That would be great if they didn't have a history of being able to get court orders for specious claims
Use DMCA Then claim SOPA. It got taken down down under DMCA, so CLEARLY their claim is legit. Now they have court order...with Jane Dow so they ca apply it against anyone.
Incorrect. Specific power reside in specific places, not 'More' power in one place or another. That's a childish view of the constitution. Did you study the constitution and it history at all after the 6th grade?
They know exactly what party they are voting for, just not why. Does it have an R by the name? then check the box! more then one R? check the box of the person who looks most like you.
Yes, the well structured and properly spelled comment is the dumb shit, not you, the homophobic poster who thinks he is an intellectual for using wikipedia.
"simply assholes who want..." that may be true*, but looking at the numbers, they actually help sales.
Why I pirate: 1) Consumers have had pretty much all their rights removed when it comes to software. I will download software, If it is something I like, I will buy it.. This is something I have done many times. In fact, I jsut did it with guitar pro. IT turns out to be nice software, so I will be purchasing.
2) Availability - cant get something even at a cost. For example, I may miss a few weeks od a show, so I will down'load a copy if it's not available through HULU or netflix.
3) It's a more convenient way to get a digital copy of something I already have. For example, I have Star Wars on Blu-Ray. I will most likely download an HD version for my computer instead of ripping because it's just easier.
I have never demanded anyone put it online.
Reality is more complex then your view of pirates, and people need to understand that.
You mention 'Hard Work' what about work where th creators are dead? How much 'Hard Work' did the people who control the Copyright do?
Contact your representative and ask them to send a message to the US. Contrary to current opinion, the US does understand there is a whole world out there, and we work with each other. Other countries sending displeasure through diplomatic means will help.
While they have been releasing data for years, and they should. There is a downside to that. People who don't understand it misinterpret it, and people like to cherry pick some data, then get onto a talk show and be presented as an expert.
I have seen data being released only to end up bogging every thing down and costing a lot of money because some small group doesn't understand what tye are looking at, or assume it is wrong and demand retesting even though they have no rational reason to believe the data is bad.
I have, literally, seen people scream at Representative, get lawyers and force retesting(at a cost of 10 million) because it didn't show that stored water will kill people.
An politician won't slap the imbeciles down and ignore them.
Oh, and please take 5 minutes to research your statements, you look like an idiot.
Your understanding of science is....weak. Clearly you are just spouting off things you have read others say without any thought or actual knowledge on the subject. Quite frankly I am tired of you poor excuses for a limp wristed cum stains talking like you understands something when you clearly don't.
"a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true." So, new data that doesn't support the current hypothesis will falsify a hypotheses. Since every other data that looks at temperature increase above normal cycles has been ruled out, what we have left is AGW.
One test that was done was when all the air traffic was grounded. That data was startling. Another test would be 'does the temperature go down with the appropriate cycle'. It does not. Another test is evaporation pounds. in fact, there are many, many tests.
Please, what other conclusion can you come to with the data? the Sun has been rued out, as have volcanoes, cosmic rays, and 'bad karma'.
Increased CO2 has cause a trapping of more energy. When all other factors are in a known state, does the temperature return to that state? No? well their you go.
Here is the difference: Both make predictions. You can create tests to verify predictions. AGW deniers, and evolution deniers ignore evidence, and don't change their tune when shown evidence that they are wrong.
Yes, those test are time consuming, and cost some money. Fortunately they are tested every day.
Everything in your post has been shown to be wrong, over and over again. So I will only address one thing:
"Stick to *facts* and leave the activism for college." Facts are useless if you aren't trained to interpret them, and you are clearly not trained.
OK, one more thing ecasue it bugs the fuck out of me. Here is an example of a scientific theory: Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.
Note: its a theory even though we don't reporoduce the event becasue new data can CHANGE WHAT WE KNOW.
That is exacttly the same with AGW. the DATA and actual FACTS are for to overwhelming to the a hypothesis.
Talk to epope who ahve worked at the poles for years.
"As a simulations expert I've had the chance to examine much of the code that was released from the Hadley Institute a few years back....it was *horrifically* poorly put together. If these had been my student, they'd have failed the course. " While doubtfull that you actually do that, it's irrelevant to the point.
Much badly written software is still accurate in its results. Something people actually in the industry see pretty much every day.
"Lastly, in order for AGW to rise to the level of a theory it must be able to postulate experiments that would prove it to be true. " FALSE, not true you dumb fuck. You FALSIFY.
It isn't. They should get merit and weight based on the consensus and evidence, but they don't. Because controversy sells, even when it's manufactured by the news an talk shows.
your Darwinists that think drugs have stopped the progress of evolution and think the fit should survive and if you can't develop immunity you just suck it up and die.
those aren't Darminists, they're idiots. And 'Darwinist' makes as much sense as calling people you believe gravity theory Newtonists.
Slashdot Mirror
Except no copyright holder has ever been able to prove they have been hurt. In fact, the data says piracy helped.
That would be great if they didn't have a history of being able to get court orders for specious claims
Use DMCA
Then claim SOPA. It got taken down down under DMCA, so CLEARLY their claim is legit.
Now they have court order...with Jane Dow so they ca apply it against anyone.
Incorrect. Specific power reside in specific places, not 'More' power in one place or another. That's a childish view of the constitution. Did you study the constitution and it history at all after the 6th grade?
They know exactly what party they are voting for, just not why.
Does it have an R by the name? then check the box! more then one R? check the box of the person who looks most like you.
Yes, the well structured and properly spelled comment is the dumb shit, not you, the homophobic poster who thinks he is an intellectual for using wikipedia.
not true. Media matters has gone to hell.
December:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45797223/ns/business-press_releases/t/dreamhost-denounces-sopa-sticks-it/#.Txc1baUS22U
I wish MSNBC had better archival searching. I thought they had an article last oct.
Send Bennett an email praising him for supporting the SOPA/PIPA blackout. heh.
Have a group of people with similar goals is dishonest? wtf?
"simply assholes who want..."
that may be true*, but looking at the numbers, they actually help sales.
Why I pirate:
1) Consumers have had pretty much all their rights removed when it comes to software. I will download software, If it is something I like, I will buy it.. This is something I have done many times. In fact, I jsut did it with guitar pro. IT turns out to be nice software, so I will be purchasing.
2) Availability - cant get something even at a cost. For example, I may miss a few weeks od a show, so I will down'load a copy if it's not available through HULU or netflix.
3) It's a more convenient way to get a digital copy of something I already have. For example, I have Star Wars on Blu-Ray. I will most likely download an HD version for my computer instead of ripping because it's just easier.
I have never demanded anyone put it online.
Reality is more complex then your view of pirates, and people need to understand that.
You mention 'Hard Work' what about work where th creators are dead? How much 'Hard Work' did the people who control the Copyright do?
*it's not
Do you know there are fewer jobs for lawyers every year?
Maybe you opinion on the law industry is wrong?
"When the US breaks up in a few years, "
you're an idiot.
He didn't say that, he just implied they were stupid for doing so.
Why can't you see the difference?
Who are you to say he can't?
No man is an island.
Contact your representative and ask them to send a message to the US. Contrary to current opinion, the US does understand there is a whole world out there, and we work with each other. Other countries sending displeasure through diplomatic means will help.
SO million of displaced and starving people is fine?
The world is bigger then Canada
While they have been releasing data for years, and they should. There is a downside to that. People who don't understand it misinterpret it, and people like to cherry pick some data, then get onto a talk show and be presented as an expert.
I have seen data being released only to end up bogging every thing down and costing a lot of money because some small group doesn't understand what tye are looking at, or assume it is wrong and demand retesting even though they have no rational reason to believe the data is bad.
I have, literally, seen people scream at Representative, get lawyers and force retesting(at a cost of 10 million) because it didn't show that stored water will kill people.
An politician won't slap the imbeciles down and ignore them.
Oh, and please take 5 minutes to research your statements, you look like an idiot.
Pfft. he didn't even do a 15 seconds Google search. Do you thin he will read, let alone understand, scientific papers?
WRONG.
Science begins with an observation.
Your understanding of science is....weak. Clearly you are just spouting off things you have read others say without any thought or actual knowledge on the subject. Quite frankly I am tired of you poor excuses for a limp wristed cum stains talking like you understands something when you clearly don't.
"a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true."
So, new data that doesn't support the current hypothesis will falsify a hypotheses. Since every other data that looks at temperature increase above normal cycles has been ruled out, what we have left is AGW.
One test that was done was when all the air traffic was grounded. That data was startling.
Another test would be 'does the temperature go down with the appropriate cycle'. It does not.
Another test is evaporation pounds.
in fact, there are many, many tests.
Please, what other conclusion can you come to with the data?
the Sun has been rued out, as have volcanoes, cosmic rays, and 'bad karma'.
Increased CO2 has cause a trapping of more energy.
When all other factors are in a known state, does the temperature return to that state? No? well their you go.
Here is the difference:
Both make predictions. You can create tests to verify predictions.
AGW deniers, and evolution deniers ignore evidence, and don't change their tune when shown evidence that they are wrong.
Yes, those test are time consuming, and cost some money. Fortunately they are tested every day.
Yeah, mountains of data show it otherwise, but hey, lets go with you spoon fed dumb asses that couldn't think your way out a linear slope problem.
Everything in your post has been shown to be wrong, over and over again. So I will only address one thing:
"Stick to *facts* and leave the activism for college."
Facts are useless if you aren't trained to interpret them, and you are clearly not trained.
OK, one more thing ecasue it bugs the fuck out of me. Here is an example of a scientific theory:
Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.
Note: its a theory even though we don't reporoduce the event becasue new data can CHANGE WHAT WE KNOW.
That is exacttly the same with AGW. the DATA and actual FACTS are for to overwhelming to the a hypothesis.
Talk to epope who ahve worked at the poles for years.
"As a simulations expert I've had the chance to examine much of the code that was released from the Hadley Institute a few years back....it was *horrifically* poorly put together. If these had been my student, they'd have failed the course. "
While doubtfull that you actually do that, it's irrelevant to the point.
Much badly written software is still accurate in its results. Something people actually in the industry see pretty much every day.
"Lastly, in order for AGW to rise to the level of a theory it must be able to postulate experiments that would prove it to be true. "
FALSE, not true you dumb fuck. You FALSIFY.
It isn't. They should get merit and weight based on the consensus and evidence, but they don't. Because controversy sells, even when it's manufactured by the news an talk shows.
It was the only possible interpretation. But, hey, bonus points as logging out to comment instead of trying to have a discussion, looser.
and by mostly the same groups of people who want to shove their religion down your throat.
Nope, he is correct. about 5% or so. It varies depending which scare story is in the news.
your Darwinists that think drugs have stopped the progress of evolution and think the fit should survive and if you can't develop immunity you just suck it up and die.
those aren't Darminists, they're idiots.
And 'Darwinist' makes as much sense as calling people you believe gravity theory Newtonists.