Plants are evolved in a given CO2 level and their response to rapid changes is highly unpredictable - it isn't all good for plants.
Gee, maybe someone should do some experiments to find out. You know, use some actual science. Then we can make predictions that actually work, rather than extrapolations of something so complex and untestable it's easier just to spout a bunch of alarmist propaganda.
TL;DR plants not only grow faster and produce more biomass in higher CO2 concentrations, they are also more efficient in the use of water.
Nice twist of words jackass. Growth is growth. There are more people being born than dying. Until that changes growth is accelerating. The percentages may have changed, but that doesn't over rule that there are more people alive today than there were 50 years ago and there will be even more people in 50 years. Go back to school.
You're still wrong. Even if the population is still growing, efficiency in the use of resources (as well as reuse and recycling) is also growing. You failed to take that into account at all.
"Young people in the 1950s, when they were asked if you had a sexual partner, [might] say 'oh oral sex, that counts,' whereas young people today might say 'oh no that doesn't count because I didn't actually have sexual intercourse,'" he said.
That quote was such crap. In the 1950's people were having less oral sex and certainly would have reported it less. It was even considered to be grounds for divorce as 'mental cruelty' at that time. To suggest that they were all doing oral like crazy and that this pushed statistics up is rubbish. Agree with a commenter above that tough financial times make it more difficult to go out and find someone.
You missed the point entirely. It has nothing to do with whether people had more or less oral sex in the past. It's that after the Clinton / Lewinski scandal, oral sex was redefined as "not sex at all." That's what Bill said he meant when he said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Because it was only oral sex, it wasn't sex at all. And the younger generation picked up on that. So they do oral ALL THE TIME! But when asked if they've had sex, unless it was intercourse, they say "no".
Yes, given a sample size of 2 we've found a case where we have found a simple ratio that happens to match. Now, how does that prove there is a strong correlation between the single variable it's based on? Given a sample size of 2?
Your specific question was about Venus, which I found the answer for (and nothing of interest to dispute it). The original link was about Jupiter, which confirms the same basic physical equations. So that's 3. But there are a limited number of planets we can get this kind of data on, only one sun, and everything you're arguing is based on a sample size of... let's see... 1.
Next up the original author of that paragraph may not feel the need to even "consider albedo", but albedo is not some theoretical atmospheric model, it is an actual, measurable value. The total amount of electromagnetic radiation being scattered away from Venus has been measured to be 75%. The total amount of electromagnetic radiation being scattered away from Earth has been measured to be 30%. The fact that this radiation has been scattered away into space means that it, by definition, cannot be being absorbed by the atmosphere.
It's shown to be completely irrelevant to the calculation of temperature at specific pressure, which also has been measured, and fits the equations of Mr. Huffman.
And how has that challenged the claim of 90+% climate scientists that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is causing warming, given that we've actually measured changes to average temperatures?
Yes, we have measured changes to the average temperature. As has happened throughout all of Earth's history. But the correlation in recent times between CO2 concentration and temperature changes just doesn't track very well.
The result is independent of the fraction f absorbed, which is why naively approaching the problem as if f = 1 nevertheless gives, without the need to even consciously consider albedo beforehand, the amazingly clear result that the temperature ratio depends only--and amazingly, quite precisely--upon the ratio of the two planets' distances from the Sun. Any "expert", upon seeing this amazing result, should quickly have realized it means both atmospheres must absorb the same fraction of the incident solar radiation, and be warmed only by that fraction.
The temperature ratio is an empirical fact, and the absorbed power ratio implied from that was a logical fact. Since the two atmospheres DO, factually, absorb the same fraction of the solar radiation incident upon them, there was, in reality, no physical reason to extend the analysis by "correcting for albedo".
The facts:
at 1000 millibars (mb), T_earth=287.4 (K), T_venus=338.6, ratio=1.178
at 900 mb, T_earth=281.7, T_venus=331.4, ratio=1.176
at 800 mb, T_earth=275.5, T_venus=322.9, ratio=1.172
at 700 mb, T_earth=268.6, T_venus=315.0, ratio=1.173
at 600 mb, T_earth=260.8, T_venus=302.1, ratio=1.158
at 500 mb, T_earth=251.9, T_venus=291.4, ratio=1.157
at 400 mb, T_earth=241.4, T_venus=278.6, ratio=1.154
at 300 mb, T_earth=228.6, T_venus=262.9, ratio=1.150
at 200 mb, T_earth=211.6, T_venus=247.1, ratio=1.168
(Venus temperatures are +/- 1.4K, Earth temp. are from std. atm)
There is no significant greenhouse effect on Venus with 96.5% carbon dioxide, and none on the Earth with just a trace (0.04%) of carbon dioxide.
So according to that link extra mass causes an atmosphere to heat up, so if the Earth is getting warmer then logically it must have taken on more mass very recently. Care to show us where that extra mass is hiding?
That's a rather odd way to read the study. In fact, you've created a straw man that's irrelevant to the study entirely [SMH].
And if atmospheric composition doesn't matter, why is Venus 30x hotter than Earth when it only receives 2x the solar insolation and has slightly less mass?
Since the intensity of the Sun's radiation decreases with distance from it as 1 over r-squared, Venus receives (93/67.25) squared, or 1.91 times the power per unit area that Earth receives, on average.
Since the radiating temperature of an isolated body in space varies as the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the radiating temperature of Venus should be the fourth-root of 1.91 (or the square-root of 93/67.25) = 1.176 times that of the Earth. Furthermore, since the atmospheric pressure varies as the temperature, the temperature at any given pressure level in the Venusian atmosphere should be 1.176 times the temperature at that same pressure level in the Earth atmosphere, INDEPENDENT OF THE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF INFRARED ABSORPTION in the two atmospheres. In particular, the averaged temperature at 1000 millibars on Earth is about 15C = 288K, so the corresponding temperature on Venus, WITHOUT ANY GREENHOUSE EFFECT, should be 1.176 times that, or 339K. But this is just 66C, the temperature we actually find there from the temperature and pressure profiles for Venus.
We have to compare atmospheric temperatures at equal pressures in the two atmospheres, and when we do that we find the Venus atmospheric temperature is always just 17% higher than the corresponding (same pressure level) temperature in Earth's atmosphere -- and that essentially constant factor is due solely to the two planets' relative distances from the Sun, nothing else (in particular, not due to the great difference in the amount of carbon dioxide in the two atmospheres). The pressure on the surface of Venus there is far outside the range of Earth's atmospheric pressure. From the results of the comparison I have done, we can say that if Earth had much more atmosphere, so that its surface pressure was equal to Venus's surface pressure, then we would expect the 463C surface temperature of Venus to be 17% higher than the surface temperature of the Earth with that much atmosphere.
Not to mention we've known about Jupiter's internal heat source since 1969 [google.co.uk].
Yes, but now it can be precisely measured.
Yes that entire site is starting to sound like one big straw man isn't it? Or straw planet, perhaps?
No, but your initial characterization of it most certainly is exactly that. And you knocked down your straw man. Congrats!
what control group are they using to show what would have happened had we not been here?
Ah yes, if only scientists had created a control planet before the industrial revolution so we could compare what the effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration by 33% is, oh well guess we can't do anything about it because we're only 90+ percent sure not 110% percent sure. Also fossil fuel exhaustion and pollution, well those don't matter either!
Trump is certainly a clever bastard, gotta give him that. Just like he knows how to play the "donate-to-politicians-to-get-policy-considerations" game in the US, he also knows if he wants to build a sea wall, it's helpful to mention "because climate change!" in his application, because the bureaucrats will eat that stuff up.
The extra taxes will go towards cleanup and reversing the damage that has already been done.
Yea, of course it will. That's what extra taxes are used for ALL THE TIME! It's great, isn't it? Extra taxes are NEVER used to enrich corporations and elites. No, I'm sure that won't happen this time, either.
You seem to think that my desire to be paid for my work is silly and that people can just come and take from me whenever they so well wish with or without paying me for it.
Nope, I never said that. I said you don't have a right to be paid for your work. You can work your whole life and still get paid nothing. That's how the market works. Nobody gets paid for their work unless they're working for someone else as an up-front agreement, or they can sell something that they own. Sure, if you create something out of thin air, it's yours. It doesn't mean you have a "right" to get paid for it.
You literally have not refuted my point in the slightest.
I did. You claimed you had a "right" to get paid for your "work". You don't. No one does, unless agreed to ahead of time (and in that case, the person paying owns everything).
Frankly it's not my problem once I'm gone.
You made it your problem by your own "hypothetical" agreement. You want all the rights and none of the responsibilities.
And I simply want to be paid for the work that I designed, created, and am now selling.
Yea, and I want to get paid for my turd, too. Good luck with that.
But you're telling me I can't have that, but you should get everything you so desire.
You've already said that you can't be trusted. That you'll sell me something and then take away my access. You're a rent-seeker with no morals.
And your attitude and assumptions about me (completely wrong, BTW), proves that you will never be successful in business, because you can't create anything of value. You expect someone to hand over money because you "worked", whether what you produced is valuable or not. Well guess what, little snowflake, the world does not owe you a living.
Your right to a government-granted monopoly does not trump my right to protect my privacy. That's what it comes down to. You will probably die homeless, broke, and penniless. A sad could-have-been so wrapped up in his own self-worth that he can't ever understand why nobody else sees how great he is.
Yes, yes it is. I own the work. That's exactly like me coming up to you and stealing your wallet. You don't "own" that wallet. You don't "own" those credit cards that I'm going to use to fund my vacation with. In fact you should be perfectly fine with identity theft - I mean you don't exactly OWN your credit score either. So what's your mother's madien name, ID numbers - any ID, usernames/passwords to any account (you don't own those either)?
That's the worst analogy I've ever heard or seen. You must think that your shit don't stink. In fact, it's mine that doesn't stink. In fact, it's beautiful. And I produced it, so you must pay me. It doesn't matter what you think of it, I put a lot of work into producing that gorgeous log, and I expect to be handsomely rewarded for all the work I did creating it! (this is what you sound like).
"If you buy this work from me, you agree that I retain all rights of distribution and copying in perpetuity until such time that I give you written notice terminating this limitation from this sales contract. In all other cases you agree that by purchasing this product to agree to the terms and conditions setforth herein. Furthermore both parties agree that the jurisdiction in which this contract exists shall be under the jursidiction of the United States and that contractual disputes must be filed in the proper jursidcition."
That's not what you get. You don't get that. Only idiots would agree to it. Also, it's not a sale.
I've seen no court case that has ever said this.
There doesn't need to be a court case. It's codified in Federal Law Regulations. Anyone case arguing against the exemption would be thrown out in summary judgement.
DRM is a methods in which I may, as the owner of the work, ensure that the viewer/consumer of my work has actually paid for my work.
Forever? Always? Is it phone home? Is your service escrowed to ensure that the viewer/consumer ALWAYS has access to the work they paid for, even when you and your company is gone?
DRM is an inherently weak system because as long as you have root on your device, you can break it. Perhaps it will take some serious reverse engineering effort, but it's always going to be breakable, because in order for you to consume the content in the fist place, your device needs to decrypt it.
Unbreakable DRM requires compromising our ability to have access to our own devices. And that's the biggest flaw of all. So, yea, I don't want my credit cards taken, my ID stolen, my user ID and passwords to everything being accessed by someone else. But if someone else "owns" and has root control over my devices but I do not, that's exactly what you're asking for.
Nobody's anything is worth giving up my ability to keep my information secure.
No, that's not your right, not at all. If someone wants your stuff, feel free to negotiate for some sort of compensation. That's as far as it goes.
Also, you are subject to a contract for releasing your work to someone else, that allows you exclusive rights to make copies. It's not a perpetual right - you only get it for a limited time. Once that time is up, anyone is allowed to make all the copies of it they want and distribute them as much as they like. Using DRM to restrict another party's ability to make their own copies is a breach of contract. If you want to enjoy the benefits of having grant of copyright, you must abide by all terms of the contract.
Geopolitically speaking, this election isn't about Trump vs. Hillary. It's about whether you want US foreign policy to be directed by Americans (however crooked one of them might be) or by the Russians (however strong they might make their voters feel). Given that choice, I'd suggest voting for the crook: it's important.
You're exactly right. But, I'm frankly tired of the proxy wars and the droning of brown people in sand for the control of oil and gas and, of course, pipelines. Not to mention the regime-change agenda over there that started during the W. Bush administration.
So I don't want Hillary in charge to further that agenda and escalate things over there. The only good it does for anybody is to line the pockets of multinational corporations (and, of course, the politicians that help them gain access to resource they can exploit). And those guys don't give two figs about America or Americans. They don't even bother paying US taxes on all those gains - most of it they stick in some foreign tax haven somewhere so they can get to it when they're ready to retire to one of their tropical villas where all the local officials are already owned (by them).
So, yea, if you're all concerned about continuing to squeeze the middle class of their ever-dwindling wages so you can spend it fighting foreign wars to prop up the globalists and the bankers, by all means support Hillary as your candidate. For me, I'd rather leave them to their own devices. We'd be better off working in the weapons factories and selling bombs and ammo to the ones left there fighting over some desert. We've got enough of our own gas and oil to do just fine until they're done bombing each other to oblivion and have established the caliphate in the EU.
Yeah, I have to figure that a lot of people are worried that Trump can't keep his mouth shut when it comes to classified information. Mind you, if he does deliberately spout classified information, it can only hurt his campaign in the long run, because it shows that he shouldn't have been allowed that information in the first place.
Well, he keeps his own secrets pretty well. You haven't seen anything from his tax returns, have you?
Don't forget her cattle futures, or the number of people dead surrounding her. From bodyguards to people directly involved with her, and dying from things like two bullets in the back of the skull after crawling 150ft uphill.
The latest revision of the launcher on the Fire TV stick finally integrated non-Appstore apps into the app menu, so you don't have to launch them from application settings.
I haven't come across that yet, it would be nice to get Kodi put on the menu. Any pointers to how it works or where to find it in the settings?
In fact, that will be your only option after the FDA is finished getting all the e-cigarettes and all their component parts off the market with their regulations.
How are they going to manage that? I can buy a device to unlock your car or rewrite its immo codes straight outta China, probably via Paypal, even though owning such a device is outright illegal if you're not a locksmith, dealer or otherwise providing service. I can buy any gun I want even though I live in California. How is the FDA successfully going to prevent me from buying a vape?
So, yea, if you're willing to pay the inflated black market prices for the devices and supplies, you'll probably be able to find a way to do so. But wouldn't it be better if they had some reasonable regulations that businesses can actually deal with, rather than send it all underground and encourage people to buy them (with who-knows-what kind of manufacturing and safety issues) from criminals?
As I understood it, the juice will still be legal to sell so long as it goes through an FDA approval for each Nic level of the juice, supplied in glass bottles, and is sealed. Besides how much money it would cost for the testing, this is pretty much a non issue, and plenty in the industry say is a good way to knock out the shady suppliers and manufacturers.
Your understanding is either wrong, or informed by what the FDA is saying about it, which any quick analysis proves completely faulty. There is a good analysis of the deeming rule and the requirements that give lie to the idea that it's a "non issue", and instead will put most companies out of business. In fact, the FDA acknowledges that plenty of businesses will fold, but they minimize the numbers. There is a thorough analysis of the rule and its implications over at the Tobacco Analysis blog.
Where did it ever say that non-nicotine flavorings are being deemed a tobacco product?
They don't really give a yes or no answer to this, but most people interpret the rule to say it DOES include those things. For instance, from the FDA:
Establishments, such as vape shops, that mix and/or prepare combinations of liquid nicotine, flavors, and/or other liquids, or an establishment that creates or modifies an aerosolizing apparatus for sale to consumers would be considered a tobacco product manufacturer.
As it relates to e-liquids that contain zero nicotine, generally, if your zero-nicotine product is not made or derived from tobacco, it may still be a tobacco product subject to FDA regulation if it is intended or reasonably expected to be used with or for the human consumption of a tobacco product; or intended or reasonably expected to alter the performance, composition, constituents, or characteristics of a tobacco product (with certain exceptions relating to controlling moisture or temperature for storage and initiating external heat source), your product is subject to FDA regulation.
Emphasis mine. Also note that if it's "vape juice", since all vaporizer devices and components have also been deemed "tobacco products", anything sold to be vapped WILL be deemed a "tobacco product."
Its just a flavor extract in PG or VG... If its true, this is also the exact reason why most people are fighting against the regulations. While some would be good, coming down with an iron fist like this and crippling an industry is just terrible.
Back to buying shit from the Philippines like I had to back in the day when I wanted a new mod or atty. I just hope they don't regulate the purchase of pure nicotine powder or diluted nicotine liquid so I can at least home brew my juice.
The FDA has a reputation for raiding shipments from foreign countries that they think might contain regulated products, so you may have difficulty there, unless you have your own channel.
According to the new rule, all adjuncts are being declared "tobacco products". So, while it's likely the nicotine powder will still be available (suppliers are exempt), if you're mixing you become a "manufacturer" of a "tobacco product" and are subject to the regulations (obviously that only for resellers), but since the non-nicotine flavorings are being deemed "tobacco product" because they can "reasonably be expected to be used with tobacco-derived products", those will be regulated. Not sure if even nicotine-free vape juice will be available, but it sounds like probably not.
The federal government has both the power and duty regulate such devices. If people choose to ignore the evidence that is their right as well. This has nothing to do with free market and everything to do with getting facts out to the people.
Reasonable regulation is one thing, but the FDA's deeming rule nothing of the sort. It's intended to get rid of the e-cig market entirely, with the possible exception of a few static, awful devices sold by the largest big tobacco companies.
Slashdot Mirror
Plants are evolved in a given CO2 level and their response to rapid changes is highly unpredictable - it isn't all good for plants.
Gee, maybe someone should do some experiments to find out. You know, use some actual science. Then we can make predictions that actually work, rather than extrapolations of something so complex and untestable it's easier just to spout a bunch of alarmist propaganda.
TL;DR plants not only grow faster and produce more biomass in higher CO2 concentrations, they are also more efficient in the use of water.
First off, volcanos are dwarfed by the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses that people pump into the atmosphere annually.
Current volcanos. That is, active ones in recent times. Historically, volcanos emitted a LOT more CO2 than fossil fuels are creating today.
Nice twist of words jackass. Growth is growth. There are more people being born than dying. Until that changes growth is accelerating. The percentages may have changed, but that doesn't over rule that there are more people alive today than there were 50 years ago and there will be even more people in 50 years. Go back to school.
You're still wrong. Even if the population is still growing, efficiency in the use of resources (as well as reuse and recycling) is also growing. You failed to take that into account at all.
"Young people in the 1950s, when they were asked if you had a sexual partner, [might] say 'oh oral sex, that counts,' whereas young people today might say 'oh no that doesn't count because I didn't actually have sexual intercourse,'" he said.
That quote was such crap. In the 1950's people were having less oral sex and certainly would have reported it less. It was even considered to be grounds for divorce as 'mental cruelty' at that time. To suggest that they were all doing oral like crazy and that this pushed statistics up is rubbish. Agree with a commenter above that tough financial times make it more difficult to go out and find someone.
You missed the point entirely. It has nothing to do with whether people had more or less oral sex in the past. It's that after the Clinton / Lewinski scandal, oral sex was redefined as "not sex at all." That's what Bill said he meant when he said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Because it was only oral sex, it wasn't sex at all. And the younger generation picked up on that. So they do oral ALL THE TIME! But when asked if they've had sex, unless it was intercourse, they say "no".
or you can just buy some cardboard. Much cheaper and even more fun!
Yes, given a sample size of 2 we've found a case where we have found a simple ratio that happens to match. Now, how does that prove there is a strong correlation between the single variable it's based on? Given a sample size of 2?
Your specific question was about Venus, which I found the answer for (and nothing of interest to dispute it). The original link was about Jupiter, which confirms the same basic physical equations. So that's 3. But there are a limited number of planets we can get this kind of data on, only one sun, and everything you're arguing is based on a sample size of ... let's see... 1.
Next up the original author of that paragraph may not feel the need to even "consider albedo", but albedo is not some theoretical atmospheric model, it is an actual, measurable value. The total amount of electromagnetic radiation being scattered away from Venus has been measured to be 75%. The total amount of electromagnetic radiation being scattered away from Earth has been measured to be 30%. The fact that this radiation has been scattered away into space means that it, by definition, cannot be being absorbed by the atmosphere.
It's shown to be completely irrelevant to the calculation of temperature at specific pressure, which also has been measured, and fits the equations of Mr. Huffman.
And how has that challenged the claim of 90+% climate scientists that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is causing warming, given that we've actually measured changes to average temperatures?
Yes, we have measured changes to the average temperature. As has happened throughout all of Earth's history. But the correlation in recent times between CO2 concentration and temperature changes just doesn't track very well.
The result is independent of the fraction f absorbed, which is why naively approaching the problem as if f = 1 nevertheless gives, without the need to even consciously consider albedo beforehand, the amazingly clear result that the temperature ratio depends only--and amazingly, quite precisely--upon the ratio of the two planets' distances from the Sun. Any "expert", upon seeing this amazing result, should quickly have realized it means both atmospheres must absorb the same fraction of the incident solar radiation, and be warmed only by that fraction.
The temperature ratio is an empirical fact, and the absorbed power ratio implied from that was a logical fact. Since the two atmospheres DO, factually, absorb the same fraction of the solar radiation incident upon them, there was, in reality, no physical reason to extend the analysis by "correcting for albedo".
The facts:
There is no significant greenhouse effect on Venus with 96.5% carbon dioxide, and none on the Earth with just a trace (0.04%) of carbon dioxide.
So according to that link extra mass causes an atmosphere to heat up, so if the Earth is getting warmer then logically it must have taken on more mass very recently. Care to show us where that extra mass is hiding?
That's a rather odd way to read the study. In fact, you've created a straw man that's irrelevant to the study entirely [SMH].
And if atmospheric composition doesn't matter, why is Venus 30x hotter than Earth when it only receives 2x the solar insolation and has slightly less mass?
Since the intensity of the Sun's radiation decreases with distance from it as 1 over r-squared, Venus receives (93/67.25) squared, or 1.91 times the power per unit area that Earth receives, on average.
Since the radiating temperature of an isolated body in space varies as the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the radiating temperature of Venus should be the fourth-root of 1.91 (or the square-root of 93/67.25) = 1.176 times that of the Earth. Furthermore, since the atmospheric pressure varies as the temperature, the temperature at any given pressure level in the Venusian atmosphere should be 1.176 times the temperature at that same pressure level in the Earth atmosphere, INDEPENDENT OF THE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF INFRARED ABSORPTION in the two atmospheres. In particular, the averaged temperature at 1000 millibars on Earth is about 15C = 288K, so the corresponding temperature on Venus, WITHOUT ANY GREENHOUSE EFFECT, should be 1.176 times that, or 339K. But this is just 66C, the temperature we actually find there from the temperature and pressure profiles for Venus.
We have to compare atmospheric temperatures at equal pressures in the two atmospheres, and when we do that we find the Venus atmospheric temperature is always just 17% higher than the corresponding (same pressure level) temperature in Earth's atmosphere -- and that essentially constant factor is due solely to the two planets' relative distances from the Sun, nothing else (in particular, not due to the great difference in the amount of carbon dioxide in the two atmospheres). The pressure on the surface of Venus there is far outside the range of Earth's atmospheric pressure. From the results of the comparison I have done, we can say that if Earth had much more atmosphere, so that its surface pressure was equal to Venus's surface pressure, then we would expect the 463C surface temperature of Venus to be 17% higher than the surface temperature of the Earth with that much atmosphere.
Not to mention we've known about Jupiter's internal heat source since 1969 [google.co.uk].
Yes, but now it can be precisely measured.
Yes that entire site is starting to sound like one big straw man isn't it? Or straw planet, perhaps?
No, but your initial characterization of it most certainly is exactly that. And you knocked down your straw man. Congrats!
what control group are they using to show what would have happened had we not been here?
Ah yes, if only scientists had created a control planet before the industrial revolution so we could compare what the effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration by 33% is, oh well guess we can't do anything about it because we're only 90+ percent sure not 110% percent sure. Also fossil fuel exhaustion and pollution, well those don't matter either!
Hmmm...
http://www.politico.com/story/...
Trump is certainly a clever bastard, gotta give him that. Just like he knows how to play the "donate-to-politicians-to-get-policy-considerations" game in the US, he also knows if he wants to build a sea wall, it's helpful to mention "because climate change!" in his application, because the bureaucrats will eat that stuff up.
Approved!
The extra taxes will go towards cleanup and reversing the damage that has already been done.
Yea, of course it will. That's what extra taxes are used for ALL THE TIME! It's great, isn't it? Extra taxes are NEVER used to enrich corporations and elites. No, I'm sure that won't happen this time, either.
You seem to think that my desire to be paid for my work is silly and that people can just come and take from me whenever they so well wish with or without paying me for it.
Nope, I never said that. I said you don't have a right to be paid for your work. You can work your whole life and still get paid nothing. That's how the market works. Nobody gets paid for their work unless they're working for someone else as an up-front agreement, or they can sell something that they own. Sure, if you create something out of thin air, it's yours. It doesn't mean you have a "right" to get paid for it.
You literally have not refuted my point in the slightest.
I did. You claimed you had a "right" to get paid for your "work". You don't. No one does, unless agreed to ahead of time (and in that case, the person paying owns everything).
Frankly it's not my problem once I'm gone.
You made it your problem by your own "hypothetical" agreement. You want all the rights and none of the responsibilities.
And I simply want to be paid for the work that I designed, created, and am now selling.
Yea, and I want to get paid for my turd, too. Good luck with that.
But you're telling me I can't have that, but you should get everything you so desire.
You've already said that you can't be trusted. That you'll sell me something and then take away my access. You're a rent-seeker with no morals.
And your attitude and assumptions about me (completely wrong, BTW), proves that you will never be successful in business, because you can't create anything of value. You expect someone to hand over money because you "worked", whether what you produced is valuable or not. Well guess what, little snowflake, the world does not owe you a living.
Your right to a government-granted monopoly does not trump my right to protect my privacy. That's what it comes down to. You will probably die homeless, broke, and penniless. A sad could-have-been so wrapped up in his own self-worth that he can't ever understand why nobody else sees how great he is.
Yes, yes it is. I own the work. That's exactly like me coming up to you and stealing your wallet. You don't "own" that wallet. You don't "own" those credit cards that I'm going to use to fund my vacation with. In fact you should be perfectly fine with identity theft - I mean you don't exactly OWN your credit score either. So what's your mother's madien name, ID numbers - any ID, usernames/passwords to any account (you don't own those either)?
That's the worst analogy I've ever heard or seen. You must think that your shit don't stink. In fact, it's mine that doesn't stink. In fact, it's beautiful. And I produced it, so you must pay me. It doesn't matter what you think of it, I put a lot of work into producing that gorgeous log, and I expect to be handsomely rewarded for all the work I did creating it! (this is what you sound like).
"If you buy this work from me, you agree that I retain all rights of distribution and copying in perpetuity until such time that I give you written notice terminating this limitation from this sales contract. In all other cases you agree that by purchasing this product to agree to the terms and conditions setforth herein. Furthermore both parties agree that the jurisdiction in which this contract exists shall be under the jursidiction of the United States and that contractual disputes must be filed in the proper jursidcition."
That's not what you get. You don't get that. Only idiots would agree to it. Also, it's not a sale.
I've seen no court case that has ever said this.
There doesn't need to be a court case. It's codified in Federal Law Regulations. Anyone case arguing against the exemption would be thrown out in summary judgement.
DRM is a methods in which I may, as the owner of the work, ensure that the viewer/consumer of my work has actually paid for my work.
Forever? Always? Is it phone home? Is your service escrowed to ensure that the viewer/consumer ALWAYS has access to the work they paid for, even when you and your company is gone?
DRM is an inherently weak system because as long as you have root on your device, you can break it. Perhaps it will take some serious reverse engineering effort, but it's always going to be breakable, because in order for you to consume the content in the fist place, your device needs to decrypt it.
Unbreakable DRM requires compromising our ability to have access to our own devices. And that's the biggest flaw of all. So, yea, I don't want my credit cards taken, my ID stolen, my user ID and passwords to everything being accessed by someone else. But if someone else "owns" and has root control over my devices but I do not, that's exactly what you're asking for.
Nobody's anything is worth giving up my ability to keep my information secure.
It's my right to be paid for the work I do.
No, that's not your right, not at all. If someone wants your stuff, feel free to negotiate for some sort of compensation. That's as far as it goes.
Also, you are subject to a contract for releasing your work to someone else, that allows you exclusive rights to make copies. It's not a perpetual right - you only get it for a limited time. Once that time is up, anyone is allowed to make all the copies of it they want and distribute them as much as they like. Using DRM to restrict another party's ability to make their own copies is a breach of contract. If you want to enjoy the benefits of having grant of copyright, you must abide by all terms of the contract.
Geopolitically speaking, this election isn't about Trump vs. Hillary. It's about whether you want US foreign policy to be directed by Americans (however crooked one of them might be) or by the Russians (however strong they might make their voters feel). Given that choice, I'd suggest voting for the crook: it's important.
You're exactly right. But, I'm frankly tired of the proxy wars and the droning of brown people in sand for the control of oil and gas and, of course, pipelines. Not to mention the regime-change agenda over there that started during the W. Bush administration.
So I don't want Hillary in charge to further that agenda and escalate things over there. The only good it does for anybody is to line the pockets of multinational corporations (and, of course, the politicians that help them gain access to resource they can exploit). And those guys don't give two figs about America or Americans. They don't even bother paying US taxes on all those gains - most of it they stick in some foreign tax haven somewhere so they can get to it when they're ready to retire to one of their tropical villas where all the local officials are already owned (by them).
So, yea, if you're all concerned about continuing to squeeze the middle class of their ever-dwindling wages so you can spend it fighting foreign wars to prop up the globalists and the bankers, by all means support Hillary as your candidate. For me, I'd rather leave them to their own devices. We'd be better off working in the weapons factories and selling bombs and ammo to the ones left there fighting over some desert. We've got enough of our own gas and oil to do just fine until they're done bombing each other to oblivion and have established the caliphate in the EU.
Except you're wrong - Here's the whole thing in context. Start at about 5:40
In fact, he also claimed that he knows more about the Iraq War than the generals who were in charge of it.
I thought what he said was that he knows more about ISIS than the generals...
Yeah, I have to figure that a lot of people are worried that Trump can't keep his mouth shut when it comes to classified information. Mind you, if he does deliberately spout classified information, it can only hurt his campaign in the long run, because it shows that he shouldn't have been allowed that information in the first place.
Well, he keeps his own secrets pretty well. You haven't seen anything from his tax returns, have you?
Don't forget her cattle futures, or the number of people dead surrounding her. From bodyguards to people directly involved with her, and dying from things like two bullets in the back of the skull after crawling 150ft uphill.
Oh my, citing that oft-discredited Clinton Death List?
Oh my, citing that oft-discredited agenda-driven Snopes website?
My wife bought every season of Charmed
I'm so sorry...
The latest revision of the launcher on the Fire TV stick finally integrated non-Appstore apps into the app menu, so you don't have to launch them from application settings.
I haven't come across that yet, it would be nice to get Kodi put on the menu. Any pointers to how it works or where to find it in the settings?
In fact, that will be your only option after the FDA is finished getting all the e-cigarettes and all their component parts off the market with their regulations.
How are they going to manage that? I can buy a device to unlock your car or rewrite its immo codes straight outta China, probably via Paypal, even though owning such a device is outright illegal if you're not a locksmith, dealer or otherwise providing service. I can buy any gun I want even though I live in California. How is the FDA successfully going to prevent me from buying a vape?
Black markets are difficult to control, you're right. But buying on the black market can be more expensive and more trouble than most people are willing to deal with, and that's what they are counting on. The FDA has certainly been very aggressive dealing with black market online pharmacies that ship to the US, they have seized shipments of contraband at the docks when they suspected someone was importing regulated goods, and they have been seizing shipments of e-cigarettes since 2009.
So, yea, if you're willing to pay the inflated black market prices for the devices and supplies, you'll probably be able to find a way to do so. But wouldn't it be better if they had some reasonable regulations that businesses can actually deal with, rather than send it all underground and encourage people to buy them (with who-knows-what kind of manufacturing and safety issues) from criminals?
As I understood it, the juice will still be legal to sell so long as it goes through an FDA approval for each Nic level of the juice, supplied in glass bottles, and is sealed. Besides how much money it would cost for the testing, this is pretty much a non issue, and plenty in the industry say is a good way to knock out the shady suppliers and manufacturers.
Your understanding is either wrong, or informed by what the FDA is saying about it, which any quick analysis proves completely faulty. There is a good analysis of the deeming rule and the requirements that give lie to the idea that it's a "non issue", and instead will put most companies out of business. In fact, the FDA acknowledges that plenty of businesses will fold, but they minimize the numbers. There is a thorough analysis of the rule and its implications over at the Tobacco Analysis blog.
Where did it ever say that non-nicotine flavorings are being deemed a tobacco product?
They don't really give a yes or no answer to this, but most people interpret the rule to say it DOES include those things. For instance, from the FDA:
Emphasis mine. Also note that if it's "vape juice", since all vaporizer devices and components have also been deemed "tobacco products", anything sold to be vapped WILL be deemed a "tobacco product."
Its just a flavor extract in PG or VG... If its true, this is also the exact reason why most people are fighting against the regulations. While some would be good, coming down with an iron fist like this and crippling an industry is just terrible.
Right. I agree.
Back to buying shit from the Philippines like I had to back in the day when I wanted a new mod or atty. I just hope they don't regulate the purchase of pure nicotine powder or diluted nicotine liquid so I can at least home brew my juice.
The FDA has a reputation for raiding shipments from foreign countries that they think might contain regulated products, so you may have difficulty there, unless you have your own channel.
According to the new rule, all adjuncts are being declared "tobacco products". So, while it's likely the nicotine powder will still be available (suppliers are exempt), if you're mixing you become a "manufacturer" of a "tobacco product" and are subject to the regulations (obviously that only for resellers), but since the non-nicotine flavorings are being deemed "tobacco product" because they can "reasonably be expected to be used with tobacco-derived products", those will be regulated. Not sure if even nicotine-free vape juice will be available, but it sounds like probably not.
Some detail on the Tobacco Analysis Blog.
The federal government has both the power and duty regulate such devices. If people choose to ignore the evidence that is their right as well. This has nothing to do with free market and everything to do with getting facts out to the people.
Reasonable regulation is one thing, but the FDA's deeming rule nothing of the sort. It's intended to get rid of the e-cig market entirely, with the possible exception of a few static, awful devices sold by the largest big tobacco companies.