Is research on the greenhouse effect itself. Right now the theory is that greenhouse gases absorb IR radiation in the upper atmosphere that would normally escape to space, and reradiate that in all directions, including back to earth, thus forming a greenhouse effect.
This part needs more confirmation. Has anyone done more empirical tests on this effect itself? You know, actually measure controlled IR emissions from earth to space to analyze absorption?
I think the research is heading towards more of the secondary effects - CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but so is, water. Will increase CO2 cause reduced H2O in the air? that sort of effect..
Another thing i'm curious about is just energy production causing global temperatures to rise.. Do all the carbon & nuclear production of energy, do they cause global temperatures to increase directly? (and not just via a greenhouse effect) All that heat production has to end up somewhere, and all the power plants just end up dissipating the heat into the atmosphere (or convert to electricity, which eventually gets turned to heat somewhere else..) Is that enough energy to cause global temperatures to rise?
Don't need a heavy-duty web browser every time you need to watch a movie.
But yeah, right now it is the content providers' call. The W3C is going to compete against the native apps, and they need content providers more than the content providers need the W3C.
RIght now, the web is filled with low-quality garbage content, like YouTube. They are so completely worthless compared to professional content that the web could disappear and nothing of value would be lost.
If the W3C implements DRM, then the web might actually be worth something.
When you get your drivers license.. don't they already store your photo in a database?
The simple solution to this is to just NOT get a drivers license. You know that's a perfectly fine thing to do. Build your life around that fact, instead of lazily building your life around the need to drive a car on a taxpayer subsidized highway system.
Use public transportation. Or hitchhike and ride on the back of freight trains and take photographs of it, like what this guy did: http://mikebrodie.net/
What's that? You want to drive your own car on taxpayer funded roads, but you DON'T want to follow the rules set by the people that built that for you? HAHAHA... I didn't know we spent tax-money on an interstate system so that you can do whatever YOU want with it.
I'd go a step further and put in words with known difficulty levels of computation, all the way from "password" to "Password1234" to "April01,2001" to "gh89w$5ag", etc.. to see what level of effort the attackers were able to breach.
A bigger, more controlling government is going to lead to a safer society.
We definitely do not want the public to have more freedom, since it is obvious that the public is not to be trusted with it. With great power comes great responsibility, and at this point the public fucked up with it, so the public's power must be reduced.
Thankfully, the demographic trends point to this happening! =^) It is only a matter of time before the populism of a bigger socialist government is going to take over the special-interests of civil liberties.
Besides, civil libertarians have never advanced the human conditions or the arts, or has ever done anything to make someone else happy, since they are fundamentally against the idea of socialization. Why should they benefit someone else, when the fruits of their labor belong to them, correct?
Protip: If you want actual freedom, you need to gain power. And to gain power, you need to align yourself with the powerful.
The question for you is: Which members of our society are more powerful: the socialist statist that aligns themselves with government? or the gun-owning libertarian that doesn't want to be tread on?
Figuring out who is power, and subsequently aligning yourself with that power, is going to be key to your success. Feel free to argue against that.
The point is that the internet causes culture to stagnate.
The GP complained about beehive hairdos. He thinks beehive hairdos should not exist. He wants everyone to have a common uniformity in culture. Yet, he has no background in style or tastemaking, yet he continues to try and influence the public. This is the exact kind of damage that the internet causes - it gives a voice to those untrained, and someone else might listen to that, causing culture to stagnate.
Pretty cool huh? And any fashion-editor or stylist would consider this an advancement, because professional tastemakers know about this. So, wouldn't it be awesome if culture didn't stagnate so that a beehive hairdo or a punk mohawk or something else is now common?
Yet, because of the democratic screaming of the internet, it can't.
This is exactly the destructive nature of the internet on culture.
"Professional tastemakers" gave us all kinds of bullshit like tailfins on cars, beehive hairdos, Backstreet Boys, the butt-ugly cars of the 70s, Britney Spears, and many more abominations of good taste than I can possibly count.
BTW all these advanced the state-of-the-art. This is why people need to listen to professional tastemakers instead of mere commoners like you.
The real question you need to ask is how you get rid of your destructive ego that causes you to override a professional's taste?
You do need to figure out why a beehive hairdo is an advancement instead of a regression.
People like you are EXACTLY why culture stagnated during the last 20 years, and you have to ask how you can limit your own influence and power, since you do not have a developed sense of taste.
Basically everything you said was completely incorrect, due to flawed theories.
There has been very little advancement in the cultural world since around 1995. This should be obvious wherever you look.
And the reason this happened is because the internet happened, which democratized culture and spread information freely, resulting in the stagnation of arts because democratic sensibilities prevents the advancement of the arts.
Cultural advancements can ONLY come from the elite and professional tastemakers. Do you know why?
Hint: It has to do with the experience and expertise of professional tastemakers.
The worst thing that happened to culture is that the mere commoner was given a voice on the internet.
We really need to remove the voice of the commoner from the internet. The commoners are just so BAD at everything, causing all manner of stagnation in the cultural world.
Did you advance the state-of-the art in fractals? Do people reference your work? Did you break new bounds?
If you didn't, then you didn't advance culture.
So, the point is you DON'T want everyone to be into Fractal Art.
Without the net, the people that get into Fractal art had to do it the hard way - buy books, magazines, etc, like I did when I did my own fractal programming in the 80's. They would have developed that interest and pushed the state-of-the-art regardless of the internet, and these hardcore people would have advanced the culture.
Totally wrong as a reason to justify DRM. Rationale: DRM is a tool serving the ends of distributors, which have as the primary interest "market share" (thus, market expansion) and not "incentivizing the creator", much less the "preservation or enhancement of cultural diversity".
You'll find that every distributor is perfectly willing to advance the state-of-the-art. They DO understand business, though, and at least try to maintain a profit.
Every distributor is willing to give a discount to promote their artistically favorite product (beer/music/books/etc.) when its supported by their higher-grossing products.
Distributors are probably the most in-tune with the arts, and the market, and more often than not, come from the artistic side.
Just ask any distributor about their background. None of them are MBAs.
The biggest problem that the internet caused is that it destroyed culture. Worldwide.
Everyone has this common generic culture now.
This kind of culture didn't exist before the internet. Before the internet, you actually had societies develop and advance the arts. But, if you didn't notice already, culture has pretty much frozen since around 1995.
People wear the same clothes as they do in 1995. Style hasn't advanced like it did from the 50's to the 70's. Or from the 70's to the 90's.
People listen to the same kinds of music.
They use the same grammar and language from 20 years ago.
The whole idea of information being free and shared by everyone is actually destructive to society, since that means information becomes devalued when culture becomes democratic. It devalues professional tastemakers, causing populist sensibilities to take hold, which is the exact cause of cultural stagnation. Democratic sensibilities are always obvious, and can never advance the state-of-the-art that professional tastemakers can.
So, not everyone needs to see the same movies, listen to the same music, and so on. It is perfectly fine to limit these items, to make sure there ARE "have-nots". People don't HAVE to have every single goddam song in their library.
We really do need to limit the spread of information, through costs, DRM, or other means, to cause society to advance. Right now the world is frozen in 1995, because information is too open.
Seriously, it is perfectly fine to not know things or to have things. Your life is going to be just fine. But the democratic population wants everything.
Social media could help crowdsource identification of all the images that are coming into the FBI tip line. There's probably thousands of images, with some images having thousands of people.
Social media sites could help identify every single one of those people to help the police follow up and interview them to see if they saw anything suspicious?
"National good" and private companies cannot be put together in the same sentence.
If you want "national good", you do it directly through government and a socialist service. You don't do it indirectly through a private company.
America needs to ban private IP networks if they want to do "national good". There is nothing good about private ownership of public communications systems. It is a government function.
Public communications is so critical that the US Constitution itself requires government to build a mail system for communications. This needs to be updated for modern communications systems.
Again, profit and public good are mutually exclusive, since any public interest comes at the expense of private interest.
We Americans have to fight the incorrect theories of private-interest people and their incorrect Reagonomics theories.
Slashdot Mirror
Is research on the greenhouse effect itself. Right now the theory is that greenhouse gases absorb IR radiation in the upper atmosphere that would normally escape to space, and reradiate that in all directions, including back to earth, thus forming a greenhouse effect.
This part needs more confirmation. Has anyone done more empirical tests on this effect itself? You know, actually measure controlled IR emissions from earth to space to analyze absorption?
I think the research is heading towards more of the secondary effects - CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but so is, water. Will increase CO2 cause reduced H2O in the air? that sort of effect..
Another thing i'm curious about is just energy production causing global temperatures to rise.. Do all the carbon & nuclear production of energy, do they cause global temperatures to increase directly? (and not just via a greenhouse effect) All that heat production has to end up somewhere, and all the power plants just end up dissipating the heat into the atmosphere (or convert to electricity, which eventually gets turned to heat somewhere else..) Is that enough energy to cause global temperatures to rise?
Lots of research still left to be done.
Don't need a heavy-duty web browser every time you need to watch a movie.
But yeah, right now it is the content providers' call. The W3C is going to compete against the native apps, and they need content providers more than the content providers need the W3C.
RIght now, the web is filled with low-quality garbage content, like YouTube. They are so completely worthless compared to professional content that the web could disappear and nothing of value would be lost.
If the W3C implements DRM, then the web might actually be worth something.
When you get your drivers license.. don't they already store your photo in a database?
The simple solution to this is to just NOT get a drivers license. You know that's a perfectly fine thing to do. Build your life around that fact, instead of lazily building your life around the need to drive a car on a taxpayer subsidized highway system.
Use public transportation. Or hitchhike and ride on the back of freight trains and take photographs of it, like what this guy did: http://mikebrodie.net/
What's that? You want to drive your own car on taxpayer funded roads, but you DON'T want to follow the rules set by the people that built that for you? HAHAHA... I didn't know we spent tax-money on an interstate system so that you can do whatever YOU want with it.
They probably don't pay ISP charges if they have peering directly to the IXPs
I agree this is good.
I'd go a step further and put in words with known difficulty levels of computation, all the way from "password" to "Password1234" to "April01,2001" to "gh89w$5ag", etc.. to see what level of effort the attackers were able to breach.
A bigger, more controlling government is going to lead to a safer society.
We definitely do not want the public to have more freedom, since it is obvious that the public is not to be trusted with it. With great power comes great responsibility, and at this point the public fucked up with it, so the public's power must be reduced.
Thankfully, the demographic trends point to this happening! =^) It is only a matter of time before the populism of a bigger socialist government is going to take over the special-interests of civil liberties.
Besides, civil libertarians have never advanced the human conditions or the arts, or has ever done anything to make someone else happy, since they are fundamentally against the idea of socialization. Why should they benefit someone else, when the fruits of their labor belong to them, correct?
Rules become guidelines for those with power.
This is why the purpose of life is to move up the ladder.
The weakest people are those that just want to be left alone.
Might makes right.
Protip: If you want actual freedom, you need to gain power. And to gain power, you need to align yourself with the powerful.
The question for you is: Which members of our society are more powerful: the socialist statist that aligns themselves with government? or the gun-owning libertarian that doesn't want to be tread on?
Figuring out who is power, and subsequently aligning yourself with that power, is going to be key to your success. Feel free to argue against that.
Dear Citizen,
Sucks to be you..
-gub
They love their freedoms.
Freedom is only one principle used to achieve results.
But life is about results, not principles.
Really... the only content areas still fighting the DRM fight are:
Video
eBooks
software
So, anything of value?
I'd much rather have DRM content than no content.
Just because you don't want something, doesn't mean other people don't.
Life isn't about principles, it's about results.
The point is that the internet causes culture to stagnate.
The GP complained about beehive hairdos. He thinks beehive hairdos should not exist. He wants everyone to have a common uniformity in culture. Yet, he has no background in style or tastemaking, yet he continues to try and influence the public. This is the exact kind of damage that the internet causes - it gives a voice to those untrained, and someone else might listen to that, causing culture to stagnate.
Like, here's a well known, pretty awesome fashion photoshoot from a couple of years ago inspired by 50's rockabilly with beehive hairdos. http://fashiongonerogue.com/rock-town-thierry-le-goues-french-revue-de-modes-fw-2010/
Pretty cool huh? And any fashion-editor or stylist would consider this an advancement, because professional tastemakers know about this. So, wouldn't it be awesome if culture didn't stagnate so that a beehive hairdo or a punk mohawk or something else is now common?
Yet, because of the democratic screaming of the internet, it can't.
This is exactly the destructive nature of the internet on culture.
"Professional tastemakers" gave us all kinds of bullshit like tailfins on cars, beehive hairdos, Backstreet Boys, the butt-ugly cars of the 70s, Britney Spears, and many more abominations of good taste than I can possibly count.
BTW all these advanced the state-of-the-art. This is why people need to listen to professional tastemakers instead of mere commoners like you.
The real question you need to ask is how you get rid of your destructive ego that causes you to override a professional's taste?
You do need to figure out why a beehive hairdo is an advancement instead of a regression.
People like you are EXACTLY why culture stagnated during the last 20 years, and you have to ask how you can limit your own influence and power, since you do not have a developed sense of taste.
How would YOU limit the power of your own ego?
What a pile of populist drivel.
Basically everything you said was completely incorrect, due to flawed theories.
There has been very little advancement in the cultural world since around 1995. This should be obvious wherever you look.
And the reason this happened is because the internet happened, which democratized culture and spread information freely, resulting in the stagnation of arts because democratic sensibilities prevents the advancement of the arts.
Cultural advancements can ONLY come from the elite and professional tastemakers. Do you know why?
Hint: It has to do with the experience and expertise of professional tastemakers.
The worst thing that happened to culture is that the mere commoner was given a voice on the internet.
We really need to remove the voice of the commoner from the internet. The commoners are just so BAD at everything, causing all manner of stagnation in the cultural world.
Did you advance the state-of-the art in fractals? Do people reference your work? Did you break new bounds?
If you didn't, then you didn't advance culture.
So, the point is you DON'T want everyone to be into Fractal Art.
Without the net, the people that get into Fractal art had to do it the hard way - buy books, magazines, etc, like I did when I did my own fractal programming in the 80's. They would have developed that interest and pushed the state-of-the-art regardless of the internet, and these hardcore people would have advanced the culture.
Totally wrong as a reason to justify DRM. Rationale: DRM is a tool serving the ends of distributors, which have as the primary interest "market share" (thus, market expansion) and not "incentivizing the creator", much less the "preservation or enhancement of cultural diversity".
You'll find that every distributor is perfectly willing to advance the state-of-the-art. They DO understand business, though, and at least try to maintain a profit.
Every distributor is willing to give a discount to promote their artistically favorite product (beer/music/books/etc.) when its supported by their higher-grossing products.
Distributors are probably the most in-tune with the arts, and the market, and more often than not, come from the artistic side.
Just ask any distributor about their background. None of them are MBAs.
fads and fashion are not culture. they're consumerism. culture is people DOING stuff, not BUYING stuff.
Protip: Everything you do is part of your culture, including your economic choices.
Also, "buying" stuff includes "time spent," not just dollars spent.
Let's not make the mistake of thinking "oh, just because it was paid with dollars, that it doesn't have value."
Is that it limits information sharing.
The biggest problem that the internet caused is that it destroyed culture. Worldwide.
Everyone has this common generic culture now.
This kind of culture didn't exist before the internet. Before the internet, you actually had societies develop and advance the arts. But, if you didn't notice already, culture has pretty much frozen since around 1995.
People wear the same clothes as they do in 1995. Style hasn't advanced like it did from the 50's to the 70's. Or from the 70's to the 90's.
People listen to the same kinds of music.
They use the same grammar and language from 20 years ago.
And so on.
It's a pretty well documented phenomenon, and a great Vanity Fair article from a couple years ago describes this perfectly: http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2012/01/prisoners-of-style-201201
The whole idea of information being free and shared by everyone is actually destructive to society, since that means information becomes devalued when culture becomes democratic. It devalues professional tastemakers, causing populist sensibilities to take hold, which is the exact cause of cultural stagnation. Democratic sensibilities are always obvious, and can never advance the state-of-the-art that professional tastemakers can.
So, not everyone needs to see the same movies, listen to the same music, and so on. It is perfectly fine to limit these items, to make sure there ARE "have-nots". People don't HAVE to have every single goddam song in their library.
We really do need to limit the spread of information, through costs, DRM, or other means, to cause society to advance. Right now the world is frozen in 1995, because information is too open.
Seriously, it is perfectly fine to not know things or to have things. Your life is going to be just fine. But the democratic population wants everything.
Limit them.
Like People Magazine and fashion sites?
drones are GREAT for law-enforcement purposes.
They can stay up much longer than a helicopter can!
every letter going through the USPS should have electronic tracking information included, from the moment it's picked up by any postal worker.
A further step would be to CCTV mailboxes, like they do ATM machine machines.
Social media could help crowdsource identification of all the images that are coming into the FBI tip line. There's probably thousands of images, with some images having thousands of people.
Social media sites could help identify every single one of those people to help the police follow up and interview them to see if they saw anything suspicious?
plese mod up!
"National good" and private companies cannot be put together in the same sentence.
If you want "national good", you do it directly through government and a socialist service. You don't do it indirectly through a private company.
America needs to ban private IP networks if they want to do "national good". There is nothing good about private ownership of public communications systems. It is a government function.
Public communications is so critical that the US Constitution itself requires government to build a mail system for communications. This needs to be updated for modern communications systems.
Again, profit and public good are mutually exclusive, since any public interest comes at the expense of private interest.
We Americans have to fight the incorrect theories of private-interest people and their incorrect Reagonomics theories.