Sorry, but we were at 280ppm before the Industrial Revolution. We're currently at a bit over 400ppm now. So, yes, I'm saying we've brought CO2 concentrations well over 300ppm.
Get new mathematician friends who have a clue about statistics. Weather is chaotic. Climate is the sum of lots of weather, and benefits from the Law of Large Numbers.. Climate says that the 2010s have been extremely hot compared to earlier years. Weather says it was unpleasantly cool and wet where I live.
Or, to put this another way, try to predict rolls of a single die. Now, try to predict the sum of rolls of ten thousand dice. One of them will stick to predictions much better than the other.
Methane is a hydrocarbon, four atoms of hydrogen and one of carbon. It burns to H2O and CO2. It gets much of its energy from the hydrogen burning, so it supplies more energy for a given amount of CO2. It is a fossil fuel, but it's lots better than coal.
Of all his enterprises, I want Space-X to succeed the most. I want cost to low Earth orbit slashed. I don't really care about the other stuff (like the Mars mission), but dramatically lowering the LEO cost will be a great benefit to everything we do in space.
Still, people invest in Tesla, so some people think his plans are sound. Amazon didn't enter such a capital-intensive industry, and it's no surprise that they took less investment capital.
In the US, many people need to drive a car for basic things, such as getting to work, the grocery store, medical appointments, etc. Any attempt to clear lots of people off the road because they're bad drivers would be a considerable hardship for many.
Also, I'm a pretty safe driver nowadays. I'm not claiming to be a particularly good one, but I'm cautious enough to be safe. I wasn't always that way, and I benefit from decades of driving experience. If I wasn't allowed to drive, I wouldn't have a good feel as to what to do when I hit a patch of ice. Chicken and egg.
One of the criteria for fair use is the impact on the market value of the copyrighted work. If most people were only interested in the section the magazine published, then it would have a large impact on the market value.
Similarly, if lots of people looked at that Gunsmoke screenshot and thought, "Okay, I've seen it now, so there's no point in watching any of the episodes", that would have seriously lowered the market value and it would not be fair use.
No, the estate claimed that he was still under copyright. I found this techdirt article that explains that the courts told the estate that they were wrong. Anyone could legally use the character; they just couldn't use a significant amount of anything in the final ten stories until they went out of copyright.
Now, this doesn't mean you couldn't be sued for using him without a license. It does mean that you'd win the case.
Car: something I own. (A red 2017 Subaru Forester, if you're interested.) File containing novel that's probably not good enough to be published: something I own.
Suppose I email you a copy of "The Empty God" (2013 Nanowrimo success). I still have everything I had. I still own the computer, the file, However, you can make a copy of the file. It won't affect me. I won't be aware of it. Now, I've opened up that possibility by letting you have a copy. You will find it easy to make indefinitely many copies and distribute them.
Now, suppose I let you borrow my car. I don't have my car. You do. You return it, and then you don't have it, but I do. You can't copy it while it's in your possession (at least not without paying far more than it would cost for you to go to a Subaru dealer and buy your own).
Now, suppose you bought your own Forester and have a copy of my novel. You can legally do as you like with the car, subject to the usual restrictions (vehicular homicide is still a no-no). You can't legally do as you like with your copy. In particular, you can't copy it and distribute it legally, although there's no technological reason for the restriction. Your right of free speech is limited when it comes to the novel. You don't have freedom of the press to print it. I'm using the legal system to restrict what you can do with your property.
Woodworkers get paid for making chairs. Cool. They get paid by people who want chairs, and have no cheaper way to get the ones they want than paying the woodworker. This works.
Who pays an author for writing a book? Without copyright, once you have a copy, you can give copies to everybody and their uncle, and nobody buys it, because copying is far cheaper than having the author write another book. There's no revenue stream to pay anybody. So, please tell me who should pay the author, and out of what money?
How about they make a law allowing us to shoot sufficiently stupid Anonymous Cowards?
Nobody's talking about any law that would take anything away from the author. Copyright is not the normal state of affairs. It's counter to free speech and freedom of the press, and is only legal in the US because the Constitution specifically allows it. Nor does any ownership terminate when copyright expires. Everybody owns the exact same stuff.
The only revenue stream to pay authors with is the sale of books, which is highly reliable if there is no copyright. Assuming copyright is held by the publisher, the publisher needs to make money off each upcoming sale. Why should we assign this role to the publisher and not the author? We've just kicked the can a sidewalk square down the street.
If we drop copyright with this scheme, somebody has to pay the publisher and the author, and this will be disconnected from future revenue streams. With rare exceptions, the only entity that does that sort of the thing is the government. No matter how much you favor big government, this is not something government should be involved in.
Every publication is a potential political football. Was the application denied? Approved? Politics! It would put the government in the position of having to regulate our literature by political expediency.
George Bernard Shaw wrote about this. He wrote plays, and needed a government license for each play. He simply didn't write some plays he wanted to, because he knew getting a license would be politically impossible. Some plays he couldn't have performed intact in the UK. Biting political satire would result in a license to produce the play without the satire. He wrote a play once about the German invasion of England. It got a license. It was therefore a diplomatic incident, since the German government saw this as the British government fear-mongering.
Publishers advance authors money, both in giving advances and in paying for expenses and expecting to be recouped (on the average) through money that could otherwise go to royalties. With self-publishing, you don't get the up front money and resources, but you get to keep a lot more of the sale price.
If you're self-publishing nowadays, it's probably out as an ebook, which means you don't deal with bookstores and distribution systems. You have to get reader interest in your book, and I'm not sure publishers have that great an advantage to make self-publicity a big problem.
20 years is not a long time. Some projects take that long to complete.
Since we're talking about copyright, and hence creativity, projects that take that long are normally not done for money. Nobody pushes get-rich-slow schemes. People do take more than twenty years to write books are typically not in it to get rich.
Moreover, if the clock starts on release, it doesn't matter how long the project took. It used to be that the copyright clock started on registration, which probably had to be reasonably close to release time. We'd probably want protection for unreleased works, but that's the same problem we had earlier with sensible copyright laws.
Extended copyright hurts lots and lots of people in indirect ways, usually not too badly. Extended copyright benefits a few people a lot in direct ways. Therefore, the ones that benefit have good reason to pressure politicians to extend it, while the ones that suffer consider it a very minor issue if they worry about it at all.
To be honest, a promise to help drop copyright back to death plus 50 would have very little effect on my decision to vote for someone, as there's numerous other issues I care more about.
In this case, the question is whether CBS pays Jon Tannen for use of his images. The countersuit is an attempt at intimidation. The parties are using the lawyers to get what they want, and the lawyers aren't using the parties to get higher fees.
How and how much the lawyers are paid has nothing to do with these suits.
If you go home and drink, and can hold your liquor, I won't notice. If you smoke at home, you'll smell bad. If you smoke at work, you're taking more breaks. If you drink at work, I won't notice.
An employee who uses alcohol to excess is likely to have performance issues, but typically that's it. An employee who uses tobacco has other issues.
Where I work, we hire people on the basis of merit-based qualifications. I honestly don't care if you smoke crack, marijuana, cigarettes, whatever. Show up to meetings on time, play nice with co-workers.
Playing nice with me, in particular, includes not subjecting me to tobacco smoke. (Marijuana smoke doesn't seem to bother me like that. I've never experienced crack smoke.) A smoker will tend to take more breaks than a non-smoker, to go smoke somewhere, and that probably affects value creation to some extent.
Most people in the US collect Social Security, which is a government old-age pension. If people die before they can collect, more money in the pool for people who live long enough to collect.
In the US, health care costs fall heavily on the employer while working,at least for a lot of jobs, and the government when retired. If, as a smoker, I have serious health problems when I'm 60, that's a problem for the company. If, as a non-smoker, I have even more serious health problems but not until I'm 70, that's not a problem for the company.
That's not the case in Japan, of course. It appears to be about smokers taking significantly long breaks during the day.
This may well not be a problem for New York City. If the stats given are right, it's a problem in some places.
I'm fine with your take on ID. However, all the voter ID proposals I've seen in practice don't include the outreach or the free lunch. Some of them have come along with proposals to make it harder for the wrong people to get IDs. At that point, it's disenfranchising people.
I also don't see how voter IDs are going to help much. The fraud that they potentially eliminate is time-consuming and dangerous.
Remember that a voting system isn't going to be less biased than the enforcement. If the police and election officials are going to ignore fraud, having IDs will mean nothing. If the registration rolls are rigged, having IDs won't help. Assuming reasonably honest registration and enforcement, anybody voting not under their own identity is running a significant risk of facing a felony charge, and one pawn facing a felony charge can unravel all the way back to the king. Have a police officer stationed in every voting place.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but we were at 280ppm before the Industrial Revolution. We're currently at a bit over 400ppm now. So, yes, I'm saying we've brought CO2 concentrations well over 300ppm.
Get new mathematician friends who have a clue about statistics. Weather is chaotic. Climate is the sum of lots of weather, and benefits from the Law of Large Numbers.. Climate says that the 2010s have been extremely hot compared to earlier years. Weather says it was unpleasantly cool and wet where I live.
Or, to put this another way, try to predict rolls of a single die. Now, try to predict the sum of rolls of ten thousand dice. One of them will stick to predictions much better than the other.
I'd have modded it +1, Funny if I had mod points at the moment. It was a very good parody of some rhetoric I've seen.
Methane is a hydrocarbon, four atoms of hydrogen and one of carbon. It burns to H2O and CO2. It gets much of its energy from the hydrogen burning, so it supplies more energy for a given amount of CO2. It is a fossil fuel, but it's lots better than coal.
Thorium's untested. I'd expect unforeseen problems to arise.
That said, I'd love to see it tested on a realistic scale.
The previous interglacial periods haven't had as much CO2 in the air as we're putting in there.
Of all his enterprises, I want Space-X to succeed the most. I want cost to low Earth orbit slashed. I don't really care about the other stuff (like the Mars mission), but dramatically lowering the LEO cost will be a great benefit to everything we do in space.
Originally it was a very severe punishment for very disappointing Roman legions. Every tenth man would be executed, so a 10% reduction.
Still, people invest in Tesla, so some people think his plans are sound. Amazon didn't enter such a capital-intensive industry, and it's no surprise that they took less investment capital.
In the US, many people need to drive a car for basic things, such as getting to work, the grocery store, medical appointments, etc. Any attempt to clear lots of people off the road because they're bad drivers would be a considerable hardship for many.
Also, I'm a pretty safe driver nowadays. I'm not claiming to be a particularly good one, but I'm cautious enough to be safe. I wasn't always that way, and I benefit from decades of driving experience. If I wasn't allowed to drive, I wouldn't have a good feel as to what to do when I hit a patch of ice. Chicken and egg.
One of the criteria for fair use is the impact on the market value of the copyrighted work. If most people were only interested in the section the magazine published, then it would have a large impact on the market value.
Similarly, if lots of people looked at that Gunsmoke screenshot and thought, "Okay, I've seen it now, so there's no point in watching any of the episodes", that would have seriously lowered the market value and it would not be fair use.
No, the estate claimed that he was still under copyright. I found this techdirt article that explains that the courts told the estate that they were wrong. Anyone could legally use the character; they just couldn't use a significant amount of anything in the final ten stories until they went out of copyright.
Now, this doesn't mean you couldn't be sued for using him without a license. It does mean that you'd win the case.
Car: something I own. (A red 2017 Subaru Forester, if you're interested.) File containing novel that's probably not good enough to be published: something I own.
Suppose I email you a copy of "The Empty God" (2013 Nanowrimo success). I still have everything I had. I still own the computer, the file, However, you can make a copy of the file. It won't affect me. I won't be aware of it. Now, I've opened up that possibility by letting you have a copy. You will find it easy to make indefinitely many copies and distribute them.
Now, suppose I let you borrow my car. I don't have my car. You do. You return it, and then you don't have it, but I do. You can't copy it while it's in your possession (at least not without paying far more than it would cost for you to go to a Subaru dealer and buy your own).
Now, suppose you bought your own Forester and have a copy of my novel. You can legally do as you like with the car, subject to the usual restrictions (vehicular homicide is still a no-no). You can't legally do as you like with your copy. In particular, you can't copy it and distribute it legally, although there's no technological reason for the restriction. Your right of free speech is limited when it comes to the novel. You don't have freedom of the press to print it. I'm using the legal system to restrict what you can do with your property.
Woodworkers get paid for making chairs. Cool. They get paid by people who want chairs, and have no cheaper way to get the ones they want than paying the woodworker. This works.
Who pays an author for writing a book? Without copyright, once you have a copy, you can give copies to everybody and their uncle, and nobody buys it, because copying is far cheaper than having the author write another book. There's no revenue stream to pay anybody. So, please tell me who should pay the author, and out of what money?
How about they make a law allowing us to shoot sufficiently stupid Anonymous Cowards?
Nobody's talking about any law that would take anything away from the author. Copyright is not the normal state of affairs. It's counter to free speech and freedom of the press, and is only legal in the US because the Constitution specifically allows it. Nor does any ownership terminate when copyright expires. Everybody owns the exact same stuff.
Correct, but it's worse than that.
The only revenue stream to pay authors with is the sale of books, which is highly reliable if there is no copyright. Assuming copyright is held by the publisher, the publisher needs to make money off each upcoming sale. Why should we assign this role to the publisher and not the author? We've just kicked the can a sidewalk square down the street.
If we drop copyright with this scheme, somebody has to pay the publisher and the author, and this will be disconnected from future revenue streams. With rare exceptions, the only entity that does that sort of the thing is the government. No matter how much you favor big government, this is not something government should be involved in.
Every publication is a potential political football. Was the application denied? Approved? Politics! It would put the government in the position of having to regulate our literature by political expediency.
George Bernard Shaw wrote about this. He wrote plays, and needed a government license for each play. He simply didn't write some plays he wanted to, because he knew getting a license would be politically impossible. Some plays he couldn't have performed intact in the UK. Biting political satire would result in a license to produce the play without the satire. He wrote a play once about the German invasion of England. It got a license. It was therefore a diplomatic incident, since the German government saw this as the British government fear-mongering.
Publishers advance authors money, both in giving advances and in paying for expenses and expecting to be recouped (on the average) through money that could otherwise go to royalties. With self-publishing, you don't get the up front money and resources, but you get to keep a lot more of the sale price.
If you're self-publishing nowadays, it's probably out as an ebook, which means you don't deal with bookstores and distribution systems. You have to get reader interest in your book, and I'm not sure publishers have that great an advantage to make self-publicity a big problem.
Since we're talking about copyright, and hence creativity, projects that take that long are normally not done for money. Nobody pushes get-rich-slow schemes. People do take more than twenty years to write books are typically not in it to get rich.
Moreover, if the clock starts on release, it doesn't matter how long the project took. It used to be that the copyright clock started on registration, which probably had to be reasonably close to release time. We'd probably want protection for unreleased works, but that's the same problem we had earlier with sensible copyright laws.
Extended copyright hurts lots and lots of people in indirect ways, usually not too badly. Extended copyright benefits a few people a lot in direct ways. Therefore, the ones that benefit have good reason to pressure politicians to extend it, while the ones that suffer consider it a very minor issue if they worry about it at all.
To be honest, a promise to help drop copyright back to death plus 50 would have very little effect on my decision to vote for someone, as there's numerous other issues I care more about.
In this case, the question is whether CBS pays Jon Tannen for use of his images. The countersuit is an attempt at intimidation. The parties are using the lawyers to get what they want, and the lawyers aren't using the parties to get higher fees.
How and how much the lawyers are paid has nothing to do with these suits.
If you go home and drink, and can hold your liquor, I won't notice. If you smoke at home, you'll smell bad. If you smoke at work, you're taking more breaks. If you drink at work, I won't notice.
An employee who uses alcohol to excess is likely to have performance issues, but typically that's it. An employee who uses tobacco has other issues.
Playing nice with me, in particular, includes not subjecting me to tobacco smoke. (Marijuana smoke doesn't seem to bother me like that. I've never experienced crack smoke.) A smoker will tend to take more breaks than a non-smoker, to go smoke somewhere, and that probably affects value creation to some extent.
Most people in the US collect Social Security, which is a government old-age pension. If people die before they can collect, more money in the pool for people who live long enough to collect.
In the US, health care costs fall heavily on the employer while working,at least for a lot of jobs, and the government when retired. If, as a smoker, I have serious health problems when I'm 60, that's a problem for the company. If, as a non-smoker, I have even more serious health problems but not until I'm 70, that's not a problem for the company.
That's not the case in Japan, of course. It appears to be about smokers taking significantly long breaks during the day.
This may well not be a problem for New York City. If the stats given are right, it's a problem in some places.
I'm fine with your take on ID. However, all the voter ID proposals I've seen in practice don't include the outreach or the free lunch. Some of them have come along with proposals to make it harder for the wrong people to get IDs. At that point, it's disenfranchising people.
I also don't see how voter IDs are going to help much. The fraud that they potentially eliminate is time-consuming and dangerous.
Remember that a voting system isn't going to be less biased than the enforcement. If the police and election officials are going to ignore fraud, having IDs will mean nothing. If the registration rolls are rigged, having IDs won't help. Assuming reasonably honest registration and enforcement, anybody voting not under their own identity is running a significant risk of facing a felony charge, and one pawn facing a felony charge can unravel all the way back to the king. Have a police officer stationed in every voting place.