"The predictions that we would experience warming due to CO2 dates back to the 30s. Guess what? Their predictions have proven correct."
Back to the '30s?
Arrhenius made the prediction in 1896.
Svante Arrhenius, 1896b, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground,
The only difference is that based on the rate we were burning fossil fuel then, he thought it would take 3000 years to double the atmospheric CO2. Current estimates are one century.
>I was always taught that basically a scientific law was a theory that had been proven undeniably correct. A theory still hadn't reached that level of confirmation, even though they might be backed up by hordes of evidence.
No. A scientific law is a simplistic mathematical formula to describe a phenonema. It is often *known* to be somewhat inaccurate (think perfect gas law), and has no explanatory power.
A theory is an explanation that ties in a great number of facts into a framework.
Even if the theory is eventually modified, the facts that the theory is based on still exist, and need to be explained by the new improved theory. For example, early atomic theory has been extensively modified, but certain isotopes are still radioactive. And even if the current theory of evolution is superceded, we still share a common ancestor with apes.
>Notice that the Church Fathers, whose teachings ultimately constitute the Holy Tradition which is the basis of the faith and can't be questions, assumed that the story of creation in Genesis is true in its general details.
Well at least one very influential early Christian, St. Augustine, didn't assume that the story of creation in Genesis was true in its general details.
In _The Literal Meaning of Genesis_ , he wrote that he though that Genesis essentially dumbed down the actual creation to something that could be comprehened by our puny minds.
In another part of the same work, he wrote a diatribe against Christians who used their understanding of the Bible to claim things that the scientifally knowledgable knew to be false. He thought that it brought Christianity itself into disrepute and "was a great pity"
Let him be at home with his computer and a keyboard hitting delete. But to take a break, or have lunch he has to reply to the e-mails that say 'Break Time' and 'Lunch Time'.
Of course, he'll have a lot of bogus e-mails also saying 'Break Time' and 'Lunch Time', and replying to those e-mails doesn't get him any breaks or lunch.
"What's stopping me of 'getting infected' with some adware / spyware / malware and claim the money? Is there some legal procedures to go throught? How are they gonna prove that I didn't install them?"
"piracy. i, and probably everyone i kow got a "free" copy of office. don't think for a second that microsoft really cared that joe and jane homeowner were somehow "pirating" (giggle, giggle) office."
Microsoft didn't care???? Microsoft encouraged it!!! When Microsoft still had proprietary competition, there was a clause that if you had near exclusive use of your work computer Microsoft *allowed* you to have a copy on your home machine.
They knew they were in a battle for mindshare, and that giving away some product was good for business. Sometime about when Windows 95 came out (IIRC) they ended the practice. I believe because they calculated they didn't need it anymore.
"From the article: "He opposes abortion, fights for balanced budgets, and voted for the impeachment of President Clinton. His Web site features photographs of him carrying or firing guns. Through it all, though, Stenholm has remained a member of the Democratic Party"
I wonder what you have to do to be conservative down there."
I'd guess vote for enormous deficits like the Republicans do.
The current issue has this article. Sorry, no redirect to access the entire article.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1124/096.html
Some choice quotes.(fair use)
"Some teche exeds say SCO is bluffing and running a shakedown. Investors believe otherwise."
"In a weird twist IBM, which owns one of the largest patent portfolios in the world, now finds itself allied wsith a shaggy ideologue who opposes patents, copyrights and even the practice of charging money for software."
(Quoting McBride on Hollywood) "It's hypocritical for them to be going around saying that they don't want their stuff to be given away for free, but at the same time saying. 'Boy, this free stuff sure is cool,'"
Like he (and Daniel Lyons) can't tell there's a difference between something that the owner gives away, and something that is taken against the owner's will?
That's not correct. If the US couldn't prevent electronic voting, then the "Help America Vote Act of 2002'' wouldn't be able to specify requirements for "voting systems used in an election for federal office" See section 301 (pg 96 of the pdf copy I have.)
Though the Diebold system seems to be in violation of 301
(2) AUDIT CAPACITY.
(B) MANUAL AUDIT CAPACITY.--
(i) The voting system shall produce a
permanent paper record with a manual
audit capacity for such system.
So I don't know how they're getting accepted anyway.
From the nature of spammers, it would seem that they'll continue to spam just out of spite. See for example the recent DDOS against people who would like to keep email useful (also known as 'anti-spammers').
You know, the first amendment doesn't guarantee you an audience...
In fact US Supreme Court ROWAN vUS POST OFFICE DEPT., 397 US 728 (1970) seems to decisively decide that the do not call list is constitutional.
"Weighing the highly important right to communicate . . . against the very basic right to be free from sights, sounds, and tangible matters we do not want, it seems to us that a mailer's right to communicate must stop at the mailbox of an unreceptive addressee."
I think it's going to be difficult for the telemarketers to show why they have a stronger right to push their views on those who DO NOT WANT IT, than do mail advertisers.
"I would be interested to see if there is background documentation to support the importance of slavery as an issue among the southern leaders; can anyone point me towards anything like this?"
Glad to. See: http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html
Quotations from Southern leaders, succession documents, and political speeches and commentaries.
To my mind, it makes clear that the primary motivation for those leading the sucession movement was to preserve slavery. YMMV.
Cnet quotes Adam Thierer, an analyst at the free-market Cato Institute, says Wyden's bill is unwise.
"The better alternative to federal mandates on either side of this debate is to instead just encourage a technological free-for-all in the marketplace," Thierer said
That would be all very well and good, but how in the hell is the consumer supposed to make an informed choice if the information isn't available to them.
Wyden's bill seems like just what is needed to encourage the technolgical free-for-all Thierer 's asking for.
Frankly, it's seeming more and more that the Cato Institute, instead of being a 'free market' think tank is just another shill for big business.
Slashdot Mirror
"The predictions that we would experience warming due to CO2 dates back to the 30s. Guess what? Their predictions have proven correct."
Back to the '30s?
Arrhenius made the prediction in 1896.
Svante Arrhenius, 1896b, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground,
The only difference is that based on the rate we were burning fossil fuel then, he thought it would take 3000 years to double the atmospheric CO2. Current estimates are one century.
Put microsoft's hand in warm water while they're at it. We'll get the next version of Windows a year early!
No, for that you'd have to give the X-lax.
>I was always taught that basically a scientific law was a theory that had been proven undeniably correct. A theory still hadn't reached that level of confirmation, even though they might be backed up by hordes of evidence.
No. A scientific law is a simplistic mathematical formula to describe a phenonema. It is often *known* to be somewhat inaccurate (think perfect gas law), and has no explanatory power.
A theory is an explanation that ties in a great number of facts into a framework.
Even if the theory is eventually modified, the facts that the theory is based on still exist, and need to be explained by the new improved theory. For example, early atomic theory has been extensively modified, but certain isotopes are still radioactive. And even if the current theory of evolution is superceded, we still share a common ancestor with apes.
>Notice that the Church Fathers, whose teachings ultimately constitute the Holy Tradition which is the basis of the faith and can't be questions, assumed that the story of creation in Genesis is true in its general details.
Well at least one very influential early Christian, St. Augustine, didn't assume that the story of creation in Genesis was true in its general details.
In _The Literal Meaning of Genesis_ , he wrote that he though that Genesis essentially dumbed down the actual creation to something that could be comprehened by our puny minds.
In another part of the same work, he wrote a diatribe against Christians who used their understanding of the Bible to claim things that the scientifally knowledgable knew to be false. He thought that it brought Christianity itself into disrepute and "was a great pity"
You almost got it.
Let him be at home with his computer and a keyboard hitting delete. But to take a break, or have lunch he has to reply to the e-mails that say 'Break Time' and 'Lunch Time'.
Of course, he'll have a lot of bogus e-mails also saying 'Break Time' and 'Lunch Time', and replying to those e-mails doesn't get him any breaks or lunch.
Now that's fair.
"What's stopping me of 'getting infected' with some adware / spyware / malware and claim the money? Is there some legal procedures to go throught? How are they gonna prove that I didn't install them?"
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Unfortunately the 'Cruel and Unusual' clause in the Constitution prevents US juristictions from applying appropriate punishments to spammers.
"Huh? Of course it's ethical, you can put a Burger King billboard up right next to a McDonalds restaurant."
How about inside the restaurant, without the owner's agreement?
"piracy. i, and probably everyone i kow got a "free" copy of office. don't think for a second that microsoft really cared that joe and jane homeowner were somehow "pirating" (giggle, giggle) office."
Microsoft didn't care???? Microsoft encouraged it!!! When Microsoft still had proprietary competition, there was a clause that if you had near exclusive use of your work computer Microsoft *allowed* you to have a copy on your home machine.
They knew they were in a battle for mindshare, and that giving away some product was good for business. Sometime about when Windows 95 came out (IIRC) they ended the practice. I believe because they calculated they didn't need it anymore.
I wonder what you have to do to be conservative down there."
I'd guess vote for enormous deficits like the Republicans do.
The 'Market Reality' is that the RIAA has the money, and the will to bribe er contribute to Hatch's re-election.
A proud patriot and Republican voter Oxymoron (or is it just moron?) alert
The obvious solution is to make your preferred method of dealing with spam legal.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1124/096.html
Some choice quotes.(fair use)
"Some teche exeds say SCO is bluffing and running a shakedown. Investors believe otherwise."
"In a weird twist IBM, which owns one of the largest patent portfolios in the world, now finds itself allied wsith a shaggy ideologue who opposes patents, copyrights and even the practice of charging money for software."
(Quoting McBride on Hollywood) "It's hypocritical for them to be going around saying that they don't want their stuff to be given away for free, but at the same time saying. 'Boy, this free stuff sure is cool,'"
Like he (and Daniel Lyons) can't tell there's a difference between something that the owner gives away, and something that is taken against the owner's will?
By Microsoft of course, by FUD. And I'd think the 'why' was obvious.
Though the Diebold system seems to be in violation of 301
(2) AUDIT CAPACITY.
(B) MANUAL AUDIT CAPACITY.--
(i) The voting system shall produce a permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity for such system.
So I don't know how they're getting accepted anyway.
Simply wrong. Microsoft has patent law, and copyright law.
Without it their extortion arm (BSA) wouldn't get in the door.
So you're saying that Bush meant to go to war with Saudi Arabia, but said Iraq by mistake?
From the nature of spammers, it would seem that they'll continue to spam just out of spite. See for example the recent DDOS against people who would like to keep email useful (also known as 'anti-spammers').
Emailing girls? You do realize you're talking to a slashdot contributor don't you?
You know, the first amendment doesn't guarantee you an audience...
In fact US Supreme Court ROWAN vUS POST OFFICE DEPT., 397 US 728 (1970) seems to decisively decide that the do not call list is constitutional.
"Weighing the highly important right to communicate . . . against the very basic right to be free from sights, sounds, and tangible matters we do not want, it seems to us that a mailer's right to communicate must stop at the mailbox of an unreceptive addressee."
I think it's going to be difficult for the telemarketers to show why they have a stronger right to push their views on those who DO NOT WANT IT, than do mail advertisers.
"I would be interested to see if there is background documentation to support the importance of slavery as an issue among the southern leaders; can anyone point me towards anything like this?"
Glad to. See: http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html
Quotations from Southern leaders, succession documents, and political speeches and commentaries.
To my mind, it makes clear that the primary motivation for those leading the sucession movement was to preserve slavery. YMMV.
Geez. Read the comment he was respnding to.
"He played by the rules and won."
'hpa's reply "No, he did not play by the rules. He broke the law -- the courts have so ruled." is accurate whether those laws are right or wrong.
Either way, breaking the law is not playing by the rules.
"Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation [eff.org]?"
I don't give money to spammers or spam supporters.
If anyone knows of an organization like the EFF which is not a spam apologist, please let me know, so that I can support it.
Cnet quotes Adam Thierer, an analyst at the free-market Cato Institute, says Wyden's bill is unwise.
"The better alternative to federal mandates on either side of this debate is to instead just encourage a technological free-for-all in the marketplace," Thierer said
That would be all very well and good, but how in the hell is the consumer supposed to make an informed choice if the information isn't available to them.
Wyden's bill seems like just what is needed to encourage the technolgical free-for-all Thierer 's asking for.
Frankly, it's seeming more and more that the Cato Institute, instead of being a 'free market' think tank is just another shill for big business.