As for middle men, you're still paying them. Instead of paying a CD store for their shelf space, you're paying for the download server infrastructure, the support guys, the programmers, the mp3, aac, or other royalties, and the Apple shareholders if you're using iTunes for example. So you're paying for the distribution channel. OTOH, the download model is much more efficient than printing CDs and artwork, so things should cost less, and they do, but you are still paying for infrastructure, not to mention executive salaries!
Check out Tunecore. You pay $8 + $0.99/song listed on iTunes. You keep your copyright, and you keep the lion's share of the $0.99 that Apple charges its customers. If you fail, you're out 20 bucks.
Record companies on the other hand require contracts that strip you of your copyright, all sorts of overhead, and the company store buys your soul with a loan that you'll be paying for the rest of your life if you don't produce a gold record. If you fail, you're screwed for life or until 7 years after your personal bankruptcy. Whichever comes first. Oh, and you still have to pay 'the man' to sing your own songs.
The Beatles' works for instance would be controlled by Sir Paul and Ringo. Mickey Mouse would be in the public domain because his inventor and author is dead. Bands, not labels, would control their music. Inventors, not IP holding corporations, would control their inventions.
Not to worry:-) The usefulness of record labels is now at an end. Creation, publishing, distribution, and marketing can now be had practically for free. Check out Tunecore to see what I mean. Why would any band give up their copyright and settle for second class shelf space and loan payments when they can post their works in their pajamas? Create music with software and instruments, distribute online, done. There is no step three;-) As more new bands go direct, more revenue streams disappear for the big labels. The big labels will eventually be unable to afford lobbyists.
I submitted and was rejected again last night. Check my journal. Sony's settlement website is now live as of Feb 15. You will notice that you must produce a receipt to claim your pocket change and crippled sound files... I didn't realize being infected with Sony rootkit required a purchase. Many New Yorkers could have simply borrowed a friend's CD and hosed their machine with it. Perhaps an employee brought one to work. If anyone in New York has a problem with Sony willfully compromising thousands of systems without end user knowledge or permission and then having the gall to ask for a receipt... you should *at the least* file an objection. Type it up, print it out, and mail it off to four different addresses. Total cost to you: the time it would take to reply to me, and four 39 cent stamps ($1.56).
Screw my karma, I'm done here. This issue is possibly *the* easiest for regular people to respond to that has ever been on this site. My submission was not a dupe and informative enough to make that point. Sony should be held accountable for their actions and everyone here knows it. So what does the editor do? Rejection. Woohoo! DRMed downloads and empty promises of regulation. Oh sure, that'll make up for thousands of machines being compromised in the United States by foreign nationals. When the president spys without a warrant it's bad, but apparently, when the FUCKING Japanese do it, it's A O FUCKING K.
In summary... Dear Slashdot: How dare you chide any company for kowtowing to China when your editor is too much of a pussy to stick up for the rights of Americans IN AMERICA.
Just as an added note, Real did provide a hack to allow the iPod to play their format, but Apple was having none of this. Here there is clearly reason to feel that Apple was not being open in allowing Real onboard, since it doesn't sound like Real was going to charge Apple for that privilage.
Real cracked Apple DRM. That's illegal under the DMCA. Apple should have sued their ass on principle, but having the coders twiddle a few bits apparently was a more cost effective solution. Real broke the law, yet Apple is at fault?
The truth is, however much I feel Apple should probably open up FairPlay and even let other parties put their codecs on the iPod
Why should Apple throw the other music stores a bone when those music stores generally only support PCs and IE as you've noted? Why should Apple give away its leverage in price negotiations with the RIAA?
The RIAA should come up with its own DRM that offers the same advantages as FairPlay, since in the end they are mostly responsible for the situation we are in. Forcing people to use WMA is not an answer.
They can't:-) Aside from MHO that they are simply too stupid to pull it off... They have to have something they can seriously threaten Apple with. Since Apple sells more music online than everyone else combined... Well, the RIAA has lots of stick and no carrot.
On the whole, the monopoly argument fails because Apple isn't forcing anyone to use Fairplay DRMed AAC files on an iPod. You can use unprotected AAC or MP3 files to your heart's content with no problems at all. You do not have to have DRM to sell music online. Only the RIAA requires that. Since the iPod + iTunes has captured roughly 75% of the online music market fair and square, the RIAA member monopolies are left with one of two solutions... don't use DRM or use Apple's DRM according to Apple's terms.
Oh yeah, option three, sue. If they are successful, they will only succeed in killing the goose that lays golden eggs. iTMS works because of the tight integration. Piecemeal doesn't work. Everyone that came before Apple proved that.
NeXT ran on X86. Darwin was ported to X86 practically from day one. Every version of OS X ever released has run on X86 too... the X86 version was simply never released publicly. I fail to see how X86 would qualify as 'new' to the Apple's core OS engineers.
They analyze the file and discover the watermark points to Joe User, so they then sick their landsharks^M^M^M^M lawyers on him
And shortly thereafter, they are laugh out of court, because Joe User's P2P program installed so many *trojans, adware, spyware, and rootkits* that ANYONE could have distributed that file from any origin on the planet.
What's really concerning the Korporate Kopyright Kops (Who we can abbreviate as the KKK) is that they are no longer in control of the format. Thanks to Apple, iTunes, and the iPod, they are scrambling for some way to distribute music that will play on an iPod legally. Due to the very law that they bribed several congressmen to get (DMCA), they cannot legally reverse engineer a compatible format to break Apple's stranglehold on the online music industry. Ironic, no? Really though... Who would you rather have controlling music distribution online? Apple or the KKK?
What the music producers would really like to be able to do is trace the leaked files back to whoever put them on the internet, and then get medeival on them for breach of contract.
That would be... *drum roll please*... the music producers!! Yes, it was the music producers who initially distributed the file to said user. Individual watermarks are pointless because Windows security is non-existent. You cannot take a watermarked file and use it as proof to sue Joe Average. His system is riddled with viruses, trojans, and rootkits... some of which were installed by the rights owners themselves (I'm looking in your direction Sony). In any case, it will not only be plausible, but entirely probable that the user's system was rooted, and the files transfered off the system by some ner-do-well. Case closed: RIAA you loose. Go home, take your ball with you, and don't let the door knob hit ya where the good lord split ya.
The probability of a song becoming popular in the group that saw the download numbers was poorly correlated with the rating given the song by the group who did not see the download numbers.
Then group 2 did not see ratings as the Slashdot write up suggests?
Simply because you cannot see how to do something does not mean it cannot be done, or that that people who designed an experiment that you are not competent to analyze are stupid.
It's hard to be competent to analyze the experiment when it appears the Slashdot write up of the article is wrong and the statistics dealing with the experiment don't appear to be available with the article. As for the rest of your venom, save it. When it comes to something totally subjective like music, favorite color, favorite flavor... I know what *I* like and I really don't care if the rest of the world loves Ween, Martha Stewart green, or sweet pickles. I don't and it doesn't matter how many people tell me how great it is... I still won't.
Second: We have way more than 100 years of fossil fuels left. Coal reserves are HUGE, plus shale oil, tar sands, maybe methane hydrates...
Yes, but what is the major contributor? What is everyone's favorite fossil fuel? Why do we war with Iraq and Iran and suck up to Saudi Arabia? Oil. Light sweet crude.
Proponents claim that ocean fertilization is an easily controlled, verifiable process that mimics nature; and that it is an environmentally benign, long-term solution to atmospheric CO2 accumulation
Accelerating the process of CO2 -> Plankton -> Limestone might not be as easy as just dumping iron sulfate everywhere, but I haven't been shown how it has cataclysmic effects. In fact, all I've ever heard of the process is extremely positive. More plankton = more fish = more food for top predators, everyone's happy. Until you do it on a large enough scale to find the pitfalls, I seems to me that everyone is ignoring an obvious solution. No major detrimental effects were mentioned in the IronEx II study back in 95. Sure, it turned the water green, but what do ya expect? I'd be interested in hearing what Penny Chisholm finds so environmentally destructive about ocean fertilization. Anything relevant from that Science magazine article you'd like to contribute?
Fertilizing crops in our fields results in a lot of fertilizer ending up in our rivers causing algal blooms that can indeed cause some trouble like sporadic fish kills and pfiesteria, yet we haven't outlawed tillage or fertilizer yet. Apparently the tradeoff to feed humanity is worth the negligible environmental effects. Perhaps ocean fertilization is a limited solution which needs to be complimented by other practices, but all the people waving their hands and yelling the sky is falling is really making me sick. If you're really worried about the problem, fix it. And no, taking all the cars off the road or instituting draconian emission standards is not a solution. People need transportation, and the amount of CO2 contributed to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels pales in comparison to CO2 contributed by the decomposition of soil organic matter. You'd be better off chasing farmers than Ford.
The Forbes story would have you believe that was the total iPod sales. Apple doesn't release numbers regarding how many of what model sold, so that number is a wild ass guess. The entire article is disingenious... R&D down from 8% of sales to 4%? Wow, Apple's making an ass load more in sales. Why doesn't he list the actual $$ spent on R&D? And then you know you're reading the opinion of a hater when you see
Founder-evangelist Chairman Steve Jobs has a cult following among certain computer users and the mostly worshipful attention of the business press.
So yeah, sticking to my guns here. That dude is cover story for Forbes, and he's an Apple troll. John Dvorak with Forbes' credibility. So much for Forbes' credibility...
It's just seems that way to you guys who only read +3's,+4's, and +5's. You never see the conflicted mods... For example, I made a recent post that defended an unpopular opinion around here. You never saw it because it only scored +1 informative. It got modded 50% informative, 30% Overrated, 20% Flamebait. At least 4 different mods there, -2, +2.
I read +6 Troll, Flamebait, etc... A lot of mods don't know what the hell they're talking about and if it goes against groupthink, it goes down in Flamebaits. When it does, there are people there like me to pick it up and give it an informative, insightful, or interesting boost. Not everyone runs on default mod settings here at/. Genuine flamebaits and trolls are getting much rarer. I see a lot less GNAA and WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEEE crap here these days. (With the exception of Apple Trolls. They never go away. They even get Cover Storys in Forbes. "Likely to top 4 Million units" for iPods. Dipshits... they sold 14 Million) Most of the down mods go to people who simply think differently lately.
Now, so that I'm not totally off topic... the article describes a system where one group could only listen, see track title, artist name, and download. The second group could see all that and could see download counts as well. Wow, the ones that were downloaded most got the most attention and additional downloads... Duh. That's not scientific. There's no F'ing experimental group! Why didn't they have a third group that could see everything group #1 saw, and *randomly generated* download counts? If I see a song has been downloaded numerous times, listen to it, and it's crap, I'm sure as hell not downloading a copy to save if it sucks. I don't care how many people listen to something, but I would consider download counts an indicator of what I should try first... At least until I realized the download counts were meaningless. If they repeat the experiment with the third group and that group downloads random crap like lemmings then maybe they have something worth reporting... Otherwise, they've proven nothing.
10-110 Billion bucks per year, tops. Less than the price of an Iraq oil war.
To sum up, there's very little good historical data on the topic, which makes it an easy copout for people seeking alternative explanations for warming.
Not trying to remedy the situation when a solution is sitting right in front of you is an easier copout. You say the problem is CO2. Well here's how to get rid of the CO2. So what's the problem?
The study is an interesting possibility. However, this is A: one study, not multiple, based upon B: data that only showed up after being "corrected for errors," and C: wouldn't have a climate changing effect unless it had been going on for a lot longer than we have records of.
A: Apple does multiple benchmarks on PPC processors showing them to be "twice as fast as Intel", does that make them more accurate? That sounds a lot like "repeat it often enough and it becomes true" to me. Besides, there are have been multiple studies done on this. B: The computer models you rely upon as a proponent of Global Warming Theory rely upon error correction too. So what? Now error correction is not good enough? C: Oh, so measurably cutting CO2 concentrations would have no measurable effect in the short term? I rest my case.
A true test of a scientific theory is its ability to predict things.
No, as any ID debater here will tell ya, a true test of a scientific theory is it's ability to withstand scrutiny and be falsifiable. Here ya go, falsify away for less than the price of an Iraq war.
Global Warming was predicted based upon greenhouse gas theories and models long before we detected it. That's pretty heavy evidence that at least one cause of global warming is the amount of CO2 and other gasses that are released when we burn gasoline
Well imagine that. The graph from my space.com link says the temp anomaly first jumped up above 0 in the past 300 years around 1925. Are you saying computer models were predicting this change back in 1915? Or are you saying the industrial revolution didn't start until 1970 when the anomaly crossed back up and over the zero marker again? Let's have a look at your graph and debate that maybe... Oh, wait, you don't have a graph, or measurements, or anything but the assertion that everyone believes it and there's some magic computer model somewhere that "proves" it.
It's silly to pretend that it has nothing to do with CO2, when CO2 is an easily demonstratable greenhouse gas and vostok cores show us having among the highest CO2 levels in the last several hundred thousand years.
Uh, you're defending the theory behind the Greenhouse Effect by saying the sun's radiant energy doesn't affect the temperature of the earth? Uhhh... yeah.. Whatever.
This guy finishes with the same mod score as my original post? Yeah, that's some mighty fine groupthink there slashbots.
this article says, it's not clear that small quantities of iron will do the trick.
I'll see your five year old national geographic fluff piece, and raise you a two year old government study.
simulations of iron fertilization of the oceans in the Southern Hemisphere initially showed that almost 8 billion tons of carbon would be absorbed by the ocean each year. Yet, after 500 years of continuous fertilization, the net increase in absorption would be less than 1 billion tons of carbon per year.
Now, considering that fossil fuels contribute roughly 4-5 billion tons of C to the atmosphere annually, and we've got about 100 years of fossil fuels left... How in the hell is this not a perfect solution? Oh yeah, that's right... too many global warming chicken littles out there are going to have egg on their face if atmospheric C is reduced to pre-industrial levels and global temps are still rising thanks to the simple fact that the sun is getting hotter. We wouldn't want to actually test that "greenhouse gases cause global warming" theory, now would we? Better just stick to those computer models...
Oh no! I'm challenging global warming rhetoric with scientific studies! Damn!! There goes my Karma! *sniff* Goodbye sweet Karma <sarcasm/>
I'm rather fond of a much simpler solution: fine iron oxide powder. It's incredibly cheap, and can be shipped by the tanker full to anywhere in the ocean
I'm incredibly fond of that idea too! Just let me light the strip of magnesium will ya? WoooHooooooo!;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Because they know the mere mention of "Web 2.0" will piss off 90% of the readership, thus initiating a flame fest and plenty of page views.
You answered your own question. :-)
Check out Tunecore. You pay $8 + $0.99/song listed on iTunes. You keep your copyright, and you keep the lion's share of the $0.99 that Apple charges its customers. If you fail, you're out 20 bucks.
Record companies on the other hand require contracts that strip you of your copyright, all sorts of overhead, and the company store buys your soul with a loan that you'll be paying for the rest of your life if you don't produce a gold record. If you fail, you're screwed for life or until 7 years after your personal bankruptcy. Whichever comes first. Oh, and you still have to pay 'the man' to sing your own songs.
Given the choice... I know what I'd choose.
Another upside is that there's no one but you who can fix or maintain it! ;-)
Heh, you must be new here. Did ya buy that 5 digit /. ID on eBay or something? ;-)
Not to worry :-) The usefulness of record labels is now at an end. Creation, publishing, distribution, and marketing can now be had practically for free. Check out Tunecore to see what I mean. Why would any band give up their copyright and settle for second class shelf space and loan payments when they can post their works in their pajamas? Create music with software and instruments, distribute online, done. There is no step three ;-) As more new bands go direct, more revenue streams disappear for the big labels. The big labels will eventually be unable to afford lobbyists.
Screw my karma, I'm done here. This issue is possibly *the* easiest for regular people to respond to that has ever been on this site. My submission was not a dupe and informative enough to make that point. Sony should be held accountable for their actions and everyone here knows it. So what does the editor do? Rejection. Woohoo! DRMed downloads and empty promises of regulation. Oh sure, that'll make up for thousands of machines being compromised in the United States by foreign nationals. When the president spys without a warrant it's bad, but apparently, when the FUCKING Japanese do it, it's A O FUCKING K.
In summary... Dear Slashdot: How dare you chide any company for kowtowing to China when your editor is too much of a pussy to stick up for the rights of Americans IN AMERICA.
--
"We need an expert in computers"
Real cracked Apple DRM. That's illegal under the DMCA. Apple should have sued their ass on principle, but having the coders twiddle a few bits apparently was a more cost effective solution. Real broke the law, yet Apple is at fault?
The truth is, however much I feel Apple should probably open up FairPlay and even let other parties put their codecs on the iPod
Why should Apple throw the other music stores a bone when those music stores generally only support PCs and IE as you've noted? Why should Apple give away its leverage in price negotiations with the RIAA?
The RIAA should come up with its own DRM that offers the same advantages as FairPlay, since in the end they are mostly responsible for the situation we are in. Forcing people to use WMA is not an answer.
They can't :-) Aside from MHO that they are simply too stupid to pull it off... They have to have something they can seriously threaten Apple with. Since Apple sells more music online than everyone else combined... Well, the RIAA has lots of stick and no carrot.
On the whole, the monopoly argument fails because Apple isn't forcing anyone to use Fairplay DRMed AAC files on an iPod. You can use unprotected AAC or MP3 files to your heart's content with no problems at all. You do not have to have DRM to sell music online. Only the RIAA requires that. Since the iPod + iTunes has captured roughly 75% of the online music market fair and square, the RIAA member monopolies are left with one of two solutions... don't use DRM or use Apple's DRM according to Apple's terms.
Oh yeah, option three, sue. If they are successful, they will only succeed in killing the goose that lays golden eggs. iTMS works because of the tight integration. Piecemeal doesn't work. Everyone that came before Apple proved that.
NeXT ran on X86. Darwin was ported to X86 practically from day one. Every version of OS X ever released has run on X86 too... the X86 version was simply never released publicly. I fail to see how X86 would qualify as 'new' to the Apple's core OS engineers.
Yeah, limited circumstances... like presidential elections.
And shortly thereafter, they are laugh out of court, because Joe User's P2P program installed so many *trojans, adware, spyware, and rootkits* that ANYONE could have distributed that file from any origin on the planet.
What's really concerning the Korporate Kopyright Kops (Who we can abbreviate as the KKK) is that they are no longer in control of the format. Thanks to Apple, iTunes, and the iPod, they are scrambling for some way to distribute music that will play on an iPod legally. Due to the very law that they bribed several congressmen to get (DMCA), they cannot legally reverse engineer a compatible format to break Apple's stranglehold on the online music industry. Ironic, no? Really though... Who would you rather have controlling music distribution online? Apple or the KKK?
What goes around, comes around! :-P
That would be ... *drum roll please* ... the music producers!! Yes, it was the music producers who initially distributed the file to said user. Individual watermarks are pointless because Windows security is non-existent. You cannot take a watermarked file and use it as proof to sue Joe Average. His system is riddled with viruses, trojans, and rootkits... some of which were installed by the rights owners themselves (I'm looking in your direction Sony). In any case, it will not only be plausible, but entirely probable that the user's system was rooted, and the files transfered off the system by some ner-do-well. Case closed: RIAA you loose. Go home, take your ball with you, and don't let the door knob hit ya where the good lord split ya.
Then group 2 did not see ratings as the Slashdot write up suggests?
Simply because you cannot see how to do something does not mean it cannot be done, or that that people who designed an experiment that you are not competent to analyze are stupid.
It's hard to be competent to analyze the experiment when it appears the Slashdot write up of the article is wrong and the statistics dealing with the experiment don't appear to be available with the article. As for the rest of your venom, save it. When it comes to something totally subjective like music, favorite color, favorite flavor... I know what *I* like and I really don't care if the rest of the world loves Ween, Martha Stewart green, or sweet pickles. I don't and it doesn't matter how many people tell me how great it is... I still won't.
After 500 years! To start with, it's 8 billion tons. From the fine article hosted at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory...
if you note that all projections are that we will be INCREASING emissions in the future
Not if we don't find more oil. Oil production has nearly peaked.
Second: We have way more than 100 years of fossil fuels left. Coal reserves are HUGE, plus shale oil, tar sands, maybe methane hydrates...
Yes, but what is the major contributor? What is everyone's favorite fossil fuel? Why do we war with Iraq and Iran and suck up to Saudi Arabia? Oil. Light sweet crude.
Proponents claim that ocean fertilization is an easily controlled, verifiable process that mimics nature; and that it is an environmentally benign, long-term solution to atmospheric CO2 accumulation
Accelerating the process of CO2 -> Plankton -> Limestone might not be as easy as just dumping iron sulfate everywhere, but I haven't been shown how it has cataclysmic effects. In fact, all I've ever heard of the process is extremely positive. More plankton = more fish = more food for top predators, everyone's happy. Until you do it on a large enough scale to find the pitfalls, I seems to me that everyone is ignoring an obvious solution. No major detrimental effects were mentioned in the IronEx II study back in 95. Sure, it turned the water green, but what do ya expect? I'd be interested in hearing what Penny Chisholm finds so environmentally destructive about ocean fertilization. Anything relevant from that Science magazine article you'd like to contribute?
Fertilizing crops in our fields results in a lot of fertilizer ending up in our rivers causing algal blooms that can indeed cause some trouble like sporadic fish kills and pfiesteria, yet we haven't outlawed tillage or fertilizer yet. Apparently the tradeoff to feed humanity is worth the negligible environmental effects. Perhaps ocean fertilization is a limited solution which needs to be complimented by other practices, but all the people waving their hands and yelling the sky is falling is really making me sick. If you're really worried about the problem, fix it. And no, taking all the cars off the road or instituting draconian emission standards is not a solution. People need transportation, and the amount of CO2 contributed to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels pales in comparison to CO2 contributed by the decomposition of soil organic matter. You'd be better off chasing farmers than Ford.
I read +6 Troll, Flamebait, etc... A lot of mods don't know what the hell they're talking about and if it goes against groupthink, it goes down in Flamebaits. When it does, there are people there like me to pick it up and give it an informative, insightful, or interesting boost. Not everyone runs on default mod settings here at /. Genuine flamebaits and trolls are getting much rarer. I see a lot less GNAA and WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEEE crap here these days. (With the exception of Apple Trolls. They never go away. They even get Cover Storys in Forbes. "Likely to top 4 Million units" for iPods. Dipshits... they sold 14 Million) Most of the down mods go to people who simply think differently lately.
Now, so that I'm not totally off topic... the article describes a system where one group could only listen, see track title, artist name, and download. The second group could see all that and could see download counts as well. Wow, the ones that were downloaded most got the most attention and additional downloads... Duh. That's not scientific. There's no F'ing experimental group! Why didn't they have a third group that could see everything group #1 saw, and *randomly generated* download counts? If I see a song has been downloaded numerous times, listen to it, and it's crap, I'm sure as hell not downloading a copy to save if it sucks. I don't care how many people listen to something, but I would consider download counts an indicator of what I should try first... At least until I realized the download counts were meaningless. If they repeat the experiment with the third group and that group downloads random crap like lemmings then maybe they have something worth reporting... Otherwise, they've proven nothing.
10-110 Billion bucks per year, tops. Less than the price of an Iraq oil war.
To sum up, there's very little good historical data on the topic, which makes it an easy copout for people seeking alternative explanations for warming.
Not trying to remedy the situation when a solution is sitting right in front of you is an easier copout. You say the problem is CO2. Well here's how to get rid of the CO2. So what's the problem?
A: Apple does multiple benchmarks on PPC processors showing them to be "twice as fast as Intel", does that make them more accurate? That sounds a lot like "repeat it often enough and it becomes true" to me. Besides, there are have been multiple studies done on this. B: The computer models you rely upon as a proponent of Global Warming Theory rely upon error correction too. So what? Now error correction is not good enough? C: Oh, so measurably cutting CO2 concentrations would have no measurable effect in the short term? I rest my case.
A true test of a scientific theory is its ability to predict things.
No, as any ID debater here will tell ya, a true test of a scientific theory is it's ability to withstand scrutiny and be falsifiable. Here ya go, falsify away for less than the price of an Iraq war.
Global Warming was predicted based upon greenhouse gas theories and models long before we detected it. That's pretty heavy evidence that at least one cause of global warming is the amount of CO2 and other gasses that are released when we burn gasoline
Well imagine that. The graph from my space.com link says the temp anomaly first jumped up above 0 in the past 300 years around 1925. Are you saying computer models were predicting this change back in 1915? Or are you saying the industrial revolution didn't start until 1970 when the anomaly crossed back up and over the zero marker again? Let's have a look at your graph and debate that maybe... Oh, wait, you don't have a graph, or measurements, or anything but the assertion that everyone believes it and there's some magic computer model somewhere that "proves" it.
Small fingerless child my ass.
Yeah? And Iron Sulfate is dirt cheap. Fix it!
This guy finishes with the same mod score as my original post? Yeah, that's some mighty fine groupthink there slashbots.
I'll see your five year old national geographic fluff piece, and raise you a two year old government study.
Now, considering that fossil fuels contribute roughly 4-5 billion tons of C to the atmosphere annually, and we've got about 100 years of fossil fuels left... How in the hell is this not a perfect solution? Oh yeah, that's right... too many global warming chicken littles out there are going to have egg on their face if atmospheric C is reduced to pre-industrial levels and global temps are still rising thanks to the simple fact that the sun is getting hotter. We wouldn't want to actually test that "greenhouse gases cause global warming" theory, now would we? Better just stick to those computer models...
Oh no! I'm challenging global warming rhetoric with scientific studies! Damn!! There goes my Karma! *sniff* Goodbye sweet Karma <sarcasm />
I'm incredibly fond of that idea too! Just let me light the strip of magnesium will ya? WoooHooooooo! ;-)
;-)