*shrug* Left/right's always been blurry in reality. No two people have the same views; I'm a solid left-libertarian who's got no philosophical issues with the death penalty and is opposed to gun control. It's just that diversity's become popular, so organizations go out of their way to show off their dissenting members to the media. Of course, that's only as long as said members toe the party line on *real* issues, of course.
That was true up until Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were "natural persons" and were protected under the Bill of Rights. Legally, for all intents and purposes, in the US corporations are people who can't vote, but who never die and have far greater cash reserves available.
Webster's ain't exactly the place to look to find an accurate definition. Your average dictionary isn't an informed source for understanding economic philosophies.
In addition, even taking your definition, I'd say that antitrust laws fall into the category of "minor restrictions," as the vast majority of companies will never be affected by them. Remember, your own definition of "free market" doesn't require zero regulation.
Open source is just that. Do as you wish, as long as you re-release your modifications.
Actually, that's GPL'd software. BSD/MIT/X/etc licenses, which do not require the release of modifications, are also Open Source.
Contacting the developers of Gnucleus would have been courteous, but it's not required. Failure to give credit where credit is due, while not a GPL violation, is certainly unethical. And chatroom bannings are nothing but censorship.
In short, while their behavior is neither illegal nor a GPL violation, it is unethical and should be condemned.
Don't see why it wouldn't be legal, but no one could redistribute that software under the GPL. To quote:
If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
So if the patent in question wasn't offered under a no-restrictions no-royalties license, then code based on that patent couldn't be redistributed under the GPL.
Which is kind of interesting; it might be a way to get the good press and free bug fixes of releasing GPL'd software without allowing redistribution. As the patent owner, there's nothing preventing you from distributing the source, and as you own the copyright, you can distribute under any license you desire. However, those licensing your code under the GPL could not redistribute as they don't have a license to your patent.
Government involvement is not a measure of capitalism. Capitalism means that the ownership of property and the means of production are in private hands. Fascism is just as capitalistic as anarcho-capitalism. Laissaz faire is a subset of capitalism, not its entireity.
Since antitrust laws do not prevent, and indeed assume, that the ownership of a company is private, they are capitalistic. Regulation does not deny property rights any more than libel laws deny speech rights; in both cases they simply limit them where the cost to others of excercising that right is too high.
Roth v. United States [cornell.edu] and Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe [cornell.edu] come to mind as SCUS decisions preventing private individuals from expressing themselves on a public medium. Ask and ye shall receive...
Roth: Limiting the right to free speech does not mean it does not exist. My personal opinion is that the SC's had their heads up their asses anyway.
Santa Fe: Apparently, we're not communicating correctly. Your assertion was that "You have no right to say unpopular things in a medium literally owned and maintained by the populous", which is not correct. This case set a precedent that the right to freedom of religion can sometimes be more important than the right to free speech when the two conflict. It doesn't nullify that right. If your intent was to state that other rights can sometimes overrule the right to free speech then you're correct, but that wasn't my impression of your claim.
I reference you back to the two SCUS decisions I just mentioned.
You're right, my claim was poorly phrased here. Allow me to rephrase: With certain narrow and carefully controlled exceptions, the law cannot stop you from speaking your views in a public medium.
Again, you forgot the words "to the federal government."
And you're forgetting the Fourteenth Amendment again. To quote: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...
The passage of the 14th means that no state can pass laws which contradict the federal Constitution's guarantees of rights.
Nor are you. Yours are only a drop in the bucket. And because public property is paid for by so many people, the rules for its use need to be acceptable to everybody (or at least the majority).
However, these rules (laws) must not go beyond the boundaries of what the Constitution allows government to do. Which means those rules cannot restrict the right to free speech beyond the narrow restrictions the SC has allowed. (National security, obscenity, public safety, et al.)
One of the reasons for the Bill of Rights is to prevent the majority from using the government to silence unpopular points of view. It hasn't always worked (see the HUAC), but that's the intent.
Oh? Didn't they pay for the use of their ISP's mail servers? In fact, I recall a recent court case where the court ordered the ISP not to drop the spammer...
1. If we're thinking of the same case, the spammer recieved a preliminary injunction. The case hasn't been decided yet. 2. Yes, they have contracts with their ISP given them rights to use their ISP's servers as outlined in the contract. However, they have not signed contracts with MY ISP, whose resources they are also abusing.
What gives the FCC the right to restrict the use of certain words in radio and television broadcasts?
The fact that the SC has upheld obscenity laws.
How come you can't get copies of Hustler at your local library?
Because the library has more important things to spend money on. There's no legal reason they couldn't buy a Hustler subscription. My library has a subscription to Playboy, for example.
Why don't you see nudity or foul language on billboards?
Again, obscenity laws.
Your post denied the right to free speech explicitly several times. You now seem to be arguing that the right exists, but may be restricted. If your intent was the second claim, then you're correct. If it was the first, you're still dead wrong.
You have no right to say unpopular things in a medium literally owned and maintained by the populous. They own it, they say what you can and can't do with it. Simple as that.
Bullshit. That's complete, utter, bullshit. Point me to the Supreme Court decision that supports THAT load of crap.
Now, you have no right to say unpopular things in a privately owned medium, but the law cannot stop you from speaking your views in a public medium.
In order to balance the rights of the sidewalk owner with the sidewalk user (without having new rules posted every block), there are laws that force the owner to maintain the sidewalk for public use and there are laws that prevent sidewalk users from abusing the "generosity" of sidewalk owners.
Wrong. The anti-loitering laws have nothing whatsoever to do with property rights, they have to do with crime prevention. As in, not allowing people to "case the joint." The sidewalk, like the road, is considered public property. You have a legal responsibility to maintain it, but road allowance (which sidewalks sit on) are, for legal purposes, more or less public property.
US Congress is barred from infringing on it, but there is nothing in the federal constitution that says that the states can't do it
We don't have the "right" to free speech, we have the right to have a say in who can restrict our speech, when and why.
Flat out dead wrong. The First Amendment prevents the federal government from passing laws that restrict speech, and the Fourteenth extends that restriction to state and local governments. Not to mention that your claim is in direct contravention to 200+ years of Supreme Court cases that have, time after time, affirmed a right to free speech. In addition, regardless of what the government says, there's several hundred years of philosophy in Western culture supporting the right to free speech. The inherent human right to free speech cannot be denied at this point. Finally, the Constitution doesn't grant rights to citizens, it grants rights to the government, and denies any right not explicitly granted.
The park is paid for by public money and therefore (at least indirectly) is owned by everybody.
That's right, including me. Which means I have the right to use it as well. If my use of public property damages it, the government has the right to restrict my actions. If it simply offends you, suck it up and deal. You're not the only one who pays taxes here.
If you want to insist on your "right" to use other people's property to say what you want, when and to whom, you should consider joining a pro-spam lobby; they're demanding exactly the same thing.
Bullshit. Public property is my property. The fact that it's your property as well does not deny my ownership. The pro-spam lobby wants the right to use property that belongs entirely to other people.
The remainder of your post is true enough, but your claim that there is no right to free speech on public property is thoroughly contradicted by several centuries of literature, law, and court decisions throughout the western world.
Yeah. Now read the 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments. That's what the US Supreme Court has based their various decisions supporting the existence of a right to privacy. And the Supreme Court is the final authority in the US on what rights we have. So guess what? We do have a right to privacy.
In addition, Carnivore isn't just violating the right to privacy. It scans ALL emails and allegedly discards some, which means it is a warrantless search of my emails. Which means it's a violation of the 4th Amendment. So yes, either way, our rights are being violated.
And just out of curiosity, exactly where is the right to private ownership of property spelled out in the Constitution?
You really only have a "right to privacy" if a legislature decides to give you one.
And that's just plain wrong. We have all rights unless the Constitution specifically gives them to the government. Where does the Constitution give the government the right to invade our privacy, other than on carefully regulated terms?
Anarcho-syndicalism. Fascism. The first is socialistic anarchism. Anarchism is, by definition, non-statist, and anarcho-syndicalism promotes direct democracy. Fascism is, on the other hand, state capitalism. The corporation is made into a tool of the state, but its ownership remains in private hands, rather than being vested in the state or the workers. It is, therefore, capitalist, but fascist states have generally been dictatorships.
The difference between capitalism and socialism is not a measure of the amount of government involvement, it's a matter of who owns the stuff that makes the stuff. Capitalism != laissez faire, non-capitalism != Marxism/Leninism/Maoism.
Re:Privacy for it's own sake is the whole point.
on
David Brin on Privacy
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Brinesque instruction
Stop creating strawmen and actually read what Brin's saying. Brin's belief is that it's more important to focus on getting oversight of the activities of the powerful than it is to prevent the powerful from getting information on us. Godwin's law aside, the situation you describe in no way fulfills Brin's ideals. That is a situation where the powerful have surveillance over the majority, but the majority have no way to obtain information on the powerful. Your example, while a nice story, has exactly nothing to do with Brin's "Transparent Society".
Brin's philosophy is not that the powerful having surveillance abilities over the masses is good, it's that that situation is unavoidable. Given that, he believes it's more important to enable the masses to surveil the powerful to keep them in check, rather than fighting a lost cause to stop surveillance entirely. Instead of trying to remove the databases, he wants universal access.
I don't necessarily agree with him, but misrepresenting his beliefs doesn't further the discussion.
That's not what the law says either, bucko. To quote the law:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord."
If you legally download a copy, you can sell that copy.
You can legally sell the exact bits you downloaded, or possibly the hard drive it's stored on. Anything else, and you're distributing a copy.
If you legally buy a copy, you can sell that copy
Yup.
If you legally make a copy on your photocopying machine, you can sell that copy.
Wrong. That's distribution of a copy again, and it's verboten unless permitted. Distributing copies is still infringement, and first sale is no defense. Fair use may be, depending on the circumstances, but not first sale.
If you legally burn a CD-R, you can sell that copy.
Wrong again, for the same reasons.
If you have made a copy first sale does not apply to you. You are distributing that copy. If and only if someone who is authorized by the owner makes a copy and distributes it to you, first sale does apply. This is how the law has been and will be applied. If you want to read something else into the law, that's your prerogative, but the courts will not support you.
The GPL applies to distribution of copies. First sale applies to resale of copies after they've been distributed. The two do not intersect.
Uh... Yes. And why is it ridiculous? You seem to be trying really hard to make something extremely simple look more complicated than it really is.
As for legal basis, try reading up on copyright law sometime. Your right to resell the disk Red Hat sells you comes from USC Title 17. The fact that you don't have the right to make and distribute copies of a copyrighted work unless explicitly permitted is kinda like what copyright law is all about, you know?
If you're sold a legitimate copy of a copyrighted work, you can resell that copy. That's all you have the right to resell under first sale. What exactly is so ridiculous about that?
OK. You see, in order to avoid responses like Sheldon's, you now have to demonstrate by exactly what mysterious mechanism "constantly call[ing] for more healthcare, welfare, and social security benefits, paid for by taxes." contributes to "the means of producing and distributing goods [being] owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."
Not to mention, you're just plain wrong; the Democrats simply want to cut social programs less than the Republicans. But the corporate media's managed to brainwash people into believing the smaller cuts are increases.
Welfare statism has nothing to do with socialism. In fact, the first welfare states were created by capitalist governments as a means of preventing socialism from gaining support among the working class. It's generally seen as liberal, but socialism is a very specific type of liberalism that is entirely distinct from welfare statism. Also, the dictionary definition is not entirely correct; socialism is not necessarily statist. Anarcho-syndicalism is a thoroughly socialist philosophy, but it is also an anarchistic philosophy. Socialism is about who owns the stuff used to make stuff; anything else is application.
You're also confusing Democrats with liberals. The Democratic party ranges between moderate, conservative, and authoritarian these days. There aren't many liberals left in the party on a national level. Hell, look at Clinton. The corporate media went out of their way to claim he was a liberal, but the fact is that his policies departed very little from those of Reagan and Bush before him. He paid lip service to the left on some social causes (the gag rule; don't ask, don't tell), but his economic policy had next to no differenct from the Reagan/Bush corporate welfare state. He continued their policies of relaxing environmental controls by denying funding to enforcement agencies, the War on (Some) Drugs, their policies of unionbusting, of military overspending, of pushing for laws that benefit large corporations at the expense of individual citizens, of "free" (i.e., corporate managed) trade... The man was to the right of Nixon; there's no way he can possibly be described as a "liberal."
and the left through censorship of ideas and words with "political correctness".
You know, other than the hate crime laws, I can't think of one instance of the left pushing for laws on this (and I'd debate whether people who believe in restricting free speech can be considered leftists). Perhaps you'd care to supply more? I'm sure we can both come up with plenty of instances where conservatives have pushed for censorship laws, though.
Fact: When I buy a Red Hat CD from Red Hat Software, I have the right to sell that CD to someone else without giving them source code.
Assuming the CD does not contain source code, and assuming you are simply selling the original Red Hat CD you bought, that's correct. That's because, as you aren't distributing copies or derivative works, the GPL simply doesn't affect you.
Fact: Red Hat does not have the right to sell that CD to someone else without giving them source code. Why? Because Red Hat gave up the right to first sale when they agreed to the GPL. Red Hat was deprived of it's right to distribute CDs without distributing source.
False. Red Hat's reselling is not a matter of first sale. They are distributing copies of copyrighted works. The GPL gives them the right to do so (within limitations), and it is a right they would not otherwise have under copyright law.
First sale, as applied to this case, governs the resale of the physical medium on which a copyrighted work is stored. It does not, in any way, allow redistribution of copies or derivative works, which is what the GPL applies to. Basically, this case has nothing whatsoever to do with the GPL.
Without relying on fair use provisions, you can't make a copy of the software on your hard disk without a license. (You're violating the copyright by copying from the CD.)
Ah, but those fair use provisions do, in fact, exist. Copyright law was changed to allow copying of a program to the hard drive and into memory a good twenty years ago.
So no, that's not why the GPL works, and you don't have to agree to the GPL in order to use a program. However, you do have to agree to the GPL in order to distribute the program. Under copyright law, you have no right whatsoever to distribute, say, gcc. The GPL gives you that right, with conditions. If you don't agree to the GPL, you can still use the program, but you have no right to distribute it. THAT'S why the GPL works.
And no, I doubt you can claim that downloading from an FTP site is a sale.
Uh, dude? You do realize that the same people who bitch about Microsoft's stupid defaults bitched loudly and frequently at Red Hat for their stupid defaults, right? And you do realize that Red Hat now ships their distro with significantly less stupid defaults, which is why they don't get bitched at as much anymore, right? And you do realize that Microsoft's defaults are only marginally less stupid than they were, which is why they currently get bitched at, right?
And how long will it take the world to recover from "we did not--repeat, did not--trade arms or anything else for hostages" Reagan and Bush and their funding of terrorists and rogue states? How long from their funding of Central American death squads killing thousands? How long will it take the country to recover from their corporate welfare spree? How long from their War on (Some) Drugs?
And how long will it take us to recover from Shrub's War on (Anything the Corporations, FBI, or CIA Want Defined As) Terrorism, and him and Ashcroft using the Constitution to wipe their asses with? Shrub's already done more damage to the US than Clinton could have in your most delusional fantasies.
And as for traitor... Iran was an avowed enemy of the US at the time Reagan gave them weapons. The Constitutional definition of treason is "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Reagan gave aid and comfort to Iran, who was an enemy of the US. Reagan is a traitor, and should have been impeached, convicted, and executed. Exactly what actions of Clinton's meet that definition of treason? Sorry, you can call him a liar, an adulterer, a corporate puppet, and you'll be completely correct. You can say he should have been impeached and removed, and you'd be correct (though not for what he actually was impeached for). But he wasn't a traitor.
Finally, since you appear to have forgotten, Shrub was running against Gore, not Clinton. Are you trying to claim Gore's a traitor as well? Do you have any evidence whatsoever for this claim?
Compression requires more than organization. In order for most compression techniques to be effective, they also require that large terms be repeated throughout the file. For example, classically the way compression works is roughly as follows:
For a 450 or so byte file. Compression would take the repeated terms, replace them with symbols, and create a file which could be used to translate the symbols back into the original file.
This was in response to my statement that indicated that the other respondant was assuming the point in dispute. I don't see how your reply follows. Perhaps you are assuming the point in dispute as well. (and all the other points in your post referring to the "rights" discussion)
Your original claim was, "The consequence of the "global warming" debate involves (if the leftists get their way) the removal of individual rights." He attempted to guess at what you were talking about, allowing you to claim he was building strawmen. I won't. Please enumerate the rights you accuse leftists of wanting to take away. Your accusation is both absurd and offensive, and without support deserves the flaming it was given.
Then, I may believe you aren't a troll.
Furthermore, what "unsupported ad hominems" (as if a supported ad hominem were any more valid) have I made? I will retract any ad hominem argument I am made aware of.
You're right, "unsupported snide generalizations" would have been a better term. I was referring to those little "leftist" comments you made.
I apologize if you felt distracted by this, but it is not specious nor do I see how it is related to the "if you're not doing anything illegal..." argument.
The argument is intended to distract because you are using RayBender's words against him rather than actually answering him. It is specious because you are taking him literally rather than as intended. The intent was to point out that claiming a right, Constitutional or otherwise, to pollute is ridiculous, and that emissions control does not infringe on any other right. The Constitution was brought up as emphasis, not as authority. Furthermore, this is not non-obvious, given that no other Constitutional arguments are
made, and given that he quotes the accusation in question. And yes, you do have to say what rights you claim. If you make an accusation, you either support it or retract it.
I would further suggest that I, and most likely RayBender, understand the Ninth Amendment (the Eighth prohibits excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment, for your information) quite well. Probably better than you do, given that you appear to be under the misapprehension that the Ninth Amendment gives you any right you want simply by claiming it. It doesn't. It simply prohibits the government from claiming that a right does not exist simply because it isn't mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
There's a big difference there; if you want to claim you have a right to pollute you still need to support that contention.
The only thing your argument has in common with the "if you're not doing anything illegal..." argument is that both are bullshit.
Finally, RayBender was not actually claiming that you believe you have the rights he mentioned. His intent was to point out the absurdity of your "leftists are trying to steal your rights" accusation, as the "rights" he mentioned are the only ones emissions control infringes on, and they aren't exactly rights.
However, the rest of that paragraph, which you conveniently ignored, is still valid. The other post was most certainly treating me as if I was personally responsible for the "burning every drop of oil on the planet." Kind of strange considering she/he has never met me and doesn't know my driving habits, don't you think?
See above.
Driving through the desert is a specified trip with an expected duration. This is not comparable in any way to the myriad of ways in which fossil fuels are used, given that humanity's use of fossil fuels is not a time or space limited event.
Analogies simplify. A one sentence analogy cannot take into account all of the subtleties of the situation, and your expectation that it will is ridiculous. This analogy sucks no worse than any other in that respect.
It is also not comparable because in the "driving through the desert" example, the only fuel available is gasoline, while humanity uses a myriad of fossil fuels as well as renewable resources to fuel society.
Irrelevant. The gasoline in the car represents all nonrenewable resources, not just gasoline. The vast majority of the energy our society runs on is derived from nonrenewable resources, specifically fossil fuels.
Furthermore, humanity is also constantly researching new ways to provide locomotion and energy that do not rely on fossil fuels, while in the "driving through the desert" example, no such research was mentioned
The point of the analogy was that there isn't enough of this, and that the amount of time and energy which people have spent in this research is comparable to planning to walk to the gas station when the car runs out. And no, that wasn't mentioned in the analogy, but it is implicit. We are talking about a one-sentence analogy, not a professional dissertation on the situation.
I maintain that this analogy does not suck beyond the general suckiness expected of any analogy.
Also, since you have accused me of lying, I demand that you state where I have lied. And you had the nerve to accuse me of ad hominems!
"and all sorts of other individual activities that leftists just plain hate."
The claim that leftists desire emission controls because we dislike those activities is not only patently false, but completely asinine.
What unmitigated gall you have! You called me "snide" in the previous paragraph, and then proceed to be just that.
Make an snide post, expect a snide reply. But using an offensive tone in a post and then being outraged when you are attacked in response is quite disingenuous. And no, I don't expect a reply in any tone other than that which you and I have used so far.
What I am stating is this: I do not believe that individual actions are responsible for global warming, and I will not believe as much until I have seen convincing evidence for it. The burden of proof is on you, not on me.
See top. His last reply was addressed to your accusation of infringement of rights. The sequence of events was:
1. mirko posts.
2. Squaretorus replies.
3. You reply to Squaretorus, making an absurd, unspecific, undetailed, unsupported accusation, as well as several snide comments and demands for support.
5. Raybender flames you for making an absurd, unspecific, undetailed, and unsupported accusation.
6. You accuse him of setting up strawmen and assuming the point in contention.
7. I point out that he did this because your claim was unspecific, undetailed, and unsupported, and did not provide sufficient material to do otherwise.
He was addressing your rights claim, not the question of whether or not humans are significantly exacerbating global warming. Therefore, I did not address that question either. I am not a climatologist any more than I suspect you are and cannot address that question with the authority you appear to require, other than by referring you to authorities who I assume you have already been referred to and were unconvinced by. No, experts do not agree that humans have a significant effect on global warming. According to the tobacco companies, experts did not agree that smoking caused lung cancer until the early '90s. According to the creationists, experts do not agree that evolution happens. Exactly what evidence, or level of agreement among experts, do you require?
Also, who the hell is "us"? I didn't realize I was debating with a group.
That would be RayBender and myself. Since there are two of us, the correct pronoun is, in fact, "us." I'm curious to know what rights emission control infringes upon myself, and I want to see you either support that accusation or withdraw it.
Corporations have done more damage to the environment than individuals ever have. The difference is that it's much easier for governments to pick on individuals than it is for them to pick on the corporations who line their pockets.
Actually, that's false. Corporations have been doing environmental damage for a couple hundred years; individuals with goats, axes, and fires have been for thousands. A big chunk of the crap in the air is from people driving to work. Residences and small businesses use far more power collectively than corporate offices and factories, and produce a LOT more garbage. Anyway, what's your point? Do you believe that I (and, I assume, RayBender) don't wish to see emissions standards enforced against major corporations?
Evidence? (asking for evidence that Micronesia was being destroyed)
Micronesia is a series of small islands. Global warming theory projects that the icecaps will melt, causing sea levels to rise. Rising sea levels will make Micronesia uninhabitable to human beings.
Furthermore, how much responsibility do I have for future generations? I'm not denying that I have said responsibility, I'm just wondering how much.
You bear responsibility for actions you take or fail to take, if you know that these actions or lack thereof could potentially harm others. Everyone else does as well. You bear 100% of the responsibility for your own actions. If that's not the answer you're looking for, would you please rephrase the question?
Why did you choose not to respond to these?
Because the questions were either so poorly phrased or so obvious that I didn't believe you expected responses.
Actually, they are somewhat related. Among the marine organisms affected are large beds of kelp and algae that perform a very large percentage of the photosynthetic reactions that occur on the Earth. (Larger, actually, than the percentage performed by forests.) UVB kills them, which reduces the rate at which CO2 is transformed to O2, which contributes to the greenhouse effect.
Re-read my statement about assuming the point in dispute.
May I suggest then that you enumerate exactly what rights you claim reducing greenhouse emissions would infringe on? You haven't done that so far.
Where in the Constitution does it say you have the individual right to pay less than a buck for a gallon of gas?
Strawman.
You haven't bothered to say exactly what rights emissions control standards would interfere with, choosing to make unsupported ad hominems instead. Given that you decided not to state even vaguely what rights you claim, he chose to point out the fallacies in the "rights" most commonly claimed by those opposed to emissions control.
This is where I state, "Where in the Constitution does it say you have the individual right to breathe clean air?" You need to be careful about making arguments that can come back and bite you in the ass.
Stop being absurd. You, me, and everyone else reading this knows that that "argument" is as specious as "if you're not doing anything illegal...", and is intended to do nothing but distract.
Burning every drop of oil on the planet will happen no matter what you or I do.
Support, please.
The two are obviously different. I suggest you find a better analogy, and leave the ad hominems behind while you're at it.
Really? Why are they different? It seems like a pretty decent analogy to me. And, given the snide little "leftist" lies in the post he was responding to, whining about ad hominems is quite hypocritical.
Given that the main thrust of your post seems to be "I didn't say that!", why don't you actually say what you do believe, rather than expecting us to use our telepathic powers?
Slashdot Mirror
*shrug* Left/right's always been blurry in reality. No two people have the same views; I'm a solid left-libertarian who's got no philosophical issues with the death penalty and is opposed to gun control. It's just that diversity's become popular, so organizations go out of their way to show off their dissenting members to the media. Of course, that's only as long as said members toe the party line on *real* issues, of course.
That was true up until Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were "natural persons" and were protected under the Bill of Rights. Legally, for all intents and purposes, in the US corporations are people who can't vote, but who never die and have far greater cash reserves available.
Webster's ain't exactly the place to look to find an accurate definition. Your average dictionary isn't an informed source for understanding economic philosophies.
In addition, even taking your definition, I'd say that antitrust laws fall into the category of "minor restrictions," as the vast majority of companies will never be affected by them. Remember, your own definition of "free market" doesn't require zero regulation.
Open source is just that. Do as you wish, as long as you re-release your modifications.
Actually, that's GPL'd software. BSD/MIT/X/etc licenses, which do not require the release of modifications, are also Open Source.
Contacting the developers of Gnucleus would have been courteous, but it's not required. Failure to give credit where credit is due, while not a GPL violation, is certainly unethical. And chatroom bannings are nothing but censorship.
In short, while their behavior is neither illegal nor a GPL violation, it is unethical and should be condemned.
So if the patent in question wasn't offered under a no-restrictions no-royalties license, then code based on that patent couldn't be redistributed under the GPL.
Which is kind of interesting; it might be a way to get the good press and free bug fixes of releasing GPL'd software without allowing redistribution. As the patent owner, there's nothing preventing you from distributing the source, and as you own the copyright, you can distribute under any license you desire. However, those licensing your code under the GPL could not redistribute as they don't have a license to your patent.
Government involvement is not a measure of capitalism. Capitalism means that the ownership of property and the means of production are in private hands. Fascism is just as capitalistic as anarcho-capitalism. Laissaz faire is a subset of capitalism, not its entireity.
Since antitrust laws do not prevent, and indeed assume, that the ownership of a company is private, they are capitalistic. Regulation does not deny property rights any more than libel laws deny speech rights; in both cases they simply limit them where the cost to others of excercising that right is too high.
Roth v. United States [cornell.edu] and Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe [cornell.edu] come to mind as SCUS decisions preventing private individuals from expressing themselves on a public medium. Ask and ye shall receive...
Roth: Limiting the right to free speech does not mean it does not exist. My personal opinion is that the SC's had their heads up their asses anyway.
Santa Fe: Apparently, we're not communicating correctly. Your assertion was that "You have no right to say unpopular things in a medium literally owned and maintained by the populous", which is not correct. This case set a precedent that the right to freedom of religion can sometimes be more important than the right to free speech when the two conflict. It doesn't nullify that right. If your intent was to state that other rights can sometimes overrule the right to free speech then you're correct, but that wasn't my impression of your claim.
I reference you back to the two SCUS decisions I just mentioned.
You're right, my claim was poorly phrased here. Allow me to rephrase: With certain narrow and carefully controlled exceptions, the law cannot stop you from speaking your views in a public medium.
Again, you forgot the words "to the federal government."
And you're forgetting the Fourteenth Amendment again. To quote: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...
The passage of the 14th means that no state can pass laws which contradict the federal Constitution's guarantees of rights.
Nor are you. Yours are only a drop in the bucket. And because public property is paid for by so many people, the rules for its use need to be acceptable to everybody (or at least the majority).
However, these rules (laws) must not go beyond the boundaries of what the Constitution allows government to do. Which means those rules cannot restrict the right to free speech beyond the narrow restrictions the SC has allowed. (National security, obscenity, public safety, et al.)
One of the reasons for the Bill of Rights is to prevent the majority from using the government to silence unpopular points of view. It hasn't always worked (see the HUAC), but that's the intent.
Oh? Didn't they pay for the use of their ISP's mail servers? In fact, I recall a recent court case where the court ordered the ISP not to drop the spammer...
1. If we're thinking of the same case, the spammer recieved a preliminary injunction. The case hasn't been decided yet.
2. Yes, they have contracts with their ISP given them rights to use their ISP's servers as outlined in the contract. However, they have not signed contracts with MY ISP, whose resources they are also abusing.
What gives the FCC the right to restrict the use of certain words in radio and television broadcasts?
The fact that the SC has upheld obscenity laws.
How come you can't get copies of Hustler at your local library?
Because the library has more important things to spend money on. There's no legal reason they couldn't buy a Hustler subscription. My library has a subscription to Playboy, for example.
Why don't you see nudity or foul language on billboards?
Again, obscenity laws.
Your post denied the right to free speech explicitly several times. You now seem to be arguing that the right exists, but may be restricted. If your intent was the second claim, then you're correct. If it was the first, you're still dead wrong.
You have no right to say unpopular things in a medium literally owned and maintained by the populous. They own it, they say what you can and can't do with it. Simple as that.
Bullshit. That's complete, utter, bullshit. Point me to the Supreme Court decision that supports THAT load of crap.
Now, you have no right to say unpopular things in a privately owned medium, but the law cannot stop you from speaking your views in a public medium.
In order to balance the rights of the sidewalk owner with the sidewalk user (without having new rules posted every block), there are laws that force the owner to maintain the sidewalk for public use and there are laws that prevent sidewalk users from abusing the "generosity" of sidewalk owners.
Wrong. The anti-loitering laws have nothing whatsoever to do with property rights, they have to do with crime prevention. As in, not allowing people to "case the joint." The sidewalk, like the road, is considered public property. You have a legal responsibility to maintain it, but road allowance (which sidewalks sit on) are, for legal purposes, more or less public property.
US Congress is barred from infringing on it, but there is nothing in the federal constitution that says that the states can't do it
You mean other than the Fourteenth Amendment"?
We don't have the "right" to free speech, we have the right to have a say in who can restrict our speech, when and why.
Flat out dead wrong. The First Amendment prevents the federal government from passing laws that restrict speech, and the Fourteenth extends that restriction to state and local governments. Not to mention that your claim is in direct contravention to 200+ years of Supreme Court cases that have, time after time, affirmed a right to free speech. In addition, regardless of what the government says, there's several hundred years of philosophy in Western culture supporting the right to free speech. The inherent human right to free speech cannot be denied at this point. Finally, the Constitution doesn't grant rights to citizens, it grants rights to the government, and denies any right not explicitly granted.
The park is paid for by public money and therefore (at least indirectly) is owned by everybody.
That's right, including me. Which means I have the right to use it as well. If my use of public property damages it, the government has the right to restrict my actions. If it simply offends you, suck it up and deal. You're not the only one who pays taxes here.
If you want to insist on your "right" to use other people's property to say what you want, when and to whom, you should consider joining a pro-spam lobby; they're demanding exactly the same thing.
Bullshit. Public property is my property. The fact that it's your property as well does not deny my ownership. The pro-spam lobby wants the right to use property that belongs entirely to other people.
The remainder of your post is true enough, but your claim that there is no right to free speech on public property is thoroughly contradicted by several centuries of literature, law, and court decisions throughout the western world.
Yeah. Now read the 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments. That's what the US Supreme Court has based their various decisions supporting the existence of a right to privacy. And the Supreme Court is the final authority in the US on what rights we have. So guess what? We do have a right to privacy.
In addition, Carnivore isn't just violating the right to privacy. It scans ALL emails and allegedly discards some, which means it is a warrantless search of my emails. Which means it's a violation of the 4th Amendment. So yes, either way, our rights are being violated.
And just out of curiosity, exactly where is the right to private ownership of property spelled out in the Constitution?
You really only have a "right to privacy" if a legislature decides to give you one.
And that's just plain wrong. We have all rights unless the Constitution specifically gives them to the government. Where does the Constitution give the government the right to invade our privacy, other than on carefully regulated terms?
Anarcho-syndicalism. Fascism. The first is socialistic anarchism. Anarchism is, by definition, non-statist, and anarcho-syndicalism promotes direct democracy. Fascism is, on the other hand, state capitalism. The corporation is made into a tool of the state, but its ownership remains in private hands, rather than being vested in the state or the workers. It is, therefore, capitalist, but fascist states have generally been dictatorships.
The difference between capitalism and socialism is not a measure of the amount of government involvement, it's a matter of who owns the stuff that makes the stuff. Capitalism != laissez faire, non-capitalism != Marxism/Leninism/Maoism.
Brinesque instruction
Stop creating strawmen and actually read what Brin's saying. Brin's belief is that it's more important to focus on getting oversight of the activities of the powerful than it is to prevent the powerful from getting information on us. Godwin's law aside, the situation you describe in no way fulfills Brin's ideals. That is a situation where the powerful have surveillance over the majority, but the majority have no way to obtain information on the powerful. Your example, while a nice story, has exactly nothing to do with Brin's "Transparent Society".
Brin's philosophy is not that the powerful having surveillance abilities over the masses is good, it's that that situation is unavoidable. Given that, he believes it's more important to enable the masses to surveil the powerful to keep them in check, rather than fighting a lost cause to stop surveillance entirely. Instead of trying to remove the databases, he wants universal access.
I don't necessarily agree with him, but misrepresenting his beliefs doesn't further the discussion.
That's not what the law says either, bucko. To quote the law:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord."
If you legally download a copy, you can sell that copy.
You can legally sell the exact bits you downloaded, or possibly the hard drive it's stored on. Anything else, and you're distributing a copy.
If you legally buy a copy, you can sell that copy
Yup.
If you legally make a copy on your photocopying machine, you can sell that copy.
Wrong. That's distribution of a copy again, and it's verboten unless permitted. Distributing copies is still infringement, and first sale is no defense. Fair use may be, depending on the circumstances, but not first sale.
If you legally burn a CD-R, you can sell that copy.
Wrong again, for the same reasons.
If you have made a copy first sale does not apply to you. You are distributing that copy. If and only if someone who is authorized by the owner makes a copy and distributes it to you, first sale does apply. This is how the law has been and will be applied. If you want to read something else into the law, that's your prerogative, but the courts will not support you.
The GPL applies to distribution of copies. First sale applies to resale of copies after they've been distributed. The two do not intersect.
Uh... Yes. And why is it ridiculous? You seem to be trying really hard to make something extremely simple look more complicated than it really is.
As for legal basis, try reading up on copyright law sometime. Your right to resell the disk Red Hat sells you comes from USC Title 17. The fact that you don't have the right to make and distribute copies of a copyrighted work unless explicitly permitted is kinda like what copyright law is all about, you know?
If you're sold a legitimate copy of a copyrighted work, you can resell that copy. That's all you have the right to resell under first sale. What exactly is so ridiculous about that?
OK. You see, in order to avoid responses like Sheldon's, you now have to demonstrate by exactly what mysterious mechanism "constantly call[ing] for more healthcare, welfare, and social security benefits, paid for by taxes." contributes to "the means of producing and distributing goods [being] owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."
Not to mention, you're just plain wrong; the Democrats simply want to cut social programs less than the Republicans. But the corporate media's managed to brainwash people into believing the smaller cuts are increases.
Welfare statism has nothing to do with socialism. In fact, the first welfare states were created by capitalist governments as a means of preventing socialism from gaining support among the working class. It's generally seen as liberal, but socialism is a very specific type of liberalism that is entirely distinct from welfare statism. Also, the dictionary definition is not entirely correct; socialism is not necessarily statist. Anarcho-syndicalism is a thoroughly socialist philosophy, but it is also an anarchistic philosophy. Socialism is about who owns the stuff used to make stuff; anything else is application.
You're also confusing Democrats with liberals. The Democratic party ranges between moderate, conservative, and authoritarian these days. There aren't many liberals left in the party on a national level. Hell, look at Clinton. The corporate media went out of their way to claim he was a liberal, but the fact is that his policies departed very little from those of Reagan and Bush before him. He paid lip service to the left on some social causes (the gag rule; don't ask, don't tell), but his economic policy had next to no differenct from the Reagan/Bush corporate welfare state. He continued their policies of relaxing environmental controls by denying funding to enforcement agencies, the War on (Some) Drugs, their policies of unionbusting, of military overspending, of pushing for laws that benefit large corporations at the expense of individual citizens, of "free" (i.e., corporate managed) trade... The man was to the right of Nixon; there's no way he can possibly be described as a "liberal."
and the left through censorship of ideas and words with "political correctness".
You know, other than the hate crime laws, I can't think of one instance of the left pushing for laws on this (and I'd debate whether people who believe in restricting free speech can be considered leftists). Perhaps you'd care to supply more? I'm sure we can both come up with plenty of instances where conservatives have pushed for censorship laws, though.
Fact: When I buy a Red Hat CD from Red Hat Software, I have the right to sell that CD to someone else without giving them source code.
Assuming the CD does not contain source code, and assuming you are simply selling the original Red Hat CD you bought, that's correct. That's because, as you aren't distributing copies or derivative works, the GPL simply doesn't affect you.
Fact: Red Hat does not have the right to sell that CD to someone else without giving them source code. Why? Because Red Hat gave up the right to first sale when they agreed to the GPL. Red Hat was deprived of it's right to distribute CDs without distributing source.
False. Red Hat's reselling is not a matter of first sale. They are distributing copies of copyrighted works. The GPL gives them the right to do so (within limitations), and it is a right they would not otherwise have under copyright law.
First sale, as applied to this case, governs the resale of the physical medium on which a copyrighted work is stored. It does not, in any way, allow redistribution of copies or derivative works, which is what the GPL applies to. Basically, this case has nothing whatsoever to do with the GPL.
Without relying on fair use provisions, you can't make a copy of the software on your hard disk without a license. (You're violating the copyright by copying from the CD.)
Ah, but those fair use provisions do, in fact, exist. Copyright law was changed to allow copying of a program to the hard drive and into memory a good twenty years ago.
So no, that's not why the GPL works, and you don't have to agree to the GPL in order to use a program. However, you do have to agree to the GPL in order to distribute the program. Under copyright law, you have no right whatsoever to distribute, say, gcc. The GPL gives you that right, with conditions. If you don't agree to the GPL, you can still use the program, but you have no right to distribute it. THAT'S why the GPL works.
And no, I doubt you can claim that downloading from an FTP site is a sale.
Uh, dude? You do realize that the same people who bitch about Microsoft's stupid defaults bitched loudly and frequently at Red Hat for their stupid defaults, right? And you do realize that Red Hat now ships their distro with significantly less stupid defaults, which is why they don't get bitched at as much anymore, right? And you do realize that Microsoft's defaults are only marginally less stupid than they were, which is why they currently get bitched at, right?
Apparently not.
And how long will it take the world to recover from "we did not--repeat, did not--trade arms or anything else for hostages" Reagan and Bush and their funding of terrorists and rogue states? How long from their funding of Central American death squads killing thousands? How long will it take the country to recover from their corporate welfare spree? How long from their War on (Some) Drugs?
And how long will it take us to recover from Shrub's War on (Anything the Corporations, FBI, or CIA Want Defined As) Terrorism, and him and Ashcroft using the Constitution to wipe their asses with? Shrub's already done more damage to the US than Clinton could have in your most delusional fantasies.
And as for traitor... Iran was an avowed enemy of the US at the time Reagan gave them weapons. The Constitutional definition of treason is "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Reagan gave aid and comfort to Iran, who was an enemy of the US. Reagan is a traitor, and should have been impeached, convicted, and executed. Exactly what actions of Clinton's meet that definition of treason? Sorry, you can call him a liar, an adulterer, a corporate puppet, and you'll be completely correct. You can say he should have been impeached and removed, and you'd be correct (though not for what he actually was impeached for). But he wasn't a traitor.
Finally, since you appear to have forgotten, Shrub was running against Gore, not Clinton. Are you trying to claim Gore's a traitor as well? Do you have any evidence whatsoever for this claim?
That would be because my compression algorithm sucks. :)
Compression requires more than organization. In order for most compression techniques to be effective, they also require that large terms be repeated throughout the file. For example, classically the way compression works is roughly as follows:
3 2420123122402
My file is: vbxnm tuteiruy tuteiruy abcdhjik vbxnm fsdads abcdhjik fgjsda abcdhjik vbxnm tuteiruy abcdhjik fsdads tuteiruy abcdhjik abcdhjik fgjsda vbxnm tuteiruy vbxnm tuteiruy tuteiruy abcdhjik vbxnm fsdads abcdhjik fgjsda abcdhjik vbxnm tuteiruy abcdhjik fsdads tuteiruy abcdhjik abcdhjik fgjsda vbxnm tuteiruy vbxnm tuteiruy tuteiruy abcdhjik vbxnm fsdads abcdhjik fgjsda abcdhjik vbxnm tuteiruy abcdhjik fsdads tuteiruy abcdhjik abcdhjik fgjsda vbxnm tuteiruy
For a 450 or so byte file. Compression would take the repeated terms, replace them with symbols, and create a file which could be used to translate the symbols back into the original file.
The compressed file might look like:
[KEY]0=vbxnm 1=tuteiruy 2=abcdhjik 3=fsdads 4=fgjsda [DATA]0112032420123122402011203242012312240201120
Which would be 117 bytes. The file is very organized, but can't be really be compressed any more.
Sure, go ahead and blame me. Everyone else does. I think that's what I REALLY get paid for, and the sysadmin thing is just to fool the beancounters.
This was in response to my statement that indicated that the other respondant was assuming the point in dispute. I don't see how your reply follows. Perhaps you are assuming the point in dispute as well. (and all the other points in your post referring to the "rights" discussion)
Your original claim was, "The consequence of the "global warming" debate involves (if the leftists get their way) the removal of individual rights." He attempted to guess at what you were talking about, allowing you to claim he was building strawmen. I won't. Please enumerate the rights you accuse leftists of wanting to take away. Your accusation is both absurd and offensive, and without support deserves the flaming it was given.
Then, I may believe you aren't a troll.
Furthermore, what "unsupported ad hominems" (as if a supported ad hominem were any more valid) have I made? I will retract any ad hominem argument I am made aware of.
You're right, "unsupported snide generalizations" would have been a better term. I was referring to those little "leftist" comments you made.
I apologize if you felt distracted by this, but it is not specious nor do I see how it is related to the "if you're not doing anything illegal..." argument.
The argument is intended to distract because you are using RayBender's words against him rather than actually answering him. It is specious because you are taking him literally rather than as intended. The intent was to point out that claiming a right, Constitutional or otherwise, to pollute is ridiculous, and that emissions control does not infringe on any other right. The Constitution was brought up as emphasis, not as authority. Furthermore, this is not non-obvious, given that no other Constitutional arguments are
made, and given that he quotes the accusation in question. And yes, you do have to say what rights you claim. If you make an accusation, you either support it or retract it.
I would further suggest that I, and most likely RayBender, understand the Ninth Amendment (the Eighth prohibits excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment, for your information) quite well. Probably better than you do, given that you appear to be under the misapprehension that the Ninth Amendment gives you any right you want simply by claiming it. It doesn't. It simply prohibits the government from claiming that a right does not exist simply because it isn't mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
There's a big difference there; if you want to claim you have a right to pollute you still need to support that contention.
The only thing your argument has in common with the "if you're not doing anything illegal..." argument is that both are bullshit.
Finally, RayBender was not actually claiming that you believe you have the rights he mentioned. His intent was to point out the absurdity of your "leftists are trying to steal your rights" accusation, as the "rights" he mentioned are the only ones emissions control infringes on, and they aren't exactly rights.
However, the rest of that paragraph, which you conveniently ignored, is still valid. The other post was most certainly treating me as if I was personally responsible for the "burning every drop of oil on the planet." Kind of strange considering she/he has never met me and doesn't know my driving habits, don't you think?
See above.
Driving through the desert is a specified trip with an expected duration. This is not comparable in any way to the myriad of ways in which fossil fuels are used, given that humanity's use of fossil fuels is not a time or space limited event.
Analogies simplify. A one sentence analogy cannot take into account all of the subtleties of the situation, and your expectation that it will is ridiculous. This analogy sucks no worse than any other in that respect.
It is also not comparable because in the "driving through the desert" example, the only fuel available is gasoline, while humanity uses a myriad of fossil fuels as well as renewable resources to fuel society.
Irrelevant. The gasoline in the car represents all nonrenewable resources, not just gasoline. The vast majority of the energy our society runs on is derived from nonrenewable resources, specifically fossil fuels.
Furthermore, humanity is also constantly researching new ways to provide locomotion and energy that do not rely on fossil fuels, while in the "driving through the desert" example, no such research was mentioned
The point of the analogy was that there isn't enough of this, and that the amount of time and energy which people have spent in this research is comparable to planning to walk to the gas station when the car runs out. And no, that wasn't mentioned in the analogy, but it is implicit. We are talking about a one-sentence analogy, not a professional dissertation on the situation.
I maintain that this analogy does not suck beyond the general suckiness expected of any analogy.
Also, since you have accused me of lying, I demand that you state where I have lied. And you had the nerve to accuse me of ad hominems!
"and all sorts of other individual activities that leftists just plain hate."
The claim that leftists desire emission controls because we dislike those activities is not only patently false, but completely asinine.
What unmitigated gall you have! You called me "snide" in the previous paragraph, and then proceed to be just that.
Make an snide post, expect a snide reply. But using an offensive tone in a post and then being outraged when you are attacked in response is quite disingenuous. And no, I don't expect a reply in any tone other than that which you and I have used so far.
What I am stating is this: I do not believe that individual actions are responsible for global warming, and I will not believe as much until I have seen convincing evidence for it. The burden of proof is on you, not on me.
See top. His last reply was addressed to your accusation of infringement of rights. The sequence of events was:
1. mirko posts.
2. Squaretorus replies.
3. You reply to Squaretorus, making an absurd, unspecific, undetailed, unsupported accusation, as well as several snide comments and demands for support.
5. Raybender flames you for making an absurd, unspecific, undetailed, and unsupported accusation.
6. You accuse him of setting up strawmen and assuming the point in contention.
7. I point out that he did this because your claim was unspecific, undetailed, and unsupported, and did not provide sufficient material to do otherwise.
He was addressing your rights claim, not the question of whether or not humans are significantly exacerbating global warming. Therefore, I did not address that question either. I am not a climatologist any more than I suspect you are and cannot address that question with the authority you appear to require, other than by referring you to authorities who I assume you have already been referred to and were unconvinced by. No, experts do not agree that humans have a significant effect on global warming. According to the tobacco companies, experts did not agree that smoking caused lung cancer until the early '90s. According to the creationists, experts do not agree that evolution happens. Exactly what evidence, or level of agreement among experts, do you require?
Also, who the hell is "us"? I didn't realize I was debating with a group.
That would be RayBender and myself. Since there are two of us, the correct pronoun is, in fact, "us." I'm curious to know what rights emission control infringes upon myself, and I want to see you either support that accusation or withdraw it.
Corporations have done more damage to the environment than individuals ever have. The difference is that it's much easier for governments to pick on individuals than it is for them to pick on the corporations who line their pockets.
Actually, that's false. Corporations have been doing environmental damage for a couple hundred years; individuals with goats, axes, and fires have been for thousands. A big chunk of the crap in the air is from people driving to work. Residences and small businesses use far more power collectively than corporate offices and factories, and produce a LOT more garbage. Anyway, what's your point? Do you believe that I (and, I assume, RayBender) don't wish to see emissions standards enforced against major corporations?
Evidence? (asking for evidence that Micronesia was being destroyed)
Micronesia is a series of small islands. Global warming theory projects that the icecaps will melt, causing sea levels to rise. Rising sea levels will make Micronesia uninhabitable to human beings.
Furthermore, how much responsibility do I have for future generations? I'm not denying that I have said responsibility, I'm just wondering how much.
You bear responsibility for actions you take or fail to take, if you know that these actions or lack thereof could potentially harm others. Everyone else does as well. You bear 100% of the responsibility for your own actions. If that's not the answer you're looking for, would you please rephrase the question?
Why did you choose not to respond to these?
Because the questions were either so poorly phrased or so obvious that I didn't believe you expected responses.
Actually, they are somewhat related. Among the marine organisms affected are large beds of kelp and algae that perform a very large percentage of the photosynthetic reactions that occur on the Earth. (Larger, actually, than the percentage performed by forests.) UVB kills them, which reduces the rate at which CO2 is transformed to O2, which contributes to the greenhouse effect.
They're not the same thing, but they are related.
Re-read my statement about assuming the point in dispute.
May I suggest then that you enumerate exactly what rights you claim reducing greenhouse emissions would infringe on? You haven't done that so far.
Where in the Constitution does it say you have the individual right to pay less than a buck for a gallon of gas?
Strawman.
You haven't bothered to say exactly what rights emissions control standards would interfere with, choosing to make unsupported ad hominems instead. Given that you decided not to state even vaguely what rights you claim, he chose to point out the fallacies in the "rights" most commonly claimed by those opposed to emissions control.
This is where I state, "Where in the Constitution does it say you have the individual right to breathe clean air?" You need to be careful about making arguments that can come back and bite you in the ass.
Stop being absurd. You, me, and everyone else reading this knows that that "argument" is as specious as "if you're not doing anything illegal...", and is intended to do nothing but distract.
Burning every drop of oil on the planet will happen no matter what you or I do.
Support, please.
The two are obviously different. I suggest you find a better analogy, and leave the ad hominems behind while you're at it.
Really? Why are they different? It seems like a pretty decent analogy to me. And, given the snide little "leftist" lies in the post he was responding to, whining about ad hominems is quite hypocritical.
Given that the main thrust of your post seems to be "I didn't say that!", why don't you actually say what you do believe, rather than expecting us to use our telepathic powers?
Just out of curiosity, what the fuck are you talking about?