I can sell you the copyrights of the stuff I've written for National Novel Writing Month, although for personal reasons I'd charge much more than the novels are worth commercially. You can't force me to sell you the copyright for any price. The annotations (not the laws) are copyrighted, and you have every right to ask the copyright holder what buying the copyright would cost, but I really don't think you'll find the answer useful.
The modern military that cannot operate within the US
There is no physical reason why not. It's currently illegal, but that's just statutory law and not Constitutional law, and can be changed real fast.
The Modern Military that likely would stand with the public or at least would face a major split in forces as some do and others do not.
Really? First, there won't be a unified "public" to rebel. There may be more or less resistance, but there's never going to be a supermajority deciding to revolt. People don't make those decisions in lockstep. The American Revolution did not have half the population determined to secede. Second, the military will face armed insurgents and will think of their opponents as armed insurgents and rebels, not patriotic Americans. Third, if the military decides to go one way or another, the presence of civilians with guns isn't really going to matter.
Also Vietnam and Afghanistan would like to speak to you about armed citizens versus modern militaries.
What they would like to say is that the armed citizens can't win. They can win small engagements on occasion, and they can make areas of a country ungovernable at times, but that's as far as it goes. We saw this in WWII in Yugoslavia: brave men with their rifles lose to poorly led, poorly trained, poorly equipped regulars. The gap between army and civilians has grown since then.
We have a population of 317+Million. It would not take a large percentage of citizens to totally overwhelm all our government forces.
The vast majority of those 317+ million are not gun-owning able-bodied people of military age, and most of those will find some reason not to fight the US Army. Assuming that millions of semi-competent combatants rise up, they'll be uncoordinated individuals without heavy weapons and command and control facilities.
A word? What for? In Vietnam and Afghanistan, the armed local forces couldn't overthrow the government or oust the elites. The most they could do was make the country ungovernable.
I could run a VPN service on AWS, true. At that point, Amazon is effectively my endpoint ISP, and they can observe my web traffic out of my EC2 instance and tie it in with my billing information. I don't see how this is a win.
Privacy isn't easy to regain nowadays. If someone publishes your connections to midget furry porn sites, that information is almost impossible to remove, and everyone from then on will be able to find out about your midget furry porn fetish. Your browsing history can hurt you even if it's all legal.
If the science looks really flaky to you, then presumably you have some good explanation as to why smart people who study the subject hard are in agreement, and why this conclusion is supported by many other scientists of varying fields. Perhaps you also have explanations as to why Exxon suppressed its climate change conclusions, rather than discarding them, and why the military and insurance companies are interested. Personally, I think your perception is flaky, but I can't know that for sure without some pretty extensive explanations.
AGW is settled science. Like any other settled science, it can become unsettled again, but approximately nobody's researching whether it's actually happening anymore.
If you read the IPCC report, you will find numerous accounts of bad things that are likely to happen, with degrees of certainty attached. These scientists may in fact be wrong, but they do have ideas. I'm going with the actual scientists rather than a pseudonymous person on the net.
I typically have browsers and other programs running, and will resize the browser window when I need to. At this point, under your ideas, I've invalidated the page until your server recalculates it. Using HTML, no problem.
Why should content writers all have to learn web design? Wasteful, dumb, illogical unless you are a web designer who wants job security for greed purposes.
Because, at some time, somebody's going to have to figure out the best display on my particular browser window. Unless the designer is going to come up with dozens or hundreds of WYSIWIG layouts for the same thing, some computer program is going to have to take some specification and produce an actual display out of it. From the designer's point of view, it doesn't matter that much whether the display is generated on their server or my computer, because although they have more control of their server they still have to let it make up the displays based on specifications of some sort. I'm not saying that HTML is the best answer, but something like it is necessary.
I used to have an iPhone, then an iPhone 4 with the same shape and greater resolution. Then I got a 5S, which has a longer screen of the same width. My brother has a 6, with a generally larger screen. My wife and son have iPads, and there's more than one size and resolution on those. That's five layouts for Apple mobile devices in my nuclear family plus brother. I've also got a large-screen Android tablet, and a laptop and desktop. My son has a laptop of smaller size than mine. My wife has a desktop with a larger monitor than mine, and often uses the TV set as a monitor. That's another five layouts to design just for my nuclear family, under the false assumption that we all will have full-screen browser windows. Is your designer tired of making layouts already? Eager to go on to design a second web page?
There are actual reasons why the Web works as it does, and it's not because web designers user orbital mind control lasers to create a demand for what they do.
You said " Its like a mom or wife that randomly rearranges your room while at work or in the basement.". I said "Also, when I display something on my monitor, it isn't yours. I'm not messing up your room; I'm dealing with your proposals on my monitor.", so that's "what this is intended to communicate.".
Simple content authoring works in cases where the presentation is fixed. If the content has to be read on a variety of different devices, it isn't.
Do you really want the server to have to recalculate every time I change browser window size? Did you want to break caching from the very beginning? HTML was never intended for WYSIWYG. If you need a static document, that's what PDF is for.
Also, when I display something on my monitor, it isn't yours. I'm not messing up your room; I'm dealing with your proposals on my monitor.
If you can't deal with this, get out of web design.
iOS came out without the App Store. It took a while before that was set up. In the meantime, Jobs told people to write HTML apps to be run from Mobile Safari. Your timeline doesn't work.
iOS didn't come out with a development kit, and it wasn't available for some time. At that time, Jobs told people to design web apps for iOS, which meant no Apple 30% possible. The decision to leave Flash off was much earlier, before Jobs could foresee a good revenue stream from the App Store.
To the best of my ability, my PoV is the correct one.
However, in this case, it doesn't really matter if it is correct or incorrect, since the perception among Mozilla's base is what matters. He was seen as contributing a significant sum of money to suppressing basic rights.
In a considerably different environment, someone who contributed significantly to allow same-sex marriage might find themself unable to be an effective CEO because of the controversy. Politics can be a treacherous thing to get involved in.
In other words, you're disputing the science without providing reasons. The science looks pretty solid to me.
Also, no matter what's warming us up, it would be nice if it stopped and even reversed some. If we can slow it down by producing less CO2, that's a win.
Too bad the GOP flag bearer has been completely at odds with the GOP since he started his bid.
Were that true, I don't think we'd see the Republicans rubber-stamping some of his worst appointees or blocking investigation into Trump's potentially iniquitous actions.
It's NASA's job to do NASA's job. They let this political rent seeking get way out of hand over the decades.
Did NASA let this happen, or did Congress force it on NASA? The way to get a good launch system is to tell someone competent to do it, give that person adequate funding, and let said competent person get the job done. I've never been confident that the purpose of the Senate Launch System was to put anything into space.
Why would you make that much money if you could predict climate? The real money would be in predicting weather, which is a separate and much harder problem.
Trees are actually pretty complicated things, and it shouldn't surprise us if some change in their environment would change their behavior. Thermometers are simple things, well understood, and we know the relevant environmental effects. When you've got thermometer readings, use them. If you want temperatures before then, you need to find and use proxies, and they can get complicated. Best to rely on people who study the proxies.
So you want to take my money at the threat of violence to accommodate your political needs?
If you want to complain about that, you're a bit late. It's been going on since we formed governments.
It's also irrelevant, since that isn't what a carbon tax is. It's an attempt to internalize a market externality, and has nothing itself to do with politics (although setting it is a political process). The planet is warming up, and that's true regardless of your politics.
Most of the evidence is statistical, which doesn't make it invalid. Further, if you were a semi-competent scientist, you'd realize that the CO2 you produce is way below the noise level, and doesn't affect anything in a measurable way. The CO2 produced by every car in the US probably does have a measurable impact.
The basic principles can be explained on the back of a cereal box, although not in enough detail to prove that CO2 is causing global warming. You need a lot more data for that, and as it happens scientists have collected far more data than that.
You could try reading some peer-reviewed publications and writing a paper showing why they're all bunk. Then get that published, and you'll be famous. So far, nobody has managed to do that.
Developers will scream and complain and demand that they have a "development system" that only a few percent of their users will ever get close to.
Damn straight. My number one desire for a long time has been faster compiles (number two is usually faster testing). I have no objection to having a test system that's at the low end of what my users have, but I want something I can do real work on.
Pointy-haired boss: "We've decided that a [certain system] is adequate for your use. Besides, how many times are you going to do ray-tracing in your career?"
Dilbert: "Once, if I hurry."
Slashdot Mirror
I can sell you the copyrights of the stuff I've written for National Novel Writing Month, although for personal reasons I'd charge much more than the novels are worth commercially. You can't force me to sell you the copyright for any price. The annotations (not the laws) are copyrighted, and you have every right to ask the copyright holder what buying the copyright would cost, but I really don't think you'll find the answer useful.
There is no physical reason why not. It's currently illegal, but that's just statutory law and not Constitutional law, and can be changed real fast.
Really? First, there won't be a unified "public" to rebel. There may be more or less resistance, but there's never going to be a supermajority deciding to revolt. People don't make those decisions in lockstep. The American Revolution did not have half the population determined to secede. Second, the military will face armed insurgents and will think of their opponents as armed insurgents and rebels, not patriotic Americans. Third, if the military decides to go one way or another, the presence of civilians with guns isn't really going to matter.
What they would like to say is that the armed citizens can't win. They can win small engagements on occasion, and they can make areas of a country ungovernable at times, but that's as far as it goes. We saw this in WWII in Yugoslavia: brave men with their rifles lose to poorly led, poorly trained, poorly equipped regulars. The gap between army and civilians has grown since then.
The vast majority of those 317+ million are not gun-owning able-bodied people of military age, and most of those will find some reason not to fight the US Army. Assuming that millions of semi-competent combatants rise up, they'll be uncoordinated individuals without heavy weapons and command and control facilities.
A word? What for? In Vietnam and Afghanistan, the armed local forces couldn't overthrow the government or oust the elites. The most they could do was make the country ungovernable.
I could run a VPN service on AWS, true. At that point, Amazon is effectively my endpoint ISP, and they can observe my web traffic out of my EC2 instance and tie it in with my billing information. I don't see how this is a win.
Privacy isn't easy to regain nowadays. If someone publishes your connections to midget furry porn sites, that information is almost impossible to remove, and everyone from then on will be able to find out about your midget furry porn fetish. Your browsing history can hurt you even if it's all legal.
If the science looks really flaky to you, then presumably you have some good explanation as to why smart people who study the subject hard are in agreement, and why this conclusion is supported by many other scientists of varying fields. Perhaps you also have explanations as to why Exxon suppressed its climate change conclusions, rather than discarding them, and why the military and insurance companies are interested. Personally, I think your perception is flaky, but I can't know that for sure without some pretty extensive explanations.
AGW is settled science. Like any other settled science, it can become unsettled again, but approximately nobody's researching whether it's actually happening anymore.
If you read the IPCC report, you will find numerous accounts of bad things that are likely to happen, with degrees of certainty attached. These scientists may in fact be wrong, but they do have ideas. I'm going with the actual scientists rather than a pseudonymous person on the net.
I typically have browsers and other programs running, and will resize the browser window when I need to. At this point, under your ideas, I've invalidated the page until your server recalculates it. Using HTML, no problem.
Because, at some time, somebody's going to have to figure out the best display on my particular browser window. Unless the designer is going to come up with dozens or hundreds of WYSIWIG layouts for the same thing, some computer program is going to have to take some specification and produce an actual display out of it. From the designer's point of view, it doesn't matter that much whether the display is generated on their server or my computer, because although they have more control of their server they still have to let it make up the displays based on specifications of some sort. I'm not saying that HTML is the best answer, but something like it is necessary.
I used to have an iPhone, then an iPhone 4 with the same shape and greater resolution. Then I got a 5S, which has a longer screen of the same width. My brother has a 6, with a generally larger screen. My wife and son have iPads, and there's more than one size and resolution on those. That's five layouts for Apple mobile devices in my nuclear family plus brother. I've also got a large-screen Android tablet, and a laptop and desktop. My son has a laptop of smaller size than mine. My wife has a desktop with a larger monitor than mine, and often uses the TV set as a monitor. That's another five layouts to design just for my nuclear family, under the false assumption that we all will have full-screen browser windows. Is your designer tired of making layouts already? Eager to go on to design a second web page?
There are actual reasons why the Web works as it does, and it's not because web designers user orbital mind control lasers to create a demand for what they do.
You said " Its like a mom or wife that randomly rearranges your room while at work or in the basement.". I said "Also, when I display something on my monitor, it isn't yours. I'm not messing up your room; I'm dealing with your proposals on my monitor.", so that's "what this is intended to communicate.".
Simple content authoring works in cases where the presentation is fixed. If the content has to be read on a variety of different devices, it isn't.
Do you really want the server to have to recalculate every time I change browser window size? Did you want to break caching from the very beginning? HTML was never intended for WYSIWYG. If you need a static document, that's what PDF is for.
Also, when I display something on my monitor, it isn't yours. I'm not messing up your room; I'm dealing with your proposals on my monitor.
If you can't deal with this, get out of web design.
iOS came out without the App Store. It took a while before that was set up. In the meantime, Jobs told people to write HTML apps to be run from Mobile Safari. Your timeline doesn't work.
Your timeline is off. The decision to not support Flash came considerably before the App Store.
iOS didn't come out with a development kit, and it wasn't available for some time. At that time, Jobs told people to design web apps for iOS, which meant no Apple 30% possible. The decision to leave Flash off was much earlier, before Jobs could foresee a good revenue stream from the App Store.
To the best of my ability, my PoV is the correct one.
However, in this case, it doesn't really matter if it is correct or incorrect, since the perception among Mozilla's base is what matters. He was seen as contributing a significant sum of money to suppressing basic rights.
In a considerably different environment, someone who contributed significantly to allow same-sex marriage might find themself unable to be an effective CEO because of the controversy. Politics can be a treacherous thing to get involved in.
In other words, you're disputing the science without providing reasons. The science looks pretty solid to me.
Also, no matter what's warming us up, it would be nice if it stopped and even reversed some. If we can slow it down by producing less CO2, that's a win.
Were that true, I don't think we'd see the Republicans rubber-stamping some of his worst appointees or blocking investigation into Trump's potentially iniquitous actions.
Did NASA let this happen, or did Congress force it on NASA? The way to get a good launch system is to tell someone competent to do it, give that person adequate funding, and let said competent person get the job done. I've never been confident that the purpose of the Senate Launch System was to put anything into space.
The planet will still be here. Humanity is not going to die out. That doesn't mean the results won't be extremely unpleasant.
Why would you make that much money if you could predict climate? The real money would be in predicting weather, which is a separate and much harder problem.
Trees are actually pretty complicated things, and it shouldn't surprise us if some change in their environment would change their behavior. Thermometers are simple things, well understood, and we know the relevant environmental effects. When you've got thermometer readings, use them. If you want temperatures before then, you need to find and use proxies, and they can get complicated. Best to rely on people who study the proxies.
The temperature readings of a given city for a month are insignificant. We're looking at global temperature changes over years or decades.
If you want to complain about that, you're a bit late. It's been going on since we formed governments.
It's also irrelevant, since that isn't what a carbon tax is. It's an attempt to internalize a market externality, and has nothing itself to do with politics (although setting it is a political process). The planet is warming up, and that's true regardless of your politics.
Most of the evidence is statistical, which doesn't make it invalid. Further, if you were a semi-competent scientist, you'd realize that the CO2 you produce is way below the noise level, and doesn't affect anything in a measurable way. The CO2 produced by every car in the US probably does have a measurable impact.
The basic principles can be explained on the back of a cereal box, although not in enough detail to prove that CO2 is causing global warming. You need a lot more data for that, and as it happens scientists have collected far more data than that.
You could try reading some peer-reviewed publications and writing a paper showing why they're all bunk. Then get that published, and you'll be famous. So far, nobody has managed to do that.
Regulation that detailed is almost always counterproductive. A carbon tax will discourage people from buying fuel-inefficient vehicles.
Damn straight. My number one desire for a long time has been faster compiles (number two is usually faster testing). I have no objection to having a test system that's at the low end of what my users have, but I want something I can do real work on.
Pointy-haired boss: "We've decided that a [certain system] is adequate for your use. Besides, how many times are you going to do ray-tracing in your career?"
Dilbert: "Once, if I hurry."
Yeah, and when I've got mine on it amuses people to be standing around my cubicle without me noticing them.
That's not necessarily a lie. I've had it happen twice. Both times it was a real pain because I couldn't debug on my machine.
Now you're hitting one of my sore spots.