Is there even a market for Blu or HD-DVD's? I would think the market is shifting to downloads.
Right... Because EVERYONE can download 30GB video files in just a couple hours...
And of course they don't mind that they can't then use their (expensive) internet connection for any OTHER purpose (which they purchased it for, in the first place).
And once the videos are downloaded, 30GB of hard drive space is completely free, and everyone who wants to watch movies is enough of a computer expert to manage a RAID containing all the movies they've downloaded, EVER....
Seriously guys, give this anti-HighDef bullshit a rest.
What's that you say, the Democrats are just as sold out to corporate interests
The Democrats aren't perfect, but a HELL of a long way from being as pro-corporate as the Republicans. I can't even guess what imaginary world you live in, that could possibly look like the Democrats are remotely as bad as the Republicans, on this issue.
It isn't the Democrats always pushing for "tort reform" (codeword for eliminating your right to sue business). It isn't the Democrats that have been rubber-stamping every monopoly-creating merger in the past several years. etc.
if I did run *nix, the 3-4 hours it would cost me to get a $100 refund would exceed the refund's return. What are most techs worth today?
A) Outsource your refund process to lower-paid workers... Better known as children.
B) There's no reason you have to site on hold for an hour and argue with people that don't speak english. Postal mail works just as well today as it did 100 years ago.
The USA actually used to be admired. It used to be an ideal.
Hardly. You can get plenty of examples from the past couple hundred years of huge numbers of people who absolutely hated the US. It's always the same thing. There are always people who despise what you're currently doing, and always people who appreciate those particular actions.
There is no evidence that saved on reducing carbon emissions will be used to alleviate poverty or given to "other charitable works".
There's plenty of evidence that some of it will be, and no evidence to the contrary. There's no such thing as money that will be wasted if not use... That "broken window" economic theory has been debunked many times over.
and there is very little that we will be able to do in our lifetimes besides relocating the victims.
That is just patently untrue. The fact that you can't think of anything off the top of your head does not negate their existance. It's hard to believe what tunnel vision people have when it comes to global warming.
But are we spending it on eliminating poverty? I don't think so.
It's going to come from somewhere important. Poverty is just one example. There's no such thing as money that's going to be wasted if we don't use it... That's the broken-window theory of economics, and it has been repeatedly disproven.
I think in the long run, the cost of not doing anything about global warming will be much higher than the cost of reducing our emisions.
Reducing emissions is NOT the only way to reduce global tempurature, and it's certainly not the only way to reduce sea levels. In fact, for the cost, you can say it's a ridiculously expensive and terribly ineffecient way to accomplish that goal.
So reducing our effect on the environment is probably a better plan
Not if doing so is a massive economic hardship... Money very directly correlates to people's lives. Think of all the money it would cost to seriously reduce CO2 emissions, and imagine if we spent it on eliminating poverty, or other charitable works instead...
a better plan than waiting till we find out it's too friggin late to do anything about it.
It is NEVER "too late" to do something about ANYTHING.
That this statement is used about global warming all the time just raises the bullshit meter for me. It's clearly a fear tactic, with no basis in reality.
There are NUMEROUS (easy and cheap, in fact) ways to REVERSE global warming, no matter how much CO2 there is.
If you read anything more than the TITLE, you'd see he said: "All climate scientists accept that there are more greenhouse gases in the air than there were, and that in consequence the world will warm somewhat. There is no consensus on the central question of how much warming there will be."
Which is NOT a strawman, and actually a highly accurate statement, which is completely omitted by the media.
Strawman, multiple factors could be at play without invalidating "greenhouse global warming"
Nonsense. You completely misunderstood what he was saying. His repeated claims are clearly that predictions of global warming are VASTLY EXAGGERATED, not that global warming is false...
Strawman, multiple factors do not invalidate each other
See above. Multiple UN-ACCOUNTED-FOR factors, certainly do affect the MAGNITUED of the effect, in a HUGE way.
8. That proposed carbon-emission limits would make a definite difference. Very unlikely They would make a difference in carbon levels...
Now this is just a pure, unabashed strawman on your part. The context is VERY clear, yet you chose to ignore it (and chose NOT to read anything more than the TITLE of that section of the paper).
What does this have to do with the dabate on whether this is anthropomorphic or not?
Your lack of understanding does NOT invalidate his point.
With this in mind, it is our (as in mankind's) responsibility as a whole, to at least minimise our part in it, however small it may be.
No. We absolutely SHOULD NOT spend trillions upon trillions of dollars to stop CO2, if we ARE NOT having a HUGE effect on the climate.
It is a fact that the enormous quantities of pollutants we release need to go somewhere, and that they do something, wherever they go.
But in the case of CO2 (not a traditional "pollutant") that "something" may just mean "more food for more plants".
will clearly see a not so pleasant future that we may avoid by doing something, but that will definitely make life a lot less pleasant in the forseeable future if ignored.
You can just as "clearly see" a mild forseeable future, that will only slightly rise sea levels, and barely affect climate over a very long time.
Personally, the global warming message has seemed highly suspicious to me for a long time. Part of it is the monoculture... you hear only one side (not counting oil company ads) and there's always the same one answer, of strict conservationist lifestyles, and stopping all fossil fuel use, which has been an old favorite of hard-core crazies since long before anyone knew about global warming. I can't remember ANY other scientific issue taking such an unscientific route... No (real) public discussion, no alternatives, no discussion of the facts rather than the conclusions, no possibilities of drawing different conclusions. And absolutely no discussions of ANY alternative solutions for this problem, OTHER than strict conservation... No talk of changing the color of roofing materials, planting more trees, growing bacteria, etc. There have ALWAYS been multiple solutions to problems, but not this time for some reason I can't comprehend.
Between this, electronic voting, the whole WMD/invade Iraq decision and the Mexican border issue, half of you still vote Republican?
By all means, tell us where you are, and what a utopia your system is... so we can laugh at you and point out all the (even worse) debacles your country has seen.
Iraq was close enough before the last election that many people still didn't have a grasp of what a huge mistake that is. This time, however, all signs point to Republicans losing their (large) majority, even though only a fraction of congressional seats are up.
Not that the Dems are much better, but when are people going to start pushing back on the government?
Maybe when the Democrats get "much better"?
America used to be admired. Now, I just pity you.
America is still admired, and still hated, as much as it always has been. There's still loud mouthed fools like yourself who don't understand a thing about it, but are still quick to pass judgement on everything we're doing in ways you don't like...
When your next election is up, I'll be sure to let you know how stupid your countries coices were...
Verizon can generally choose not to do business with whomever they wish, with certain provisions relating to discrimination.
No, they can't. Not with their telephone service, and not with their internet services. As a common carrier, they can't follow the normal business rules. They have very strict regulations, that, above all else, prevent them from refusing service to anyone, for any reasons other than illegal activities, failure to pay, network harm, etc. "I don't like you" certainly isn't in there... Otherwise, you'd see local telephone companies refusing to serve phone sex hotlines, and similar objectionable organizations.
So no, I do not believe Verizon's status as a "common carrier" would be in question with regards to this matter.
That's because you have no idea what common carrier status IS to begin with.
OK, so Net Neutrality has more or less won, although without any legislation either way.
Umm... what? Companies continue to give their own branded services priority over other companies'... How is that possibly a win?
they'll say, look, we're policing our own network now. We're NOT a common carrier.
Not a chance in hell... "Common Carrier" status is the only thing that keeps them from being sued every time any of their customers does anything illegal.
I'd love to see a RIAA v. Verizon lawsuit for hundreds of billions of dollars, but I don't think Verizon would...
White roads = blinded drivers anytime the sun is out = death.
Nonsense. Plenty of people drive on cement every day, without killing anyone.
Also, reflecting from the surface doesn't guarantee it is reflected out of the atmosphere.
Umm, yes, the great majority will go straight out. Particularly in the desert, where there are rarely any clouds (or humidity for that matter) to speak of.
Why is it always in space? Why spend billions upon billions of dollars to put a mirror into orbit?
We have MILLIONS of square miles of desert ON EARTH (no need for rocket fuel) that are largely empty to begin with, and account for a large portion of the light that is absorbed by the earth.
A few thousand square miles of mirrors in the desert, and you can easily reverse the half-degree-per-decade warming...
What's more, we should ALREADY be doing this in cities, painting roads and roofs either white or other highly refelective colors to reverse the urban heatsink effect, and its byproducts.
Slashdot Mirror
Right... Because EVERYONE can download 30GB video files in just a couple hours...
And of course they don't mind that they can't then use their (expensive) internet connection for any OTHER purpose (which they purchased it for, in the first place).
And once the videos are downloaded, 30GB of hard drive space is completely free, and everyone who wants to watch movies is enough of a computer expert to manage a RAID containing all the movies they've downloaded, EVER.
Seriously guys, give this anti-HighDef bullshit a rest.
And 2000 does the job better...
What intelligent person would really want an OS that phones home, anyways?
But not the old Wireless USB protocol... Oh no, not that one...
As opposed to what??? Why specify "short and long"? Why not "ANY" distance?
But don't even TRY to use it at less than one foot...
No handhelds? No mainframes?
The Democrats aren't perfect, but a HELL of a long way from being as pro-corporate as the Republicans. I can't even guess what imaginary world you live in, that could possibly look like the Democrats are remotely as bad as the Republicans, on this issue.
It isn't the Democrats always pushing for "tort reform" (codeword for eliminating your right to sue business). It isn't the Democrats that have been rubber-stamping every monopoly-creating merger in the past several years. etc.
Umm... No. There's no evidence of that at all.
Nope. Making the GPU just another core on the CPU chip would make PCs more able to utilize the GPU quickly, for these types of tasks.
A) Outsource your refund process to lower-paid workers... Better known as children.
B) There's no reason you have to site on hold for an hour and argue with people that don't speak english. Postal mail works just as well today as it did 100 years ago.
Windows doesn't even make a good coaster... The hole in the middle makes it useless.
That's one... You've only got about a dozen more (better methods) to go.
That site is just a link-farm. Try again.
Hardly. You can get plenty of examples from the past couple hundred years of huge numbers of people who absolutely hated the US. It's always the same thing. There are always people who despise what you're currently doing, and always people who appreciate those particular actions.
There's plenty of evidence that some of it will be, and no evidence to the contrary. There's no such thing as money that will be wasted if not use... That "broken window" economic theory has been debunked many times over.
That is just patently untrue. The fact that you can't think of anything off the top of your head does not negate their existance. It's hard to believe what tunnel vision people have when it comes to global warming.
No. Putting a wall between the bullet and the target will be quite effective. And we have centuries in which to do it.
No, THAT is the red herring... it's ridiculous to say that stopping emissions is the only possible way to slow or reverse the trend.
It's going to come from somewhere important. Poverty is just one example. There's no such thing as money that's going to be wasted if we don't use it... That's the broken-window theory of economics, and it has been repeatedly disproven.
Reducing emissions is NOT the only way to reduce global tempurature, and it's certainly not the only way to reduce sea levels. In fact, for the cost, you can say it's a ridiculously expensive and terribly ineffecient way to accomplish that goal.
Companies REGULARLY put terms in their TOS which they know in advance can't possibly be legal...
Sounds good... Clearly, from your argument, you have scientific evidence to prove religon wrong. So lets have it, and end the debate once and for all.
You make a convincing argument Mr. linuxwrangler.
I guess I've been wrong about dinosaurs this whole time...
Not if doing so is a massive economic hardship... Money very directly correlates to people's lives. Think of all the money it would cost to seriously reduce CO2 emissions, and imagine if we spent it on eliminating poverty, or other charitable works instead...
It is NEVER "too late" to do something about ANYTHING.
That this statement is used about global warming all the time just raises the bullshit meter for me. It's clearly a fear tactic, with no basis in reality.
There are NUMEROUS (easy and cheap, in fact) ways to REVERSE global warming, no matter how much CO2 there is.
Yours is the strawman, I'm afraid.
If you read anything more than the TITLE, you'd see he said: "All climate scientists accept that there are more greenhouse gases in the air than there were, and that in consequence the world will warm somewhat. There is no consensus on the central question of how much warming there will be."
Which is NOT a strawman, and actually a highly accurate statement, which is completely omitted by the media.
Nonsense. You completely misunderstood what he was saying. His repeated claims are clearly that predictions of global warming are VASTLY EXAGGERATED, not that global warming is false...
See above. Multiple UN-ACCOUNTED-FOR factors, certainly do affect the MAGNITUED of the effect, in a HUGE way.
Now this is just a pure, unabashed strawman on your part. The context is VERY clear, yet you chose to ignore it (and chose NOT to read anything more than the TITLE of that section of the paper).
Your lack of understanding does NOT invalidate his point.
No. We absolutely SHOULD NOT spend trillions upon trillions of dollars to stop CO2, if we ARE NOT having a HUGE effect on the climate.
But in the case of CO2 (not a traditional "pollutant") that "something" may just mean "more food for more plants".
You can just as "clearly see" a mild forseeable future, that will only slightly rise sea levels, and barely affect climate over a very long time.
Personally, the global warming message has seemed highly suspicious to me for a long time. Part of it is the monoculture... you hear only one side (not counting oil company ads) and there's always the same one answer, of strict conservationist lifestyles, and stopping all fossil fuel use, which has been an old favorite of hard-core crazies since long before anyone knew about global warming. I can't remember ANY other scientific issue taking such an unscientific route... No (real) public discussion, no alternatives, no discussion of the facts rather than the conclusions, no possibilities of drawing different conclusions. And absolutely no discussions of ANY alternative solutions for this problem, OTHER than strict conservation... No talk of changing the color of roofing materials, planting more trees, growing bacteria, etc. There have ALWAYS been multiple solutions to problems, but not this time for some reason I can't comprehend.
This article doesn't dispute CO2 levels at all.
Now THAT can be pretty well disputed...
Evidence? You can't even name it...
By all means, tell us where you are, and what a utopia your system is... so we can laugh at you and point out all the (even worse) debacles your country has seen.
Iraq was close enough before the last election that many people still didn't have a grasp of what a huge mistake that is. This time, however, all signs point to Republicans losing their (large) majority, even though only a fraction of congressional seats are up.
Maybe when the Democrats get "much better"?
America is still admired, and still hated, as much as it always has been. There's still loud mouthed fools like yourself who don't understand a thing about it, but are still quick to pass judgement on everything we're doing in ways you don't like...
When your next election is up, I'll be sure to let you know how stupid your countries coices were...
No, they can't. Not with their telephone service, and not with their internet services. As a common carrier, they can't follow the normal business rules. They have very strict regulations, that, above all else, prevent them from refusing service to anyone, for any reasons other than illegal activities, failure to pay, network harm, etc. "I don't like you" certainly isn't in there... Otherwise, you'd see local telephone companies refusing to serve phone sex hotlines, and similar objectionable organizations.
That's because you have no idea what common carrier status IS to begin with.
Umm... what? Companies continue to give their own branded services priority over other companies'... How is that possibly a win?
Not a chance in hell... "Common Carrier" status is the only thing that keeps them from being sued every time any of their customers does anything illegal.
I'd love to see a RIAA v. Verizon lawsuit for hundreds of billions of dollars, but I don't think Verizon would...
Nonsense. Plenty of people drive on cement every day, without killing anyone.
Umm, yes, the great majority will go straight out. Particularly in the desert, where there are rarely any clouds (or humidity for that matter) to speak of.
Why is it always in space? Why spend billions upon billions of dollars to put a mirror into orbit?
We have MILLIONS of square miles of desert ON EARTH (no need for rocket fuel) that are largely empty to begin with, and account for a large portion of the light that is absorbed by the earth.
A few thousand square miles of mirrors in the desert, and you can easily reverse the half-degree-per-decade warming...
What's more, we should ALREADY be doing this in cities, painting roads and roofs either white or other highly refelective colors to reverse the urban heatsink effect, and its byproducts.
My points #1 and #2 are mutually exclusive. There is no concievable way to have BOTH.
And #3 is still unaffected.
You aren't remotely smart enough to go around calling people idiots...