What's crazy is, if the DRM is preventing you from watching a movie on your Blu-Ray player, if you find a way to bypass the DRM to watch the movie you bought...you just broke the law.
Therefore, people who want to watch what they pay for are dirty rotten criminals who should be thrown in jail.
Except, if you chose to keep the Other OS, you would be unable to play games on the PSN that you could the previous day, so you are losing out on that which is advertised to you by keeping something that was advertised to you.
Its like the government telling you that they are taking your car tires, and if you choose to keep them, you can't drive on public roads anymore.
I think this was discussed with the last article about the Sony Other OS removal.
Some problems are,
1. Sony is going to ignore the verdict. Most especially if its in a state where they aren't corporated in.
2. How are you going to sue someone for $5000 when all you lost out on at the most was $600 or so for the cost of the PS3?
3. It takes a good amount of hard work on your own to file and win in small claims court.
Hence, people do Class Action Lawsuits.
Actually, I did a report in High School on the creation of Playboy and this one girl got all pissy at me for it and said how it was degrading to women and everything.
I told her that people do buy it for the articles too and she was like, Yeah who?
My answer was the 10,000 blind people who order the braile edition.
That shut her up pretty good.
But killing each other is Highly productive, there have been more technological advances with the purpose of beating the enemy then for any other purpose.
Spacecraft, Satellites, the internet, Tang - All based on beating the Soviets.
Maybe they were so advanced that they created a robotic life form that attacked them back with an army, and after putting down the robot insurrection, they made a mandate that there will never be another machine that thinks like a human, so then slave labor potentially becomes a good idea.
Who would win in a fight, the US now or the US 100 years ago? The obvious choice is the US now. And that is just the technological advances of 100 years. That means, any intergalactic faring race has probably at least that on us so they will kill us dead pretty easily if they wanted to. A good reason to hide.
Another good reason to hide is that any species that evolves on their own planet and get into a space faring state, probably had to conquer their own planet from the wild and themselves, meaning they would be warlike, much like us humans. Is there a possibility that there are species that have never fought a war, yes, likely? No. Survival of the Fittest prevails and the Fittest are not the ones who are unwilling to fight back.
So 2 for 2 points, it will be a good case for hiding until we are very very technologically advanced.
I see the future with aliens more akin to Warhammer with perpetual war and not like Star Trek where we have allies.
The reason planets are a good thing to conquer, is they are super efficient compared to a space ship. You don't have to build an entire space ship to hold a trillion of your kind, just conquer a planet and turn it into a hive world.
"Climate change is a dumbed down term for the masses, since it appears most people can't understand that just because temperatures are going up overall DOES NOT MEAN tmeperatures are going up everywhere."
I don't understand how you yourself can write something that proves my point and not understand it. They are using phraseology instead of scientific fact to try and sway opinions.
Quantum Mechanics? Yeah, you do know its impossible to model a quantum scale system with more then a few thousand data points longer then a system right? And even with all the data they collect, they can't even tell you where those points are going to be in 5 seconds let alone a year.
And yes, they are able to use models to predict engine wear and tear, except where do they get their data from? Heavily standardized and hardly any uncertainty experiments. Which is drastically different then trying to correlate things in the natural world that give you very uncertain data with large margins of error.
In my area, normally its December that is the coldest month, but last year, it was November...coldest month in recent history in fact...weird... Of course the more "general" you make something the more likely you are to be right, its called fortune cookies. The climatologists saying "The earth is going to be warmer in 100 years" are like a fortune cookie saying "You are going to meet an interesting person today" Two things, its super general so even if its.1F higher in 100 years then it is now, their prediction was right, also if they are wrong, they will be long dead and it has no effect on their livelihood now.
So the common people criticized scientists...yet in the history of science people haven't used their own political power to try and sway people's thinking cough Newton cough Hooke cough.
Interesting article about the Hockey Stick Diagram and the author says where he gets his info from.
Anyway, even if Global Warming is man made, that doesn't mean its a bad thing. There was a time in the history of our planet where there was no ice at either pole, where CO2 levels were 10-20 times higher then they are today and the earth survived, in fact, it flourished during that time. We may lose some land along the coasts and some small islands, yet that doesn't compare to the habitable land we gain in Canada and northern Europe/Asia. And there is the whole part of the ice melting in Alaska has reduced the weight on the earth causing land to rise from the sea...
If CO2 makes it so that heat is kept on the planet instead of going out into space, then that means that the satellites would get an infrared reading lower then what is actually on the ground. So that means to correct the data to see what they actual ground temperatures are, they would have to assume that carbon dioxide is preventing heat from escaping and add in the lost heat.
So doesn't that mean that their assumption that Carbon Dioxide is warming the planet has skewed their data collection?
Wow, I am an idiot for recognizing that they are switching to Climate Change yet people who call me an idiot also see that they are calling it climate change. Your side just can't make up their mind.
And good job on the attacks, I will be sure to change my stance based on your rhetoric.
I never said global warming wasn't happening. I even agreed that the earth is in a relatively warmed state. I just contend that there is too much error in our current data and models to accurately say what is going to happen in 100 years and whether or not what they are predicting is a bad thing.
Yet you can just go along, believe all the data they show you, believe their stance without questioning. Good thing real scientists aren't like you. Hell, Newton wouldn't have come up with his laws of motion if he just went with the data cause all the data showed that things wanted to slow down and stop.
Ok, so the fact that certain cloud types would exacerbate global warming and the other kinds would counter it, they know exactly which kinds will form in the future due to increases water vapor in the atmosphere and they know where these clouds are going to form right? Right? Cause if this is true, these people are superhuman and can actually see into the future.
First off, they changed the name to sway peoples opinions, that's not science, that's politics.
Second, it is not logical to look at one complex system and say we can't go more then a week out, and then look at another infinitely more complex system and say we can go 100 years out. I understand that climatology and meteorology are not the same. The main difference is meteorology looks at the short term and climatology looks at the long term of the same thing - weather patterns. And since all current data that Climatologists are getting is the same as the meteorologists, they should both have the same error in their data, and since the climatologists go further into the future, that error would be propagated much more.
So maybe instead of coming out and saying this is what is happening to the planet, they would find out if their data is good enough to use, but they didn't, they released their findings using said tree ring data without knowing for sure if it was ok to use, that is not science. You don't use data for scientific conclusions unless you know its good data, not it might be good data.
They don't even know how to add clouds into the mixture, the entire premise behind global warming being man made is that there is a feedback loop that increases the water vapor amount since water vapour is a much larger contribution to global warming then everything else.
Except...wouldn't increased water vapor mean increased cloud cover? And don't clouds reflect heat? But...they don't understand it enough to include in their calculations how much the clouds will affect it.
Sounds like they jumped to conclusions without having enough data.
http://symonsez.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/arctic-sea-ice-shows-extensive-growth-in-march-2010/
Arctic sea ice may be on their way back up from the 2007 lows which may have been explained by underwater volcanic eruptions warming the sea water there...interesting...
Also, global warming would be a blessing in disguise, it would make much more of the planet habitable then is today ie Large Swaths of Canada and Northern Europe/Asia.
Global cooling is far more dangerous to human kind in that it causes large scale famine. By keeping the earth in a warmed state, we would potentially prevent any mini-freezes that would lead to the deaths of millions of people.
I lost faith in the climatologists when they stopped calling it global warming and went for the more neutral "climate change."
If that isn't an example of politicizing their own debate then I don't know what is.
I hold a skeptics view to the whole Global Warming thing, they say that this is what the earth will do in 100 years...yet they can't guess what its going to do next week with any certainty.
That and I just read two articles on two different news sites on the Same Day, One claiming that the Spring storms come later and later each year due to global warming and the other claiming that spring comes earlier and earlier due to it.
Also, how the hell can they use data that seems to work for centuries "tree rings" and then STOP using it when it doesn't support their conclusions over the past few decades ie the whole Hide the Decline Fiasco.
My physics professor told me that the reason that lying in China is so rampant, is that if your experiment or research fails to achieve the desired result, you end up having to pay back all the money the government gave you. Even if your experiment comes out with valuable data or a side discovery, you have to pay the money back.
That is the difference between America and China, we try and minimize the need to lie about research.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a feeling this one was like 3 when that song came out...
What's crazy is, if the DRM is preventing you from watching a movie on your Blu-Ray player, if you find a way to bypass the DRM to watch the movie you bought...you just broke the law. Therefore, people who want to watch what they pay for are dirty rotten criminals who should be thrown in jail.
Except, if you chose to keep the Other OS, you would be unable to play games on the PSN that you could the previous day, so you are losing out on that which is advertised to you by keeping something that was advertised to you. Its like the government telling you that they are taking your car tires, and if you choose to keep them, you can't drive on public roads anymore.
I think this was discussed with the last article about the Sony Other OS removal. Some problems are, 1. Sony is going to ignore the verdict. Most especially if its in a state where they aren't corporated in. 2. How are you going to sue someone for $5000 when all you lost out on at the most was $600 or so for the cost of the PS3? 3. It takes a good amount of hard work on your own to file and win in small claims court. Hence, people do Class Action Lawsuits.
Actually, I did a report in High School on the creation of Playboy and this one girl got all pissy at me for it and said how it was degrading to women and everything. I told her that people do buy it for the articles too and she was like, Yeah who? My answer was the 10,000 blind people who order the braile edition. That shut her up pretty good.
But killing each other is Highly productive, there have been more technological advances with the purpose of beating the enemy then for any other purpose. Spacecraft, Satellites, the internet, Tang - All based on beating the Soviets.
Maybe they were so advanced that they created a robotic life form that attacked them back with an army, and after putting down the robot insurrection, they made a mandate that there will never be another machine that thinks like a human, so then slave labor potentially becomes a good idea.
Who would win in a fight, the US now or the US 100 years ago? The obvious choice is the US now. And that is just the technological advances of 100 years. That means, any intergalactic faring race has probably at least that on us so they will kill us dead pretty easily if they wanted to. A good reason to hide.
Another good reason to hide is that any species that evolves on their own planet and get into a space faring state, probably had to conquer their own planet from the wild and themselves, meaning they would be warlike, much like us humans. Is there a possibility that there are species that have never fought a war, yes, likely? No. Survival of the Fittest prevails and the Fittest are not the ones who are unwilling to fight back.
So 2 for 2 points, it will be a good case for hiding until we are very very technologically advanced.
I see the future with aliens more akin to Warhammer with perpetual war and not like Star Trek where we have allies.
The reason planets are a good thing to conquer, is they are super efficient compared to a space ship. You don't have to build an entire space ship to hold a trillion of your kind, just conquer a planet and turn it into a hive world.
"Climate change is a dumbed down term for the masses, since it appears most people can't understand that just because temperatures are going up overall DOES NOT MEAN tmeperatures are going up everywhere."
.1F higher in 100 years then it is now, their prediction was right, also if they are wrong, they will be long dead and it has no effect on their livelihood now.
I don't understand how you yourself can write something that proves my point and not understand it. They are using phraseology instead of scientific fact to try and sway opinions.
Quantum Mechanics? Yeah, you do know its impossible to model a quantum scale system with more then a few thousand data points longer then a system right? And even with all the data they collect, they can't even tell you where those points are going to be in 5 seconds let alone a year.
And yes, they are able to use models to predict engine wear and tear, except where do they get their data from? Heavily standardized and hardly any uncertainty experiments. Which is drastically different then trying to correlate things in the natural world that give you very uncertain data with large margins of error.
In my area, normally its December that is the coldest month, but last year, it was November...coldest month in recent history in fact...weird... Of course the more "general" you make something the more likely you are to be right, its called fortune cookies. The climatologists saying "The earth is going to be warmer in 100 years" are like a fortune cookie saying "You are going to meet an interesting person today" Two things, its super general so even if its
So the common people criticized scientists...yet in the history of science people haven't used their own political power to try and sway people's thinking cough Newton cough Hooke cough.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6738111/Climategate-reveals-the-most-influential-tree-in-the-world.html
Interesting article about the Hockey Stick Diagram and the author says where he gets his info from.
Anyway, even if Global Warming is man made, that doesn't mean its a bad thing. There was a time in the history of our planet where there was no ice at either pole, where CO2 levels were 10-20 times higher then they are today and the earth survived, in fact, it flourished during that time. We may lose some land along the coasts and some small islands, yet that doesn't compare to the habitable land we gain in Canada and northern Europe/Asia. And there is the whole part of the ice melting in Alaska has reduced the weight on the earth causing land to rise from the sea...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6738111/Climategate-reveals-the-most-influential-tree-in-the-world.html A pretty interesting article about tree ring data and how it was used.
If CO2 makes it so that heat is kept on the planet instead of going out into space, then that means that the satellites would get an infrared reading lower then what is actually on the ground. So that means to correct the data to see what they actual ground temperatures are, they would have to assume that carbon dioxide is preventing heat from escaping and add in the lost heat. So doesn't that mean that their assumption that Carbon Dioxide is warming the planet has skewed their data collection?
Wow, I am an idiot for recognizing that they are switching to Climate Change yet people who call me an idiot also see that they are calling it climate change. Your side just can't make up their mind. And good job on the attacks, I will be sure to change my stance based on your rhetoric.
I never said global warming wasn't happening. I even agreed that the earth is in a relatively warmed state. I just contend that there is too much error in our current data and models to accurately say what is going to happen in 100 years and whether or not what they are predicting is a bad thing. Yet you can just go along, believe all the data they show you, believe their stance without questioning. Good thing real scientists aren't like you. Hell, Newton wouldn't have come up with his laws of motion if he just went with the data cause all the data showed that things wanted to slow down and stop.
Ok, so the fact that certain cloud types would exacerbate global warming and the other kinds would counter it, they know exactly which kinds will form in the future due to increases water vapor in the atmosphere and they know where these clouds are going to form right? Right? Cause if this is true, these people are superhuman and can actually see into the future.
First off, they changed the name to sway peoples opinions, that's not science, that's politics. Second, it is not logical to look at one complex system and say we can't go more then a week out, and then look at another infinitely more complex system and say we can go 100 years out. I understand that climatology and meteorology are not the same. The main difference is meteorology looks at the short term and climatology looks at the long term of the same thing - weather patterns. And since all current data that Climatologists are getting is the same as the meteorologists, they should both have the same error in their data, and since the climatologists go further into the future, that error would be propagated much more. So maybe instead of coming out and saying this is what is happening to the planet, they would find out if their data is good enough to use, but they didn't, they released their findings using said tree ring data without knowing for sure if it was ok to use, that is not science. You don't use data for scientific conclusions unless you know its good data, not it might be good data.
They don't even know how to add clouds into the mixture, the entire premise behind global warming being man made is that there is a feedback loop that increases the water vapor amount since water vapour is a much larger contribution to global warming then everything else. Except...wouldn't increased water vapor mean increased cloud cover? And don't clouds reflect heat? But...they don't understand it enough to include in their calculations how much the clouds will affect it. Sounds like they jumped to conclusions without having enough data.
http://symonsez.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/arctic-sea-ice-shows-extensive-growth-in-march-2010/ Arctic sea ice may be on their way back up from the 2007 lows which may have been explained by underwater volcanic eruptions warming the sea water there...interesting... Also, global warming would be a blessing in disguise, it would make much more of the planet habitable then is today ie Large Swaths of Canada and Northern Europe/Asia. Global cooling is far more dangerous to human kind in that it causes large scale famine. By keeping the earth in a warmed state, we would potentially prevent any mini-freezes that would lead to the deaths of millions of people.
I lost faith in the climatologists when they stopped calling it global warming and went for the more neutral "climate change." If that isn't an example of politicizing their own debate then I don't know what is. I hold a skeptics view to the whole Global Warming thing, they say that this is what the earth will do in 100 years...yet they can't guess what its going to do next week with any certainty. That and I just read two articles on two different news sites on the Same Day, One claiming that the Spring storms come later and later each year due to global warming and the other claiming that spring comes earlier and earlier due to it. Also, how the hell can they use data that seems to work for centuries "tree rings" and then STOP using it when it doesn't support their conclusions over the past few decades ie the whole Hide the Decline Fiasco.
My physics professor told me that the reason that lying in China is so rampant, is that if your experiment or research fails to achieve the desired result, you end up having to pay back all the money the government gave you. Even if your experiment comes out with valuable data or a side discovery, you have to pay the money back. That is the difference between America and China, we try and minimize the need to lie about research.
Change Patent law to not of exludability but of guaranteed royalties equal to like 10% of the cost of the product.