I'm not a troll, you're just an idiot who jumps to conclusions.
As I said elsewhere in the thread, I align with science and use the findings of science to basically define my worldview. I don't have the time and I am out of my depth in trying to get a handle on this stuff.
I can repeat a point made showing why AGW is real, etc, but when someone has a counter-point I usually don't have a response because I don't know enough. I don't have time or any real desire to delve into all the research, so took advantage of this thread to hope for some simple explanations or references. And it paid off.
Even your pointless, needlessly insulting posts have nuggets of wisdom within. Thank you for providing that info, and fuck you for being a douche.
LOL. Another armchair scientist trying to sound smart..
Your explanation of Peer Review is mostly correct, but your playing with semantics. I'm not sure why you felt the need to respond to me and attack to me when my post was in reply to a different poster.
Peer reviews does not automatically make a study valid, partly *because* it does not automatically validate the conclusions of a study.Also because peer review can be very, very flawed.
Of course, you know that and just wanted to sound smart, huh?
As you've said, it's simply one step. That's it.
Nice explanation though. I hope you felt it paid off.
I don't really care about the content producers will, and I see no valid argument as to why my copy of something they created should be so very limited.
The only protection a content creator should have is a minimum window to protect against being ripped off. 10 years would be generous.
Trying to hold on to the old methods just doesn't make sense, is greedy, artificially limiting and ultimately a net loss for society.
Piracy promotes ideas, innovation, allows good things to spread via word of mouth, acts as a repository for things which would otherwise be lost (unedited star wars, old no longer released games) and often provides a superior product.
What we need is a completely decentralized system, that can never be taken down, and that it cannot be proven what is being transferred.
Perhaps something to make it impossible to download a full file from one node on the network (although this option could be enabled), and that any chunk downloaded is salted, and impossible to tell what the contents is.
Have the search be purely P2P, so every client has a copy of the index, and this is always updated and distributed. Obviously it would need to be immune to tampering, but perhaps a system like bit-coin would make sense.
It's only a matter of time until something like this comes along, and when it does, the whiny, greedy content owners will have to adjust.
Bullshit. I do believe the scientists. I'm not doubting AGW, nor that humans are likely, majorly responsible.
If I'm playing devils advocate, it's because this is such a political issue and I would like to be able to understand why the claims the other side makes is wrong.
Parent asked for an example of a ridiculous claim made from the pro-AGW side, I provided one. That indicates nothing about my stance, genius.
Can you link me to some conclusive research? Because I haven't found any. There seem to be just as many studies opposing that humans are responsible as there are studies implicating us.
Actually the question isn't to what extent humans are responsible. We know that humans are mostly, if not entirely, responsible. This is not controversial.
It is controversial though, as it is contested a lot. How do we know that humans are mostly, if not entirely, responsible?
I've stayed clear of the whole climate change (or whatever you want to call it) debacle for the last decade, since it has become so politicized.
I don't have enough field knowledge to combat every ridiculous claim, coming from either side.
From what I understand, there is little doubt climate change is happening, the questions is to what extent the impact of humans may be responsible.
Is there any solid evidence for this? How reliable are the models? How can we have a reliable answer when we haven't been recording data for long enough?
I would appreciate a simplified answer with good citations. If the IPCC report is not sufficient or is incorrect, why?
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to insult people when you can't even be bothered to do a basic grammar/spell check, you illiterate douchenozzle.
I'm not a troll, you're just an idiot who jumps to conclusions.
As I said elsewhere in the thread, I align with science and use the findings of science to basically define my worldview. I don't have the time and I am out of my depth in trying to get a handle on this stuff.
I can repeat a point made showing why AGW is real, etc, but when someone has a counter-point I usually don't have a response because I don't know enough. I don't have time or any real desire to delve into all the research, so took advantage of this thread to hope for some simple explanations or references. And it paid off.
Even your pointless, needlessly insulting posts have nuggets of wisdom within. Thank you for providing that info, and fuck you for being a douche.
Cheers.
LOL. Another armchair scientist trying to sound smart..
Your explanation of Peer Review is mostly correct, but your playing with semantics. I'm not sure why you felt the need to respond to me and attack to me when my post was in reply to a different poster.
Peer reviews does not automatically make a study valid, partly *because* it does not automatically validate the conclusions of a study.Also because peer review can be very, very flawed.
Of course, you know that and just wanted to sound smart, huh?
As you've said, it's simply one step. That's it.
Nice explanation though. I hope you felt it paid off.
I don't have the expectation that people will pay me for my work before I complete it.
I don't really care about the content producers will, and I see no valid argument as to why my copy of something they created should be so very limited.
The only protection a content creator should have is a minimum window to protect against being ripped off. 10 years would be generous.
Information wants to be free, etc etc.
It can only grow. The software will be built, similar to how I described. With encryption and decentralization, there will be no way to take it down.
So what? What's your point?
You don't think kids could be influenced by GofG and go on to create their own amazing universe?
Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is bad or isn't art.
Piracy doesn't mean people don't pay for content. We see that today with video game, movies and music franchises topping billions of dollars.
If anything, Piracy leads to greater profits.
Piracy as the norm is inevitable.
Trying to hold on to the old methods just doesn't make sense, is greedy, artificially limiting and ultimately a net loss for society.
Piracy promotes ideas, innovation, allows good things to spread via word of mouth, acts as a repository for things which would otherwise be lost (unedited star wars, old no longer released games) and often provides a superior product.
What we need is a completely decentralized system, that can never be taken down, and that it cannot be proven what is being transferred.
Perhaps something to make it impossible to download a full file from one node on the network (although this option could be enabled), and that any chunk downloaded is salted, and impossible to tell what the contents is.
Have the search be purely P2P, so every client has a copy of the index, and this is always updated and distributed. Obviously it would need to be immune to tampering, but perhaps a system like bit-coin would make sense.
It's only a matter of time until something like this comes along, and when it does, the whiny, greedy content owners will have to adjust.
The world is changing, and for the better.
Public temperature records are available
For maybe 100 years going back, which is insufficient.
A significant number of scientists contest the IPCC report, hence it is contested.
Bullshit. I do believe the scientists. I'm not doubting AGW, nor that humans are likely, majorly responsible.
If I'm playing devils advocate, it's because this is such a political issue and I would like to be able to understand why the claims the other side makes is wrong.
Parent asked for an example of a ridiculous claim made from the pro-AGW side, I provided one. That indicates nothing about my stance, genius.
Peer review doesn't automatically make a study valid. Please stop explaining science.
Yeah...just trying to understand everything better without having to take an entire climate change course.
I mean, I pretty much accept the IPCC report because on subjects I am ignorant on, I will lean towards the scientific consensus.
Doesn't mean I don't want to know more....
Yes, the IPCC conclusion and report is what is contested.
If you think contesting it is stupid that is one thing, but to deny it is being contested...
Fantastic, thank you!
I understand how science works, thanks.
Can you link me to some conclusive research? Because I haven't found any. There seem to be just as many studies opposing that humans are responsible as there are studies implicating us.
Actually the question isn't to what extent humans are responsible. We know that humans are mostly, if not entirely, responsible. This is not controversial.
It is controversial though, as it is contested a lot. How do we know that humans are mostly, if not entirely, responsible?
I will be checking out the links you posted, and thank you for your answer.
However, if you could provide a short, succinct explanation as to how we know we are dwarfing natural processes, that would be great.
Where is the data coming from that we can assert that so confidently?
If the answer is in one of the links you posted I apologize, I won't be checking them out till the weekend.
That sounds interesting. Although it will likely only add to my confusion.
How about that Humans are 100% solely responsible? That's one example...
I've stayed clear of the whole climate change (or whatever you want to call it) debacle for the last decade, since it has become so politicized.
I don't have enough field knowledge to combat every ridiculous claim, coming from either side.
From what I understand, there is little doubt climate change is happening, the questions is to what extent the impact of humans may be responsible.
Is there any solid evidence for this? How reliable are the models? How can we have a reliable answer when we haven't been recording data for long enough?
I would appreciate a simplified answer with good citations. If the IPCC report is not sufficient or is incorrect, why?
Because the travesty of justice made by illegally arresting him and seizing his assets is more important than the man himself.
That's adorable. Voters are certainly not in charge though.
There is nothing ethical about abstaining from piracy.
You are depriving yourself from seeing a higher quality release, available now without DRM or commercials.
Obtaining the content in this way does not prevent you from supporting and/or purchasing the works in a format of your choosing at a later date.