I'd guess there are already laws (and liability) for using non-certified parts in critical areas.
There was a contractor who was making highway guard rails who decided to go cheap and changed the design without permission linky and another case linky
Knock offs INCREASE the market for collectables. Take the fashion industry as a perfect example - and they don't have any copyright/patent protections. People buy knock offs until they can afford the real thing.
Perhaps they do. They also aren't a good measure of the entire market.
How many people prided themselves on how many albums or CDs or DVDs they had? How many of them now just use Netflix and Pandora/Spotify/etc.?
We craved having lots of media because there wasn't a way to easily get it otherwise. Now, nobody has to buy (or copy) 1000s of sources to be able to consume those sources.
This is what a 'disruptive technology' does. The 'market' changes as it becomes easier and cheaper to produce 'almost as good' stuff. If I'm changing $10 for something, a significant portion of my customers are only paying $10 because they have no other choice. If someone else starts producing what I make for $5...it's simply the market changing and I have to adapt or pretend the market hasn't changed and sue everyone (while spending even more money on not making my product).
First, any argument made by AT&T or Verizon or Comcast is just a wee bit suspect given their clear biased position in these matters.
Title II, deals with the fact that monopoly status exists in certain markets and thus Title II is needed to regulate that monopoly.
How many natural gas pipelines do you want into your house? How many breaker panels for multiple electric companies providing you service?
These are natural monopolies where regulation is necessary to manage the market. More actual utilities are being moved to separate infrastructure companies and supply provider companies.
Wheeler's proposals don't go far enough, but they are a step towards the right solution.
On the contrary, apparently AT&T is fully on board with complete Title II provisions and are providing explicit examples of why we need Title II...and frankly splitting up every ISP into actual ISP companies and what the fuck ever else they want to be companies.
indeed. Will it 'run' without 90% of the 'stuff' in it? Probably if you wrote it that way. "Maintaining" that pile of crap would then quickly become unworkable and then it doesn't 'run' anymore.
I'm not big on scaffolding to extremes but designs call for standard stuff that isn't truly 'functional' but is nonetheless 'required' for reasonably working applications.
Simply require all power sources to clean up their waste products of construction AND operation...and renewable because the cheapest option out there. Not cheap certainly, but Coal and Oil are only cheap because we aren't cleaning up their waste products.
Exactly. The issues with renewables aren't production, it's storage from production until it's needed. It's why nuclear is simply an absolute necessity in terms of Climate Change mitigation.
This is where your concept falters. These weren't laws for the public safety. They were abusing such laws to make money. So egregiously in fact that the police department in Waldo was literally disbanded by the state for their flagrant violations.
Towns that literally re-drew their jurisdictions to cover a slice of a high volume highway and set about becoming the one of the worst speed traps in the US. Look at the maps. Hampton literally is a square with one long sliver out to the highway. Only one reason to have that.
Offering information on how to get away with breaking traffic laws is wrong
Since most states now have 'move over' laws requiring you to give a lane of clearance to police and emergency personnel...this is provably making police SAFER. We're trying to get people to follow the law - both the speed law and the safety law.
That the this attack on waze came under the false pretense of 'officer safety is the height of hypocrisy
1. It doesnt need to be disproven, it has not been proven
Kinda of like your strawman assertion that scientists are 'toeing the line' rather than simply in agreement?
Re: # 2 see above.
3. I didint mention water vapor, you did
If you don't know that water vapor is the MAJOR GHG then you sir are wildly uninformed. If you do know this, and I believe you do, then it's more than relevant since you also know that it IS frequently cited as 'more important' than CO2 by deniers.
4. About skeptics and goal posts. Its easy to put everyone who disagrees with AGW theories in 1 basket. When in fact there are 2,3,5, 10 baskets.
Which goes back to my original post. There are caveats on every single graph, but when they ALL start pointing in the same direction, it's time to stop screaming and listen.
5. Nice one about the publishing. They publish ALL THE TIME on the internet. But you ignore them because its not "peer reviewed".
or perhaps it doesn't pass scientific muster. Science can't be disproven, it's factual yet none of the detractors can prove anything other than what we're actually seeing, which is warming.
6. Rush limbaug?? WHO the... what the fuck...?? Why would you bring that idiot up?
YOU said that 'greenies' always bring up heat as estimates, I brought up one of the right-wing deniers favorites doing the EXACT SAME THING.
7. So what if Australia had a hot summer, you damn idiot. Weather isnt climate RIGHT??? RIGHT???? Fuck, you cant even follow your own instructions.
Indeed. 'A' warm summer is weather. 'A' record breaking summer is weather. 'A' summer that is SO HOT you have to redo your temperature chart...is also weather, but, as noted above, when multiple separate points start aligning, it means something more.
well looky here linky
The oceans have been absorbing heat so fast it 'broke' their chart. And guess what, that WILL radiate to the environment as well.
Seriously though, google is your friend. A 'greenhouse' gas is not a 'gas present in greenhouses'. It's a gas that has the same effect as a greenhouse; i.e. trapping heat that enters via solar energy.
It's a simple physical property of the gas which is why you probably see the "it's obvious" reference. It's also a great indicator of the 'controversy'. Many in the climate change skeptic/denier camp have argued against it doing this. Arguing against testable and physical properties that are well proven and understood and conflating the 'unknowns' of a very large and complex system like the earth to sow doubt in the basic physics and science.
It is new territory. There has never been a spike in such a short time as there has in the last 200 years. That a system as vast as the earth doesn't immediately respond is to be expected. But it's still responding faster than any known period previously.
That makes sense and hasn't been as yet, dis-proven. If it's so bad, that should be easy right?
I'm not saying its false, though there has been many articles pointing out some flaws in some of the data and conclusions on that.
Sources please. And not from 'biased' right wing sites...since you're so concerned with this.
It is a complex system, and skeptics study it and one of the main skeptics points is that there is much more to climate than just CO2.
And one of the favorite go to 'more' reasons is water vapor. You've now come full circle in your reasoning.
"Nope, no problems" is something you just said, not skeptics with science backgrounds trying to get their studies published, but being rejected because it doesnt jive with the IPCC.
Are you denying that climate 'skeptics' stated with "It isn't warming" and have now largely shifted to the position you're now holding that, "Ok, it's warming but we can't prove it's related to us". Talk about moving the goal posts.
And as for being unable to publish? Bull fucking shit. There's a great big internet for them to publish on. If their ideas have merit, they'll be picked up on. Unless they flatly ignore data to make a point...
Climate is not weather, weather is not climate. We all know that, its funny how this is brought up by people like you for winter, but you all keep silent everytime there is a scientist or when the media brings it up when there is a hot week or warm spell for a short time.
Rush Limbaugh is the one who brought it up during the last east coast blizzard.
You know who is also pretty silent in the summer? The skeptics saying "huh, it's hotter this year, might be global warming". You do know that Australia just had a summer so hot, not just warmer than average, but so hot they had to redraw the temperature gauges? So hot they've never had temps even near that range. linky
Seems the bias is strong on the warming side in politics and in the media. But thats ok right? Because it fits with your beliefs.
My 'beliefs' are based on science. Yours seem to be in spite of them.
They used 'intellectual property' to hide the outright pollution. You don't see the amazing coincidence there with Cheney being the driving force to help a company (and industry) he owns millions of stock in?
Slashdot Mirror
I'd guess there are already laws (and liability) for using non-certified parts in critical areas.
There was a contractor who was making highway guard rails who decided to go cheap and changed the design without permission linky and another case linky
Knock offs INCREASE the market for collectables. Take the fashion industry as a perfect example - and they don't have any copyright/patent protections. People buy knock offs until they can afford the real thing.
Perhaps they do. They also aren't a good measure of the entire market.
How many people prided themselves on how many albums or CDs or DVDs they had? How many of them now just use Netflix and Pandora/Spotify/etc.?
We craved having lots of media because there wasn't a way to easily get it otherwise. Now, nobody has to buy (or copy) 1000s of sources to be able to consume those sources.
This is what a 'disruptive technology' does. The 'market' changes as it becomes easier and cheaper to produce 'almost as good' stuff. If I'm changing $10 for something, a significant portion of my customers are only paying $10 because they have no other choice. If someone else starts producing what I make for $5...it's simply the market changing and I have to adapt or pretend the market hasn't changed and sue everyone (while spending even more money on not making my product).
First, any argument made by AT&T or Verizon or Comcast is just a wee bit suspect given their clear biased position in these matters.
Title II, deals with the fact that monopoly status exists in certain markets and thus Title II is needed to regulate that monopoly.
How many natural gas pipelines do you want into your house? How many breaker panels for multiple electric companies providing you service?
These are natural monopolies where regulation is necessary to manage the market. More actual utilities are being moved to separate infrastructure companies and supply provider companies.
Wheeler's proposals don't go far enough, but they are a step towards the right solution.
On the contrary, apparently AT&T is fully on board with complete Title II provisions and are providing explicit examples of why we need Title II...and frankly splitting up every ISP into actual ISP companies and what the fuck ever else they want to be companies.
indeed. Will it 'run' without 90% of the 'stuff' in it? Probably if you wrote it that way. "Maintaining" that pile of crap would then quickly become unworkable and then it doesn't 'run' anymore.
I'm not big on scaffolding to extremes but designs call for standard stuff that isn't truly 'functional' but is nonetheless 'required' for reasonably working applications.
Simply require all power sources to clean up their waste products of construction AND operation...and renewable because the cheapest option out there. Not cheap certainly, but Coal and Oil are only cheap because we aren't cleaning up their waste products.
That bill will come due though...
Exactly. The issues with renewables aren't production, it's storage from production until it's needed. It's why nuclear is simply an absolute necessity in terms of Climate Change mitigation.
'torrenting' is most definitely illegal - because you are 'uploading' instead of just downloading via a direct link.
Have you actually ever bothered to read the bible?
Did you really just ask if he'd RTFB...in the land of never RTFA? :)
law concerning public safety
This is where your concept falters. These weren't laws for the public safety. They were abusing such laws to make money. So egregiously in fact that the police department in Waldo was literally disbanded by the state for their flagrant violations.
his point is towns like Hampton, FL or Waldo, FL.
Towns that literally re-drew their jurisdictions to cover a slice of a high volume highway and set about becoming the one of the worst speed traps in the US. Look at the maps. Hampton literally is a square with one long sliver out to the highway. Only one reason to have that.
Offering information on how to get away with breaking traffic laws is wrong
Since most states now have 'move over' laws requiring you to give a lane of clearance to police and emergency personnel...this is provably making police SAFER. We're trying to get people to follow the law - both the speed law and the safety law.
That the this attack on waze came under the false pretense of 'officer safety is the height of hypocrisy
That is the only effect a speedtrap app can have
Well it does get people to slow down too. :)
And also, warning people about speed traps is free speech according to the legal system linky
1. It doesnt need to be disproven, it has not been proven
Kinda of like your strawman assertion that scientists are 'toeing the line' rather than simply in agreement?
Re: # 2 see above.
3. I didint mention water vapor, you did
If you don't know that water vapor is the MAJOR GHG then you sir are wildly uninformed. If you do know this, and I believe you do, then it's more than relevant since you also know that it IS frequently cited as 'more important' than CO2 by deniers.
4. About skeptics and goal posts. Its easy to put everyone who disagrees with AGW theories in 1 basket. When in fact there are 2,3,5, 10 baskets.
Which goes back to my original post. There are caveats on every single graph, but when they ALL start pointing in the same direction, it's time to stop screaming and listen.
5. Nice one about the publishing. They publish ALL THE TIME on the internet. But you ignore them because its not "peer reviewed".
or perhaps it doesn't pass scientific muster. Science can't be disproven, it's factual yet none of the detractors can prove anything other than what we're actually seeing, which is warming.
6. Rush limbaug?? WHO the... what the fuck...?? Why would you bring that idiot up?
YOU said that 'greenies' always bring up heat as estimates, I brought up one of the right-wing deniers favorites doing the EXACT SAME THING.
7. So what if Australia had a hot summer, you damn idiot. Weather isnt climate RIGHT??? RIGHT???? Fuck, you cant even follow your own instructions.
Indeed. 'A' warm summer is weather. 'A' record breaking summer is weather. 'A' summer that is SO HOT you have to redo your temperature chart...is also weather, but, as noted above, when multiple separate points start aligning, it means something more.
We're done here, obviously.
well looky here linky The oceans have been absorbing heat so fast it 'broke' their chart. And guess what, that WILL radiate to the environment as well.
References please
What about municipalities rights? Isn't that 'closer to the people' which is double plus good right?
linky
Seriously though, google is your friend. A 'greenhouse' gas is not a 'gas present in greenhouses'. It's a gas that has the same effect as a greenhouse; i.e. trapping heat that enters via solar energy.
It's a simple physical property of the gas which is why you probably see the "it's obvious" reference. It's also a great indicator of the 'controversy'. Many in the climate change skeptic/denier camp have argued against it doing this. Arguing against testable and physical properties that are well proven and understood and conflating the 'unknowns' of a very large and complex system like the earth to sow doubt in the basic physics and science.
The study used by the EPA to 'approve' fracking in shale was a single well that wasn't in shale rock.
Shale is similar to sand? This should be good. Do tell.
It is new territory. There has never been a spike in such a short time as there has in the last 200 years. That a system as vast as the earth doesn't immediately respond is to be expected. But it's still responding faster than any known period previously.
But it is still only 1 theory of many.
That makes sense and hasn't been as yet, dis-proven. If it's so bad, that should be easy right?
I'm not saying its false, though there has been many articles pointing out some flaws in some of the data and conclusions on that.
Sources please. And not from 'biased' right wing sites...since you're so concerned with this.
It is a complex system, and skeptics study it and one of the main skeptics points is that there is much more to climate than just CO2.
And one of the favorite go to 'more' reasons is water vapor. You've now come full circle in your reasoning.
"Nope, no problems" is something you just said, not skeptics with science backgrounds trying to get their studies published, but being rejected because it doesnt jive with the IPCC.
Are you denying that climate 'skeptics' stated with "It isn't warming" and have now largely shifted to the position you're now holding that, "Ok, it's warming but we can't prove it's related to us". Talk about moving the goal posts.
And as for being unable to publish? Bull fucking shit. There's a great big internet for them to publish on. If their ideas have merit, they'll be picked up on. Unless they flatly ignore data to make a point...
Climate is not weather, weather is not climate. We all know that, its funny how this is brought up by people like you for winter, but you all keep silent everytime there is a scientist or when the media brings it up when there is a hot week or warm spell for a short time.
Rush Limbaugh is the one who brought it up during the last east coast blizzard.
You know who is also pretty silent in the summer? The skeptics saying "huh, it's hotter this year, might be global warming". You do know that Australia just had a summer so hot, not just warmer than average, but so hot they had to redraw the temperature gauges? So hot they've never had temps even near that range. linky
Seems the bias is strong on the warming side in politics and in the media. But thats ok right? Because it fits with your beliefs.
My 'beliefs' are based on science. Yours seem to be in spite of them.
They used 'intellectual property' to hide the outright pollution. You don't see the amazing coincidence there with Cheney being the driving force to help a company (and industry) he owns millions of stock in?
Where I live I can charge a battery during the day and use that to charge my electrics during the night time.
Where I lived is called *reality*.