The earth will be fine. We may well be fucked when it's all over.
George Carlin told us all before he left us. It's amazing how many people don't understand this fundamental point about global warming. Humans will have a rough time adjusting to a world that's several degrees warmer, but the planet will be fine. The planet isn't going anywhere. We are!
If carbon dioxide does not stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, how do you explain the rising concentration of the gas over the past 100 years?
Yes, water vapor is a greenhouse gas. But putting more water vapor in the atmosphere will not contribute to global warming, because any excess water vapor put into the atmosphere precipitates out as rain, snow, or dew within about a week. In other words, water vapor is not a forcing.
Excess carbon dioxide, on the other hand, can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. That's why burning fossil fuels has the effect of increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, leading to warming.
If there were no patents, what would be the incentive for innovation? Why would a company spend millions of dollars on developing a drug, only to have another company that paid nothing for the drug development sell it for a lower price? This is the purpose of patents -- to allow an inventor to recoup the cost of research and development by granting an exclusive license for use of the invention. Eliminating all patents would mean eliminating much invention. Where companies did invent innovative products, they would tend to keep them secret instead of making the idea publicly available.
You can read the Stern Review for a detailed look at the cost of dealing with the effects climate change vs. the cost of avoiding the worst effects of climate change. Go and educate yourself on the topics you're interested in. There's no way Slashdot comments could do justice to the vast research that has been done on the topic. It's almost like asking for an explanation of physics in a Slashdot thread. Inform yourself on the issues, making sure you first understand there's lots of misinformation on the Internet.
Unity is their only hope for stopping the opposition, even on bills that the individuals disagree with the party on.
You have to wonder about the people who blame Obama for the lack of bipartisanship these days. Sheesh! When will Republicans stop being the party of no and instead of seeking to stop the opposition, instead start beginning to work for what they want?
Of course the popular browser stats don't match your company's data or your client's data. The hit your see on your servers are not representative samples of worldwide browser usage. Why would you expect them to be?
What do you think I'm giving "my opinion" on? It's not "my opinion". It's the data presented by browser stats companies. Look them up. They will almost certainly not match the data gathered on any particular web server, because the data for one particular web server is not a random sample. It is a biased sample.
Are you're saying there's a conspiracy to make IE's share look smaller than it is for the purpose of bash Microsoft? Do you think there's anything I could possibly say to sway you from that opinion?
They've taken a sample of web usage. Their data approximately matches the data given by other companies that take their own samples. I suppose you could say their data is suspect if no one was able to repeat the observations. Why do you think there's an "agenda"?
You fall into the IE usage group when you use IE, the Firefox usage group when you use Firefox, and the Chrome usage group when you use Chrome. These stats give the percentage of visitors that use a particular browser.
No, people don't HATE you questioning. What people HATE is the shoddy reasoning that is being put forth as if it is a serious rebuttal of climate science. It's junk!
How dare you introduce facts into the discussion! I dream of a world where we have no copyright and 100% of our GDP is generated by unfettered use of content. Then get rid of patents and 200% of our GDP can be generated by freely sharing information!
As if the global warming fiasco wasn't bad enough, now there's this! Don't people know that volcanoes have been erupting for millions of years? This is purely a natural phenomenon, so shouldn't be of any concern whatsoever. A few hundred parts per million of a substance added to the atmosphere couldn't possibly have any effect. How could it? Just fly the darn airplanes already, and stop trying to create a one-world government where all travel is regulated. The fact that they've been making test flights through the ash prove that it's perfectly safe. Sheesh!
I suppose one could apply your argument to any patent at all, because the patented inventions could be reverse engineered. That brings me back to my questions: Are you against all patents altogether? If not, what's so special about software patents that they always hinder innovation? Perhaps you could consider answering them this time.
No, whether the Earth is flat or round is a matter of fact, not opinion. You need to understand the difference between fact and opinion. Take a look at the GRE issue and argument tasks, where you are allowed to present your perspective on an issue, and you argue how well reasoned an argument is. Those arguments also have nothing to do with "right" or "wrong", but how well you are able present a well-reasoned argument. Those rhetorical arguments are completely different from scientific evidence supporting a hypothesis or a mathematical proof.
Slashdot Mirror
Water vapor is a feedback , not a forcing.
George Carlin told us all before he left us. It's amazing how many people don't understand this fundamental point about global warming. Humans will have a rough time adjusting to a world that's several degrees warmer, but the planet will be fine. The planet isn't going anywhere. We are!
The carbon cycle is not in balance any more. The concentration of carbon dioxide has been at about 200-300 ppm for millions of years. Now that humans are burning fossil fuels at an increasing rate, the concentration is approaching 400 ppm. Because carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, this is increasing the temperature of the planet. We will have to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in half by 2050 to keep temperatures from reaching two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This reduction can be achieved by increased energy efficiency and use of alternative methods of generating energy, such as nuclear power plants.
By performing controlled experiments, researchers have found that Carbon Dioxide Does Not Boost Forest Growth.
If carbon dioxide does not stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, how do you explain the rising concentration of the gas over the past 100 years?
You're told by whom? You do know there's lots of misinformation on the Internet, don't you?
Yes, water vapor is a greenhouse gas. But putting more water vapor in the atmosphere will not contribute to global warming, because any excess water vapor put into the atmosphere precipitates out as rain, snow, or dew within about a week. In other words, water vapor is not a forcing.
Excess carbon dioxide, on the other hand, can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. That's why burning fossil fuels has the effect of increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, leading to warming.
It may raise the question, but it doesn't beg the question.
What a terrible joke!
Only if you can calculate the probability of an infinite improbability drive spontaneously coming into existence. And you have a nice hot cup of tea.
If there were no patents, what would be the incentive for innovation? Why would a company spend millions of dollars on developing a drug, only to have another company that paid nothing for the drug development sell it for a lower price? This is the purpose of patents -- to allow an inventor to recoup the cost of research and development by granting an exclusive license for use of the invention. Eliminating all patents would mean eliminating much invention. Where companies did invent innovative products, they would tend to keep them secret instead of making the idea publicly available.
You can read the Stern Review for a detailed look at the cost of dealing with the effects climate change vs. the cost of avoiding the worst effects of climate change. Go and educate yourself on the topics you're interested in. There's no way Slashdot comments could do justice to the vast research that has been done on the topic. It's almost like asking for an explanation of physics in a Slashdot thread. Inform yourself on the issues, making sure you first understand there's lots of misinformation on the Internet.
You have to wonder about the people who blame Obama for the lack of bipartisanship these days. Sheesh! When will Republicans stop being the party of no and instead of seeking to stop the opposition, instead start beginning to work for what they want?
Bacon got it totally wrong. Everybody knows the Internet is a series of tubes, not pipes. Pfffft!
You mean Hendrix wasn't gay after all? Next you'll be telling me that CCR never said there's a bathroom on the right!
Of course the popular browser stats don't match your company's data or your client's data. The hit your see on your servers are not representative samples of worldwide browser usage. Why would you expect them to be?
What do you think I'm giving "my opinion" on? It's not "my opinion". It's the data presented by browser stats companies. Look them up. They will almost certainly not match the data gathered on any particular web server, because the data for one particular web server is not a random sample. It is a biased sample.
Are you're saying there's a conspiracy to make IE's share look smaller than it is for the purpose of bash Microsoft? Do you think there's anything I could possibly say to sway you from that opinion?
They've taken a sample of web usage. Their data approximately matches the data given by other companies that take their own samples. I suppose you could say their data is suspect if no one was able to repeat the observations. Why do you think there's an "agenda"?
You fall into the IE usage group when you use IE, the Firefox usage group when you use Firefox, and the Chrome usage group when you use Chrome. These stats give the percentage of visitors that use a particular browser.
No, people don't HATE you questioning. What people HATE is the shoddy reasoning that is being put forth as if it is a serious rebuttal of climate science. It's junk!
How dare you introduce facts into the discussion! I dream of a world where we have no copyright and 100% of our GDP is generated by unfettered use of content. Then get rid of patents and 200% of our GDP can be generated by freely sharing information!
Oh, then you might as well post all your passwords on Slashdot. After all, hiding them will never work. :)
No, it's the same Jason group who warned of global warming in 1979.
As if the global warming fiasco wasn't bad enough, now there's this! Don't people know that volcanoes have been erupting for millions of years? This is purely a natural phenomenon, so shouldn't be of any concern whatsoever. A few hundred parts per million of a substance added to the atmosphere couldn't possibly have any effect. How could it? Just fly the darn airplanes already, and stop trying to create a one-world government where all travel is regulated. The fact that they've been making test flights through the ash prove that it's perfectly safe. Sheesh!
What I want to know is if she is merry!
I suppose one could apply your argument to any patent at all, because the patented inventions could be reverse engineered. That brings me back to my questions: Are you against all patents altogether? If not, what's so special about software patents that they always hinder innovation? Perhaps you could consider answering them this time.
No, whether the Earth is flat or round is a matter of fact, not opinion. You need to understand the difference between fact and opinion. Take a look at the GRE issue and argument tasks, where you are allowed to present your perspective on an issue, and you argue how well reasoned an argument is. Those arguments also have nothing to do with "right" or "wrong", but how well you are able present a well-reasoned argument. Those rhetorical arguments are completely different from scientific evidence supporting a hypothesis or a mathematical proof.