According to TFA, "The laser is not visible and is eye-safe". Since it's INFRA RED, it would have to be pretty intense before you'd notice (i.e., your eyeballs would melt).
a) He's doing it for profit, he SELLS the mixtapes, therefore he's making a profit from someone else's material WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION
b) He doesn't have permission from the original artists.
Now, the article goes on to say that many artists are thrilled when they make one of his mixtapes, and I'm sure many are, and that's even more of a reason for him to ask permission first
Did you actually RTFA? According to that, he DOES (usually) have the artists' permission, and sometimes active participation. However, of course the record companies have signed contracts with these artists giving them control. So legally, the original artists can't give that permission. Financially, the artists and companies supposedly benefit fomr the exposure and get more sales of their releases.
The problem is that while it was accepted for DJs to mix tracks live at a gig, or on the radio, once they started making recordnigs of these mixes they were making a derivative product. What this suggests is that mix tracks, not just rips complete tracks, should have some kind of compulsory licensing, as for radio play. Then the DJs could make mixes, pay a fair cut (10%? ) to an agency, who would disburse it.
He hasn't even been sentenced yet. The 100 years is just a maximum, likely he'll get much less. And also:
"In addition to the anti-spam conviction, Goodin was convicted of 10 other counts, including wire fraud, misuse of the AOL trademark and attempted witness harassment."
Those, especially witness intimidation, are probably the big ticket items.
read some of it and the biggest assumption was that probes would travel at most 1/10 the speed of light.
That's reasonable. But the real reason it takes billions of years is his plan is only to build EIGHT probes. So of course to investigate billions of stars will take forever.
At the end of TFA he discusses the suggestions for von Neumann probes; i.e. that land on suitable planets or moons and reproduce. He dismisses these as "dangerous", because they'd have to be at least as intelligent as humans. Obviously he's thinking of the Berserkers...
A recent Washington Post article gave this scientist's quote from 1972....
How interesting. Google finds 76 people quoting this, but no one who actually puts a name and date to it. Some sourced it as "a quote from a scientific journal in 1972". No one directly cites the supposed "Washington Post" article it's supposed to be from. Can you?
This little drama is about exactly this "urban legend" style of recalling things and embroidering them by adding details; from "an article said..." to "The Washington Post said..." to "a scientist is reported to have said..." to "all scientists believe..." in a few steps. I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, but that's the way people's memories work. That's why you need to always go back to the primary source.
. Neither the other poster nor I am asserting that the "scientific community" necessarily *believed* anything, merely that we remember being told by the popular press
That's NOT what he said. Read it again: he said "there were scientist crying about global COOLING!" He DID NOT say he "remembers being told". He didn't even say "scientists were reported to have said". From his statement you'd think he'd seen scientists in white labcoats raving on 60 Minutes. Not second or third hand misrepresentations in magazines.
What frightens me is the number of people willing to tell you to your face that you're wrong. I also remember learning about global cooling from the news and in the classroom, but have had younger people swear that never happened.
I was old enough. I was born in 1958. I never said it wasn't in the media I said, SCIENTISTS NEVER SAID THIS. Every day I see things in the newspaper and on TV that I know are wildly distorted. What frightens me is that somehow speculative articles written in popular magazines 30 years ago are used to justify discounting the mountain of evidence scientists have built since then.
Some people want society to take desperate and immediate action to somehow stop global warming. To do that they'll use a phrase I learned on slashdot the other day, "Cognitive Dissonance" to ignore or discount information which challenges their world view.
Right. The Royal Society, the Nationl Academy of Science, are all just deceiving themselves, and us because... I never worked out the because. Maybe I should read more Michael Crichton.
Your attempt to belittle the response to your post indicates to me that you are not fully comfortable with your position. If you are fully comfortable with your position, defend it honestly or leave the defense to people who are more even tempered than you are.
The "position" is fully documented at the page I linked. Newsweek and Time? Didn't I say already, journalists are not scientists? If you're qualified in any technical field, surely you've sighed when you see it being misrepresented in the popular press.
Have you heard whats being said about "Global DIMMING" ? Basically, all the "crud" in the atmosphere is reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the surface, hence cooling it. If not factored into global warming equations, the results are useless.
Yes, dimming may have counteracted the greenhouse effect. So if particulate matter pollution is reduced then global warming will occur even faster.
However, I don't think you are right to simply dismiss the "Ice Age" mini-scare of the 70s as not having happened.
I didn't say there wasn't a scare. If you read the page I linked, it has copies of many of those stories. Most of them go back to scientists basically saying that climate could change either way, or not at all. It just made for a more dramatic story to take the most extreme possibilities out of context.
WTF does "Apparently in the Senate, at least one scientist wants to put a permanent stop.." mean? The scientist isn't in the Senate. It looks like the blog linked is by a Senator. How about linking to the actual person who made the suggestion, and not this inflammatory shit?
No one suggested a "permanent stop to any arguments over Global Warming" as the summary says.
If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming. (One good resource if you don't have a lot of time is the Pew Center's Climate Change 101.)
Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement.
It's not going to reduce the value of the property. A buyer could rip out the geeky decorations and make it a "normal" home theatre in a day's work. People normally do some redecorating when they buy a house.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't, but William Connelley has been collecting information on this story since 2001. Unless he's just lying, so far no one has come up with citations of actual scientific papers supporting the imminient Ice Age story beloved of the tabloid press and global warming deniers.
According to TFA, "The laser is not visible and is eye-safe". Since it's INFRA RED, it would have to be pretty intense before you'd notice (i.e., your eyeballs would melt).
Did you actually RTFA? According to that, he DOES (usually) have the artists' permission, and sometimes active participation. However, of course the record companies have signed contracts with these artists giving them control. So legally, the original artists can't give that permission. Financially, the artists and companies supposedly benefit fomr the exposure and get more sales of their releases.
The problem is that while it was accepted for DJs to mix tracks live at a gig, or on the radio, once they started making recordnigs of these mixes they were making a derivative product. What this suggests is that mix tracks, not just rips complete tracks, should have some kind of compulsory licensing, as for radio play. Then the DJs could make mixes, pay a fair cut (10%? ) to an agency, who would disburse it.
"In addition to the anti-spam conviction, Goodin was convicted of 10 other counts, including wire fraud, misuse of the AOL trademark and attempted witness harassment."
Those, especially witness intimidation, are probably the big ticket items.
And the Fermi Paradox is even stronger is FTL is possible. In that case, we would expect to have been colonised millions of years ago.
That's reasonable. But the real reason it takes billions of years is his plan is only to build EIGHT probes. So of course to investigate billions of stars will take forever.
At the end of TFA he discusses the suggestions for von Neumann probes; i.e. that land on suitable planets or moons and reproduce. He dismisses these as "dangerous", because they'd have to be at least as intelligent as humans. Obviously he's thinking of the Berserkers...
How interesting. Google finds 76 people quoting this, but no one who actually puts a name and date to it. Some sourced it as "a quote from a scientific journal in 1972". No one directly cites the supposed "Washington Post" article it's supposed to be from. Can you?
This little drama is about exactly this "urban legend" style of recalling things and embroidering them by adding details; from "an article said..." to "The Washington Post said..." to "a scientist is reported to have said..." to "all scientists believe..." in a few steps. I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, but that's the way people's memories work. That's why you need to always go back to the primary source.
I don't dispute your memory, just what actually happened.
Curses. My scheme to make everyone live in caves has been foiled.
Sorry, it indicates it only was considered newsworthy. Same could be said for Cold Fusion.
Also, I somehow doubt "repeatedly on the front cover". Excuse me for asking, can you give any dates? Or is this another anecdote?
That's not the "fact" in question. The assertion was that scientists believed this, not that it was in the Sunday papers.
And I lived through the 70s, I can barely recall this issue, if it came up at all it was just idle speculation and no one took it seriously.
That's NOT what he said. Read it again: he said "there were scientist crying about global COOLING!" He DID NOT say he "remembers being told". He didn't even say "scientists were reported to have said". From his statement you'd think he'd seen scientists in white labcoats raving on 60 Minutes. Not second or third hand misrepresentations in magazines.
I was old enough. I was born in 1958. I never said it wasn't in the media I said, SCIENTISTS NEVER SAID THIS. Every day I see things in the newspaper and on TV that I know are wildly distorted. What frightens me is that somehow speculative articles written in popular magazines 30 years ago are used to justify discounting the mountain of evidence scientists have built since then.
Right. The Royal Society, the Nationl Academy of Science, are all just deceiving themselves, and us because... I never worked out the because. Maybe I should read more Michael Crichton.
The "position" is fully documented at the page I linked. Newsweek and Time? Didn't I say already, journalists are not scientists? If you're qualified in any technical field, surely you've sighed when you see it being misrepresented in the popular press.
Yes, dimming may have counteracted the greenhouse effect. So if particulate matter pollution is reduced then global warming will occur even faster.
I didn't say there wasn't a scare. If you read the page I linked, it has copies of many of those stories. Most of them go back to scientists basically saying that climate could change either way, or not at all. It just made for a more dramatic story to take the most extreme possibilities out of context.
Don't tell me SCIENTISTS said it unless you can quote a SCIENTIST, not a JOURNALIST.
I remember being worried about it, which is why I am not worried about global warming now.
Because a magazine misrepresented a story 30 years ago, therefore there's nothing to worry about now. Makes sense to me.
Their opinion changed from "not enough data, we don't know", to "greenhouse effect is happening, now".
The popular media can tell you Elvis is on Mars. The poster I responded to EXPLICITLY said SCIENTISTS. Not the Weekly World News.
Bullshit
No one suggested a "permanent stop to any arguments over Global Warming" as the summary says.
The original article is JUNK CONTROVERSY NOT JUNK SCIENCE, posted a month ago actually.
Who says? Have you considered perhaps they might have an agenda?
Anyway, enjoy fucking up the world while you can. Your children won't have it so easy.
It's not going to reduce the value of the property. A buyer could rip out the geeky decorations and make it a "normal" home theatre in a day's work. People normally do some redecorating when they buy a house.
How about "restored to it's rightful location..."