifically, they monkey around with Google searches. If you need a not-your-ISP backup, I've always felt better off with 4.4.4.x, but really there are plenty of public DNS servers from reputable companies that won't start redirecting things.
But in all honestly, your ISP's DNS servers are going to be closer to you, and you're paying for them. It's really one of those "it ain't broke, don't fix it" things. DNS works best when everyone's using the server that's closest to them.
The actual security value in using OpenDNS and it's ilk, if any, comes from knowing where your DNS traffic is going. Because it means you looked at the IP, which is not something everyone does. I know everyone here loves OpenDNS but my honest advice is to just use your ISP unless there's a real problem with it, because I haven't seen any instance of those guys being cleaner or safer, despite what they claim on the site.
Our government still funds a large part of our healthcare (basically half). Both halves, the part we pay directly and the part our taxes pay, go to insurance companies that are taking a profit off the top.
I agree with you on principle, however...we will have to do what we can to guard our civil liberties, but in terms of nanny-state BS, we've already lost that one a long time ago anyway. I pay an extra two dollars for a pack of cigarettes, because the state gets to build revenue by targeting undesirables, and sell it as a way to lower tax money spent on health care. In April the federal tax goes up to 61 cents. And obviously Uncle Sam's gotta look over his nieces and nephews when it comes to pot smoking.
So that logic is already used heavily because we do in fact pay for health care out of taxes. Roughly the same as the UK does, but then we pay the same amount again directly. I'm not a nanny-stater but something's gotta give.
I think the idea is that, since the government represents the people, you giving that fine is sort of like paying to fix a window you broke at a neighbor's house.
Anyway, community service sentences seem like the best option since there is some actual restitution and that's not something somebody can sneak off of a balance sheet and into their or a contractor's pocket.
It's my understanding that most states do have sensible yellow light minimums. Including the ones where towns were lowering yellow light times to increase camera revenue. They just aren't enforced.
What these states should do is withhold state funding for municipal transportation projects if (a) enough people complain about short yellow light times (b) a third-party confirms that the times are below the minimum.
But short of that, banning traffic light cameras also seems like a pretty good way to send a message to these private companies who have profit-sharing in mind instead of justice and public safety. I mean, nobody should be running reds, but it should be clear to everyone what terrifying ethics are involved in turning criminals and other social pariahs into a profit center.
Once you get caught enough times, they can make money off of your prison labor. And they can tax the tattoo you need in order to look tough extra. Let's face it, no one wants a tattoo parlor in their neighborhood, but if we absolutely have to tolerate those undesirables, let's at least make them pay for the privilege, right?
Slashdot Mirror
In case someone didn't want to read all that:
Nobody gives a crap about Kyoto *now*. You think people are going to care more about it when the polar ice caps are gone, and we have much larger problems to deal with? At one point you say "even if global warming is real". So I can understand why you think this is a lot of scaremongering. All I can suggest is that you read more on the topic. The science side of it, since you seem to be well versed in the history/politics.
Global temperatures have been increasing. No, it's not increased solar output. No, it's not just natural cycling: past climate trends have had satisfactory explanations outside of human activity, these do not. Yes, there is a consensus (cf. survey studies by Schulte and Oreskes). No, they don't have it backwards and the globe is cooling off. And so on and so on. The science is out there if you care to read it. And Dyson being an underdog doesn't automatically make him right. Neither does the politically-charged nature of Kyoto. You are basing your view about what is happening physically on the political response to it. That needs to be reversed.
Also, please read up on solar power. Photovoltaics date back to the 1950s, not the 1800s. And every decade has seen improvements to the cost and effectiveness of solar power. It is by no means "outdated" or the dead end that you proclaim it to be.
The majority of scientists (in this field) believe that the evidence supports the idea of anthropogenic global warming. This isn't science vs. the people.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#
Obviously "more study is needed". It's happening as we speak. But the reality is that no matter how good your figures are, the politicians will twist it around. But at least for me, I'd rather listen to what the actual scientists are saying. And what they're saying is that an alternative hypothesis that fits better with the data doesn't exist. Many have been tried, of course.
Note that Dyson does not have any data here, he is whining about not being taken seriously by the scientific mainstream, vaguely criticizing the methods of a generation of scientists, and basically making the assumption that because he's the underdog, he's at least "useful" if not correct.
But the nice thing about science is that the evidence decides if you're correct. Clarke's law is, of course, not an actual "law" of physics but the observations of a (granted, brilliant) science fiction author. It is too general to help us here.
It doesn't matter. He used italics, that makes him 100% right.
First day on the internet, eh? :)
Exactly. Everyone knows that since lobsters and crabs don't have a pineal gland, there is no seat for their soul to sit in inside their brain.
They're even red like thermometers. What other evidence do you need?
"Gitmo", which comes from the military abbreviation GTMO. The apostrophe doesn't belong.
Normally I wouldn't bother. But if you're going to bring up Gitmo and Hitler in a conversation about crabs and lobsters, at least spell properly.
You can also add "preview" to the url, like
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6rywju
And if you let TinyURL store a cookie then you can turn previews on for everything.
I like the greasemonkey script you linked to better. But turning on previews for all TinyURL links has the advantages of catching them if they're coming in from, say, a twitter client.
Check this out. http://www.konig.org/messianic.htm
The Hebrew scriptures are not in the Bible because Christians believe in the same god as the ancient Hebrews. They are included because supposedly certain passages of the Old Testament foretell the coming of Jesus and specifically his status as the Messiah.
For me, it's history's largest example of the "Texas sharpshooter" problem. But that's opinion. In any case, it's a common thing for a religion based on scripture to do. Hebrew prophets would "namedrop" of previous prophets and kings. The Qur'an does this is as well with Hebrew, Jewish and Christian scripture. Religions that come later must establish their legitimacy, and they do so by creating a link to the area's existing religion. That and killing lots and lots of people.
In Job, Yahweh creates a bet with the devil that he can't make Job's life so horrible that Job will lose his faith. Basically, God fucks with someone for sport. "Sola fide" Christians eat that stuff up as examples of true faith. It doesn't have to make sense. It's an emotional crutch which many of us had some insight into and then finally shed. It doesn't have a monopoly on morality, or beauty, or enlightenment. It doesn't even have to not be evil, as long as it does someone the service of saving them from questioning their presence here on an existential level.
You give the average Christian far too much credit by assuming that they (a) know about what's in the Bible or (b) knows why it's there. And absolutely don't make the assumption that everything in the Bible gets equal weight, because I don't think anyone approaches it that way, despite what many claim.
There are a lot of intelligent Christians. I have met many Catholic priests and brothers with PhDs. They are some of the most worldly and insightful people I have met. But these days, for the average American, what makes you Christian or not is whether you approve of gay marriage. The rest is details.
I agree with you. I just thought saying "why" was a bit much. You or I may not agree with the arguments in favor of gun controls, but the arguments do exist, and we both know that they exist and what they are. I think a safer attitude to have would be to say that (a) people have good reasons for wanting to control guns but (b) a lot of them aren't constitutional.
Maybe you were curious about the parent's specific reasons, and not just challenging him to come up with *any* reason at all, in which case I misread you.
You say that, as if no one's ever come up with a good reason for gun control laws.
Here's one: bullets are hard, and people are soft.
Not exactly a DMCA counter-notice, but pretty funny nonetheless:
Blue Jeans Cable's response to Monster Cable (google pdf > html)
If that doesn't work then here's a reprinting:
http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/blue-jeans-strikes-back
You do to what?
The problem is that once they do sue you, you will need those records to prove your innocence. Not having them is pretty much going to be the end of your legal defense.
Yeah, it's a shakedown. But the only real way to avoid it is to have your licenses in order. I mean, if they show up, tell 'em where to shove it. But then when they sue you, you're going to need every bit of written proof that you have that you actually own the software, and if you have a solid case then you can probably counter-sue for court costs (I think, but IANAL).
It's all good advice, of course, there's no reason to let them search the place out of the kindness of your heart.
But it still needs to be said that once they actually do sue you, all of your licenses are going to be subpoenaed anyway. Kicking them out the door will give you a couple of days to get your defense in order, but it's not a substitute for actually owning the licenses.
Owners of corporations have limited financial liability, not legal liability.
Corporations are still bound by the law, and so are the individuals that make them up. "Limited liability" just means that stockholders aren't forced to file for personal bankruptcy if the company can't live up to its financial obligations. Only the corporation goes bankrupt. Whatever assets it has at the end get divvied up by the creditors. The owners get to walk away but they lose their initial investment.
As far as employees having limited legal liability, I suppose that would get more complicated. I really don't know. I'm guessing that in criminal cases it doesn't matter...if your boss tells you to kill someone and you do it, you've still got blood on your hands.
They're by no means a small company. Wikipedia says $40 million gross / yr.
But I agree, being small isn't going to help unless small = someone's garage. If you have twenty workstations and none of them have a legit copy of Office, I really doubt they'll look the other way if someone tips them off. In any case, it's not worth the risk.
If you're large enough that you can no longer trust every single employee not to rat you out to the BSA, then you're probably also large enough to have them come knocking.
From what I understand the fines are a lot more than what the software is actually worth. And it's not as if that the majority (if any) of that money is going to the software authors. It's going to BSA lawyers.
It's ethical at only the most vague surface level. When you consider the actual behavior of the BSA and the fact that someone's getting paid to potentially cost a large number of people their jobs (depending on if the company can weather the fines and legal fees), it stops seeming so black and white.
It's rather like being a police informant in a world where you can be guaranteed that the cops are going to beat the crap out of whoever you turn in, even if it's a small offense. And somehow there's a car involved. Maybe that's the prize they give you.
but think of an independent coffee shop owner who should not have to be a networking guru
That's the thing...everyone gets mad that networking (and often computers in general) aren't so easy and magical that you can just set up an AP without knowing what you're doing. I think maybe people are made to feel dumb if they can't do this, because you can walk into a department store and see a router (something that requires expertise) on a shelf next to a CD player (something that doesn't).
It's like plumbing or roofing or anything else. Lots of people do it themselves. But that doesn't mean you don't have to know anything about it. It's a skill that people build up, even go to school for. A CCNA takes very little time to acquire if that's your thing, but frankly it's a little insulting when people imply that even that short time is worthless, that any coffee shop owner should be born with those skills.
Eh, that's sort of like trading the devil you don't know (and maybe only imagine) for the devil you do. Specifically, they monkey around with Google searches. If you need a not-your-ISP backup, I've always felt better off with 4.4.4.x, but really there are plenty of public DNS servers from reputable companies that won't start redirecting things.
But in all honestly, your ISP's DNS servers are going to be closer to you, and you're paying for them. It's really one of those "it ain't broke, don't fix it" things. DNS works best when everyone's using the server that's closest to them.
The actual security value in using OpenDNS and it's ilk, if any, comes from knowing where your DNS traffic is going. Because it means you looked at the IP, which is not something everyone does. I know everyone here loves OpenDNS but my honest advice is to just use your ISP unless there's a real problem with it, because I haven't seen any instance of those guys being cleaner or safer, despite what they claim on the site.
Oh that's easy, I just use my credit card number. It's...
That's a very succinct and accurate way of putting it.
Our government still funds a large part of our healthcare (basically half). Both halves, the part we pay directly and the part our taxes pay, go to insurance companies that are taking a profit off the top.
I agree with you on principle, however...we will have to do what we can to guard our civil liberties, but in terms of nanny-state BS, we've already lost that one a long time ago anyway. I pay an extra two dollars for a pack of cigarettes, because the state gets to build revenue by targeting undesirables, and sell it as a way to lower tax money spent on health care. In April the federal tax goes up to 61 cents. And obviously Uncle Sam's gotta look over his nieces and nephews when it comes to pot smoking.
So that logic is already used heavily because we do in fact pay for health care out of taxes. Roughly the same as the UK does, but then we pay the same amount again directly. I'm not a nanny-stater but something's gotta give.
I think the idea is that, since the government represents the people, you giving that fine is sort of like paying to fix a window you broke at a neighbor's house.
Anyway, community service sentences seem like the best option since there is some actual restitution and that's not something somebody can sneak off of a balance sheet and into their or a contractor's pocket.
It's my understanding that most states do have sensible yellow light minimums. Including the ones where towns were lowering yellow light times to increase camera revenue. They just aren't enforced.
What these states should do is withhold state funding for municipal transportation projects if (a) enough people complain about short yellow light times (b) a third-party confirms that the times are below the minimum.
But short of that, banning traffic light cameras also seems like a pretty good way to send a message to these private companies who have profit-sharing in mind instead of justice and public safety. I mean, nobody should be running reds, but it should be clear to everyone what terrifying ethics are involved in turning criminals and other social pariahs into a profit center.
Once you get caught enough times, they can make money off of your prison labor. And they can tax the tattoo you need in order to look tough extra. Let's face it, no one wants a tattoo parlor in their neighborhood, but if we absolutely have to tolerate those undesirables, let's at least make them pay for the privilege, right?
"Shave or don't shave". You sir, are grizzled. And I respect that.
That, or it's in his best interests to pretend that it doesn't exist, and that he's simply selling the same product for less money.