The Paris Agreement was a self-commitment of all signing countries to limit the increase in global temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius until the year 2100. Not more, nothing less. . . .
At no point in the agreement there was any mentioning of wealth or the redistribution of it.
You mean this Paris Agreement? The one that says in Article 9, Paragraph 1, "Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention"?
This is not complicated. Either "sweat resistant" means something different than "sweat-proof" or they mean the same thing. You sound like you want them to mean the same thing (even though it's crystal-clear they don't), but you're not forthright enough just to say that.
If you have something new to say, please do and I'm happy to discuss, but otherwise I'm done putting the rattle back up on the high chair for this one.
A reasonable person, being told that something is good for workouts, would believe that buying them and working out while wearing them would work just fine.
Some people's workouts are conducted in the water. I presume you don't believe that someone should expect to be able to dunk their earbuds in the pool simply on the basis of the words "good for workouts."
But that's really neither here nor there, given that the reasonable person inquiry looks at what a reasonable person would conclude from the totality of the advertisement, not certain words taken in isolation as you're doing. That means in addition to "good for workouts," considering things like "resistant to water/sweat" (i.e., not water/sweat-proof).
Foxconn is NOT just getting a tax cut. The state is paying cash to Foxconn. Most of that $3B is cash out of the state coffers that is paid to Foxconn.
You really need to stop just blindly replaying sensationalist news articles as factual. The actual bill provides refundable tax credits, primarily as follows: (1) 17% of the first $100k of each full-time employee's wages, up to an aggregate total of $1.5 billion; and (2) 15% of the company's capital expenditures, up to an aggregate total of $1.35 billion.
So any money from Wisconsin is (a) only offsetting a small percentage of Foxconn's expenditures in the state; and (b) only a cash payment to Foxconn to the extent Foxconn doesn't have any income taxes to offset.
Unless you're holding out on us and really have a crystal ball to know that Foxconn's income taxes will be near zero for the next 10 years, you have no basis for your statement.
Sorry but no, if it's resistant to sweat then it's resistant to sweat. Any reasonable person would assume that it applies to their own sweat levels, especially when paying a premium price as in this case.
No, you're once again conflating "resistant to sweat" with "sweat-proof." The former has limits by definition, so you simply can't say that something labeled "resistant to sweat" should be able to withstand any arbitrary amount. This is precisely the reason that courts use the objective "reasonable person" standard, so disenchanted people can't just make up their own subjective interpretation after the fact and say that's the one that must govern.
Furthermore, you have no evidence that the complaints are coming from some sort of super sweating freak.
And you have no evidence that the lead plaintiffs didn't all drop their earbuds in the toilet at the gym. That's what the discovery process in the lawsuit is for.
But this is really beside the point -- what we're currently discussing is whether an objectively reasonable heavy sweater would believe that "sweat resistant" earbuds means their sweat can't harm them. Had the advertisement said "sweat-proof," I would completely agree with you. But it didn't.
Traditionally, yes. Here's a more modern type, likely the one TFA is referring to:
"Polar fleece is used in jackets, hats, sweaters, sweatpants, cloth nappies, gym clothes, hoodies, blankets, and high-performance outdoor clothing. It can be made partially from recycled plastic bottles and is very light, soft, and easy to wash."
Their advertising claim clearly implies that sweat from working out wont be a problem. If it is going to be a problem then whats the point of advertising anything on the topic?
Advertising claims are measured from the perspective of a reasonable person. A reasonable person would not believe that the handful of people who sweat far beyond typical levels and effectively immerse their earbuds to puddles of water in their ears for sustained periods of time should expect non-waterproof earbuds to survive that kind of abuse.
If an item is advertised as sweat and water resistant no one should have to doubt that claim, especially when paying a premium price.
No doubt. But presumably if someone is spending that much money on something and are relying on the advertising lingo to guide your purchase, they've first done 30 seconds of due diligence to understand the difference between water resistant and waterproof. To the extent the complaint is comprehensible, it seems to badly conflate those two concepts.
That's probably why they filed in Massachusetts, which is part of the First Circuit Court of Appeals. If they win in the trial and appellate courts, there will then be a split of authority between the First Circuit and the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, which have held the search of electronic devices at the border to be constitutional (subject to minor constraints). The odds then go up considerably that the Supreme Court will grant certiorari to resolve the circuit split.
Economic productivity requires labor and capital (men and machines). The laborers get a share of what is produced and the owners of the capital (rich people) get a share of what is produced.
If you don't understand that there is a free lunch for rich people then you don't understand the most basic principles of capitalism.
The laborers get their share in exchange for their labor. The owners of the capital get their share (maybe) in exchange for putting their capital at risk, often coupled with a buttload of hard work.
If you characterize the latter as a "free lunch," you've never tried to run a business.
If a person is on food stamps, they pretty much should not have enough money to buy a smartphone with data plan to use EBT apps...if they can afford those, they can afford to buy their own food.
Those expenses aren't even close to the same scale. There are plenty of low-end smartphones in the sub-$100 range, and data plans to be had for less than $30 a month (some of which is subsidized by the Lifeline program). Food stamp benefits can run several hundred dollars a month depending on family size.
One argument against making social programs like food stamps easier...is that making them a PAIN IN THE ASS might help encourage folks to double down on work and education, sacrifice so they can get a real job that pays enough so that they don't need to live off the govt. teet.
Making the use and administration of a welfare program less efficient for all involved seems very much like cutting off your nose to spite your face. I don't know anyone that would disagree that food stamp programs are necessary for at least some people for at least some period of time, and that being the case there's no reason the program shouldn't be as efficient as possible in delivering service to those people.
States like Wisconsin have set up their food stamp programs with fairly stringent eligibility and work requirements to accomplish your (worthy) goal of reducing long-term dependence and promoting work ethic -- imo that sort of up-front approach is far better than the more passive-aggressive strategy of trying to make the user experience miserable.
We haven't had two Cat 4 hurricanes hit for more than a century.
Other than being an interesting bit of statistical trivia, what meaningful information does that really give us about whether there has been an overall change in frequency over time? Are you saying that the act of one hurricane making landfall in the U.S. at Cat 4 decreases the odds that any other hurricane that season will reach the U.S. as a Cat 4?
No. He's saying that a century ago weather satellites didn't exist, instrumentation was more primitive, and we just don't know how big the storms were
Given that we've only had weather satellites for about 50 years, that's exactly why it's impossible to make apples-to-apples comparisons over the past 100.
You know, I think of "insightful" posts like this when I read the constant grumbling about how Slashdot has become a cesspool of disaffected righties.
Maybe you should dust off your Venn diagram and 'splain to the rest of us how someone who isn't a fan of government subsidies for energy is by definition an "oil industry shill."
Don't waste your time or money on their monitoring "services", which don't do much.
Um, here's Brian Krebs's takeaway from the end of the article you linked:
My advice: Sign up for credit monitoring if you can (and you’re not holding out for a puny class action windfall) and then freeze your credit files at the major credit bureaus (it is generally not possible to sign up for credit monitoring services after a freeze is in place).
The hubris of this bunch is unbelievable. Faced with an ecosystem so unbelievably complex and interdependent that nobody can say with much confidence what is really going to happen down the road, they propose to massively, rapidly, and irreversibly alter a single variable in that system.
You're projecting. The source you haughtily cited contains such a fundamental logical flaw that I'm comfortable you could readily see it and cheerfully explain it to the rest of us if it was on a different topic.
As it stands, you're making yourself look ridiculous by repeatedly trying to rewrite your source to say things it doesn't say, and then crow that the way you rewrote it doesn't fall prey to the logical flaw I pointed out.
I'm sure it's embarrassing to get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, but you're not making it any better by going to such contortions trying to fix it.
If the numbers are so convincing without the significantly backloaded series of warming studies published after the media articles to which he was comparing them, Peterson could have made the same point without appearing disingenuous.
He didn't.
Presumably because the paper wouldn't have sounded nearly as one-sided and convincing had he done so.
Which is the epitome of the problem in the business of climate "science."
Your article compares media observations in 1974 and 1975 with studies between 1965 and 1979. Why 1979, you ask? Why not 1975, to show the comparison between contemporaneous media articles and studies?
Oh, that's right -- because the cited Peterson paper shows that the vast majority of the warming studies were published between 1976 and 1979. So the supposed divergence between the studies and media happened after the media articles were published.
Sure, I'll go into a specific: I think Tivo's original DVR patents were bullshit. Whether they won court cases or not, they got a club to wield against people using obvious techniques that had been in use before Tivo was doing it. I guess YMMV as to whether that -really- counts as "patent trolling," but I set a low bar.
Yeah, now I see the disconnect. The traditional "patent troll" just owns and tries to collect royalties on the patent without actually doing anything with it, and in fact the more formal term is "non-practicing entity." Poor patent quality often goes hand in hand with patent trolls/NPEs, but it's really a separate issue. A patent troll/NPE could assert a very high-quality patent (though it's statistically unlikely since they usually buy them and thus have to content themselves with more marginal ones), and an operating company that actually manufactures products incorporating its patents could assert a very low-quality patent (though that's less of an effective strategy these days given the legislative changes over the past few years that makes it easier to cost-effectively attack marginal patents in the Patent Office rather than in litigation).
I will probably never own land, and therefore spend my entire life scrambling to pay the bulk of my income to someone or another for the right just to exist somewhere
That's definitely harder (though not impossible) somewhere like Santa Barbara, but with a low-six-figure income there are countless places across the country where you could own land if you wanted to. If you'd rather rent in a super-high cost of living area than own in a more reasonable region (which, let's face it, is not going to be costal Cali), that's a lifestyle choice on your part, not evidence of how bloody unfair the world is.
TL;DR: California economics likely has twisted your perspective.
Slashdot Mirror
The Paris Agreement was a self-commitment of all signing countries to limit the increase in global temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius until the year 2100. Not more, nothing less. . . .
At no point in the agreement there was any mentioning of wealth or the redistribution of it.
You mean this Paris Agreement? The one that says in Article 9, Paragraph 1, " Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention"?
There should be a "Not informative" moderation.
Indeed.
<eom>
Do i need to post the definition of "resistant" for you?
You of course could have just done so instead of coyly asking, but I'll do you one better -- let's take a look at definitions of the much more germane "water-resistant": Resisting though not entirely preventing the penetration of water; Able to resist the penetration of water to some degree but not entirely. You get the picture.
This is not complicated. Either "sweat resistant" means something different than "sweat-proof" or they mean the same thing. You sound like you want them to mean the same thing (even though it's crystal-clear they don't), but you're not forthright enough just to say that.
If you have something new to say, please do and I'm happy to discuss, but otherwise I'm done putting the rattle back up on the high chair for this one.
A reasonable person, being told that something is good for workouts, would believe that buying them and working out while wearing them would work just fine.
Some people's workouts are conducted in the water. I presume you don't believe that someone should expect to be able to dunk their earbuds in the pool simply on the basis of the words "good for workouts."
But that's really neither here nor there, given that the reasonable person inquiry looks at what a reasonable person would conclude from the totality of the advertisement, not certain words taken in isolation as you're doing. That means in addition to "good for workouts," considering things like "resistant to water/sweat" (i.e., not water/sweat-proof).
Foxconn is NOT just getting a tax cut. The state is paying cash to Foxconn. Most of that $3B is cash out of the state coffers that is paid to Foxconn.
You really need to stop just blindly replaying sensationalist news articles as factual. The actual bill provides refundable tax credits, primarily as follows: (1) 17% of the first $100k of each full-time employee's wages, up to an aggregate total of $1.5 billion; and (2) 15% of the company's capital expenditures, up to an aggregate total of $1.35 billion.
So any money from Wisconsin is (a) only offsetting a small percentage of Foxconn's expenditures in the state; and (b) only a cash payment to Foxconn to the extent Foxconn doesn't have any income taxes to offset.
Unless you're holding out on us and really have a crystal ball to know that Foxconn's income taxes will be near zero for the next 10 years, you have no basis for your statement.
Sorry but no, if it's resistant to sweat then it's resistant to sweat. Any reasonable person would assume that it applies to their own sweat levels, especially when paying a premium price as in this case.
No, you're once again conflating "resistant to sweat" with "sweat-proof." The former has limits by definition, so you simply can't say that something labeled "resistant to sweat" should be able to withstand any arbitrary amount. This is precisely the reason that courts use the objective "reasonable person" standard, so disenchanted people can't just make up their own subjective interpretation after the fact and say that's the one that must govern.
Furthermore, you have no evidence that the complaints are coming from some sort of super sweating freak.
And you have no evidence that the lead plaintiffs didn't all drop their earbuds in the toilet at the gym. That's what the discovery process in the lawsuit is for.
But this is really beside the point -- what we're currently discussing is whether an objectively reasonable heavy sweater would believe that "sweat resistant" earbuds means their sweat can't harm them. Had the advertisement said "sweat-proof," I would completely agree with you. But it didn't.
Fleece's come from sheep.
Traditionally, yes. Here's a more modern type, likely the one TFA is referring to:
"Polar fleece is used in jackets, hats, sweaters, sweatpants, cloth nappies, gym clothes, hoodies, blankets, and high-performance outdoor clothing. It can be made partially from recycled plastic bottles and is very light, soft, and easy to wash."
Their advertising claim clearly implies that sweat from working out wont be a problem. If it is going to be a problem then whats the point of advertising anything on the topic?
Advertising claims are measured from the perspective of a reasonable person. A reasonable person would not believe that the handful of people who sweat far beyond typical levels and effectively immerse their earbuds to puddles of water in their ears for sustained periods of time should expect non-waterproof earbuds to survive that kind of abuse.
"The current iOS my devices we have all sorts of issues"
Apparently the Android grammar checker ain't so hot.
If an item is advertised as sweat and water resistant no one should have to doubt that claim, especially when paying a premium price.
No doubt. But presumably if someone is spending that much money on something and are relying on the advertising lingo to guide your purchase, they've first done 30 seconds of due diligence to understand the difference between water resistant and waterproof. To the extent the complaint is comprehensible, it seems to badly conflate those two concepts.
That's probably why they filed in Massachusetts, which is part of the First Circuit Court of Appeals. If they win in the trial and appellate courts, there will then be a split of authority between the First Circuit and the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, which have held the search of electronic devices at the border to be constitutional (subject to minor constraints). The odds then go up considerably that the Supreme Court will grant certiorari to resolve the circuit split.
Economic productivity requires labor and capital (men and machines). The laborers get a share of what is produced and the owners of the capital (rich people) get a share of what is produced.
If you don't understand that there is a free lunch for rich people then you don't understand the most basic principles of capitalism.
The laborers get their share in exchange for their labor. The owners of the capital get their share (maybe) in exchange for putting their capital at risk, often coupled with a buttload of hard work.
If you characterize the latter as a "free lunch," you've never tried to run a business.
If a person is on food stamps, they pretty much should not have enough money to buy a smartphone with data plan to use EBT apps...if they can afford those, they can afford to buy their own food.
Those expenses aren't even close to the same scale. There are plenty of low-end smartphones in the sub-$100 range, and data plans to be had for less than $30 a month (some of which is subsidized by the Lifeline program). Food stamp benefits can run several hundred dollars a month depending on family size.
One argument against making social programs like food stamps easier...is that making them a PAIN IN THE ASS might help encourage folks to double down on work and education, sacrifice so they can get a real job that pays enough so that they don't need to live off the govt. teet.
Making the use and administration of a welfare program less efficient for all involved seems very much like cutting off your nose to spite your face. I don't know anyone that would disagree that food stamp programs are necessary for at least some people for at least some period of time, and that being the case there's no reason the program shouldn't be as efficient as possible in delivering service to those people.
States like Wisconsin have set up their food stamp programs with fairly stringent eligibility and work requirements to accomplish your (worthy) goal of reducing long-term dependence and promoting work ethic -- imo that sort of up-front approach is far better than the more passive-aggressive strategy of trying to make the user experience miserable.
We haven't had two Cat 4 hurricanes hit for more than a century.
Other than being an interesting bit of statistical trivia, what meaningful information does that really give us about whether there has been an overall change in frequency over time? Are you saying that the act of one hurricane making landfall in the U.S. at Cat 4 decreases the odds that any other hurricane that season will reach the U.S. as a Cat 4?
No. He's saying that a century ago weather satellites didn't exist, instrumentation was more primitive, and we just don't know how big the storms were
Given that we've only had weather satellites for about 50 years, that's exactly why it's impossible to make apples-to-apples comparisons over the past 100.
You know, I think of "insightful" posts like this when I read the constant grumbling about how Slashdot has become a cesspool of disaffected righties.
Maybe you should dust off your Venn diagram and 'splain to the rest of us how someone who isn't a fan of government subsidies for energy is by definition an "oil industry shill."
This FTFA is all you need to know about this latest bit of UN feel-good tripe:
While the International Civil Aviation Organization cannot impose regulations on countries . . .
Absolutely nothing to see here, folks -- move on.
Don't waste your time or money on their monitoring "services", which don't do much.
Um, here's Brian Krebs's takeaway from the end of the article you linked:
My advice: Sign up for credit monitoring if you can (and you’re not holding out for a puny class action windfall) and then freeze your credit files at the major credit bureaus (it is generally not possible to sign up for credit monitoring services after a freeze is in place).
The hubris of this bunch is unbelievable. Faced with an ecosystem so unbelievably complex and interdependent that nobody can say with much confidence what is really going to happen down the road, they propose to massively, rapidly, and irreversibly alter a single variable in that system.
What could possibly go wrong?
You are wrong and grasping at straws
You're projecting. The source you haughtily cited contains such a fundamental logical flaw that I'm comfortable you could readily see it and cheerfully explain it to the rest of us if it was on a different topic.
As it stands, you're making yourself look ridiculous by repeatedly trying to rewrite your source to say things it doesn't say, and then crow that the way you rewrote it doesn't fall prey to the logical flaw I pointed out.
I'm sure it's embarrassing to get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, but you're not making it any better by going to such contortions trying to fix it.
If the numbers are so convincing without the significantly backloaded series of warming studies published after the media articles to which he was comparing them, Peterson could have made the same point without appearing disingenuous.
He didn't.
Presumably because the paper wouldn't have sounded nearly as one-sided and convincing had he done so.
Which is the epitome of the problem in the business of climate "science."
Your article compares media observations in 1974 and 1975 with studies between 1965 and 1979. Why 1979, you ask? Why not 1975, to show the comparison between contemporaneous media articles and studies?
Oh, that's right -- because the cited Peterson paper shows that the vast majority of the warming studies were published between 1976 and 1979. So the supposed divergence between the studies and media happened after the media articles were published.
You can't make this stuff up, folks.
Sure, I'll go into a specific: I think Tivo's original DVR patents were bullshit. Whether they won court cases or not, they got a club to wield against people using obvious techniques that had been in use before Tivo was doing it. I guess YMMV as to whether that -really- counts as "patent trolling," but I set a low bar.
Yeah, now I see the disconnect. The traditional "patent troll" just owns and tries to collect royalties on the patent without actually doing anything with it, and in fact the more formal term is "non-practicing entity." Poor patent quality often goes hand in hand with patent trolls/NPEs, but it's really a separate issue. A patent troll/NPE could assert a very high-quality patent (though it's statistically unlikely since they usually buy them and thus have to content themselves with more marginal ones), and an operating company that actually manufactures products incorporating its patents could assert a very low-quality patent (though that's less of an effective strategy these days given the legislative changes over the past few years that makes it easier to cost-effectively attack marginal patents in the Patent Office rather than in litigation).
I will probably never own land, and therefore spend my entire life scrambling to pay the bulk of my income to someone or another for the right just to exist somewhere
That's definitely harder (though not impossible) somewhere like Santa Barbara, but with a low-six-figure income there are countless places across the country where you could own land if you wanted to. If you'd rather rent in a super-high cost of living area than own in a more reasonable region (which, let's face it, is not going to be costal Cali), that's a lifestyle choice on your part, not evidence of how bloody unfair the world is.
TL;DR: California economics likely has twisted your perspective.
The real question is whether he was a patent troll himself, and he has that history as well.
I didn't see any cases where he represented patent trolls, and I note you didn't cite any. If you have any specifics, I'm happy to discuss.