Why is it completely legal to link on a website to things like The Anarchist's Cookbook and other materials that can be used for seditious acts and mass murder...yet completely illegal if you link to copyrighted material?
Well, I am sure that GW gave permission to EA/Mythic the ability to use their Trademark and such to advertise for Warhammer Online and that is what they did with endorsing Warhammer Alliance. In my opinion, official cooperation between two parties for the benefit of both leads to official endorsement.
So by endorsing Warhammer Alliance, Mythic allowed them to use GW's trademark which should have been perfectly legal.
It's the same if a movie studio gives a freebie to a news agency for essentially free advertisement. The News Agency is also going for a profit.
I refuse to believe in a tipping point when it comes to Carbon Dioxide levels as long as there has been precedent for the levels we are looking to face. Jurassic Period - CO2 levels in the thousands and life thrived.
But why would the oil companies higher Al Gore to maintain the status quo? You don't make money by just doing what everyone else does. You do it by making yourself "indispensable" as you will.
And stop comparing what one person or a group of people would make to that of a Multi-Billion dollar Multi-national company. To the likes of Exxon-Mobile, 10 million dollars isn't a lot of money, but to one person it sure as hell is.
Another 50 years of corresponding increases to both Earth's average temperature and CO2 levels, but that won't happen since each year solar energy becomes more efficient and eventually Fusion will be a reliable method of Power Generation.
My biggest concern is that people are blowing this entire thing so out of proportion. I am a firm believe that all we have to do is continue progressing like we are and we will be fine.
The people who think that in 50 years that we will be consuming the same amount or more of carbon as we do now are delusional. If we had the same level of production as we do now, but 100 years ago, the amount of carbon we would release would be so much higher then it is now. Technologies become naturally more efficient and clean as time goes on. Just sit back and do nothing and natural advances is Tech will do the work for us.
Comparing the money received by small groups to that of an entire multi-national corporation? Maybe if we looked at ALL the money on one side to ALL the money on the other side and also at the amount that the Climate Scientists stand to gain along with people who push green technology, that would be a more accurate comparison?
Well, if the Medieval Warm Period was global, wouldn't that put some doubt on their argument that this heating is unprecedented?
Also, during the time of the Dinosaurs, the C02 concentrations were much much higher then they are now, there was no ice at either pole and the Earth got along just fine. The oceans weren't so acidified that shellfish couldn't exist. But now, with our C02 levels a 10th of what those were, somehow its going to spell disaster for everything we know?
Except if you go an look at the commons now and search for female anatomy parts, all you find is two drawings and one actual picture with the actual picture poorly labeled. Looks to me like a lot more then just pornography got hit with the banhammer.
It's not theft, theft involves me taking something away from someone else. I didn't take anything away from them, I made a perfect copy and then put it in my house. If I made a perfect copy of the Mona Lisa and put it on my wall, I did not steal the Mona Lisa.
Flat Taxation unjustly punishes the poor, say what?
Lets say that the poverty line is $18000 for a single person.
Said person makes $20,000. Current system, maybe pays like $800 in taxes? So 4%.
Assume 10% Flat Tax. That is $2000. Now a person who was above the poverty line, is now at it or below.
The reason we have a progressive Tax system is because, you can tax rich people more, and not hurt them. So that means the government can do more without punishing the poor people.
I understand that the rich would have you believe that taxes hurt them, but they don't. Also, poor people are needed, they are the ones who work for the rich people.
Lastly, a progressive tax never makes people want to work less like so many people believe. It only taxes the money in that tax bracket at that amount. If you go $1 over into a tax bracket, only that $1 is taxed at the higher rate. Since there is never a tax bracket that is 100%, there is always incentive to make more money.
Progressive Taxes are fine, stop bringing up Flat Taxes as a somehow save all of everything.
I know exactly how the scientific method works. The problem is, Science does not innately have integrity. Science has only the integrity of those who do it.
Peer Review would check it? Yeah, peer review never fails. Scientists are beholden to a theory that they are trying to prove is real until they run out of funding.
And don't take that as a bad thing, for one thing it proves they are human, for a second, it means they are willing to stand up to pressure from others in the Scientific Community.
An example is String Theory, good luck proving that right or wrong anytime soon, yet that doesn't stop Theorists from working on it even though there are plenty of physicists who claim its not even science.
No proxy is perfect otherwise it wouldn't be a proxy. The problem is, when they fail to be able to identify the cause of divergence or prove that when it does correlate, its not due to coincidence.
Or if they ever find a way to efficiently make muons then the entire idea of fusion suddenly becomes super easy. Making muons means cold fusion would actually happen.
I am sure there are quite a few people who have political motivation to ensure climate change is accepted. Including the scientists.
How would you feel if your entire life's research, which you still believed in, was brought into jeopardy by a scientist who, with data you consider faulty, came out and spoke against your research?
The difference is, the Burden of Proof to prove that Climate Change is happening is on them, not me. I can bring up valid questions and if they can't answer them, they there is something wrong with their science that they should review.
By saying that the earth hasn't warmed at a statistically significant rate over the past 10 years is just an example I brought up to prove a trend, and if something happens for 10 years in a row, there might be a trend in that, regardless of what came before.
And I don't have to argue about what is happening in other places of the globe in reference to ice, because for one thing, what happens in the southern hemisphere is not indicative of what is going to happen in the northern. You are grasping at straws, when all I was doing was bringing up things that need to be figured out before climate change can be 100% "proven" if you will.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is it completely legal to link on a website to things like The Anarchist's Cookbook and other materials that can be used for seditious acts and mass murder...yet completely illegal if you link to copyrighted material?
Only as long we don't know its name.
Well, I am sure that GW gave permission to EA/Mythic the ability to use their Trademark and such to advertise for Warhammer Online and that is what they did with endorsing Warhammer Alliance. In my opinion, official cooperation between two parties for the benefit of both leads to official endorsement.
So by endorsing Warhammer Alliance, Mythic allowed them to use GW's trademark which should have been perfectly legal.
It's the same if a movie studio gives a freebie to a news agency for essentially free advertisement. The News Agency is also going for a profit.
I refuse to believe in a tipping point when it comes to Carbon Dioxide levels as long as there has been precedent for the levels we are looking to face. Jurassic Period - CO2 levels in the thousands and life thrived.
But why would the oil companies higher Al Gore to maintain the status quo? You don't make money by just doing what everyone else does. You do it by making yourself "indispensable" as you will.
And stop comparing what one person or a group of people would make to that of a Multi-Billion dollar Multi-national company. To the likes of Exxon-Mobile, 10 million dollars isn't a lot of money, but to one person it sure as hell is.
So 50 years is too late now? Last I heard it was 100 years, just keeps getting shorter and shorter.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/11/a-note-from-richard-lindzen-on-statistically-significant-warming/ A good graph of the earths average mean temperature over the past 10 years with error associated and source.
Another 50 years of corresponding increases to both Earth's average temperature and CO2 levels, but that won't happen since each year solar energy becomes more efficient and eventually Fusion will be a reliable method of Power Generation.
My biggest concern is that people are blowing this entire thing so out of proportion. I am a firm believe that all we have to do is continue progressing like we are and we will be fine.
The people who think that in 50 years that we will be consuming the same amount or more of carbon as we do now are delusional. If we had the same level of production as we do now, but 100 years ago, the amount of carbon we would release would be so much higher then it is now. Technologies become naturally more efficient and clean as time goes on. Just sit back and do nothing and natural advances is Tech will do the work for us.
Comparing the money received by small groups to that of an entire multi-national corporation? Maybe if we looked at ALL the money on one side to ALL the money on the other side and also at the amount that the Climate Scientists stand to gain along with people who push green technology, that would be a more accurate comparison?
Well, if the Medieval Warm Period was global, wouldn't that put some doubt on their argument that this heating is unprecedented?
Also, during the time of the Dinosaurs, the C02 concentrations were much much higher then they are now, there was no ice at either pole and the Earth got along just fine. The oceans weren't so acidified that shellfish couldn't exist. But now, with our C02 levels a 10th of what those were, somehow its going to spell disaster for everything we know?
Except if you go an look at the commons now and search for female anatomy parts, all you find is two drawings and one actual picture with the actual picture poorly labeled. Looks to me like a lot more then just pornography got hit with the banhammer.
It's not theft, theft involves me taking something away from someone else. I didn't take anything away from them, I made a perfect copy and then put it in my house. If I made a perfect copy of the Mona Lisa and put it on my wall, I did not steal the Mona Lisa.
Tax Codes are not based in morality but more in practicality. The government needs money.
You can have a project be on time, on budget and in spec as long as you only choose 2. Isn't that how the old adage goes?
Unless of course you are going against the "consensus" of all science and by speaking against it they consider you a lunatic?
The amazing thing about scientists is that they are human. And in regards to peer review, why does nobody ever consider peer pressure?
Last I heard, it was the Physicist who was willing to assume the cow was a sphere...
Flat Taxation unjustly punishes the poor, say what?
Lets say that the poverty line is $18000 for a single person.
Said person makes $20,000. Current system, maybe pays like $800 in taxes? So 4%.
Assume 10% Flat Tax. That is $2000. Now a person who was above the poverty line, is now at it or below.
The reason we have a progressive Tax system is because, you can tax rich people more, and not hurt them. So that means the government can do more without punishing the poor people.
I understand that the rich would have you believe that taxes hurt them, but they don't. Also, poor people are needed, they are the ones who work for the rich people.
Lastly, a progressive tax never makes people want to work less like so many people believe. It only taxes the money in that tax bracket at that amount. If you go $1 over into a tax bracket, only that $1 is taxed at the higher rate. Since there is never a tax bracket that is 100%, there is always incentive to make more money.
Progressive Taxes are fine, stop bringing up Flat Taxes as a somehow save all of everything.
I know exactly how the scientific method works. The problem is, Science does not innately have integrity. Science has only the integrity of those who do it. Peer Review would check it? Yeah, peer review never fails. Scientists are beholden to a theory that they are trying to prove is real until they run out of funding. And don't take that as a bad thing, for one thing it proves they are human, for a second, it means they are willing to stand up to pressure from others in the Scientific Community. An example is String Theory, good luck proving that right or wrong anytime soon, yet that doesn't stop Theorists from working on it even though there are plenty of physicists who claim its not even science.
No proxy is perfect otherwise it wouldn't be a proxy. The problem is, when they fail to be able to identify the cause of divergence or prove that when it does correlate, its not due to coincidence.
Or if they ever find a way to efficiently make muons then the entire idea of fusion suddenly becomes super easy. Making muons means cold fusion would actually happen.
Actually, I got it from the actual interview where they asked the guy the questions and he filled in his responses. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
Except you aren't everyone.
I am sure there are quite a few people who have political motivation to ensure climate change is accepted. Including the scientists.
How would you feel if your entire life's research, which you still believed in, was brought into jeopardy by a scientist who, with data you consider faulty, came out and spoke against your research?
Scientists are human, too.
There is a tree in siberia that would like to have a talk with you.
The difference is, the Burden of Proof to prove that Climate Change is happening is on them, not me. I can bring up valid questions and if they can't answer them, they there is something wrong with their science that they should review. By saying that the earth hasn't warmed at a statistically significant rate over the past 10 years is just an example I brought up to prove a trend, and if something happens for 10 years in a row, there might be a trend in that, regardless of what came before. And I don't have to argue about what is happening in other places of the globe in reference to ice, because for one thing, what happens in the southern hemisphere is not indicative of what is going to happen in the northern. You are grasping at straws, when all I was doing was bringing up things that need to be figured out before climate change can be 100% "proven" if you will.