I'm currently working in Salt Lake City, and if Elizabeth Smart is on headlines nationwide, every bulletin board here is plastered with "MISSING: ELIZABETH SMART" signs. Yet in one of Salt Lake City's alternative newspapers, I read about the similar kidnapping of a young Hispanic kid from the poorer West Side of SLC, which received almost no press, even within the city. Sure, Katz is, much as it pains me to admit it, partially right, in that the media is driven by business, by whatever news can net them the most attention, money, and new viewers. But - although he dismisses this point in his article - race matters.
It's no coincidence that the kidnappings of kids who aren't rich, suburban, and white don't get press. The bias involved in media coverage is visible even in the coverage of crimes committed against adults. Which is more likely to get on the news - the death of a poor black guy or a rather wealthier white person? Hunger for profits can only explain part of this bias. After all, most Americans watch TV, regardless of race. And, logically, all crimes like murders or kidnappings ought to be viewed as tragic.
Unfortunately, bias in the media has no one, simple cause. The desire for a profit, simple inertia, overt or even unconscious racism - all of these causes, and more, could be cited, and all have some truth to them.
Internet radio stations may want to be treated just like their AM/FM cousins, and blame the difference in the way they're treated on the DMCA and on CARP. But the reality is that internet radio stations have the worst of both worlds - all of the problems of radio and of internet startups.
Consider - normal radio is portable. AM/FM stations are available wherever there are radios. Although stations have limited broadcast ranges, everyday listeners generally don't travel between cities and thus have no problems with this. Satellite radio may eradicate even this problem. But internet radio stations depend on computers - and the reality is that the vast majority of people [even some/. readers] spend time away from their computers.
So, internet radio stations are less available than AM/FM ones. In addition, they have to struggle for revenue in the same way that.com startups do - things like banner ads and subscriptions. Because there are so many stations out there, it is not economically feasible for an advertiser to put a banner ad out on a page and simply assume that enough people will see it. And many stations play continuous music/talk, without broadcast ads. This means that they're suffering through the same money pinch that the rest of internet businesses are.
So, in the end, the CARP ruling is simply the straw that breaks the camel's back. Although it's true that many internet stations offer far superior content, they suffer from some very obvious problems. They're not portable, which makes them less convienient for their audiences; their smaller audiences make advertising less profitable anyways; and because they often depend, like other internet content businesses, on things like banner ads and subscriptions, their financial situations are often precarious anyways.
So sure, the DMCA and CARP are harming the internet radio industry. But the industry was already in trouble to begin with; this might itself have caused the same kind of commercialization and consolidation that CARP will likely force on the stations.
Unfortunately, this seems to be one more symptom of NASA's desparate search for something, anything, to recapture its former glory. Yes, it makes sense to investigate valid scientific experiments which yield potentially valuable anomalies, like Podkletnov's supposed results. But the field of science thrives on peer review. A 'scientist' who is not willing to submit himself to peer review ought to raise some red flags somewhere... Podkletnov's claims seem suspiciously similar to those of proponents of perpetual motion machines and cold fusion.
The basis of science today is in testing phenomena and reproducing results. Podkletnov refuses to submit to this basic tenet of scientific society. He claims that people will steal his ideas and take his credit - yet if he's well known enough that NASA, let alone the LA Times, has heard of him, such intellectual thievery ought to be very difficult. In addition, by publishing a paper with all his procedures and results, he would not only prove that such "gravity shielding" phenomena do exist, he'd be able to defend himself against future intellectual thievery, and he would allow other scientists to build off of - note, not steal - his work.
However, Podkletnov chooses not to publish his actual procedures. This makes his experiments functionally untestable. This is fortuitous for him if he is a fraud. That way, if NASA does manage to discover "gravity shielding", he can claim that their procedure was his, and cash in on their prestige and fame. If NASA fails, as they are likely to do, he can simply claim that they didn't do it quite right, and continue to refuse to release his results. Given that he's kept the chemical composition of some of the components of his apparatus, namely, the spinning disk, secret, it's hard to see how NASA would succeed even if his claims were valid. Finally, if, as Podkletnov claims, "dozens of people" have matched his results, we could expect at least one of them to have come forward by now. Certainly, they can't all be hiding their data for fear of thievery - are we to suppose that not one of "dozens" of scientists has the bravery, initiative, far-sightedness, or even plain greed to publish these results, which could have such an impact on the world if verified? That seems highly unlikely...
It's somewhat disheartening to see an institution like NASA following pseudoscience like Podkletnov's "gravity shielding". With current budget cuts, NASA would be much better off spending its diminishing money on developing technology that already exists, rather than chasing implausible alternatives. Everyone would profit off of an alchemist's ability to turn lead to gold, or a perpetual motion machine, or cold fusion, but, because those have been shown to be so implausible, for various reasons, we don't see serious research institutions researching them. "Anti-gravity", at least of Podkletnov's variety, should be placed in the same category, at least until the 'scientist' is willing to back up his claims with some real, verifiable, and repeatable procedures and data.
More CO2 does not mean "more plants". Consider - plants are not spontaneously generated from CO2; instead, they grow from other plants. Increased CO2 levels don't somehow make plants more fertile, either. In addition, balance out the possible increase in plants due to CO2 with the decrease in plants due to human territorial expansion - you're still losing plants. Finally, plants need oxgen too. A balanced atmosphere is necessary for them as well; plants engage in both photosynthesis (during which CO2 is taken in and O2 emitted) and oxidative respiration, during which O2 is taken in. So, you end up with a net loss of plants and an atmosphere that's less breathable for humans, because there's less O2 (due to lack of plants) and more CO2. This is good how? Without the addition of CO2 by human industry, CO2 levels ought to stay relatively stable. Note in this graph that they have risen. This CO2 increase is directly tied to us, and it could affect us rather negatively.
Also - CFCs are merely a subset of greenhouse gasses. CO2, for example, is also a greenhouse gas. It doesn't matter how much we produce in net terms; what matters is how much we increase the amount of greenhouse gasses above natural levels, and whether the environment can tolerate those levels and facilitate conditions like those of our world today.
Sure, the planet's natural processes are formidable. But we can and do alter the environment with our activities, mostly negatively. We are not helpless; we should not deny responsibility for what we have done; we should not pretend that we couldn't, with some effort, make some minor changes for the better.
The majority of the posts I've seen seem to scoff at the idea the collapse of the Larsen Ice Shelf has any global signifigance, or that global warming is a problem. And they have some valid points - sure, the Earth's temperature has fluctuated wildly in the past; sure, not all of the recent increase in average global temperature is due to humans. But that doesn't make us innocent, or safe. The Earth and life as a whole may have weathered huge climactic shifts before - look at the end of the Ice Age. But such shifts tend to cause a lot of extinctions, and it is undeniable that the effects of human industry, territorial expansion, etc. have already caused many extinctions/endangered species/etc. So this climactic change is coming at a point when the global ecosystem is already stressed.
Global warming, whether caused by humans or not, is nothing to scoff at, either. Many people, particularly in third world nations, live on the coastline, in areas that would (and will) be innundated if and when a higher global temperature causes ocean levels to rise. This is a serious threat to the lives and livelihoods of many people. People in the third world can't simply move and buy another house, nor can they afford to maintain a system of dikes like those of the Netherlands. Whether or not humans caused global warming, it exists, as the collapse of the Larsen Ice Shelf indicates, and it is a threat.
In addition, it's true that a certain amount of melting, calving of icebergs, and such occurs with the change of seasons in Antartica. Thank you, whoever noted that sun causes ice to melt, for stating the obvious. But the Larsen Shelf was not noted for being susceptible to such seasonal oscillations - indeed, it was incredibly stable, and old. Ice sheets that are 200 meters thick and more than 3000 square miles big don't form or melt overnight. The instability which caused the collapse was a relatively recent development. That such a stable chunk of the Antarctican ice should disintegrate is of great concern.
Finally, while man may not have created global warming, our industrial revolution has certainly contributed. A previous poster listed thesegraphs. A temperature spike and carbon dioxide spike, coinciding with the industrial revolution, are clearly visible. We have contributed to global warming. Sure, we can't stop industry, and sure, we don't have effective alternative energy sources. But we can adopt less wasteful methods of doing things, and cleaner manufacturing processes. And if we never start seriously investigating alternative energy sources, we will certainly never make any progress in that realm. So don't dismiss global warming as a liberal joke, or a tool for Greenpeace. Perhaps humans didn't create it, but the Larsen Shelf's collapse joins a growing bank of data suggesting that warming does exist, and that humans have contributed to some extent. We should be concerned, because this does affect us, and our future.
As several people have mentioned, such goggles/glasses were featured in Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash and Diamond Age. Certainly, this technology could have many benefits. Think about the advantages of swift access to personal data in the courtroom and for police, or about how quick access to lab procedures, online resources, and other data would help scientists. Of course, if this technology is developed, however, it will not be possible to confine it to scientists, lawyers, policemen, and such. Others - spammers, perverts, criminals, etc - will get their hands on the technology, and the result will be intrusion on our privacy ranging from the merely annoying to the outright dangerous. Certainly, the technology is cool, and potentially very useful to many people, but there is, unfortunately, also a great potential for abuse.
Slashdot Mirror
It's no coincidence that the kidnappings of kids who aren't rich, suburban, and white don't get press. The bias involved in media coverage is visible even in the coverage of crimes committed against adults. Which is more likely to get on the news - the death of a poor black guy or a rather wealthier white person? Hunger for profits can only explain part of this bias. After all, most Americans watch TV, regardless of race. And, logically, all crimes like murders or kidnappings ought to be viewed as tragic.
Unfortunately, bias in the media has no one, simple cause. The desire for a profit, simple inertia, overt or even unconscious racism - all of these causes, and more, could be cited, and all have some truth to them.
Consider - normal radio is portable. AM/FM stations are available wherever there are radios. Although stations have limited broadcast ranges, everyday listeners generally don't travel between cities and thus have no problems with this. Satellite radio may eradicate even this problem. But internet radio stations depend on computers - and the reality is that the vast majority of people [even some /. readers] spend time away from their computers.
So, internet radio stations are less available than AM/FM ones. In addition, they have to struggle for revenue in the same way that .com startups do - things like banner ads and subscriptions. Because there are so many stations out there, it is not economically feasible for an advertiser to put a banner ad out on a page and simply assume that enough people will see it. And many stations play continuous music/talk, without broadcast ads. This means that they're suffering through the same money pinch that the rest of internet businesses are.
So, in the end, the CARP ruling is simply the straw that breaks the camel's back. Although it's true that many internet stations offer far superior content, they suffer from some very obvious problems. They're not portable, which makes them less convienient for their audiences; their smaller audiences make advertising less profitable anyways; and because they often depend, like other internet content businesses, on things like banner ads and subscriptions, their financial situations are often precarious anyways.
So sure, the DMCA and CARP are harming the internet radio industry. But the industry was already in trouble to begin with; this might itself have caused the same kind of commercialization and consolidation that CARP will likely force on the stations.
The basis of science today is in testing phenomena and reproducing results. Podkletnov refuses to submit to this basic tenet of scientific society. He claims that people will steal his ideas and take his credit - yet if he's well known enough that NASA, let alone the LA Times, has heard of him, such intellectual thievery ought to be very difficult. In addition, by publishing a paper with all his procedures and results, he would not only prove that such "gravity shielding" phenomena do exist, he'd be able to defend himself against future intellectual thievery, and he would allow other scientists to build off of - note, not steal - his work.
However, Podkletnov chooses not to publish his actual procedures. This makes his experiments functionally untestable. This is fortuitous for him if he is a fraud. That way, if NASA does manage to discover "gravity shielding", he can claim that their procedure was his, and cash in on their prestige and fame. If NASA fails, as they are likely to do, he can simply claim that they didn't do it quite right, and continue to refuse to release his results. Given that he's kept the chemical composition of some of the components of his apparatus, namely, the spinning disk, secret, it's hard to see how NASA would succeed even if his claims were valid. Finally, if, as Podkletnov claims, "dozens of people" have matched his results, we could expect at least one of them to have come forward by now. Certainly, they can't all be hiding their data for fear of thievery - are we to suppose that not one of "dozens" of scientists has the bravery, initiative, far-sightedness, or even plain greed to publish these results, which could have such an impact on the world if verified? That seems highly unlikely...
It's somewhat disheartening to see an institution like NASA following pseudoscience like Podkletnov's "gravity shielding". With current budget cuts, NASA would be much better off spending its diminishing money on developing technology that already exists, rather than chasing implausible alternatives. Everyone would profit off of an alchemist's ability to turn lead to gold, or a perpetual motion machine, or cold fusion, but, because those have been shown to be so implausible, for various reasons, we don't see serious research institutions researching them. "Anti-gravity", at least of Podkletnov's variety, should be placed in the same category, at least until the 'scientist' is willing to back up his claims with some real, verifiable, and repeatable procedures and data.
Also - CFCs are merely a subset of greenhouse gasses. CO2, for example, is also a greenhouse gas. It doesn't matter how much we produce in net terms; what matters is how much we increase the amount of greenhouse gasses above natural levels, and whether the environment can tolerate those levels and facilitate conditions like those of our world today.
Sure, the planet's natural processes are formidable. But we can and do alter the environment with our activities, mostly negatively. We are not helpless; we should not deny responsibility for what we have done; we should not pretend that we couldn't, with some effort, make some minor changes for the better.
Global warming, whether caused by humans or not, is nothing to scoff at, either. Many people, particularly in third world nations, live on the coastline, in areas that would (and will) be innundated if and when a higher global temperature causes ocean levels to rise. This is a serious threat to the lives and livelihoods of many people. People in the third world can't simply move and buy another house, nor can they afford to maintain a system of dikes like those of the Netherlands. Whether or not humans caused global warming, it exists, as the collapse of the Larsen Ice Shelf indicates, and it is a threat.
In addition, it's true that a certain amount of melting, calving of icebergs, and such occurs with the change of seasons in Antartica. Thank you, whoever noted that sun causes ice to melt, for stating the obvious. But the Larsen Shelf was not noted for being susceptible to such seasonal oscillations - indeed, it was incredibly stable, and old. Ice sheets that are 200 meters thick and more than 3000 square miles big don't form or melt overnight. The instability which caused the collapse was a relatively recent development. That such a stable chunk of the Antarctican ice should disintegrate is of great concern.
Finally, while man may not have created global warming, our industrial revolution has certainly contributed. A previous poster listed these graphs. A temperature spike and carbon dioxide spike, coinciding with the industrial revolution, are clearly visible. We have contributed to global warming. Sure, we can't stop industry, and sure, we don't have effective alternative energy sources. But we can adopt less wasteful methods of doing things, and cleaner manufacturing processes. And if we never start seriously investigating alternative energy sources, we will certainly never make any progress in that realm. So don't dismiss global warming as a liberal joke, or a tool for Greenpeace. Perhaps humans didn't create it, but the Larsen Shelf's collapse joins a growing bank of data suggesting that warming does exist, and that humans have contributed to some extent. We should be concerned, because this does affect us, and our future.
As several people have mentioned, such goggles/glasses were featured in Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash and Diamond Age. Certainly, this technology could have many benefits. Think about the advantages of swift access to personal data in the courtroom and for police, or about how quick access to lab procedures, online resources, and other data would help scientists. Of course, if this technology is developed, however, it will not be possible to confine it to scientists, lawyers, policemen, and such. Others - spammers, perverts, criminals, etc - will get their hands on the technology, and the result will be intrusion on our privacy ranging from the merely annoying to the outright dangerous. Certainly, the technology is cool, and potentially very useful to many people, but there is, unfortunately, also a great potential for abuse.