It's nonsense, as anyone with sophomore chemistry and the ability to google up the quantities of CO2 we're talking about could tell you.
That's why we ask people with more than a sophomore chemistry level.
You are kidding... right? But look at that moderation! WOW! What really blows my mind is that all the climate change cultists that read here haven't even bothered to give the article a critical look and instead are content to make jokes about fruit flavoring. The article claims:
The process of making lime generates CO2, but adding the lime to seawater absorbs almost twice as much CO2. The overall process is therefore 'carbon negative'.
Gee, do tell guys. How does reversing CaCO3 -> CaO + CO2 magically use up twice as much CO2 as it releases? No chemical formula, no citation. Nothing. Jack squat. Hmmm, a little digging produces this.
So they're really just substituting Ca(2+) for 2H(+) and this is just more cultist sleight of hand. "We can drop CaO in the water and be SAVED! It'll absorb twice as much CO2 as it releases! HEAL mother Earth and REJOICE!! Send your support for our computer modeling efforts in the form of a check to..."
Besides, making lime takes LOTS of energy. Where is this pile of miracle lime going to come from??
locating it in regions that have a combination of low-cost 'stranded' energy considered too remote to be economically viable to exploit — like flared natural gas or solar energy in deserts — and that are rich in limestone, making it feasible for calcination to take place on site.
Great, the cultists are going to stripmine the F'in desert and haul it all the way to the oceans. I'm sure that process will be "carbon neutral." I'll bet it's really inexpensive and gentle on the desert ecosystem at the same time. <sarcasm/>
If a ripoff lawsuit was ever justified, it is this one.
That's the big question, isn't it? As long as they aren't using copyrighted Facebook images or trying to pass themselves off as the real Facebook, I see no problem with it at all. It's bad enough that we have ridiculous lawsuits due to software patents. I don't think more lawsuits is a good idea here. There's only so many ways you can lay things out with CSS. There are also only a small handful of "web safe" fonts that you can pretty much guarantee will be on every browser. With limits like that, you're bound to have lots of collisions.
I though FB app devs had full access to all your data, regardless of your privacy settings. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems the only thing "protecting" you is Facebook's developer TOS.
Google balked over the issue of turning over information that would include data about videos employees watched or uploaded to YouTube
After Viacom pointed out why they wanted the IPs, Google really couldn't say no. It still appears Google's original request to strip IPs was motivated by self interest more than anything.
They care about themselves. Had Viacom gotten the IP logs, they could have proven Google staff was party to the infringement. I doubt user welfare was on their mind...
You're making a claim that the article you're linking doesn't support.
What claim is that? That scientific journals predicted global cooling? No, that's your strawman argument, not my "claim."
I provided a citation at Fishbowl's request that indicated a group of "fucktards" had once predicted the next ice age could result from man's activities, yet now claim man's activities could be leading to devastating global warming.
NatGeo did that. Sure, they hedged their bets back then with a little "It might get warmer" but when they did, it was a kinder gentler warming than today's global warming "crisis." Consequences then were open shipping lanes vs. menacing mile high wall of ice. It doesn't appear you even read what I and others have cited. Do you need a peer reviewed journal to say "Yes, the media did purport junk science in the 1970s?" Pshaw, that's unpossible!!
If it was uploaded by Google's staff as part of their paid job, then yes, Google is intentionally infringing their copyright.
But why would Google be blamed for an employee acting on his own to upload something?
That's all speculation. What this boils down to right now is an argument over whether or not Google should be forced to provide IP addresses with the data. Google's own defense for collecting the info is being used to compel Google to provide it. CNet is just speculating on what Viacom could do if they do get the info with IP addresses intact.
Same "news" as last week, now with 20% more speculation and hand wringing.
The parent is so far off base it's not even funny...
The purpose of this page is to provide a counter to the mythology that "journals were stuffed full of articles predicting an imminent ice age in the '70's".
I'm sorry, did I mention anything about scientific journals? I cited the National Geographic... what part of that shouts scientific journal to you?
The request was for citation that media outlets predicted that global cooling in the 1970's. Most climate change cultists willingly admit that happened. If you're still in denial of that, I'd suggest you check out LynnwoodRooster's citation as it is far more comprehensive than mine. You probably missed it as the mods have buried that one in their zeal as well. You keep preaching to the choir for karma though.
The point is, we should try to have as little impact on our environment as possible, since we've shown ourselves to be clueless as to the actual effects of what we've already done.
Have you been saved by the Lord Jesus Christ? You know... I'm all for freedom of religion. As far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to whatever religious beliefs you might want to have. Just don't try to shove them down my throat. Global Warming is classic fire and brimstone religion. They don't have proof or anything resembling it. They have "a consensus" and everyone has to get in line or we're all going to Hell. Sorry. I don't buy it.
If I get it right, the EPA is allowed to be given authority to do things as long as they have no real effect?
If I get this right, the EPA overstepped its bounds. Congress gave the EPA a certain scope and they are not allowed to operate outside of it. That's not hard to understand. It's also pretty obvious that the spin on the write-up is "Repent now or we're all going to hell!!!" The cult of climate change strikes again.
why not even a ssh/telnet client of any kind. WTF apple?
You're never going to see ssh. They don't want you executing commands that might amount to an application. It's expressly forbidden. It's the same reason that Sun scrapped their plans to port Java. It's the reason you'll never see a third party browser like Opera or Mozilla on it. There's also not going to be VoIP or P2P. Period. It ain't happening. Hell, you're lucky to get ANY apps past Apple. Look at TomTom. They went to the trouble of developing an app only to scrap the app and drop out of the developer program thanks to Apple's ridiculous policies.
Am I'm sure they truly don't care. Apple obviously doesn't get it. They're too stupid to see why their device is such a miserable failure. They didn't want 3rd party developers on the iPhone in the first place, so they gave us a "web SDK." Now they're just thumbing their nose at us. The iPhone remains a craptacular device thanks to Apple policy of intentionally crippling the hardware and screwing developers. If you want serious mobile apps, but a different phone. If you want a feature phone that does two or three things well and sucks tremendously at everything else, the iPhone may just be perfect for you.
I prefer the term "stealing games" myself. It fits well, does away with the positive connotations that the term "piracy" has gained in some circles, and -perhaps most important- it really makes the pirates mad.
I prefer the term "sharing" for much the same reasons.
Let me enlighten you... "Ethanol-fueled" is a screen name, alias, or nick name. When you sign-up for Myspace you are asked to complete a form with your name and identifying information, however you can choose to have a separate and unrelated screen name, alias or nick name.
So if she used accurate information, she'd walk. You don't see a problem with that?
I think the bigger threat here is that they can break into your house without your knowledge and search it in secret. I guess the Gestapo taught them nothing.
It seems this wouldn't be an issue if Google wasn't collecting the info in the first place, claiming said information is anonymous and not a violation of your privacy, and then turning around in court and changing their story.
They should ask him to limit access to the data to outside experts sworn to secrecy.
Why would we want that??? If Google's getting pWn3D by Viacom, why should Viacom be the only one to benefit from the data? If however, the data is public record, then we can all see who is infringing on copyrights.
Slashdot Mirror
It's nonsense, as anyone with sophomore chemistry and the ability to google up the quantities of CO2 we're talking about could tell you.
That's why we ask people with more than a sophomore chemistry level.
You are kidding... right? But look at that moderation! WOW! What really blows my mind is that all the climate change cultists that read here haven't even bothered to give the article a critical look and instead are content to make jokes about fruit flavoring. The article claims:
Gee, do tell guys. How does reversing CaCO3 -> CaO + CO2 magically use up twice as much CO2 as it releases? No chemical formula, no citation. Nothing. Jack squat. Hmmm, a little digging produces this.
So... CaO + H2O + 2CO2 -> Ca + 2HCO3...
Wait a second!? Doesn't 2H2O + 2CO2 -> 2H + 2HCO3...
So they're really just substituting Ca(2+) for 2H(+) and this is just more cultist sleight of hand. "We can drop CaO in the water and be SAVED! It'll absorb twice as much CO2 as it releases! HEAL mother Earth and REJOICE!! Send your support for our computer modeling efforts in the form of a check to..."
Besides, making lime takes LOTS of energy. Where is this pile of miracle lime going to come from??
Great, the cultists are going to stripmine the F'in desert and haul it all the way to the oceans. I'm sure that process will be "carbon neutral." I'll bet it's really inexpensive and gentle on the desert ecosystem at the same time. <sarcasm />
Opera Mini is the only way to go for mobile devices
Not on the iPhone. Opera's not allowed.
If a ripoff lawsuit was ever justified, it is this one.
That's the big question, isn't it? As long as they aren't using copyrighted Facebook images or trying to pass themselves off as the real Facebook, I see no problem with it at all. It's bad enough that we have ridiculous lawsuits due to software patents. I don't think more lawsuits is a good idea here. There's only so many ways you can lay things out with CSS. There are also only a small handful of "web safe" fonts that you can pretty much guarantee will be on every browser. With limits like that, you're bound to have lots of collisions.
Until someone misconfigures an addon
I though FB app devs had full access to all your data, regardless of your privacy settings. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems the only thing "protecting" you is Facebook's developer TOS.
I was thinking 13% since that was where Mac market share peaked in 1993. There's something about breaking records that gets everyone's attention.
Oops, hit submit too early... I wanted to add: Point taken though. I didn't realize that Viacom would be getting the employ logs.
I RTF article yesterday:
After Viacom pointed out why they wanted the IPs, Google really couldn't say no. It still appears Google's original request to strip IPs was motivated by self interest more than anything.
at least they care .....
They care about themselves. Had Viacom gotten the IP logs, they could have proven Google staff was party to the infringement. I doubt user welfare was on their mind...
You're making a claim that the article you're linking doesn't support.
What claim is that? That scientific journals predicted global cooling? No, that's your strawman argument, not my "claim."
I provided a citation at Fishbowl's request that indicated a group of "fucktards" had once predicted the next ice age could result from man's activities, yet now claim man's activities could be leading to devastating global warming.
NatGeo did that. Sure, they hedged their bets back then with a little "It might get warmer" but when they did, it was a kinder gentler warming than today's global warming "crisis." Consequences then were open shipping lanes vs. menacing mile high wall of ice. It doesn't appear you even read what I and others have cited. Do you need a peer reviewed journal to say "Yes, the media did purport junk science in the 1970s?" Pshaw, that's unpossible!!
You'll make a fine addition to my foe list.
Oh no! Please, anything but that!!
If it was uploaded by Google's staff as part of their paid job, then yes, Google is intentionally infringing their copyright. But why would Google be blamed for an employee acting on his own to upload something?
That's all speculation. What this boils down to right now is an argument over whether or not Google should be forced to provide IP addresses with the data. Google's own defense for collecting the info is being used to compel Google to provide it. CNet is just speculating on what Viacom could do if they do get the info with IP addresses intact.
Same "news" as last week, now with 20% more speculation and hand wringing.
The parent is so far off base it's not even funny...
I'm sorry, did I mention anything about scientific journals? I cited the National Geographic... what part of that shouts scientific journal to you?
The request was for citation that media outlets predicted that global cooling in the 1970's. Most climate change cultists willingly admit that happened. If you're still in denial of that, I'd suggest you check out LynnwoodRooster's citation as it is far more comprehensive than mine. You probably missed it as the mods have buried that one in their zeal as well. You keep preaching to the choir for karma though.
The point is, we should try to have as little impact on our environment as possible, since we've shown ourselves to be clueless as to the actual effects of what we've already done.
Have you been saved by the Lord Jesus Christ? You know... I'm all for freedom of religion. As far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to whatever religious beliefs you might want to have. Just don't try to shove them down my throat. Global Warming is classic fire and brimstone religion. They don't have proof or anything resembling it. They have "a consensus" and everyone has to get in line or we're all going to Hell. Sorry. I don't buy it.
The same fucktards that ... predicted a global ice age during the 70s are the same fucktards behind global warming.
Cite please?
1976: National Geographic predicts global cooling.
Today: National Geographic predicts global warming.
If I get it right, the EPA is allowed to be given authority to do things as long as they have no real effect?
If I get this right, the EPA overstepped its bounds. Congress gave the EPA a certain scope and they are not allowed to operate outside of it. That's not hard to understand. It's also pretty obvious that the spin on the write-up is "Repent now or we're all going to hell!!!" The cult of climate change strikes again.
I've heard of karma whoring, but karma hedging?
why not even a ssh/telnet client of any kind. WTF apple?
You're never going to see ssh. They don't want you executing commands that might amount to an application. It's expressly forbidden. It's the same reason that Sun scrapped their plans to port Java. It's the reason you'll never see a third party browser like Opera or Mozilla on it. There's also not going to be VoIP or P2P. Period. It ain't happening. Hell, you're lucky to get ANY apps past Apple. Look at TomTom. They went to the trouble of developing an app only to scrap the app and drop out of the developer program thanks to Apple's ridiculous policies.
Am I'm sure they truly don't care. Apple obviously doesn't get it. They're too stupid to see why their device is such a miserable failure. They didn't want 3rd party developers on the iPhone in the first place, so they gave us a "web SDK." Now they're just thumbing their nose at us. The iPhone remains a craptacular device thanks to Apple policy of intentionally crippling the hardware and screwing developers. If you want serious mobile apps, but a different phone. If you want a feature phone that does two or three things well and sucks tremendously at everything else, the iPhone may just be perfect for you.
I prefer the term "stealing games" myself. It fits well, does away with the positive connotations that the term "piracy" has gained in some circles, and -perhaps most important- it really makes the pirates mad.
I prefer the term "sharing" for much the same reasons.
Riiight, because Facebook isn't really serving 475,000 images/sec.
Let me enlighten you... "Ethanol-fueled" is a screen name, alias, or nick name. When you sign-up for Myspace you are asked to complete a form with your name and identifying information, however you can choose to have a separate and unrelated screen name, alias or nick name.
So if she used accurate information, she'd walk. You don't see a problem with that?
Fail
No, it simply doesn't have that ring to it.
In Bavaria, trojan cremes you!
I think the bigger threat here is that they can break into your house without your knowledge and search it in secret. I guess the Gestapo taught them nothing.
How about gasoline & bees! :-)
But this judge is a fucking catastrophe for allowing them to rape the viewers privacy.
It seems this wouldn't be an issue if Google wasn't collecting the info in the first place, claiming said information is anonymous and not a violation of your privacy, and then turning around in court and changing their story.
They should ask him to limit access to the data to outside experts sworn to secrecy.
Why would we want that??? If Google's getting pWn3D by Viacom, why should Viacom be the only one to benefit from the data? If however, the data is public record, then we can all see who is infringing on copyrights.