I was thinking more along the lines of surprising her with that Lexus with the big red bow on it, but sure, cheating too if that's what you're into. As far as child molesters and stalkers being unable to circumvent the technology... well, I think you put a little too much trust in the technologies infallibility. Tin foil can foil RFID, and facial recognition is in it's infancy. Where Jim average is going to go out as Jim average, John Stalker will wear a wig and a fake mustache, perhaps a little morticians putty. And the bully? Well, he can use location info alone to torment the poor kid at school. Something along the lines of "I checked up on billy last night and guess where he was... At the butt wart clinic! Ha ha!!"
Equal access... yeah, great... bullies could find that nerdy kid instantly. Child molesters and stalkers wouldn't even have to leave the sofa to keep an eye on their prey. And of course, the wife will always know if you're *really* where you say you are.
The same if you omit inflation. I know a car isn't a CD, but...
1988 Mustang base MSRP: $8835
2007 Mustang base MSRP: $19250
So really, you're paying less than half of 1988 prices.:) And they aren't just distributors, they are also promoters. Personally, I won't be downloading their music at any price, under any terms until they stop suing people.
Assume that the major movie studios produced high-quality full-length first run downloadable movies with no DRM whatsoever at a reasonable prices. (You define what is reasonable.) Any DRM-less format you prefer.
Yes, let's assume that. How many of you would bother to download the "free" version on a slower network where peers crap out, you might get all but the last 10 minutes of the file, you might get a goatse'ed file because some jackass thought it would be a great prank, or the file might be infected with the virus du jour?
Given your stated assumption, it wouldn't matter if the file were available for "free". The question you should be asking is: Who would even want the free download anymore? Guaranteed quality at fast download speeds would be worth a reasonable price to most downloaders.
Don't know the difference between a Climatologist, and a Meteorologist, do you?
Easy. A meteorologist has a significantly shorter period of time between prediction and verification than the climatologist. Therefore, his ability to predict accurately improves measurable within single human life spans. Climatologists have to wait much longer to discover how wrong they are and why, so their predictions are often ridiculously inaccurate.
As an example, climatologists predicted over thirty years ago that "the CO2 greenhouse effect warming trend should first become evident in the Southern Hemisphere." Actual observation over the last 25 years with NASA satellite data shows the exact opposite. No word, that I know of, as to why they were completely wrong.
Another example... In 1995, the IPCC revised warming estimates downward by 30% because the predicted temperature increases of 1.3 to 2.3 degrees C made five years earlier only turned out to be about half a degree. Apparently, they forgot to consider sulfate aerosols in their computer models... That's the stated reason, but I'd wager they forgot a lot more than that.
In a knee-jerk reaction to hurricane Katrina, climatologists and media everywhere were blaming global warming for increased frequency and severity of hurricanes. The world's foremost authority on atlantic hurricanes was crucified as a heritic when he called bullshit on them. Now, a new peer reviewed article in Nature by Quirin Schiermeier seems to dispute that claim as well. Run Quirin, run! Here comes a mob with pitchforks and torches... Apparently, we've been very fortunate for the past couple of decades and storm frequency and intensity is only now returning to historic averages. In the meantime, as GP poster pointed out... the past two hurricane season have been complete duds.
Having gotten so much egg on their faces in the past 40 years is bringing about a change in tactics though. I've noticed many climatologists' recent predictions are so far into the future, we'll all be dead before they can be verified.
It's easy enough to predict warming. The planet has been warming for the past 18000 years. It's going to get warmer? Ya don't say?! Warming thus far has only made the planet more habitable for human beings. Pardon me if I don't fall to my knees and repent to the holy mother Earth when a climatologist starts preaching fire and brimstone about future warming.
Well I really need to be that connected and I chose my phone with that in mind. If a lot of other people agree with me, they'll make a similar choice. If no one felt they needed this, these platforms would die out, wouldn't they? But that's not really happening, is it?
Yeah, but it was bad enough when you were behind the prick talking on his phone while driving, now web browsing?! There may be some dying out involved after all!
Of course, I'm kidding, but think about trying to answer the iPhone behind the wheel when it has no physical buttons... You're going to have to look. Worse, try making an important call. Oh go ahead and try to flick/scroll your address book one handed while focusing on the list rather than the road... Are iPhone users really going to give up phone usage in the car? And if I or someone I love gets hit and dies by one of them, is Apple liable for releasing such an obviously dangerous phone?
Unless something has changed, I don't think Apple has OTA iTunes downloads just yet. I'm sure it'll happen, but considering it would take 10 minutes to download a frickin song anyway I'm not sure many people would use it until they got near a wlan.
The plaintiff in this case is in a position where he is conceivably likely to be judged with exceptional harshness by his employer when it comes to possessing perfectly legal porn
I don't think there is any difference under copyright law when dealing with porn vs music. Unless he made the porn, I find it highly unlikely that he owned copyright on it. In that case... his alleged distribution of porn is not any more legal than his alleged distribution of music. Possibly worse, because it's my understanding that distributing porn without verifying the age of the recipient is a federal offense.
The RIAA represents multiple media companies. Many of those media companies also deal with porn... Although the RIAA is chartered to deal with the music business, I would be very surprised if not one of those pornographic files was copyright by one of the media companies the RIAA represents, or perhaps one of their subsidiaries.
My last comment was a bit flippant. Allow me to share the college grade material with you. There's lots of relevant information there, if you are willing to separate yourself from your global warming religion. In particular, I like:
The more a soil is disturbed by tillage practices, the greater the potential breakdown of organic matter by soil organisms. During the early years of agriculture in the United States, when colonists cleared the forests and planted crops in the East and farmers later moved to the Midwest to plow the grasslands, soil organic matter decreased rapidly. In fact, the soils were literally mined of a valuable resource organic matter. In the Northeast and Southeast, it was quickly recognized that fertilizers and soil amendments were needed to maintain soil productivity. In the Midwest, the deep, rich soils of the tall-grass prairies were able to maintain their productivity for a long time despite accelerated soil organic matter loss and significant amounts of erosion. The reason for this was their unusually high original levels of soil organic matter.
This is what I've been telling you the entire f'ing thread. What you are saying contradicts an article with 10 reputable sources referenced. To believe what you are saying is to disbelieve Ph.Ds on the subject. Have you ever even handled a soil auger? Have you ever been graded on accuracy in identifying soil profiles? Do you know what a soil survey is? Do you know the characteristics of a Mollisol or an Oxisol? Do you know where they are usually found? Do you know what constitutes a 2 to 1 clay? Right off the top of your head, do you even know the difference between a clay and a loam?
No, you don't. You're probably googling it right now. You are clearly not very educated on the subject of soils. You have shown a complete disregard for any evidence I have provided you, and replied with nothing but statements of belief. I call that preaching... in lieu of scientific fact, you stick steadfast to your belief system. You are a member of a religion. That religion has clouded your judgement and your willingness to accept facts established using the scientific method. Rather than refute/verify them with experiments, you dismiss them. You only accept what fits nicely in your own world view. I can't say I'm surprised. It's the same with all global warmers. I can provide evidence until I'm blue in the face and it doesn't even make a dent.
Does the sun not shine there? If you could work out a way to incorporate algae into the sewage treatment process, you'd kill two birds with one stone. Hmm, perhaps I should patent that...
The rest die off in at most a few years, and decay pretty quickly.
Bingo! What do you think is trapped in decayed plant matter? Hydrocarbons.
No, I understand the biology completely. Unfortunately, you appear to be looking at this through an ideological lens. Plus you don't seem to understand where that 'soil-produced' CO2 comes from.
No, you're still missing my point. Fallow land looks like this:
CO2 -> live plant -> dead plant -> soil organic matter
This goes on for hundreds of years. Lots of carbon builds up in the ground that way. Sometimes that carbon gets buried for millions of years turning it into fossil fuels:
soil organic matter -> buried millions of years -> fossil fuels
You are complaining about the combustion of fossil fuels because it releases CO2:
fossil fuels -> oxidation -> CO2
Plowing exposes soil organic matter to natural weathering which results in erosion/oxidation and releases CO2 back into the atmosphere. Therefore, a plan to take land not currently in crop production to grow corn for bio-fuels looks like this:
soil organic matter -> oxidation -> CO2
Look familiar? I'm not talking about the CO2 that is in the air that you plan to recycle. I'm talking about the CO2 already captured in the ground where it will stay until you start your plows. Putting more land into crop production will release that CO2. You're essentially burning tons of fossil fuels before they become fossil fuels.
Besides that elementary fact about the carbon cycle... Keep in mind that farmers use lots of lime to raise the pH of acidic soils rich in organic matter.... CaCO3 + H -> Ca + OH + CO2. Then there's nitrogen fertilizer, used abundantly in corn production... yielding acid rain, smog, holes in the ozone, and greenhouse gases. Hooray!!
The sequestered carbon becomes fossil fuels.
Not if you oxidize it before it gets there.
Releasing that carbon is what upsets the balance and leads to a net increase in CO2 level.
And that's exactly what will happen with this retarded corn bio-fuel scheme. Releasing billions of tons of sequestered carbon that lived happily as soil organic matter until you decided to plow land it was trapped in. I'll assure you the people advocating this scheme know this. They only care about themselves and their corn prices. Starving people be damned, lets burn food!
If you really cared and wanted to reduce CO2, you'd be advocating no till farming. Maybe algae based bio-fuels would accomplish the goal of reducing CO2. Personally, I don't see CO2 as a problem, but if you do, you should at least know that this scheme is a really bad idea on a number of different levels. Sorry if any of this sounded condescending, but having to explain this stuff over and over again to people who've been misled by the talking heads isn't very rewarding. Don't let people with hidden agendas (Bush, realclimate.org, etc) lead you around by the nose.
Because the CO2 "produced by soil organic matter oxidation/erosion" doesn't change if the cropland is fallow or active.
So the dust bowl in the 1930s never happened. Invented by the government just like the moon landing. Got it!
In addition, the CO2 "produced by soil organic matter oxidation/erosion" is recently-fixed CO2, and thus not a net CO2 producer.
So it's ok to oxidize organic matter if it was fixed in the last couple hundred years, but if it was fixed over a million years ago, that's bad! You really don't see it, do you? How do you think fossil fuels got into the ground in the first place? Where do you think they came from? Oh, I get it... slamming oil companies for oxidizing organic matter is in vogue, but slamming farmers for doing the exact same thing isn't fashionable. Sorry for my faux pas!
Or did you not notice that the net increase in CO2 in your source is very close to the CO2 released by fossil fuels?
When the net increase *increases* thanks to a poorly thought out corn/bio-fuel scheme du jour, I'll gladly say "I told you so." It didn't take millions of years for CO2 to become fossil fuels. It took millions of years for soil organic matter to become fossil fuels. That soil organic matter got there through regular ol' year long growing seasons. Whether you oxidize it as soil or as coal makes no difference.
I'm sure you're right though. The whole scheme is backed by George W Bush because he cares about the environment. He's demonstrated this many times before. He cares about the environment and issues like Global Warming. His support for this scheme wouldn't have anything to do with winning support for the Republican party in the midwest by raising the price of corn with increased demand due to bio-fuels. He cares! He really does!!
The carbon in the air would get sucked up by plants as they grow, we would harvest said plants for the energy they have locked up, and we would use it.
Gigatons/yr produced by fossil fuels: 4-5 Gigatons/yr produced by soil organic matter oxidation/erosion: 61-62 Source [montana.edu]
Assuming crop production happened without plows, lime, or nitrogen fertilizer...
what are the odds you don't have a computer? How many are accessing the site from public libraries and state run employment centers? There could easily be some considerable bias in your numbers.
All we need to do to end this kind of fraud is to harmonize our laws with the EU and grant copyright of these works to the people claiming ownership!;)
Slashdot Mirror
One of the top seven there...
I was thinking more along the lines of surprising her with that Lexus with the big red bow on it, but sure, cheating too if that's what you're into. As far as child molesters and stalkers being unable to circumvent the technology... well, I think you put a little too much trust in the technologies infallibility. Tin foil can foil RFID, and facial recognition is in it's infancy. Where Jim average is going to go out as Jim average, John Stalker will wear a wig and a fake mustache, perhaps a little morticians putty. And the bully? Well, he can use location info alone to torment the poor kid at school. Something along the lines of "I checked up on billy last night and guess where he was... At the butt wart clinic! Ha ha!!"
Equal access... yeah, great... bullies could find that nerdy kid instantly. Child molesters and stalkers wouldn't even have to leave the sofa to keep an eye on their prey. And of course, the wife will always know if you're *really* where you say you are.
They're getting social security cards. How nice.
How do you make a hydrogen fuel cell car move 200 MPH?
;-)
Get a regular hydrogen fuel cell car and drop it out of an airplane!
they still want us to pay 1988 prices?
The same if you omit inflation. I know a car isn't a CD, but...
So really, you're paying less than half of 1988 prices. :) And they aren't just distributors, they are also promoters. Personally, I won't be downloading their music at any price, under any terms until they stop suing people.
Assume that the major movie studios produced high-quality full-length first run downloadable movies with no DRM whatsoever at a reasonable prices. (You define what is reasonable.) Any DRM-less format you prefer.
Yes, let's assume that. How many of you would bother to download the "free" version on a slower network where peers crap out, you might get all but the last 10 minutes of the file, you might get a goatse'ed file because some jackass thought it would be a great prank, or the file might be infected with the virus du jour?
Given your stated assumption, it wouldn't matter if the file were available for "free". The question you should be asking is: Who would even want the free download anymore? Guaranteed quality at fast download speeds would be worth a reasonable price to most downloaders.
Don't know the difference between a Climatologist, and a Meteorologist, do you?
Easy. A meteorologist has a significantly shorter period of time between prediction and verification than the climatologist. Therefore, his ability to predict accurately improves measurable within single human life spans. Climatologists have to wait much longer to discover how wrong they are and why, so their predictions are often ridiculously inaccurate.
As an example, climatologists predicted over thirty years ago that "the CO2 greenhouse effect warming trend should first become evident in the Southern Hemisphere." Actual observation over the last 25 years with NASA satellite data shows the exact opposite. No word, that I know of, as to why they were completely wrong.
Another example... In 1995, the IPCC revised warming estimates downward by 30% because the predicted temperature increases of 1.3 to 2.3 degrees C made five years earlier only turned out to be about half a degree. Apparently, they forgot to consider sulfate aerosols in their computer models... That's the stated reason, but I'd wager they forgot a lot more than that.
In a knee-jerk reaction to hurricane Katrina, climatologists and media everywhere were blaming global warming for increased frequency and severity of hurricanes. The world's foremost authority on atlantic hurricanes was crucified as a heritic when he called bullshit on them. Now, a new peer reviewed article in Nature by Quirin Schiermeier seems to dispute that claim as well. Run Quirin, run! Here comes a mob with pitchforks and torches... Apparently, we've been very fortunate for the past couple of decades and storm frequency and intensity is only now returning to historic averages. In the meantime, as GP poster pointed out... the past two hurricane season have been complete duds.
Having gotten so much egg on their faces in the past 40 years is bringing about a change in tactics though. I've noticed many climatologists' recent predictions are so far into the future, we'll all be dead before they can be verified.
It's easy enough to predict warming. The planet has been warming for the past 18000 years. It's going to get warmer? Ya don't say?! Warming thus far has only made the planet more habitable for human beings. Pardon me if I don't fall to my knees and repent to the holy mother Earth when a climatologist starts preaching fire and brimstone about future warming.
Well I really need to be that connected and I chose my phone with that in mind. If a lot of other people agree with me, they'll make a similar choice. If no one felt they needed this, these platforms would die out, wouldn't they? But that's not really happening, is it?
Yeah, but it was bad enough when you were behind the prick talking on his phone while driving, now web browsing?! There may be some dying out involved after all!
Of course, I'm kidding, but think about trying to answer the iPhone behind the wheel when it has no physical buttons... You're going to have to look. Worse, try making an important call. Oh go ahead and try to flick/scroll your address book one handed while focusing on the list rather than the road... Are iPhone users really going to give up phone usage in the car? And if I or someone I love gets hit and dies by one of them, is Apple liable for releasing such an obviously dangerous phone?
Sure, you can close your eyes, but you'd better hold your ears too. One of their elite researchers has discovered the brown noise
;-)
Unless something has changed, I don't think Apple has OTA iTunes downloads just yet. I'm sure it'll happen, but considering it would take 10 minutes to download a frickin song anyway I'm not sure many people would use it until they got near a wlan.
The plaintiff in this case is in a position where he is conceivably likely to be judged with exceptional harshness by his employer when it comes to possessing perfectly legal porn
I don't think there is any difference under copyright law when dealing with porn vs music. Unless he made the porn, I find it highly unlikely that he owned copyright on it. In that case... his alleged distribution of porn is not any more legal than his alleged distribution of music. Possibly worse, because it's my understanding that distributing porn without verifying the age of the recipient is a federal offense.
The RIAA represents multiple media companies. Many of those media companies also deal with porn... Although the RIAA is chartered to deal with the music business, I would be very surprised if not one of those pornographic files was copyright by one of the media companies the RIAA represents, or perhaps one of their subsidiaries.
This is what I've been telling you the entire f'ing thread. What you are saying contradicts an article with 10 reputable sources referenced. To believe what you are saying is to disbelieve Ph.Ds on the subject. Have you ever even handled a soil auger? Have you ever been graded on accuracy in identifying soil profiles? Do you know what a soil survey is? Do you know the characteristics of a Mollisol or an Oxisol? Do you know where they are usually found? Do you know what constitutes a 2 to 1 clay? Right off the top of your head, do you even know the difference between a clay and a loam?
No, you don't. You're probably googling it right now. You are clearly not very educated on the subject of soils. You have shown a complete disregard for any evidence I have provided you, and replied with nothing but statements of belief. I call that preaching... in lieu of scientific fact, you stick steadfast to your belief system. You are a member of a religion. That religion has clouded your judgement and your willingness to accept facts established using the scientific method. Rather than refute/verify them with experiments, you dismiss them. You only accept what fits nicely in your own world view. I can't say I'm surprised. It's the same with all global warmers. I can provide evidence until I'm blue in the face and it doesn't even make a dent.
So NASA is full of shit. They don't know what they're talking about. Got it! Thanks for clearing that up for me.
If you have no property to freeze, you have nothing to fear. ;-)
Does the sun not shine there? If you could work out a way to incorporate algae into the sewage treatment process, you'd kill two birds with one stone. Hmm, perhaps I should patent that...
Just to fly jets. Then there's boats, autos, lawn mowers.... Not to mention the cost of production. I'm not holding my breath on this one.
Bingo! What do you think is trapped in decayed plant matter? Hydrocarbons.
No, you're still missing my point. Fallow land looks like this:
CO2 -> live plant -> dead plant -> soil organic matter
This goes on for hundreds of years. Lots of carbon builds up in the ground that way. Sometimes that carbon gets buried for millions of years turning it into fossil fuels:
soil organic matter -> buried millions of years -> fossil fuels
You are complaining about the combustion of fossil fuels because it releases CO2:
fossil fuels -> oxidation -> CO2
Plowing exposes soil organic matter to natural weathering which results in erosion/oxidation and releases CO2 back into the atmosphere. Therefore, a plan to take land not currently in crop production to grow corn for bio-fuels looks like this:
soil organic matter -> oxidation -> CO2
Look familiar? I'm not talking about the CO2 that is in the air that you plan to recycle. I'm talking about the CO2 already captured in the ground where it will stay until you start your plows. Putting more land into crop production will release that CO2. You're essentially burning tons of fossil fuels before they become fossil fuels.
Besides that elementary fact about the carbon cycle... Keep in mind that farmers use lots of lime to raise the pH of acidic soils rich in organic matter.... CaCO3 + H -> Ca + OH + CO2. Then there's nitrogen fertilizer, used abundantly in corn production... yielding acid rain, smog, holes in the ozone, and greenhouse gases. Hooray!!
Not if you oxidize it before it gets there.
And that's exactly what will happen with this retarded corn bio-fuel scheme. Releasing billions of tons of sequestered carbon that lived happily as soil organic matter until you decided to plow land it was trapped in. I'll assure you the people advocating this scheme know this. They only care about themselves and their corn prices. Starving people be damned, lets burn food!
If you really cared and wanted to reduce CO2, you'd be advocating no till farming. Maybe algae based bio-fuels would accomplish the goal of reducing CO2. Personally, I don't see CO2 as a problem, but if you do, you should at least know that this scheme is a really bad idea on a number of different levels. Sorry if any of this sounded condescending, but having to explain this stuff over and over again to people who've been misled by the talking heads isn't very rewarding. Don't let people with hidden agendas (Bush, realclimate.org, etc) lead you around by the nose.
China food safety head executed. In America, he'd get two years at a country club.
Because the CO2 "produced by soil organic matter oxidation/erosion" doesn't change if the cropland is fallow or active.
So the dust bowl in the 1930s never happened. Invented by the government just like the moon landing. Got it!
In addition, the CO2 "produced by soil organic matter oxidation/erosion" is recently-fixed CO2, and thus not a net CO2 producer.
So it's ok to oxidize organic matter if it was fixed in the last couple hundred years, but if it was fixed over a million years ago, that's bad! You really don't see it, do you? How do you think fossil fuels got into the ground in the first place? Where do you think they came from? Oh, I get it... slamming oil companies for oxidizing organic matter is in vogue, but slamming farmers for doing the exact same thing isn't fashionable. Sorry for my faux pas!
Or did you not notice that the net increase in CO2 in your source is very close to the CO2 released by fossil fuels?
When the net increase *increases* thanks to a poorly thought out corn/bio-fuel scheme du jour, I'll gladly say "I told you so." It didn't take millions of years for CO2 to become fossil fuels. It took millions of years for soil organic matter to become fossil fuels. That soil organic matter got there through regular ol' year long growing seasons. Whether you oxidize it as soil or as coal makes no difference.
I'm sure you're right though. The whole scheme is backed by George W Bush because he cares about the environment. He's demonstrated this many times before. He cares about the environment and issues like Global Warming. His support for this scheme wouldn't have anything to do with winning support for the Republican party in the midwest by raising the price of corn with increased demand due to bio-fuels. He cares! He really does!!
The carbon in the air would get sucked up by plants as they grow, we would harvest said plants for the energy they have locked up, and we would use it.
Gigatons/yr produced by fossil fuels: 4-5
Gigatons/yr produced by soil organic matter oxidation/erosion: 61-62
Source [montana.edu]
Assuming crop production happened without plows, lime, or nitrogen fertilizer...
And since lots of US farmland is actually fallow to keep food prices up, using that land for fuel crops would probably be a good idea.
I don't follow. How would putting fallow land into crop production help you reduce CO2 in the atmosphere....
Gigatons/yr produced by fossil fuels: 4-5
Gigatons/yr produced by soil organic matter oxidation/erosion: 61-62
Source
Aside from the whole "let's burn food!" aspect of it.... maybe not such a good idea, eh?
what are the odds you don't have a computer? How many are accessing the site from public libraries and state run employment centers? There could easily be some considerable bias in your numbers.
All we need to do to end this kind of fraud is to harmonize our laws with the EU and grant copyright of these works to the people claiming ownership! ;)
This certainly sounds too good to be true. Makes me wonder who's funding the research.
With a response like that, it makes me wonder if you even care if the research is accurate.