I'd like to hear from Microsoft apologists why they think this is an ethical and acceptable way to do business.
I'm no MS apologist, but some might argue that this is "ethical" because the populace is too weak, uneducated, and disorganized to stand up and cry foul. A population that lacks the will to assert its rights neither deserves nor receives them. The masses, through their own ignorance, get what peanuts they deserve. And a company, through its successful organization and exertion of will over the public offices, gets what it deserves, too.
I'm sure someone can phrase that much better. I don't buy into this argument at all, but I'm sure someone out there will argue it (there's always one... haha).
Maybe the teens are smarter precisely because they're not having sex, and as such they spend more time with intellectual pursuits.
Then again, maybe spending time with intellectual pursuits reduces interest (and competence) in sexual endeavours.
As a matter of accuracy, perhaps middle-IQ teens are more prone to be dishonest about their virginity than the really smart and the really not-so smart.
In poker you have a finite number of cards, that are a lot smaller than the permutation of moves in chess or checkers. Just the ability to count cards and do statistical analysis makes poker, blackjack, etc easier to compute in my opinion. Then again, if you had a deck of random cards and not a standard deck, that would make it a bit harder but that's not how it's really played. That would be like comparing it to chess with all queens.
The effect of counting cards is decreased by not playing the back-half to back-third of the deck. It's easier to count the cards and play the odds in cards, but harder to determine whether someone is bluffing, and harder to unpredictably bluff (perhaps). Your chess with all Queen's analogy is very good. Maybe it's analogous to queen's-only chess with 52x52 board.
Chess strikes me as harder to do complete, but Poker strikes me as easy to do 'good enough'. I'd figure Poker games would be all about the "random" (stochastic) element. It's not as if the computer has a 'tell'. A deterministic Poker algorithm strikes me as counterintuitive and counterproductive for the game, and likely very ineffective.
Gives a whole new meaning to Monte Carlo and Los Vegas algorithms, in a sense.:)
I don't think that works if the original license wasn't the one Intel distributed. If Intel distributed the original license and tried to foist a modification off, promissory estoppel might limit the effect given to the revision (or at least a shield against some remedies for violation of it), given the irrevocability term in the license.
I think you understand and are getting at what I was hoping to be able to convey.
If Intel said it was using the unmodified GPLv2, someone relied upon the unmodified GPLv2 even though the actual license being distributed was a modified GPLv2, then promissory estoppel ought to apply (all else being equal) insofar as the modifications give rise to Intel's right to make claims against parties who agreed to the software license where it would otherwise not have such a right, as Intel ought not to be able to rely upon its misrepresentation. Only estoppel the shield, though.
That's still not a very eloquent explanation. But I think the analysis, while a tad convoluted, is not unreasonable (common law applying and relevant legislation notwithstanding). And I'm speculating that you've got a grasp of this anyway (and hopefully it doesn't mislead passers-by).
No, if anything, in that case, Intel would be guilty of copyright violation on the license. Forcing them to adhere to the original license (assuming their product doesn't incorporate anything licensed under the unmodified license) would be an extraordinarily improbable remedy, in that case.
Incidentally, adherence to the original license would be a shield against litigation by Intel. In other words, Intel would not be permitted to rely upon modifications to the contract (in equity, under the doctrine of estoppel / detrimental reliance).
That's interesting, since the first bit of license of the GPLv2 is:
"Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."
Thus, I expect that a court would find that Intel would be bound to the verbatim GPLv2 (which has "or any later version") unless they specifically say something of the kin of "modified GPLv2" wherever they mention the license they're using, and particularize the modifications prominently in their version.
They would also be in violation of the GPLv2 by having modified the version they are distributing, contrary to the terms of the license for distribution.
As the sole copyright owner they could unilaterally revoke and amend the license and its references appropriately for future versions. However, anyone with a copy of this existing version would seemingly have the GPLv2 license in its original glory (and hence GPLv3 may apply).
I haven't looked at the details; this is based on what you've just said. It's very interesting.
Instead of parachutes for every passenger, would it make any sense to have giant parachutes attached to various locations of the fuselage to float it to the ground at a non-terminal velocity (pardon the pun) in an emergency/crash situation?
The federal budget was in surplus (took in more than it spent) in each of Clinton's final four budgets.
In the past 46 years, the budget has been in surplus for 5 of them. The fifth one was LBJ's last budget (FY 1969).
Fiscal discipline has nothing to do with what the money is spent on... only that spending does not exceed income.
Your point about military spending had nothing to do with the point of the grand parent poster, that the last time we had fiscal discipline was during the Clinton Administration.
That's a very good point and clarification, thank you. I wonder, though, if the reason for the problems with fiscal discipline relate to the spending on the military industrial complex. It may be that the spending on the military ultimately pays for itself. It just strikes me as more than a random correlation, though, that the largest spender on military forces by far, also has the highest monetary deficit by far.
I think we're way beyond the point of ever having "small government" (God bless Ron Paul just the same). I'm in favor of more limited and fiscally disciplined government, like we had under Clinton.
I believe it was under the "fiscally disciplined government" of Clinton that the military budget of the United States of America surpassed the military budget of every other country combined.
Not to argue benefit/detriment about it. Just pointing out how absurd it is to call the US government fiscally disciplined at any point after, say, the 60's, relative to other countries (unless fiscally disciplined includes controlling the oil supplies by force, and that's cheaper than non-military control).
As I understand it, you can release your statutory rights, unless the are inalienable. We may be talking about separate things, but allow me to elaborate on what I'm trying to convey.
For example, you may have a statutory right to sue an insurance company because they breached a statutory obligation to pay for your medical benefits. However, if they settle the case (i.e. accept a sum of money in exchange for a release), the provision of a release intrinsically waives your statutory right to sue. In other words, you cannot both settle for a sum of money and nonetheless sue them anyway. The insurance company would rely upon your agreement to settle your claims for the sum, and unless there was something inherently wrong with the agreement to settle in and of itself, the court is disinclined to set aside the well-considered agreement of two individuals.
Remember that with a 14 year copyright, copyleft licenses such as GNU GPL would cease to apply. As a result, this software would become public domain after 14 years.
I haven't thought it through, but this doesn't strike me as a bad thing.
The replacements were refurbished broken X-boxes in the first place, which didn't get the same quality of service check on the way out the door as a new one might.
Who's to say, but it would explain why the replacements have been buggy, where a new one might not be.
I completely agree with you that gold farmers are a problem for MMO games. However, I suggest that is a problem with the economy of the game. As well, I feel that the poorly designed artificial scarcity inherent to these games should not impinge upon the ability for people who were otherwise destitute to be able to buy themselves some bread (so to speak).
That being said, companies considering the quality of the gaming experience should design the game in such a way that there is no artificial scarcity which would give rise to profitable gold farming.
In other words, I think poor people making money off gold farming isn't the worst thing in the world, and I think the blame for poor user experience falls on the company to whom you pay money to play. That company (I reiterate, to whom you pay money to play) has designed the game in such a way that farming in their artificial world and selling it in real economic terms is actually viable, and farming has a negative impact upon the experience of regular users.
I'm not suggesting that this is an easy problem for companies to solve. I am suggesting that the onus is on the company to solve that problem, that gold farmers have no personal obligation to other users in light of their real-world poverty, and that solving the problem is not stopping farming but rather designing the game in such a way that gold farming is uneconomical or at least the farming is not otherwise detrimental to the experience of paying users.
If you find that your patent has been violated, you have to sue in a timely manner. You can't wait or the court will pitch out your case because of the doctrine of laches. I suppose someone should ask them how they intend to get around that problem.
Laches need not apply, for the following reasons (off the top of my head).
First and generally, statutes (legislation) trump common law (judge-made law). Laches is common law doctrine, patents are statutorily enacted. The period for execution of patent rights falls within a statutory declaration of, I believe, 20 years. The Court is not likely to have the power to supplant the statutory rights granted to the patent holder because of a delay. If patents were meant to have a timeliness to prosecution component, that ought to have been something considered by the legislature (Courts are inclined to presume competence of the legislature), and its absence may be deemed intentional.
Second but generally as well, equity trumps law only where the law is unduly harsh. Patents are a legal concept whose temporal restrictions have been well reasoned by the legislation and long considered by the judiciary. As commercial negotiations regularly involve sitting on ones' right to sue, it is nigh impossible that equitable doctrines would come into play. It does not squelch the right to assert the proprietary protections vested by statute.
The concept of estoppel may apply. Where one reasonably relies upon the statements of another to their own detriment, they may have an equitable remedy. Thus, if a commercial entity relies upon Microsoft's declaration not to sue in the immediate future, Microsoft may be barred from recovering at law because the commercial entity relied upon Microsoft's statements.
That being said, Microsoft has limited the scope of its statement to "immediate future", therefore any prolonged infringement would not be protected by such mechanisms. Microsoft need only bring a few demand letters to discontinue infringement, and the defense of estoppel is waylaid.
Thus, laches is unlikely to apply, however estoppel may, but only for the quasi-timeframe Microsoft cited of the immediate future. YMMV & HTH.:)
Yes, the levy was proportional to the size of the media. The CPCC wanted to apply it to things like MP3 players and iPods and blank DVD's, which is absurd if made proportional to the size of the media.
The iPods and MP3 player levy was overturned at the Federal court, I'm glad to say. This is why Apple had an iPod rebate in Canada, after and because of this ruling. When active, it was divvied up with different charges depending on the size, i.e. some thing like media players less than 5GB, those from 5GB-20GB, and media players greater than 20GB.
It would have been absurd to apply it to DVD's as well. I don't remember the exact figure, but one could end up paying $3.00 in levy on a $0.21 blank DVD.
If I remember correctly (I was an official objector to this levy, right through to the Federal Court), the reasoning for not applying the tax to DVD's is that DVD's are not a primarily audio medium.
The levy only compensates for musical works by Canadian creators (broadly speaking). There's no equivalent for film, photos, or literature (which I unsuccessfully argued was arbitrary and discriminatory) or foreign-produced musical works (which I successfully argued was a violation of our NAFTA treaty obligations, but they didn't do anything about it).
The term "without notice" means "without notice". The term "ex parte" means "without notice or without opposing argument", vis-à-vis it's literal Latin translation, "one-sided".
How may I ask did you arrive at the conclusion you have? It's contrary to the definitive legal dictionary, Black's Law Dictionary (7th Ed.), contrary to a Judge's opinion upon my inquiry, and contrary to my understanding, intuition, knowledge and belief (which isn't exactly paltry in the area). I would be quite surprised if you were right, so I would quite like to know why you believe what you do.
Anytime. As a matter of human psychology and persuasiveness, it can look defensive to reply directly to counterarguments. In other words, if an idea has merits, it looks better to write them out, and leave it to others to defend it. And if it has merits, generally someone will. Even on Slashdot.:)
I think the data on both sides of the global warming argument is the exact same: The world is warming up, and prior cases where the world has warmed up there has been an increase in CO2. I don't think these observations are disputed.
What seems to be disputed is what the data actually means. Global-warming activists seem to say that human output of CO2 is causing global warming. Global-warming skeptics seem to say that high CO2 levels are correlated with global warming (and in fact, that CO2 levels rise because of global warming).
I've discussed the data and the theories with a number of people. It's useful to remember that global warming caused by CO2 is just a theory, based on two observations: First, the world is warming up. Second: observations of prior world temperature changes commensurate with observations of CO2 levels, and notably higher CO2 with higher temperatures. There is some evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, however there are much stronger greenhouse gases (i.e. methane) which we now produce at industrial levels.
A theory upon which we found our social, political and economic principles must be subject to the strictest of scrutiny, and yet the evidence for it is not sound. There are a huge number of scientists who are rightly skeptical of this, and their voice is being silenced (just as is the original post in this thread!). However there are a small number of politically interested advocates of this theory, and based upon this hypothetical they intend to change world economic dynamics by marketing this theory to the masses.
The consequences are numerous. First, we may not address the actual problem that is causing global warming. Second, we may cause huge social and economic consequences for no benefit. Third, if there is no benefit, any future notion of relying upon "scientific evidence" may be viewed skeptically by the masses.
It is the third notion about which I have the most concern. If the CO2-causing-global-warming theory is incorrect, and it is espoused as a "scientific truth", then the massive public failure in this case may undermine confidence in future "scientific truths" that may actually have merit.
That being said, I acknowledge that it is plausible that global warming is caused by CO2. What I am concerned about is that the science has been poorly done, that the voices of consensus are few and loud, that the voices of criticism are silenced, that the truth may as a result be lost, and that the public confidence in scientific truth may be undermined.
You're right in implying there's an element of deception in the global warming "debate". People mistake correlation for causation all the time, often because they're told to and they're unable to think for themselves. Many mistake global warming correlating with higher CO2 with a global warming caused by CO2. Having perused material on the matter, and discussed it with colleagues who track this, there is no evidence to suggest that higher CO2 causes the global warming we are seeing today. As well, you are right to assert that global warming causes higher CO2, a known causation.
I don't know if you're right about the sun (though there is evidence to suggest you are), but you're certainly right to be skeptical about CO2 causing global warming. Worse is that the lack of balanced scientific debate on the topic, and the number of lemmings who blindingly need to point a finger without any actual evidence, is undermining the ability to observe and make rational opinions.
However, it's Slashdot. It's a populous opinion. Don't take it personal when the lemmings come and mod you down for, God forbid, positing something contrary to the convenience of their finger-pointing!:)
According to Richard Tol, an environmental economist, "warming temperatures will mean that in 2050 there will be about 40,000 fewer deaths in Germany attributable to cold-related illnesses like the flu."
Yes, but higher temperatures also mean more tropical diseases, particularly malaria, and notably the plethora of parasites and other pests which are currently controlled by cold winter cycles.
My understanding (and it's limited, I admit) is that there is a reason the Northern Hemisphere has fewer problems with diseases, and that correlation is caused by the winter cold-cycle limiting the growth of aggressive and infectious disease. If that's true, and you take the cold-cycle away, there is nothing preventing these tropical diseases from growing here. Given this, I would expect that the savings in deaths due to the flu will be more than accommodated by the introduction of more aggressive diseases that are able to exist and persist in the newly temperate climate.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to hear from Microsoft apologists why they think this is an ethical and acceptable way to do business.
... haha).
I'm no MS apologist, but some might argue that this is "ethical" because the populace is too weak, uneducated, and disorganized to stand up and cry foul. A population that lacks the will to assert its rights neither deserves nor receives them. The masses, through their own ignorance, get what peanuts they deserve. And a company, through its successful organization and exertion of will over the public offices, gets what it deserves, too.
I'm sure someone can phrase that much better. I don't buy into this argument at all, but I'm sure someone out there will argue it (there's always one
Maybe the teens are smarter precisely because they're not having sex, and as such they spend more time with intellectual pursuits.
Then again, maybe spending time with intellectual pursuits reduces interest (and competence) in sexual endeavours.
As a matter of accuracy, perhaps middle-IQ teens are more prone to be dishonest about their virginity than the really smart and the really not-so smart.
Maybe it's a little from columns A, B and C.
In poker you have a finite number of cards, that are a lot smaller than the permutation of moves in chess or checkers. Just the ability to count cards and do statistical analysis makes poker, blackjack, etc easier to compute in my opinion. Then again, if you had a deck of random cards and not a standard deck, that would make it a bit harder but that's not how it's really played. That would be like comparing it to chess with all queens.
:)
The effect of counting cards is decreased by not playing the back-half to back-third of the deck. It's easier to count the cards and play the odds in cards, but harder to determine whether someone is bluffing, and harder to unpredictably bluff (perhaps). Your chess with all Queen's analogy is very good. Maybe it's analogous to queen's-only chess with 52x52 board.
Chess strikes me as harder to do complete, but Poker strikes me as easy to do 'good enough'. I'd figure Poker games would be all about the "random" (stochastic) element. It's not as if the computer has a 'tell'. A deterministic Poker algorithm strikes me as counterintuitive and counterproductive for the game, and likely very ineffective.
Gives a whole new meaning to Monte Carlo and Los Vegas algorithms, in a sense.
I don't think that works if the original license wasn't the one Intel distributed. If Intel distributed the original license and tried to foist a modification off, promissory estoppel might limit the effect given to the revision (or at least a shield against some remedies for violation of it), given the irrevocability term in the license.
I think you understand and are getting at what I was hoping to be able to convey.
If Intel said it was using the unmodified GPLv2, someone relied upon the unmodified GPLv2 even though the actual license being distributed was a modified GPLv2, then promissory estoppel ought to apply (all else being equal) insofar as the modifications give rise to Intel's right to make claims against parties who agreed to the software license where it would otherwise not have such a right, as Intel ought not to be able to rely upon its misrepresentation. Only estoppel the shield, though.
That's still not a very eloquent explanation. But I think the analysis, while a tad convoluted, is not unreasonable (common law applying and relevant legislation notwithstanding). And I'm speculating that you've got a grasp of this anyway (and hopefully it doesn't mislead passers-by).
Gotcha; I misunderstood the parent's post.
No, if anything, in that case, Intel would be guilty of copyright violation on the license. Forcing them to adhere to the original license (assuming their product doesn't incorporate anything licensed under the unmodified license) would be an extraordinarily improbable remedy, in that case.
Incidentally, adherence to the original license would be a shield against litigation by Intel. In other words, Intel would not be permitted to rely upon modifications to the contract (in equity, under the doctrine of estoppel / detrimental reliance).
The copyright violation is incidental.
That's interesting, since the first bit of license of the GPLv2 is:
"Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."
Thus, I expect that a court would find that Intel would be bound to the verbatim GPLv2 (which has "or any later version") unless they specifically say something of the kin of "modified GPLv2" wherever they mention the license they're using, and particularize the modifications prominently in their version.
They would also be in violation of the GPLv2 by having modified the version they are distributing, contrary to the terms of the license for distribution.
As the sole copyright owner they could unilaterally revoke and amend the license and its references appropriately for future versions. However, anyone with a copy of this existing version would seemingly have the GPLv2 license in its original glory (and hence GPLv3 may apply).
I haven't looked at the details; this is based on what you've just said. It's very interesting.
Instead of parachutes for every passenger, would it make any sense to have giant parachutes attached to various locations of the fuselage to float it to the ground at a non-terminal velocity (pardon the pun) in an emergency/crash situation?
it's that if your time has come there's nothing you can do.
This is the philosophy of drivers in India.
India also has the most dangerous roads in the world.
It's not a coincidence. It's denial. haha
I don't know, man ... I'm more concerned when a seven year old starts saying things like "oh, fiddlesticks".
The federal budget was in surplus (took in more than it spent) in each of Clinton's final four budgets.
In the past 46 years, the budget has been in surplus for 5 of them. The fifth one was LBJ's last budget (FY 1969).
Fiscal discipline has nothing to do with what the money is spent on... only that spending does not exceed income.
Your point about military spending had nothing to do with the point of the grand parent poster, that the last time we had fiscal discipline was during the Clinton Administration.
That's a very good point and clarification, thank you. I wonder, though, if the reason for the problems with fiscal discipline relate to the spending on the military industrial complex. It may be that the spending on the military ultimately pays for itself. It just strikes me as more than a random correlation, though, that the largest spender on military forces by far, also has the highest monetary deficit by far.
I think he meant fiscally disciplined relative to the current administration. Which only requires that money in >= money out.
:)
Oops, right you are - thanks for the clarification.
I think we're way beyond the point of ever having "small government" (God bless Ron Paul just the same). I'm in favor of more limited and fiscally disciplined government, like we had under Clinton.
I believe it was under the "fiscally disciplined government" of Clinton that the military budget of the United States of America surpassed the military budget of every other country combined.
Not to argue benefit/detriment about it. Just pointing out how absurd it is to call the US government fiscally disciplined at any point after, say, the 60's, relative to other countries (unless fiscally disciplined includes controlling the oil supplies by force, and that's cheaper than non-military control).
As I understand it, you can release your statutory rights, unless the are inalienable. We may be talking about separate things, but allow me to elaborate on what I'm trying to convey.
For example, you may have a statutory right to sue an insurance company because they breached a statutory obligation to pay for your medical benefits. However, if they settle the case (i.e. accept a sum of money in exchange for a release), the provision of a release intrinsically waives your statutory right to sue. In other words, you cannot both settle for a sum of money and nonetheless sue them anyway. The insurance company would rely upon your agreement to settle your claims for the sum, and unless there was something inherently wrong with the agreement to settle in and of itself, the court is disinclined to set aside the well-considered agreement of two individuals.
you can't sign away your rights, so such terms are never enforceable. I'm surprised as litigious a place as the USA still allows it.
See: Release.
As long as there's a quid pro quo, c'est la vie, so to speak.
Remember that with a 14 year copyright, copyleft licenses such as GNU GPL would cease to apply. As a result, this software would become public domain after 14 years.
I haven't thought it through, but this doesn't strike me as a bad thing.
The replacements were refurbished broken X-boxes in the first place, which didn't get the same quality of service check on the way out the door as a new one might.
Who's to say, but it would explain why the replacements have been buggy, where a new one might not be.
Then again, maybe they were all new.
I completely agree with you that gold farmers are a problem for MMO games. However, I suggest that is a problem with the economy of the game. As well, I feel that the poorly designed artificial scarcity inherent to these games should not impinge upon the ability for people who were otherwise destitute to be able to buy themselves some bread (so to speak).
That being said, companies considering the quality of the gaming experience should design the game in such a way that there is no artificial scarcity which would give rise to profitable gold farming.
In other words, I think poor people making money off gold farming isn't the worst thing in the world, and I think the blame for poor user experience falls on the company to whom you pay money to play. That company (I reiterate, to whom you pay money to play) has designed the game in such a way that farming in their artificial world and selling it in real economic terms is actually viable, and farming has a negative impact upon the experience of regular users.
I'm not suggesting that this is an easy problem for companies to solve. I am suggesting that the onus is on the company to solve that problem, that gold farmers have no personal obligation to other users in light of their real-world poverty, and that solving the problem is not stopping farming but rather designing the game in such a way that gold farming is uneconomical or at least the farming is not otherwise detrimental to the experience of paying users.
If you find that your patent has been violated, you have to sue in a timely manner. You can't wait or the court will pitch out your case because of the doctrine of laches. I suppose someone should ask them how they intend to get around that problem.
:)
Laches need not apply, for the following reasons (off the top of my head).
First and generally, statutes (legislation) trump common law (judge-made law). Laches is common law doctrine, patents are statutorily enacted. The period for execution of patent rights falls within a statutory declaration of, I believe, 20 years. The Court is not likely to have the power to supplant the statutory rights granted to the patent holder because of a delay. If patents were meant to have a timeliness to prosecution component, that ought to have been something considered by the legislature (Courts are inclined to presume competence of the legislature), and its absence may be deemed intentional.
Second but generally as well, equity trumps law only where the law is unduly harsh. Patents are a legal concept whose temporal restrictions have been well reasoned by the legislation and long considered by the judiciary. As commercial negotiations regularly involve sitting on ones' right to sue, it is nigh impossible that equitable doctrines would come into play. It does not squelch the right to assert the proprietary protections vested by statute.
The concept of estoppel may apply. Where one reasonably relies upon the statements of another to their own detriment, they may have an equitable remedy. Thus, if a commercial entity relies upon Microsoft's declaration not to sue in the immediate future, Microsoft may be barred from recovering at law because the commercial entity relied upon Microsoft's statements.
That being said, Microsoft has limited the scope of its statement to "immediate future", therefore any prolonged infringement would not be protected by such mechanisms. Microsoft need only bring a few demand letters to discontinue infringement, and the defense of estoppel is waylaid.
Thus, laches is unlikely to apply, however estoppel may, but only for the quasi-timeframe Microsoft cited of the immediate future. YMMV & HTH.
Yes, the levy was proportional to the size of the media. The CPCC wanted to apply it to things like MP3 players and iPods and blank DVD's, which is absurd if made proportional to the size of the media.
The iPods and MP3 player levy was overturned at the Federal court, I'm glad to say. This is why Apple had an iPod rebate in Canada, after and because of this ruling. When active, it was divvied up with different charges depending on the size, i.e. some thing like media players less than 5GB, those from 5GB-20GB, and media players greater than 20GB.
It would have been absurd to apply it to DVD's as well. I don't remember the exact figure, but one could end up paying $3.00 in levy on a $0.21 blank DVD.
If I remember correctly (I was an official objector to this levy, right through to the Federal Court), the reasoning for not applying the tax to DVD's is that DVD's are not a primarily audio medium.
The levy only compensates for musical works by Canadian creators (broadly speaking). There's no equivalent for film, photos, or literature (which I unsuccessfully argued was arbitrary and discriminatory) or foreign-produced musical works (which I successfully argued was a violation of our NAFTA treaty obligations, but they didn't do anything about it).
The term "without notice" means "without notice". The term "ex parte" means "without notice or without opposing argument", vis-à-vis it's literal Latin translation, "one-sided".
How may I ask did you arrive at the conclusion you have? It's contrary to the definitive legal dictionary, Black's Law Dictionary (7th Ed.), contrary to a Judge's opinion upon my inquiry, and contrary to my understanding, intuition, knowledge and belief (which isn't exactly paltry in the area). I would be quite surprised if you were right, so I would quite like to know why you believe what you do.
Anytime. As a matter of human psychology and persuasiveness, it can look defensive to reply directly to counterarguments. In other words, if an idea has merits, it looks better to write them out, and leave it to others to defend it. And if it has merits, generally someone will. Even on Slashdot. :)
I think the data on both sides of the global warming argument is the exact same: The world is warming up, and prior cases where the world has warmed up there has been an increase in CO2. I don't think these observations are disputed.
What seems to be disputed is what the data actually means. Global-warming activists seem to say that human output of CO2 is causing global warming. Global-warming skeptics seem to say that high CO2 levels are correlated with global warming (and in fact, that CO2 levels rise because of global warming).
I've discussed the data and the theories with a number of people. It's useful to remember that global warming caused by CO2 is just a theory, based on two observations: First, the world is warming up. Second: observations of prior world temperature changes commensurate with observations of CO2 levels, and notably higher CO2 with higher temperatures. There is some evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, however there are much stronger greenhouse gases (i.e. methane) which we now produce at industrial levels.
A theory upon which we found our social, political and economic principles must be subject to the strictest of scrutiny, and yet the evidence for it is not sound. There are a huge number of scientists who are rightly skeptical of this, and their voice is being silenced (just as is the original post in this thread!). However there are a small number of politically interested advocates of this theory, and based upon this hypothetical they intend to change world economic dynamics by marketing this theory to the masses.
The consequences are numerous. First, we may not address the actual problem that is causing global warming. Second, we may cause huge social and economic consequences for no benefit. Third, if there is no benefit, any future notion of relying upon "scientific evidence" may be viewed skeptically by the masses.
It is the third notion about which I have the most concern. If the CO2-causing-global-warming theory is incorrect, and it is espoused as a "scientific truth", then the massive public failure in this case may undermine confidence in future "scientific truths" that may actually have merit.
That being said, I acknowledge that it is plausible that global warming is caused by CO2. What I am concerned about is that the science has been poorly done, that the voices of consensus are few and loud, that the voices of criticism are silenced, that the truth may as a result be lost, and that the public confidence in scientific truth may be undermined.
You're right in implying there's an element of deception in the global warming "debate". People mistake correlation for causation all the time, often because they're told to and they're unable to think for themselves. Many mistake global warming correlating with higher CO2 with a global warming caused by CO2. Having perused material on the matter, and discussed it with colleagues who track this, there is no evidence to suggest that higher CO2 causes the global warming we are seeing today. As well, you are right to assert that global warming causes higher CO2, a known causation.
:)
I don't know if you're right about the sun (though there is evidence to suggest you are), but you're certainly right to be skeptical about CO2 causing global warming. Worse is that the lack of balanced scientific debate on the topic, and the number of lemmings who blindingly need to point a finger without any actual evidence, is undermining the ability to observe and make rational opinions.
However, it's Slashdot. It's a populous opinion. Don't take it personal when the lemmings come and mod you down for, God forbid, positing something contrary to the convenience of their finger-pointing!
According to Richard Tol, an environmental economist, "warming temperatures will mean that in 2050 there will be about 40,000 fewer deaths in Germany attributable to cold-related illnesses like the flu."
Yes, but higher temperatures also mean more tropical diseases, particularly malaria, and notably the plethora of parasites and other pests which are currently controlled by cold winter cycles.
My understanding (and it's limited, I admit) is that there is a reason the Northern Hemisphere has fewer problems with diseases, and that correlation is caused by the winter cold-cycle limiting the growth of aggressive and infectious disease. If that's true, and you take the cold-cycle away, there is nothing preventing these tropical diseases from growing here. Given this, I would expect that the savings in deaths due to the flu will be more than accommodated by the introduction of more aggressive diseases that are able to exist and persist in the newly temperate climate.