Part of the increase in the rate of flow is due to the calving of ice-sheets off from around the edge of the glacier. This removes some resistance to the flow at the downhill end of the stream.
I don't know how generally significant this is, but it's been measured recently when large ice-sheets have broken away from Antarctica.
I think you are entirely too charitable towards cap-and trade. Or maybe just overly optimistic. It's a guaranteed regulatory nightmare, where those who care to can game the system with near impunity.
Carbon tax, though, would indeed help nuclear power, and it relatively simple to regulate in an honest manner. This is probably why it's not being seriously considered.
Cap-and-trade doesn't make any sense. It's a scheme to pretend to put a band-aid on an arterial wound, without actually doing anything but paying someone off.
Carbon tax makes sense. It's probably the best approach. Cap-and-trade is an approach that has proven to be full of opportunities for graft and hasn't shown itself to have any significant effect on net carbon emissions.
Check up on the history of how it was implemented in Europe. Then look at what is proposed for the US. A few of the loopholes got closed, but most are still wide open. It's "Environmentalism Theater".
But *I* **DO** expect a global cooling episode. I expect it to happen soon after the Arctic finishes melting. However "soon" in this case probably means multiple thousands of years. I doubt that the Antarctic will melt completely. I doubt the sea level will rise more than a few meters.
However, as long as a continent sits on the south pole, and the Arctic ocean is narrowly constrained in access to open ocean, I expect episodic glaciations.
The way this one works is that the ocean is a thermal ballast. It warms up. When it gets warm it evaporates more moisture. This slows it's rate of warming, but it keeps warming towards the temperature of the atmosphere. Eventually the air becomes humid enough to start precipitating, as snow in the places where it's cold enough. Eventually a large volcano will erupt. This will cause a drastic cooling for a few years. This will cause LOTS of snow to precipitate without melting. But the oceans are still hot, so they keep evaporating water. So now more snow is precipitating than is melting. This reflects the heat away from the snow covered areas, so the air around them cools. This continues, with the snow coverage growing every year, until the oceans cool down again.
I can't put numbers on it, and I'm not a climate modeler, but that's the way my mental model puts it. When the oceans are cool, then the time is right for a warming cycle. When the oceans warm up, then the time is right for a glaciation.
Trademarks, Yes. Copyrights, No. Patents...prove that the process is original, recent, not publicly known, and non-obvious. And also clearly enough described that one "skilled in the art" can reproduce it. If so then yes, otherwise no.
Google is optionally making their scans available to at least one other companies. Some of them are reputed to be of very poor quality, but nobody else is allowed to make them. Sometimes because of this court decision, and other times because of the exclusive contracts that Google made with the various libraries that contained copies of the out-of-print works. (And sometimes, I guess, both.)
I've not been well pleased by the way Google has been courting exclusive control.
P.S.: The company that I'm aware of is in the business of printing books on request. But you don't seem to be able to order them over the web, you seem to need to go to a location where one of their book printing machines is installed. I'm not certain that this is true, perhaps things are still being set up. But I'd have been happier if they'd made the deal with Lulu or some other company that did printing to order, and took orders on-line.
I (generally) feel a lot more like assuming that an SUV's brakes are working than a tractor-trailer rig's. For one thing, the SUVs generally appear to be better maintained. For another the tractor-trailer rig has lots more brakes, and the brake system is more complex.
I'll grant that if I *know* that the brake systems are working properly, that the driver is attentive, etc. then they are equivalently safe. OTOH, if the tractor hits me, it will do a lot more damage than the SUV.
So I worry more about tractor-trailer rigs. OTOH, I'll admit that SUVs are a lot more common, so though I may worry less about each of them (on the average), in aggregate I probably worry more.
People *never* act rationally. The bubbles burst when people start being more scared than greedy. Both of those are emotions. Both are frequently reasonable responses. Both are not evolutionarily tuned to the modern world (which is changing rapidly enough that such tuning will never happen).
If you don't understand how emotions influence judgment, just think back to the last time you got into an argument with someone you were close to...parents, girlfriend, wife, sibling. Try to justify to yourself what you said, without getting emotional.
Now realize that this is only the top level of your thoughts. The place where what you are thinking and why is so blatant that it becomes consciously perceptible.
??? To me that sounds like an argument FOR higher insurance rates for males, not against it.
If an activity is risky, and someone wants you to insure them against an accident, then one consideration of the rate would be "How much time do they engage in this risky activity?"
It's simpler to just measure the average accidents, which includes this already factored in, but pulling it out isn't a justifier for lower rates unless you mean that it results in less frequent engagement in the activity.
You're going to need to DRASTICALLY revise the transportation systems in most places, then.
I'll agree your idea makes sense, but it requires many other expensive adaptations. And when you've finished with them, most people won't need to drive. (Doesn't mean they won't want to.)
You need to revise the transportation systems so that people can hold a job with unpredicted starting and ending times. That means that transit systems must run all night, and not just a few token runs. This means that transit systems need to extend frequent runs into all bedroom communities. That run all night. etc.
(Note that even after you've done this, some jobs would still require driving. E.g. salesman. You've got to take LOTS of samples with you, in case you find an interested customer.)
OTOH, this would probably save a lot of money in street building & repairing.
I must disagree. A large part of the problem is emotional control. This inherently becomes less of a problem as the driver ages. It still needs to be learned, and learned in unsupervised driving. But older people learn it much more quickly. And women inherently have less of this problem than men.
I'll agree that practice in driving is a part of the answer, but probably only for the first month.
N.B.: Even adults suffer from this problem, though usually to a lesser degree. Ever hear of "road rage"?
For some reason many respondents seem to have missed the walker in the phrase "some elderly guy in a walker leaps out of nowhere", and taken this as an objective "somebody jumped in front of the car".
I'm not sure why, as your sarcasm was pretty heavy.
Right. I consider pirating foolish, and won't do it. I do, however, consider it *less* unethical than the actions of the companies that promote DRM. If it actually harmed the companies, I might even consider it ethical.
I think that's a good idea, but I don't think it's the first step.
My idea of the first step is that Google builds a few pilot plants that power various Google centers during the day time. Work out the bugs on a small scale. And then license the technology to somebody else...who can use it to beef up old plants and build new ones.
What I said above is my basic principle. Given that, I'm still willing the put up with some unobtrusive forms of copy protections ON TRIVIAL PRODUCTS!! If I don't really care whether the product stops working, then DRM is acceptable. Only then. In my experience, if it has ANY form of copy protection, it WILL stop working. So I won't even consider it on anything I consider important.
For a game... I guess it's tolerable. Probably. If the game isn't too expensive.
Music is a different matter. The RIAA purchased the DMCA and it's predecessor, the Sony-Bono Copyright act. (Actually, that may have been Disney. I tend to lump RIAA and the MPAA together as incestuously vile corruptors of the government. I am opposed to anything that puts any money in either of their pockets. I don't know of anything that any computer company, including IBM and MS, has done that warrants quite that degree of opprobrium.
What you say may or may not be true. I don't know and I don't care. I will not willingly purchase anything that supports DRM. Note that this is stronger that anything which requires DRM. I won't buy the Kindle. I wouldn't, even before Amazon showed it's intentions earlier this year, because it supports DRM.
I didn't come to this position naively. Naively I trusted companies to give me fair value for the money I spent. I learned better. It took me over a decade to turn around to my current position. Perhaps you are still trusting the companies to provide fair value. In time you'll learn.
Actually, I don't know what I'm talking about, and it *would* be read-only, but all systems should be able to read it. (Of course, should isn't would.)
No, if that were the case he wouldn't be worried about having to be a superuser when he used the stick on a different computer.
Actually, I don't see an answer to all of his requirements that DOESN'T require the stick to be bootable. Well...only one, and that's to set all his users with globally unique id's (globally meaning for the entire area that he's using the sticks in). That way when users logged onto different machines they would have the same userId. So no super-user rights would be necessary. And in that case any standard Linux file system should work (though you might want to pick one that doesn't journal, and that does cache in RAM).
Only some of them are out of copyright. And we don't know what proportion that "some" is.
Anyway, the answer is "NO!". Google signed deals with the libraries that had the books to only allow Google to scan the books. (Possibly not all the libraries, but at least some of them.)
How do you prove the the bond was violated when at some future date some company with no ostensible relation to the current company implements FaceBook's trade secrets?
Bonds aren't particularly appropriate here. Better would be that the material only be made accessible to some third party acceptable to both parties. (I'm rather sure that at this point FaceBook has no trust at all in the integrity of the party that brought this suit.)
Slashdot Mirror
You're in luck!
Aluminum oxidizes easily, so aluminum foil quickly becomes evenly covered by a thin layer of aluminum oxide!
So unless the particle size matters...
Part of the increase in the rate of flow is due to the calving of ice-sheets off from around the edge of the glacier. This removes some resistance to the flow at the downhill end of the stream.
I don't know how generally significant this is, but it's been measured recently when large ice-sheets have broken away from Antarctica.
I think you are entirely too charitable towards cap-and trade. Or maybe just overly optimistic. It's a guaranteed regulatory nightmare, where those who care to can game the system with near impunity.
Carbon tax, though, would indeed help nuclear power, and it relatively simple to regulate in an honest manner. This is probably why it's not being seriously considered.
Cap-and-trade doesn't make any sense. It's a scheme to pretend to put a band-aid on an arterial wound, without actually doing anything but paying someone off.
Carbon tax makes sense. It's probably the best approach. Cap-and-trade is an approach that has proven to be full of opportunities for graft and hasn't shown itself to have any significant effect on net carbon emissions.
Check up on the history of how it was implemented in Europe. Then look at what is proposed for the US. A few of the loopholes got closed, but most are still wide open. It's "Environmentalism Theater".
But *I* **DO** expect a global cooling episode. I expect it to happen soon after the Arctic finishes melting. However "soon" in this case probably means multiple thousands of years. I doubt that the Antarctic will melt completely. I doubt the sea level will rise more than a few meters.
However, as long as a continent sits on the south pole, and the Arctic ocean is narrowly constrained in access to open ocean, I expect episodic glaciations.
The way this one works is that the ocean is a thermal ballast. It warms up. When it gets warm it evaporates more moisture. This slows it's rate of warming, but it keeps warming towards the temperature of the atmosphere. Eventually the air becomes humid enough to start precipitating, as snow in the places where it's cold enough. Eventually a large volcano will erupt. This will cause a drastic cooling for a few years. This will cause LOTS of snow to precipitate without melting. But the oceans are still hot, so they keep evaporating water. So now more snow is precipitating than is melting. This reflects the heat away from the snow covered areas, so the air around them cools. This continues, with the snow coverage growing every year, until the oceans cool down again.
I can't put numbers on it, and I'm not a climate modeler, but that's the way my mental model puts it. When the oceans are cool, then the time is right for a warming cycle. When the oceans warm up, then the time is right for a glaciation.
Trademarks, Yes.
Copyrights, No.
Patents...prove that the process is original, recent, not publicly known, and non-obvious. And also clearly enough described that one "skilled in the art" can reproduce it. If so then yes, otherwise no.
That doesn't mean that *all* of their suggestions are bad. I distrust monopolies wherever they appear.
Google is optionally making their scans available to at least one other companies. Some of them are reputed to be of very poor quality, but nobody else is allowed to make them. Sometimes because of this court decision, and other times because of the exclusive contracts that Google made with the various libraries that contained copies of the out-of-print works. (And sometimes, I guess, both.)
I've not been well pleased by the way Google has been courting exclusive control.
P.S.: The company that I'm aware of is in the business of printing books on request. But you don't seem to be able to order them over the web, you seem to need to go to a location where one of their book printing machines is installed. I'm not certain that this is true, perhaps things are still being set up. But I'd have been happier if they'd made the deal with Lulu or some other company that did printing to order, and took orders on-line.
I (generally) feel a lot more like assuming that an SUV's brakes are working than a tractor-trailer rig's. For one thing, the SUVs generally appear to be better maintained. For another the tractor-trailer rig has lots more brakes, and the brake system is more complex.
I'll grant that if I *know* that the brake systems are working properly, that the driver is attentive, etc. then they are equivalently safe. OTOH, if the tractor hits me, it will do a lot more damage than the SUV.
So I worry more about tractor-trailer rigs. OTOH, I'll admit that SUVs are a lot more common, so though I may worry less about each of them (on the average), in aggregate I probably worry more.
People *never* act rationally. The bubbles burst when people start being more scared than greedy. Both of those are emotions. Both are frequently reasonable responses. Both are not evolutionarily tuned to the modern world (which is changing rapidly enough that such tuning will never happen).
If you don't understand how emotions influence judgment, just think back to the last time you got into an argument with someone you were close to...parents, girlfriend, wife, sibling. Try to justify to yourself what you said, without getting emotional.
Now realize that this is only the top level of your thoughts. The place where what you are thinking and why is so blatant that it becomes consciously perceptible.
Only if all of the trailers' brakes are working properly. (I presume that you're talking about a tractor-trailer rig.)
??? To me that sounds like an argument FOR higher insurance rates for males, not against it.
If an activity is risky, and someone wants you to insure them against an accident, then one consideration of the rate would be "How much time do they engage in this risky activity?"
It's simpler to just measure the average accidents, which includes this already factored in, but pulling it out isn't a justifier for lower rates unless you mean that it results in less frequent engagement in the activity.
You're going to need to DRASTICALLY revise the transportation systems in most places, then.
I'll agree your idea makes sense, but it requires many other expensive adaptations. And when you've finished with them, most people won't need to drive. (Doesn't mean they won't want to.)
You need to revise the transportation systems so that people can hold a job with unpredicted starting and ending times. That means that transit systems must run all night, and not just a few token runs. This means that transit systems need to extend frequent runs into all bedroom communities. That run all night. etc.
(Note that even after you've done this, some jobs would still require driving. E.g. salesman. You've got to take LOTS of samples with you, in case you find an interested customer.)
OTOH, this would probably save a lot of money in street building & repairing.
I must disagree. A large part of the problem is emotional control. This inherently becomes less of a problem as the driver ages. It still needs to be learned, and learned in unsupervised driving. But older people learn it much more quickly. And women inherently have less of this problem than men.
I'll agree that practice in driving is a part of the answer, but probably only for the first month.
N.B.: Even adults suffer from this problem, though usually to a lesser degree. Ever hear of "road rage"?
For some reason many respondents seem to have missed the walker in the phrase "some elderly guy in a walker leaps out of nowhere", and taken this as an objective "somebody jumped in front of the car".
I'm not sure why, as your sarcasm was pretty heavy.
Right. I consider pirating foolish, and won't do it. I do, however, consider it *less* unethical than the actions of the companies that promote DRM. If it actually harmed the companies, I might even consider it ethical.
I think that's a good idea, but I don't think it's the first step.
My idea of the first step is that Google builds a few pilot plants that power various Google centers during the day time. Work out the bugs on a small scale. And then license the technology to somebody else...who can use it to beef up old plants and build new ones.
What I said above is my basic principle. Given that, I'm still willing the put up with some unobtrusive forms of copy protections ON TRIVIAL PRODUCTS!! If I don't really care whether the product stops working, then DRM is acceptable. Only then. In my experience, if it has ANY form of copy protection, it WILL stop working. So I won't even consider it on anything I consider important.
For a game... I guess it's tolerable. Probably. If the game isn't too expensive.
Music is a different matter. The RIAA purchased the DMCA and it's predecessor, the Sony-Bono Copyright act. (Actually, that may have been Disney. I tend to lump RIAA and the MPAA together as incestuously vile corruptors of the government. I am opposed to anything that puts any money in either of their pockets. I don't know of anything that any computer company, including IBM and MS, has done that warrants quite that degree of opprobrium.
What you say may or may not be true. I don't know and I don't care. I will not willingly purchase anything that supports DRM. Note that this is stronger that anything which requires DRM. I won't buy the Kindle. I wouldn't, even before Amazon showed it's intentions earlier this year, because it supports DRM.
I didn't come to this position naively. Naively I trusted companies to give me fair value for the money I spent. I learned better. It took me over a decade to turn around to my current position. Perhaps you are still trusting the companies to provide fair value. In time you'll learn.
What about making a small iso filesystem?
Actually, I don't know what I'm talking about, and it *would* be read-only, but all systems should be able to read it. (Of course, should isn't would.)
No, if that were the case he wouldn't be worried about having to be a superuser when he used the stick on a different computer.
Actually, I don't see an answer to all of his requirements that DOESN'T require the stick to be bootable. Well...only one, and that's to set all his users with globally unique id's (globally meaning for the entire area that he's using the sticks in). That way when users logged onto different machines they would have the same userId. So no super-user rights would be necessary. And in that case any standard Linux file system should work (though you might want to pick one that doesn't journal, and that does cache in RAM).
Only some of them are out of copyright. And we don't know what proportion that "some" is.
Anyway, the answer is "NO!". Google signed deals with the libraries that had the books to only allow Google to scan the books. (Possibly not all the libraries, but at least some of them.)
I considered getting it a couple of years ago. Basically, if it won't run in Wine, it won't run under ReactOS. So ReactOS is no threat to MS.
Do they accept GPL3 licensed code? If so, I might. But I'm undecided...I may go with AGPL.
How do you prove the the bond was violated when at some future date some company with no ostensible relation to the current company implements FaceBook's trade secrets?
Bonds aren't particularly appropriate here. Better would be that the material only be made accessible to some third party acceptable to both parties. (I'm rather sure that at this point FaceBook has no trust at all in the integrity of the party that brought this suit.)