Hamas kept a ceasefire in Gaza for nearly two years when the were elected by the Palestinians, Israel responded by moving the goal posts. It's apartheid ME style, neither side shows the slightest bit of humanity to the other or the normal people trapped in between.
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. As the GP said, if plaintiff doesn't want the judge to pursue the WHOLE truth then they can always drop the claim and walk away. The court appointed examiner that actually looks at the material has no dog in the fight, it's their 9-5 job, they will extract what they believe is relevant to the case and will probably have forgotten the rest by lunch time, from that the Judge will decide what is admissible before the defense see it.
The alternative is for the court to automatically give plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to hide evidence that may nullify their claim. The entire western system of justice is based on giving the DEFENDANT the benefit of reasonable doubt by forcing the plaintiff to produce rock solid evidence. So what's the objection again, the material the defense wants the judge to review is in my locked panty draw?
Pretty much everything the defense "alleges" should have no bearing on the case (ex. "Sexually amorous communications with case members," a shirt with the word "CUNT" on it).
Context is important, neither you or I have it, the judge is doing his job properly by making sure he does.
overtly and directly claim that their special knowledge calls for immediate and unending submission of everyone to their directives, or face certain death.
You don't have to submit to their directives, you are free to exit your apartment via the 10th floor window no matter what their "special knowledge" of gravity says.
Stop playing dumb and innocent your not fooling anyone, someone below pointed out the answer was in the comments section of the link you provided. Nobody has disproved SB, they don't need to. I myself have given you the reason why that is so several times in the past couple of years. Listen very, very, carefully this time and try and form an intelligent response. Earth is not an ideal "black body", SB applies ONLY to ideal black bodies. Just to be sure you heard it, here it is again...
Earth is NOT an ideal black body, SB applies ONLY to ideal black bodies.
Now that I have given you the answer (again) I expect a thank-you, or at least a fact based rebuttal.;)
"In TCS Daily, Spencer wrote, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."In the book The Evolution Crisis, Spencer wrote, "I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world. Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer." - Shamelessly cut and paste from WP.
I'm an optimist, I'm waiting for the day you stop linking to lobbyists and religious nutters on this subject.
No, you're "just trolling". If you were "just asking" you would listen to (or at least respond to) the answers you have been given in the past. But that's not what you do, you keep repeating the same discredited claims over and over again like a broken record. Another possibility is that you have a learning disability, but I doubt that since you seem like a rational human being on politically neutral subjects.
It's always been that way, that's the stuff that lasts. Remeber that "Happy Days" was 1950's nostaligia made in the seventies, that's like a nostalgic show today about the 80's. Talking about nostalgia, the first time I saw AC/DC they were playing for free at a local footy oval in the early 70's, I had no idea who they were but I liked them then and still do.
That being said, slippery slope is a warning, not logic, and as a warning, they are valid.
It may be valid for people who rely on "gut instinct" and don't need logic to assess the validity of a particular warning but I like to think of myself as a traditional skeptic and as such belive warnings should have more predictive power than a coin toss and be accompanied by some sort of evidence. I understand that being human means falling (or being pushed) into the "fear of the unknown/unpredictable" trap from time to time, but at least I'm aware the trap exists.
"Gut instinct" - I don't know if there is such a thing outside of subconsious logic and emotion, but it's not impossible to imagine that there is more to it. The nervous system of the human gut is linked to the rest of the nervous system, what's unusual about it is that if all the connecting nerves are cut, the gut can continue to function normally with a fully independent nervous system.
It's both a trademark and a term, the difference can only be determined with something called "context". Being a trademark they have a right to protect their unique mark. Whether you belive in the crusade the trademark stands for is irrelevant, the point is you instinctively know it stands for something. Nobody is forcing that "something" onto anyone, they are setting a standard for those who see value in following it and they are uniquely identifying themselves as the standard bearer via a trademark. It also serves as a warning, those who disagree with what the mark stands for can avoid what you are selling if it does not suit their taste/ideology/manifesto. There are plenty of things to bitch about when considering IP laws, using registered trademarks to identify, promote, and protect a particular standard is not one of them.
We can draw pictures or maybe just point and grunt.
Try some introspection and realise your anger and derision clearly demonstrates that trademarks are not just meaningless doodles, they are symbols that can and do stir powerful emotions in all humans, including you, primative use of marks predate the emergence of civilization. In fact if you take the basic behavioural phenomena of a "personal mark" it predates the emergence of humans. I believe that such universal basic behaviour as the primordial urge to uniquely identify oneself through a mark should be formalised under law as a "natural right" that stops where malicious property and/or reputation damage starts.
there is no benefit to bringing copyright or patents into the coffee business
Copyright would be useful for their marketing material, patents would be useful for inventions such as "instant coffee". The basic problem is not IP, it's the systemic pandering to greed that the US style system has sucessfully promoted on a global scale.
Hell we have hard enough time predicting the weather beyond 5 days in the future.
I think I see why you have trouble understanding the basic science, weather is NOT climate. Climate is the statistics of weather, unlike weather which is mathematically chaotic and is currently impossible to predict more than a few days ahead, climate is extremely stable over human time scales, climate forcings are relatively well understood and lend themselves to finite element analysis in the same way as many other complex natural phenomena are modeled for scientific and engineering purposes.
What leads me to trust these predictions 50 years from now?
A better question to ask is what leads you to doubt "the republic of science" has failed to lead to the best available answer on this particular question, emotion, ignorance, corporate propaganda, intellectual laziness? - There's certainly very little logic in your post and even then is based on a common (and fundamental) misunderstanding that psuedo-skeptics have been exploiting for decades.
One thing you will never hear these scientists say is, "We predict the Earth will warm but honestly we just don't know, it could end up getting cooler."
You hear it all the time, you are just not listening, uncertainty is expresses with something called error bars (as seen in the WP link above), you should learn how to read them because they are quite useful from a risk management POV. For example, the insurance industry has been routinely offsetting the risks identified by climate scientists for the last 10yrs by adding the expected costs to your premiums.
As for TFA, the "4 degrees by 2100" prediction has been widely accepted by climate scientists for over 20yrs and is based on a "business as usual" scenario. The only thing about the prediction that has significantly changed is the certainty of the prediction (ie: the error bars). The scientific advise is to try and limit the increase to 2 degrees to avoid further unnecessary death and destruction.
Replacing the planets energy infrastructure may seem like a herculean task, but my bet is it will happen right under our noses and when it's done people will forget how far we have come (as they have already done with acid rain and pea-soupers). Not a single coal fired plant currently operating on the planet existed when I was born (1959), every one of them has been built (and often rebuilt) in my life-time and they are now much cleaner, but they now also service more people than there were on the entire planet when I was born. I believe science and common sense will prevail and we will adapt our infrastructure rapidly over the next 30-40yrs (the working life of a coal fired generator). Luddite billionaires who continue to deny reality will be left sitting on a worthless coal mines bombarded by negligence lawsuits from anyone with so much as a wheeze.
There is NO SUCH THING as "intellectual property". It's a farce. I, for one, am looking forward to a left-leaning "creative commons"
"Creative commons" is a form of IP.
If there's no such thing as IP then there is no such thing as "creative commons".
If there's no such thing as CC, then your leaning on nothing.
Conclusion: Your lying on the floor, left side down.
That is not what is being proposed, what you have is a slippery slope argument (AKA, logical fallacy). Soooo, what's your solution to the real problem? - By that I mean, if I spend millions advertising "Fair Trade coffee" why should someone who has not spent a penny be able to use my trademark to sell coffee produced by child slaves? How about medical supplies? The problem in Africa with medical supplies is not generic medicine that actually works, it's FAKE medicine in branded packaging, mainly imported from India and China, ie: what could possibly go wrong if a middleman fills the bags with tap water rather than saline solution?
A brand or trademark is basically the same as a signature, it uniquely identifies who to praise/blame. At the end of the day the only reason anyone copies other people's trademark/signature is because their own trademark/signature is worthless. Why is it worthless? - Could it be because they have not invested the effort required to make it worth something?
Do people who issue trademarks make bad decisions? Sure, I'm still pissed we allowed the Yanks to trademark "Ugg Boots" in the 90's when small Aussie businesses had been commonly advertising sheep skin boots as "Ugg Boots" for at least 20yrs. However poor decisions by themselves do not invalidate the basic premise that I have a "natural right"* to my mark as something that uniquely identifies who I am and what I do. The ingredients and service you get with my espresso in my (imaginary) cafe may be exactly the same thing as the guy next door, but that's not the point. The point (and the moral) is that you should not pretend to be someone or something that you are not, from a purely moral POV using someone else's trademark is clearly fraudulent behaviour.
* - Natural right: As in, a dog has a natural right (and urge) to mark a tree in a way that makes the owner of the mark crystal clear to all other dogs who visit that tree.
The Aussie government is pretty much ALWAYS a coalition government since parliment is made up of at least four main parities that form two main colations, ie: (Labor + Green) vs (Liberal + National). The names of the minor coalition partners change from time to time, but no Aussie political party can win by standing alone. Implementing "the will of the people" is parliment's job, the PM is not a king, in fact that's the whole point of the Westminster system is that parliment (as opposed to the government, the monarchy, or the church) trumps the wishes of any and every individual. If you think being "in power" actually gives you the power to do whatever you want then you have not been paying attention and do not understand the fundamentals of politics.
Slashdot Mirror
Agree with everything you say, but also recognise the vast bulk gets to where it is needed.
Hamas kept a ceasefire in Gaza for nearly two years when the were elected by the Palestinians, Israel responded by moving the goal posts. It's apartheid ME style, neither side shows the slightest bit of humanity to the other or the normal people trapped in between.
You're right, I don't understand what you're saying, to me it's complete nonsense. "Not even wrong" as they say...
I think you've missed an important detail in the story, can't quite put my finger on it....
The alternative is for the court to automatically give plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to hide evidence that may nullify their claim. The entire western system of justice is based on giving the DEFENDANT the benefit of reasonable doubt by forcing the plaintiff to produce rock solid evidence. So what's the objection again, the material the defense wants the judge to review is in my locked panty draw?
Pretty much everything the defense "alleges" should have no bearing on the case (ex. "Sexually amorous communications with case members," a shirt with the word "CUNT" on it).
Context is important, neither you or I have it, the judge is doing his job properly by making sure he does.
It's like wrestling on the sci-fi channel. Yes, technically it is fantasy, but it just feels wrong.
Unless it's Captain Kirk wrestling with a sexy blue alien, that IS wrong, but it feels so right.
overtly and directly claim that their special knowledge calls for immediate and unending submission of everyone to their directives, or face certain death.
You don't have to submit to their directives, you are free to exit your apartment via the 10th floor window no matter what their "special knowledge" of gravity says.
Since when I have I endorsed either lobbyists or religious whackos?
Not sure, at least a couple of years, but whenever it was it was a long time before the endorsement I just replied to.
Are you sure you have the right person?
Yep. Although I have to admit you often decline to reveal your sources at all, even when called on it.
Stop playing dumb and innocent your not fooling anyone, someone below pointed out the answer was in the comments section of the link you provided. Nobody has disproved SB, they don't need to. I myself have given you the reason why that is so several times in the past couple of years. Listen very, very, carefully this time and try and form an intelligent response. Earth is not an ideal "black body", SB applies ONLY to ideal black bodies. Just to be sure you heard it, here it is again...
;)
Earth is NOT an ideal black body, SB applies ONLY to ideal black bodies.
Now that I have given you the answer (again) I expect a thank-you, or at least a fact based rebuttal.
Yeah right, the world bank and the pentagon are a bunch of hippies.
The same ones who are just as skeptical as a Republican congressman, but just happen to be playing for the other side?
Are you really so naive that you genuinely believe scientists and politicians are playing the same game?
Just for reference"
"In TCS Daily, Spencer wrote, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."In the book The Evolution Crisis, Spencer wrote, "I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world. Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer." - Shamelessly cut and paste from WP.
I'm an optimist, I'm waiting for the day you stop linking to lobbyists and religious nutters on this subject.
Just asking.
No, you're "just trolling". If you were "just asking" you would listen to (or at least respond to) the answers you have been given in the past. But that's not what you do, you keep repeating the same discredited claims over and over again like a broken record. Another possibility is that you have a learning disability, but I doubt that since you seem like a rational human being on politically neutral subjects.
I'm 53 FFS, who the fuck are Gwar?
There is "some" good coming out
It's always been that way, that's the stuff that lasts. Remeber that "Happy Days" was 1950's nostaligia made in the seventies, that's like a nostalgic show today about the 80's. Talking about nostalgia, the first time I saw AC/DC they were playing for free at a local footy oval in the early 70's, I had no idea who they were but I liked them then and still do.
nothing gets bogans moving faster.
"It's a long way to the shop if you want a sausage roll".
Nobody, but me and little woman think it's amusing.
That being said, slippery slope is a warning, not logic, and as a warning, they are valid.
It may be valid for people who rely on "gut instinct" and don't need logic to assess the validity of a particular warning but I like to think of myself as a traditional skeptic and as such belive warnings should have more predictive power than a coin toss and be accompanied by some sort of evidence. I understand that being human means falling (or being pushed) into the "fear of the unknown/unpredictable" trap from time to time, but at least I'm aware the trap exists.
"Gut instinct" - I don't know if there is such a thing outside of subconsious logic and emotion, but it's not impossible to imagine that there is more to it. The nervous system of the human gut is linked to the rest of the nervous system, what's unusual about it is that if all the connecting nerves are cut, the gut can continue to function normally with a fully independent nervous system.
Is 'Fair Trade' a term or a trademark?
It's both a trademark and a term, the difference can only be determined with something called "context". Being a trademark they have a right to protect their unique mark. Whether you belive in the crusade the trademark stands for is irrelevant, the point is you instinctively know it stands for something. Nobody is forcing that "something" onto anyone, they are setting a standard for those who see value in following it and they are uniquely identifying themselves as the standard bearer via a trademark. It also serves as a warning, those who disagree with what the mark stands for can avoid what you are selling if it does not suit their taste/ideology/manifesto. There are plenty of things to bitch about when considering IP laws, using registered trademarks to identify, promote, and protect a particular standard is not one of them.
We can draw pictures or maybe just point and grunt.
Try some introspection and realise your anger and derision clearly demonstrates that trademarks are not just meaningless doodles, they are symbols that can and do stir powerful emotions in all humans, including you, primative use of marks predate the emergence of civilization. In fact if you take the basic behavioural phenomena of a "personal mark" it predates the emergence of humans. I believe that such universal basic behaviour as the primordial urge to uniquely identify oneself through a mark should be formalised under law as a "natural right" that stops where malicious property and/or reputation damage starts.
there is no benefit to bringing copyright or patents into the coffee business
Copyright would be useful for their marketing material, patents would be useful for inventions such as "instant coffee". The basic problem is not IP, it's the systemic pandering to greed that the US style system has sucessfully promoted on a global scale.
Hell we have hard enough time predicting the weather beyond 5 days in the future.
I think I see why you have trouble understanding the basic science, weather is NOT climate. Climate is the statistics of weather, unlike weather which is mathematically chaotic and is currently impossible to predict more than a few days ahead, climate is extremely stable over human time scales, climate forcings are relatively well understood and lend themselves to finite element analysis in the same way as many other complex natural phenomena are modeled for scientific and engineering purposes.
What leads me to trust these predictions 50 years from now?
A better question to ask is what leads you to doubt "the republic of science" has failed to lead to the best available answer on this particular question, emotion, ignorance, corporate propaganda, intellectual laziness? - There's certainly very little logic in your post and even then is based on a common (and fundamental) misunderstanding that psuedo-skeptics have been exploiting for decades.
One thing you will never hear these scientists say is, "We predict the Earth will warm but honestly we just don't know, it could end up getting cooler."
You hear it all the time, you are just not listening, uncertainty is expresses with something called error bars (as seen in the WP link above), you should learn how to read them because they are quite useful from a risk management POV. For example, the insurance industry has been routinely offsetting the risks identified by climate scientists for the last 10yrs by adding the expected costs to your premiums.
As for TFA, the "4 degrees by 2100" prediction has been widely accepted by climate scientists for over 20yrs and is based on a "business as usual" scenario. The only thing about the prediction that has significantly changed is the certainty of the prediction (ie: the error bars). The scientific advise is to try and limit the increase to 2 degrees to avoid further unnecessary death and destruction.
Replacing the planets energy infrastructure may seem like a herculean task, but my bet is it will happen right under our noses and when it's done people will forget how far we have come (as they have already done with acid rain and pea-soupers). Not a single coal fired plant currently operating on the planet existed when I was born (1959), every one of them has been built (and often rebuilt) in my life-time and they are now much cleaner, but they now also service more people than there were on the entire planet when I was born. I believe science and common sense will prevail and we will adapt our infrastructure rapidly over the next 30-40yrs (the working life of a coal fired generator). Luddite billionaires who continue to deny reality will be left sitting on a worthless coal mines bombarded by negligence lawsuits from anyone with so much as a wheeze.
There is NO SUCH THING as "intellectual property". It's a farce. I, for one, am looking forward to a left-leaning "creative commons"
"Creative commons" is a form of IP.
If there's no such thing as IP then there is no such thing as "creative commons".
If there's no such thing as CC, then your leaning on nothing.
Conclusion: Your lying on the floor, left side down.
That is not what is being proposed, what you have is a slippery slope argument (AKA, logical fallacy). Soooo, what's your solution to the real problem? - By that I mean, if I spend millions advertising "Fair Trade coffee" why should someone who has not spent a penny be able to use my trademark to sell coffee produced by child slaves? How about medical supplies? The problem in Africa with medical supplies is not generic medicine that actually works, it's FAKE medicine in branded packaging, mainly imported from India and China, ie: what could possibly go wrong if a middleman fills the bags with tap water rather than saline solution?
A brand or trademark is basically the same as a signature, it uniquely identifies who to praise/blame. At the end of the day the only reason anyone copies other people's trademark/signature is because their own trademark/signature is worthless. Why is it worthless? - Could it be because they have not invested the effort required to make it worth something?
Do people who issue trademarks make bad decisions? Sure, I'm still pissed we allowed the Yanks to trademark "Ugg Boots" in the 90's when small Aussie businesses had been commonly advertising sheep skin boots as "Ugg Boots" for at least 20yrs. However poor decisions by themselves do not invalidate the basic premise that I have a "natural right"* to my mark as something that uniquely identifies who I am and what I do. The ingredients and service you get with my espresso in my (imaginary) cafe may be exactly the same thing as the guy next door, but that's not the point. The point (and the moral) is that you should not pretend to be someone or something that you are not, from a purely moral POV using someone else's trademark is clearly fraudulent behaviour.
* - Natural right: As in, a dog has a natural right (and urge) to mark a tree in a way that makes the owner of the mark crystal clear to all other dogs who visit that tree.
The Aussie government is pretty much ALWAYS a coalition government since parliment is made up of at least four main parities that form two main colations, ie: (Labor + Green) vs (Liberal + National). The names of the minor coalition partners change from time to time, but no Aussie political party can win by standing alone. Implementing "the will of the people" is parliment's job, the PM is not a king, in fact that's the whole point of the Westminster system is that parliment (as opposed to the government, the monarchy, or the church) trumps the wishes of any and every individual. If you think being "in power" actually gives you the power to do whatever you want then you have not been paying attention and do not understand the fundamentals of politics.
How about looking up the definition of "summary", the fact that it is a "summary" removes the possibility of plagerisim.