Item 1: Fair Use - When is it OK to hack a DVD? -------------------
If I wanted to do a report on the cultural influence of Star Wars, would it be OK to download from the Internet a screen capture of the Death Star to compare to the AT&T logo, also downloaded?
Would it be OK to break the encryption on a DVD to get a picture of the Death Star to compare to the AT&T logo?
What about the sounds that Jar Jar Binks makes versus an historical African American portrayal such as Gone with the Wind? Can I get those?
What about a video of his walk when compared to the same figures walking or dancing? Can I get those?
Does the law allow this? (DMCA - probably not)
Item 2: What about copyright terms in different countries? --------------------
IIRC Australia has a 50 year limit on copyright. Is it OK for an Australian to post for free scans of 51 year old books on the Internet?
What about 51 year old movies? 51 year old songs?
Is it OK to listen to those songs in the USA or Canada?
Should the ISP block that access?
Who gets to decide what's on that block list?
Item 3: Sharing - Where do we draw the line? ---------------------
Is it OK to make a mix CD or mix tape for a friend?
Is it OK to rip a CD to make MP3s on my computer?
How many copies of those MP3s can I make for personal use?
Is it OK to keep the MP3s if my original CDs are destroyed in a fire?
Is it OK to make a mix CD with some of my friend's MP3 songs and some of mine?
Is it OK for both of us to back up that CD as MP3s?
Is it OK to mix my entire MP3 collection with my friend's entire MP3 collection?
Is it OK to do that with everyone I meet on the Internet?
They will son become world experts in data compression, home construction of undetectable spread spectrum links, ad hoc very long range wireless data connections, and anonymous groupware! Thanks Iran!
A Couple Of Things for You To Understand
on
IT and Divorce?
·
· Score: 1
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advise.
1) The Child Support Agency will probably not be neutral - they will probably want to give custody to your wife - Title IV-D of the Social Security Act provides for incentive payments to states based on the amount the collect in child support. If you make more than your wife, the state has a strong incentive to give her custody or to avoid joint custody.
2) The judge may not be neutral - He or she works with the people above.
3) Your Lawyer May Not Represent You - Judges in many states have vast discretion to make decisions regarding child custody and divorces based on the "Best Interest Of the Child" standards (Which means whatever the judge thinks it means). Lawyers who regularly practice divorce law representing men sometimes learn that it's best to go with the flow and let the process take place than fight and cause more harm. They ignore procedural violations of the law, just usher their clients through the system, and bill them when they're done. Some dad have had better luck with criminal attorneys rather than divorce lawyers.
4) You may pay for everything - Just to be clear, there's a fair chance that you're going to pay for your wife's lawyer, court fees, any counselors that will be called, etc.
5) You may loose the love of your child - CS collection agencies are legendarily reluctant to enforce visitation rights. Many fathers loose touch with their children after a divorce, especially when mom gets a new husband and wants that man to act as the effective father in their child's life.
Rod Coronado, you burned down a research lab at Michigan State University, you dickless wonder! Why don't you go back to medieval times and imprison Gallileo with your intellectual forebearers? We debate ethics here! We protest here! We do not commit acts of arson. You are a nothing but a loathsome terrorist, and you should be thankful each day that your reckless acts haven't killed anyone yet.
DSL is 100% point-to-point and can run 29+ Mbps. Products based on Broadcom chips already do this, and they can do a lot better depending on the distance and wire quality. With each successive chip generation, the distances are increasing, and some are now close to 1 mile (5,000 feet, or about 1.6km). (No, I don't work for them).
"If 4 million computers can produce just one more person who can go to college and stand on his feet, then everyone wins"
That would be 400 million dollars just to get someone into college - hardly a victory.
What the laptops need to do is help a significant number of the children who use them develop some skills that they can use to improve their lives in some way.
Maybe one child builds a cooler air conditioner, another uses the computer to expose her abuse, another learns mathematics and becomes an accountant, another makes a web site and shares his poetry, etc.
Sure people have died on both sides, children who will never know the love of their parents, lovers torn apart by blood and shrapnel, but this is PHP damnit! This effects me! We must end this conflict before the development schedule for PHP is effected further!
If your goal is tax reduction, then don't support charter schools. In our state, charters are displacing both private schools, which get no state funding, with public charter schools, which are 100% state funded, as well as other 100% funded public schools. This means more state dollars for educating children, as schools are paid by the state on a per pupil basis.
In Detroit, when contracts came up, the only reason that the teachers didn't strike is because they knew it would send even more kids to the charter schools even faster. There was a one day black board flu, and that was it.
A good chunk of kids who used to go to private schools now go to charters instead, and in 3 years there will probably be more kids going to charters in Detroit than to the traditional public schools.
Lesbian couples can now eliminate the external sperm doner and Heather can have two mommies who are both her biological parents. All children will be girls, unless a Y chromosome is added from a donor and an X is yanked.
Given some time, eggs may also be made as well as sperm from stem cells, and homosexual male couples can also have biological children with the help of a woman to carry the fetus.
"There are people on the benefit having children... then demanding that the tax payer for the bill for their lifestyle choice."
OK, I agree that there are some people, and yeah, I pay for my kid, but let's look at a few facts:
- In the US, the child care tax credit is for 80% of child care expenses - the tax credit for viagra is 100%. Why are old guy boners worth more than children's care?
- Similarly, the tax credit for child care is around $3000. Please. My provider charges over $40 per day, or over $160 per week. If your provider is charging you $120 per week, it's about market minimum, and that's $6,000 for a 50 week year.
- The normal child tax deduction is only good for 15 1/2 years, it's limited if you're making decent money, or if you don't make any money, you don't get it.
- Public assistance comes with many strings, one of which is that the unmarried father (normally) must be signed into a program (TANF-D) where if he doesn't make child support payments, he can be imprisoned - no excuses - get sick and go to jail - normally for 6 months at a stretch. I know children whose mothers who cohabitate with the father, and they are afraid to sign the kids up for help, so those kids just don't have access to Medicare, etc. Also, "child support" in this context can mean the majority of the money is going to fees, late fees, court imposed lawyer fees, court imposed counseling, and court imposed this and that, and not actually helping the child. I've heard reports that 40% or more of a parent's income can be taken out with as little as $50 per month actually going to the child. Bankruptcy will not save you, and the fees and fines will dog you until you die.
- Also, if you're a parent under 35 or so, which is probably most parents, you're paying about 14% of your income, with no exemptions, to social security and Medicare, and if you look at your yearly statement, it says that by the time you retire, they will have no more than about 74% of the money available - if that. So you're being screwed there. How about getting that 26% back so that those people can feed and house their children? Nope. Grandpa needs his state subsidized Viagra.
So, whose being selfish here? A government that's out for it's own good first? An older generation willing to screw the young rather than give up extras? Or some poor, miseducated, smucks who think they can get away with having kids that they can't aford and not get seriously screwed?
"The precautionary principle, a phrase first used in English circa 1988, is the idea that if the consequences of an action are unknown, but are judged to have some potential for major or irreversible negative consequences, then it is better to avoid that action"
Did humans, when first inventing the automobile, use the precautionary principle? No, and we are better off with them. Think ambulances.
Did humans, when inventing computers, use the precautionary principle? No, and we are better off with them. Shut yours off now if you don't believe me.
If we use the precautionary principle, we should halt all genetics resarch until we know the consequences of such research. People will cancer will just have to die.
If we use the precautionary principle, we should stop cutting down trees and making camp fires. No more s'mores! Children will just have to suffer.
But why would we suddenly switch our modus operandi to use this "precautionary principle" when the CONSEQUENCES OF DOING SO ARE UNKONWN?
Therefore, applying the precautionary principle to itself, we find that we should not use it.
NG Andronova, ME Schlesinger - Geophysical Research Letters, 2000 Causes of Global Temperature Changes during the 19th and 20th Centuries Climate Research Group, Department of Atmospheric Sciences University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
I just clicked around with this google search on scholarly articles:
The first link was this, from two scientists at the University of Illinois.
This paper argues that global warming is mostly currently caused by humans, so I think you might find that these people aren't "quacks".
HOWEVER, they argue IN THE INTRODUCTION that climate change for most of the 20th century, up to and including earlier warming and cooling the 1970s, was "due to varriations in the sun's irradiance". NOT PEOPLE!
AND THEY SAY "there is a residual [non-human] factor at work in the climate system".
None of this means that we can't agree that solar and wind power are good things, and eliminating smog producing and disease causing auto emissions is a good thing - it's just that we should show some respect for scientists who know more about this than we do, and not just call them quacks or wackos because their research might invalidate one or more of the "facts" we believe.
The links you sent regarding the political advertising campaign Competitive Enterprise Institute is not germain to the discussion of whether there are real scientists who have concerns regarding global warming. That's politics.
The article you point to states:
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
A more fair summary might be, "Some number of scientific papers, which we won't publish, explicitely endorse the consensus position. If you add those in with papers that evaluate the impact of global warming (whatever its causes), or study ways to mitigate it (whatever its causes), you get a solid majority of 75% of papers that support the consensus either explicitely or implicitely."
"Also, a minority of papers (1/4) study the effectiveness with which we measure this phenomenon, which may question its severity, or they offer alternative hypotheses for global warming beyond human creation to the extent which they can't be said to implicitely support the concensus, but they don't outright reject the idea that humans are helping to cause it."
And from that, the average person will conclude something like: "There is no debate. Global warming is real and it is caused by humans, and anyone who denies it is a quack with laughable logical skills."
"Global warming, we have a broad scientific consensus shown in all peer reviewed publications, questioned by only a few with dubious records of intellectual integrity and whose arguments have been shown to have hilarious errors over and over again."
No.
There are serious scientists who question the theory that global warming or climate change as it's more properly called now is caused by human activity.
But hey, if I were an intellectually lazy armchair scientist, I'd probably just accuse them of being quacks so that I didn't have to spend the time to consider their ideas too.
Heck, when was the last time that a "broad scientific concensus" was overturned?
This plain evidence of heliosphere shrinkage is clearly linked to our overindulgence of fossil fuels, and the tremendous buildup of heliospheric damaging gasses emitted from our atmosphere and into our precious heliosphere.
We must work together to recognize this inconvenient truth and change our everyday lives lest the heliosphere collapse entirely and we die of interstellar radiation.
I would love an "ISBN Scan and Search" Service where I could run my book's ISBN #s through a scanner, and search those in Google's (whomever's) database.
I recently had to give a talk and the information I wanted to convey was scattered throughout about 50 books. I wasn't able to do a good job, and I desperately wanted to do a keyword search on each of them.
This would be a great service for a library which would allow a patron to do a full text search on all books in the library.
Imagine writing a paper on the literary impact of "The Beatles" or "Star Wars" scattered throughout diverse materials like romance novels or physics textbooks in a large library.
"The conclusions presented here present two major challenges to the research community.
"One is to find ways of extending experimental investigations into the oceans and the developing world.
"The second is to integrate them into computer models of climate, something which is only just beginning to happen. "
So when someone says that we need "more research" into climate change, they may not just be a lackey of the oil companies, but they may actually be concerned that the science on this isn't really done yet.
And yes, climate models suck:
"More recently, and as a result of the fact that the 2004 summer monsoon season of India experienced a 13% precipitation deficit that was not predicted by any of the empirical or dynamical models regularly used in making rainfall forecasts, Gadgil et al. (2005) performed an historical analysis of the models' forecast skill over the period 1932-2004. Interestingly, and despite numerous model advancements and an ever-improving understanding of monsoon variability, they found that the models' skill in forecasting the Indian monsoon's characteristics had not improved since the very first versions of the models were applied to this task in 1932."
This doesn't mean that we can't take steps now to stop spewing crap into the air as a precautionary measure, or to improve the general welfare of our population, but it does mean that these changes may have unintended consequences, and not take all possible actions at once simply because we're SURE that the Earth is doomed if we don't do this.
IMHO, the problem is that RedHat wanted to see some significant outside sponsorship for Fedora, say from IBM, or perhaps Mark Shuttleworth (Ubuntu), but they didn't get it.
If they aren't getting the benefit of that sponsorship by giving up control, then why give up that control? It's useful to keep Fedora in sync with their commercial product.
Besides, don't kid yourself, if I need a piece of software, more likely than not, it's been tested on Fedora, if not already packaged and included, and it was probably originally written on or ported to Fedora, so that's what makes it a great distro. I've used them all, and I like Fedora Core 5, and it's not terribly broken as others have claimed. (although I've seen one bug in the login screen).
There's nothing wrong with this. For efficiency, we're going to see more code shared between distributions, and possibly testing, etc. However, it looks like RedHat's hopes of becoming the absolutely dominant distribution by embracing and extending Ubuntu (which is part of Debian), or by aligning itself with IBM, have been put on hold for now.
However, the major distributions are more like one another than they ever have been (compare SuSE and RedHat now with SuSE 6.0 and RedHat 7.0), and they will continue to share more and more code, but it looks like the market for Linux based OSes is large enough that there is enough room to that total consolidation will not happen.
"because unaided there's no mechanism by which that potential future event has a dollar cost for the companies and consumers involved in energy transactions today."
You're mistaken.
Should I buy this beach front property in Florida? What are the chances that it will be under 3 feet of water in 50 years?
If I had any reason to believe that this were to actually occur, I would adjust the value that I'm willing to pay for that property downward.
The current price of beach front property in Florida is an indication that many people believe that such a scenario is not likely.
Most people probably believe that either the threat of flooding due to global warming is not real, too small to be meaningful, or we will find ways to reverse the process.
However, there is the free rider problem. Why should I, in Iowa or Michigan, care if it floods in Florida because I'm driving my SUV. There's a good case for government intervention.
Slashdot Mirror
Item 1: Fair Use - When is it OK to hack a DVD?
-------------------
If I wanted to do a report on the cultural influence of Star Wars, would it be OK to download from the Internet a screen capture of the Death Star to compare to the AT&T logo, also downloaded?
Would it be OK to break the encryption on a DVD to get a picture of the Death Star to compare to the AT&T logo?
What about the sounds that Jar Jar Binks makes versus an historical African American portrayal such as Gone with the Wind? Can I get those?
What about a video of his walk when compared to the same figures walking or dancing? Can I get those?
Does the law allow this? (DMCA - probably not)
Item 2: What about copyright terms in different countries?
--------------------
IIRC Australia has a 50 year limit on copyright. Is it OK for an Australian to post for free scans of 51 year old books on the Internet?
What about 51 year old movies? 51 year old songs?
Is it OK to listen to those songs in the USA or Canada?
Should the ISP block that access?
Who gets to decide what's on that block list?
Item 3: Sharing - Where do we draw the line?
---------------------
Is it OK to make a mix CD or mix tape for a friend?
Is it OK to rip a CD to make MP3s on my computer?
How many copies of those MP3s can I make for personal use?
Is it OK to keep the MP3s if my original CDs are destroyed in a fire?
Is it OK to make a mix CD with some of my friend's MP3 songs and some of mine?
Is it OK for both of us to back up that CD as MP3s?
Is it OK to mix my entire MP3 collection with my friend's entire MP3 collection?
Is it OK to do that with everyone I meet on the Internet?
Is it OK to do each of these things with movies?
They will son become world experts in data compression, home construction of undetectable spread spectrum links, ad hoc very long range wireless data connections, and anonymous groupware! Thanks Iran!
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advise.
1) The Child Support Agency will probably not be neutral - they will probably want to give custody to your wife - Title IV-D of the Social Security Act provides for incentive payments to states based on the amount the collect in child support. If you make more than your wife, the state has a strong incentive to give her custody or to avoid joint custody.
2) The judge may not be neutral - He or she works with the people above.
3) Your Lawyer May Not Represent You - Judges in many states have vast discretion to make decisions regarding child custody and divorces based on the "Best Interest Of the Child" standards (Which means whatever the judge thinks it means). Lawyers who regularly practice divorce law representing men sometimes learn that it's best to go with the flow and let the process take place than fight and cause more harm. They ignore procedural violations of the law, just usher their clients through the system, and bill them when they're done. Some dad have had better luck with criminal attorneys rather than divorce lawyers.
4) You may pay for everything - Just to be clear, there's a fair chance that you're going to pay for your wife's lawyer, court fees, any counselors that will be called, etc.
5) You may loose the love of your child - CS collection agencies are legendarily reluctant to enforce visitation rights. Many fathers loose touch with their children after a divorce, especially when mom gets a new husband and wants that man to act as the effective father in their child's life.
6) You are not alone. One organization is here: http://www.krightsradio.com/
OK, this is advise, but not legal advise:
7) NOW IS THE TIME TO RECONCILE! Learn what's coming. Get in front of this and try to fix things with your wife NOW!
Rod Coronado, you burned down a research lab at Michigan State University, you dickless wonder! Why don't you go back to medieval times and imprison Gallileo with your intellectual forebearers? We debate ethics here! We protest here! We do not commit acts of arson. You are a nothing but a loathsome terrorist, and you should be thankful each day that your reckless acts haven't killed anyone yet.
How can we get MP-3 and MPEG support included with Fedora on download?
"If 4 million computers can produce just one more person who can go to college and stand on his feet, then everyone wins"
That would be 400 million dollars just to get someone into college - hardly a victory.
What the laptops need to do is help a significant number of the children who use them develop some skills that they can use to improve their lives in some way.
Maybe one child builds a cooler air conditioner, another uses the computer to expose her abuse, another learns mathematics and becomes an accountant, another makes a web site and shares his poetry, etc.
Sure people have died on both sides, children who will never know the love of their parents, lovers torn apart by blood and shrapnel, but this is PHP damnit! This effects me! We must end this conflict before the development schedule for PHP is effected further!
If your goal is tax reduction, then don't support charter schools. In our state, charters are displacing both private schools, which get no state funding, with public charter schools, which are 100% state funded, as well as other 100% funded public schools. This means more state dollars for educating children, as schools are paid by the state on a per pupil basis.
Detroit Public Schools
A good chunk of kids who used to go to private schools now go to charters instead, and in 3 years there will probably be more kids going to charters in Detroit than to the traditional public schools.Choice is good.
Given some time, eggs may also be made as well as sperm from stem cells, and homosexual male couples can also have biological children with the help of a woman to carry the fetus.
"There are people on the benefit having children ... then demanding that the tax payer for the bill for their lifestyle choice."
OK, I agree that there are some people, and yeah, I pay for my kid, but let's look at a few facts:
- In the US, the child care tax credit is for 80% of child care expenses - the tax credit for viagra is 100%. Why are old guy boners worth more than children's care?
- Similarly, the tax credit for child care is around $3000. Please. My provider charges over $40 per day, or over $160 per week. If your provider is charging you $120 per week, it's about market minimum, and that's $6,000 for a 50 week year.
- The normal child tax deduction is only good for 15 1/2 years, it's limited if you're making decent money, or if you don't make any money, you don't get it.
- Public assistance comes with many strings, one of which is that the unmarried father (normally) must be signed into a program (TANF-D) where if he doesn't make child support payments, he can be imprisoned - no excuses - get sick and go to jail - normally for 6 months at a stretch. I know children whose mothers who cohabitate with the father, and they are afraid to sign the kids up for help, so those kids just don't have access to Medicare, etc. Also, "child support" in this context can mean the majority of the money is going to fees, late fees, court imposed lawyer fees, court imposed counseling, and court imposed this and that, and not actually helping the child. I've heard reports that 40% or more of a parent's income can be taken out with as little as $50 per month actually going to the child. Bankruptcy will not save you, and the fees and fines will dog you until you die.
- Also, if you're a parent under 35 or so, which is probably most parents, you're paying about 14% of your income, with no exemptions, to social security and Medicare, and if you look at your yearly statement, it says that by the time you retire, they will have no more than about 74% of the money available - if that. So you're being screwed there. How about getting that 26% back so that those people can feed and house their children? Nope. Grandpa needs his state subsidized Viagra.
So, whose being selfish here? A government that's out for it's own good first? An older generation willing to screw the young rather than give up extras? Or some poor, miseducated, smucks who think they can get away with having kids that they can't aford and not get seriously screwed?
"The precautionary principle, a phrase first used in English circa 1988, is the idea that if the consequences of an action are unknown, but are judged to have some potential for major or irreversible negative consequences, then it is better to avoid that action"
Did humans, when first inventing the automobile, use the precautionary principle? No, and we are better off with them. Think ambulances.
Did humans, when inventing computers, use the precautionary principle? No, and we are better off with them. Shut yours off now if you don't believe me.
If we use the precautionary principle, we should halt all genetics resarch until we know the consequences of such research. People will cancer will just have to die.
If we use the precautionary principle, we should stop cutting down trees and making camp fires. No more s'mores! Children will just have to suffer.
But why would we suddenly switch our modus operandi to use this "precautionary principle" when the CONSEQUENCES OF DOING SO ARE UNKONWN?
Therefore, applying the precautionary principle to itself, we find that we should not use it.
Q.E.D.
Sometimes it takes some balls to keep the peace, like when French commandos demolished a radio tower in order to sustain the Berlin Airlift.
l /bal6.htm
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/coldwar/ba
Since 1/2 the people don't know what the Berlin Airlift was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Blockade
And props to the candy bombers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Candy_Bomber
(That's right, I just complimented the FRENCH MILITARY)
Sorry, the URLs were stripped for some reason. Possibly because I put them in
i ng%20volcanoes%20research&hl=en&hs=KO9&lr=&client= firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&oi=schola rt
_ dT.pdf
Google search for "global warming volcanoes research". Click "scholarly articles".
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=global%20warm
NG Andronova, ME Schlesinger - Geophysical Research Letters, 2000
Causes of Global Temperature Changes during the 19th and 20th Centuries
Climate Research Group, Department of Atmospheric Sciences
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
http://crgd.atmos.uiuc.edu/publications/Causes_of
Just saw your post. Doubt that you'll read this.
I just clicked around with this google search on scholarly articles:
The first link was this, from two scientists at the University of Illinois.
This paper argues that global warming is mostly currently caused by humans, so I think you might find that these people aren't "quacks".
HOWEVER, they argue IN THE INTRODUCTION that climate change for most of the 20th century, up to and including earlier warming and cooling the 1970s, was "due to varriations in the sun's irradiance". NOT PEOPLE!
AND THEY SAY "there is a residual [non-human] factor at work in the climate system".
None of this means that we can't agree that solar and wind power are good things, and eliminating smog producing and disease causing auto emissions is a good thing - it's just that we should show some respect for scientists who know more about this than we do, and not just call them quacks or wackos because their research might invalidate one or more of the "facts" we believe.
The links you sent regarding the political advertising campaign Competitive Enterprise Institute is not germain to the discussion of whether there are real scientists who have concerns regarding global warming. That's politics.
The article you point to states:
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
A more fair summary might be, "Some number of scientific papers, which we won't publish, explicitely endorse the consensus position. If you add those in with papers that evaluate the impact of global warming (whatever its causes), or study ways to mitigate it (whatever its causes), you get a solid majority of 75% of papers that support the consensus either explicitely or implicitely."
"Also, a minority of papers (1/4) study the effectiveness with which we measure this phenomenon, which may question its severity, or they offer alternative hypotheses for global warming beyond human creation to the extent which they can't be said to implicitely support the concensus, but they don't outright reject the idea that humans are helping to cause it."
And from that, the average person will conclude something like: "There is no debate. Global warming is real and it is caused by humans, and anyone who denies it is a quack with laughable logical skills."
Sorry, that's not an accurate summary.
No.
There are serious scientists who question the theory that global warming or climate change as it's more properly called now is caused by human activity.
Just check out wikipedia
But hey, if I were an intellectually lazy armchair scientist, I'd probably just accuse them of being quacks so that I didn't have to spend the time to consider their ideas too.
Heck, when was the last time that a "broad scientific concensus" was overturned?
This plain evidence of heliosphere shrinkage is clearly linked to our overindulgence of fossil fuels, and the tremendous buildup of heliospheric damaging gasses emitted from our atmosphere and into our precious heliosphere.
We must work together to recognize this inconvenient truth and change our everyday lives lest the heliosphere collapse entirely and we die of interstellar radiation.
I would love an "ISBN Scan and Search" Service where I could run my book's ISBN #s through a scanner, and search those in Google's (whomever's) database.
I recently had to give a talk and the information I wanted to convey was scattered throughout about 50 books. I wasn't able to do a good job, and I desperately wanted to do a keyword search on each of them.
This would be a great service for a library which would allow a patron to do a full text search on all books in the library.
Imagine writing a paper on the literary impact of "The Beatles" or "Star Wars" scattered throughout diverse materials like romance novels or physics textbooks in a large library.
This is commonly mentioned on the Science Channel.
Shall we ban the book along with the video game?
Perhaps the movie should be first?
"The conclusions presented here present two major challenges to the research community.
i n/pg_diy.jsp?CNTTYPE=PROD_META&CNTKEY=misc%2Fsearc hResults.jsp&BV_SessionID=@@@@0364476222.114442512 9@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccdfaddhhhdeggfcgelceffdfgidgjm. 0&MID=9876>
"One is to find ways of extending experimental investigations into the oceans and the developing world.
"The second is to integrate them into computer models of climate, something which is only just beginning to happen. "
So when someone says that we need "more research" into climate change, they may not just be a lackey of the oil companies, but they may actually be concerned that the science on this isn't really done yet.
And yes, climate models suck:
"More recently, and as a result of the fact that the 2004 summer monsoon season of India experienced a 13% precipitation deficit that was not predicted by any of the empirical or dynamical models regularly used in making rainfall forecasts, Gadgil et al. (2005) performed an historical analysis of the models' forecast skill over the period 1932-2004. Interestingly, and despite numerous model advancements and an ever-improving understanding of monsoon variability, they found that the models' skill in forecasting the Indian monsoon's characteristics had not improved since the very first versions of the models were applied to this task in 1932."
http://www.homedepot.com/prel80/HDUS/EN_US/diy_ma
This doesn't mean that we can't take steps now to stop spewing crap into the air as a precautionary measure, or to improve the general welfare of our population, but it does mean that these changes may have unintended consequences, and not take all possible actions at once simply because we're SURE that the Earth is doomed if we don't do this.
We're not sure.
IMHO, the problem is that RedHat wanted to see some significant outside sponsorship for Fedora, say from IBM, or perhaps Mark Shuttleworth (Ubuntu), but they didn't get it.
If they aren't getting the benefit of that sponsorship by giving up control, then why give up that control? It's useful to keep Fedora in sync with their commercial product.
Besides, don't kid yourself, if I need a piece of software, more likely than not, it's been tested on Fedora, if not already packaged and included, and it was probably originally written on or ported to Fedora, so that's what makes it a great distro. I've used them all, and I like Fedora Core 5, and it's not terribly broken as others have claimed. (although I've seen one bug in the login screen).
There's nothing wrong with this. For efficiency, we're going to see more code shared between distributions, and possibly testing, etc. However, it looks like RedHat's hopes of becoming the absolutely dominant distribution by embracing and extending Ubuntu (which is part of Debian), or by aligning itself with IBM, have been put on hold for now.
However, the major distributions are more like one another than they ever have been (compare SuSE and RedHat now with SuSE 6.0 and RedHat 7.0), and they will continue to share more and more code, but it looks like the market for Linux based OSes is large enough that there is enough room to that total consolidation will not happen.
"because unaided there's no mechanism by which that potential future event has a dollar cost for the companies and consumers involved in energy transactions today."
You're mistaken.
Should I buy this beach front property in Florida? What are the chances that it will be under 3 feet of water in 50 years?
If I had any reason to believe that this were to actually occur, I would adjust the value that I'm willing to pay for that property downward.
The current price of beach front property in Florida is an indication that many people believe that such a scenario is not likely.
Most people probably believe that either the threat of flooding due to global warming is not real, too small to be meaningful, or we will find ways to reverse the process.
However, there is the free rider problem. Why should I, in Iowa or Michigan, care if it floods in Florida because I'm driving my SUV. There's a good case for government intervention.