The same is still true in Australia, downloading is not illegal, it has to be that way since every page on the internet is copyrighted by default. This is a (proposed) private agreement between two industry groups to scare downloaders with idle threats. It has no legal teeth with which it can bite downloaders, it has no provision to cut people off, and has nothing to do with the government.
Or, maybe the summary and TFA goofed their terminology.
No, TFA wasn't an accident, they use that terminology deliberately to give the impression downloading is illegal. I know it's shocking, people lie to journalists who take everything at face value.
Why not simply REQUIRE the reductions where technically possible (forget about 'cost efficiency') and update the requirements as new technology arrives.
1. Because it is disconnected from the physical limits of the environment.
2. Because it would require a myriad of standards, each one of which will be twisted by it's fight with industry. (ie: it makes "divide and conquer" an obvious strategy for industry)
I'm not saying that standards enforced by law are a bad thing, I just don't think they're the best solution to such a broad problem. In the early 90's Reagan was proud to be a leading supporter of the international cap and trade treaty that is now in place for sulphur emission. As usual, economic alarmists of the day all started screaming about an economic apocalypse. The treaty was signed by most industrial nations, the economic apocalypse failed to materialise and acid rain has gone away as a major environmental problem. As you say this is how it always goes, at least it has been in the 50yrs I've been watching. Some other examples are, lead in petrol, asbestos, clean air act(s), DDT, tobacco health warnings, the list is long and the propaganda on every one of these issues from industry has been without exception utterly immoral.
International cap and trade treaties are by far the best long term solution to AGW and many other tragedies of the commons (such as overfishing)...
Cap - Because there is time dependent physical limit to the resource.
Trade - Because capitalist markets are the most efficient way to distribute a finite resource.
The size of the cap is the only detail that is rightfully determined by science, the rest of the detail is politics and accounting. Will greed and fraud occur? - Of course, it does everywhere else.
The World Trade center was just a civilian office building with perhaps a high concentration of financial firms due to it's location. The idea that it should be elevated to "legitimate military target" for "command and control" purposes is just retarded. It sounds like something that's the product of a certain form of mindless political bias.
The attacks were more symbolic than physical, they targeted the Political, military, and economic HQ's of their enemy. If you can't see that as "command and control" then it's your bias that is the problem. Each attack is unique in the endless tit-for-tat cycle of violence, most are forgotten by the general public within days. The coordinated 9/11 attacks gave the US a symbolic black-eye with a king hit in broad daylight, it was so far from legitimate that most of humanity was literally dumbstruck for a while.
In other words the definition of "legitimate military target" is purely in the eye of the surviving beholder. This is where the bias you speak of has crept into your post.
Do you really see the WTC as an attack on industrial infrastructure?
The targets were the Whitehouse (failed), the Pentagon and the WTC which taken together can easily be interpreted as a direct and highly symbolic attack on their enemies political, military, and economic HQ. I think the symbolism in the targets is precisely why the 911 attacks terrorised the establishment, whereas the reaction to previous attacks had been to fire a couple of cruise missiles at some obscure cult camped in an equally obscure third world hell hole.
There's no government bill so no rights are being taken away here, the senator is just exercising HIS free speech right to make a himself look impotent and foolish. However I don't think politicians are stupid so it's probably safe to assume he sees a potential reward for embarrassing himself, my bet is he's trying to impress a potential sponsor who has asked him to "raise the issue".
Carlin's central point is "The Earth's fine, it's the people who are fucked", which is a nice summary of what climate scientists have been saying for at least 20yrs.
More seriously, I think Reagan was informed on the subject by the Iron Lady, she was a trained chemist (Oxford) and was banging on about AWG way back in the 80's.
The universal reason for an abortion is an "unwanted child", why does the reason it is unwanted matter? Why do we question the motivations behind abortion, but not other forms of contraception?
There are a bazillion reasons why the parent doesn't want the kid, and most of them have nothing to do with health, they include such reasons as; "I don't want stretch marks", "I can't afford it", "I would need a bigger car", and "I can't afford a girl". Once you start requiring people to state a "legitimate" reason for not wanting the child, you turn some simple but controversial yes/no legislation into a minefield of legal "what if's". The end result being that even relatively stupid people will just pick a reason from the "legitimate" list and lie, thus burying any hard evidence of "gender bigotry" or "gender economics".
Besides, we have our own glass house of cultural absurdities, eg: google "circumcision deaths", now think that "serious complications" is probably 10X that number, we can't blame economics for that one so, "gender bigotry" it is!
It was a member of the IPCC who picked up the error, a bit late maybe, but still the process caught it. The IPCC is nothing more than a giant peer-review process, the reports they write are their evidence and summaries and are generally conservative in their statements due to the difficulty of getting a large number of experts to agree.Their budget is ~$5M/yr soureced from hundreds of nations of all political colours, the money is spent mainly on conference rooms and planes, no scientist is paid a dime by the IPCC for their work on the reports. I cannot think of another scientific question that has been put to such a rigorous bullshit filter. The remarkably small number of real errors that have found their way into the final reports over the last 20yrs is a testament to their accuracy. The 90,000 review comments and answers for their last set of reports are also available somewhere on the site..
The whole "1970's ice age" thing is based on a half truth and misdirection. Before Nixon's clean air act it was a bit of a toss up between warming from GHG's and cooling from aerosols (mainly sulphur that was also causing acid rain). Regan permanently fixed the sulphur problem with a cap and trade system in the early 90's, so now it's mostly warming from GHG's but still a bit of short term cooling from smog. This graph shows the best guesstimates of various forgings.
The government is not corrupted by capitalism, capitalism has been corrupted by the government.
From where I stand that ideological divide is the only real difference between the Tea Party and OWS. The Who said "we won't get fooled again", but to me the whole thing is like a 1970's flashback, various groups of myopic radicals who achieve nothing because they're too busy attacking strawmen of each other.
"Politics is the art of compromise", the western world may be far from perfect now but it's a whole lot better than it would be if ANY of these uncompromising ideologies of blame and ignorance somehow managed to seize real power.
Kruschev actually, but the comparison is still an informative one. To me the rise of both the TP and OWS says that people are angry at the status quo but have no idea how to articulate their grievances into a coherent message that resonates with the rest of us. It's a lot like an internet argument where one side blames everything on government conspiracies while the other blames corporate conspiracies, and everyone else just ignores them.
If either group were to take one specific issue at a time then society may slowly change the status quo for the better (as it has done so in my 50yr lifetime), but a full blown revolution requires that an existing society must be torn down before it can be replaced.
What kind of animal allows another animal that's 1/10 of its weight to hop on its back and make it follow orders, with only a small whip to use for enforcement?
An Elephant, but if you push it too far it will crush you like a grape.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, maybe the summary and TFA goofed their terminology.
No, TFA wasn't an accident, they use that terminology deliberately to give the impression downloading is illegal. I know it's shocking, people lie to journalists who take everything at face value.
The fact you don't mind being scammed is irrelevant to everyone else. It's still fraud, in particular "bait and switch" style fraud.
I'll have you know I was eating squid stuffed with dungfish gonads WAY before it became trendy!
I would be interested to see 'inorganic' vegetables..
Stone fruit?
Why not simply REQUIRE the reductions where technically possible (forget about 'cost efficiency') and update the requirements as new technology arrives.
1. Because it is disconnected from the physical limits of the environment.
2. Because it would require a myriad of standards, each one of which will be twisted by it's fight with industry. (ie: it makes "divide and conquer" an obvious strategy for industry)
I'm not saying that standards enforced by law are a bad thing, I just don't think they're the best solution to such a broad problem. In the early 90's Reagan was proud to be a leading supporter of the international cap and trade treaty that is now in place for sulphur emission. As usual, economic alarmists of the day all started screaming about an economic apocalypse. The treaty was signed by most industrial nations, the economic apocalypse failed to materialise and acid rain has gone away as a major environmental problem. As you say this is how it always goes, at least it has been in the 50yrs I've been watching. Some other examples are, lead in petrol, asbestos, clean air act(s), DDT, tobacco health warnings, the list is long and the propaganda on every one of these issues from industry has been without exception utterly immoral.
International cap and trade treaties are by far the best long term solution to AGW and many other tragedies of the commons (such as overfishing)...
Cap - Because there is time dependent physical limit to the resource.
Trade - Because capitalist markets are the most efficient way to distribute a finite resource.
The size of the cap is the only detail that is rightfully determined by science, the rest of the detail is politics and accounting. Will greed and fraud occur? - Of course, it does everywhere else.
- shakes puny fist - Wheeeeeeatooooooonnnnnn!!!!!
Will a coal mine survive in the Canaries..?
+5 Funny.
The World Trade center was just a civilian office building with perhaps a high concentration of financial firms due to it's location. The idea that it should be elevated to "legitimate military target" for "command and control" purposes is just retarded. It sounds like something that's the product of a certain form of mindless political bias.
The attacks were more symbolic than physical, they targeted the Political, military, and economic HQ's of their enemy. If you can't see that as "command and control" then it's your bias that is the problem. Each attack is unique in the endless tit-for-tat cycle of violence, most are forgotten by the general public within days. The coordinated 9/11 attacks gave the US a symbolic black-eye with a king hit in broad daylight, it was so far from legitimate that most of humanity was literally dumbstruck for a while.
In other words the definition of "legitimate military target" is purely in the eye of the surviving beholder. This is where the bias you speak of has crept into your post.
Do you really see the WTC as an attack on industrial infrastructure?
The targets were the Whitehouse (failed), the Pentagon and the WTC which taken together can easily be interpreted as a direct and highly symbolic attack on their enemies political, military, and economic HQ. I think the symbolism in the targets is precisely why the 911 attacks terrorised the establishment, whereas the reaction to previous attacks had been to fire a couple of cruise missiles at some obscure cult camped in an equally obscure third world hell hole.
There's no government bill so no rights are being taken away here, the senator is just exercising HIS free speech right to make a himself look impotent and foolish. However I don't think politicians are stupid so it's probably safe to assume he sees a potential reward for embarrassing himself, my bet is he's trying to impress a potential sponsor who has asked him to "raise the issue".
Just press the button that's for buying something and a real person will appear almost instantaneously.
"Life doesn't debug" - missed the Darwin memo, eh?
Have you been cleared of beating your wife?
The proof that the 30% increased in CO2 concentrations is from burning FF's is found in the ratio of C12 to C13 isotopes in the CO2.
Carlin's central point is "The Earth's fine, it's the people who are fucked", which is a nice summary of what climate scientists have been saying for at least 20yrs.
No,No,NO!.This is the smoking iceberg that fires a polar bear of truth between the eyes of hysteria and communism..
Heh, that's why I love that bit of trivia :)
More seriously, I think Reagan was informed on the subject by the Iron Lady, she was a trained chemist (Oxford) and was banging on about AWG way back in the 80's.
The universal reason for an abortion is an "unwanted child", why does the reason it is unwanted matter? Why do we question the motivations behind abortion, but not other forms of contraception?
There are a bazillion reasons why the parent doesn't want the kid, and most of them have nothing to do with health, they include such reasons as; "I don't want stretch marks", "I can't afford it", "I would need a bigger car", and "I can't afford a girl". Once you start requiring people to state a "legitimate" reason for not wanting the child, you turn some simple but controversial yes/no legislation into a minefield of legal "what if's". The end result being that even relatively stupid people will just pick a reason from the "legitimate" list and lie, thus burying any hard evidence of "gender bigotry" or "gender economics".
Besides, we have our own glass house of cultural absurdities, eg: google "circumcision deaths", now think that "serious complications" is probably 10X that number, we can't blame economics for that one so, "gender bigotry" it is!
Limbo dancing.
It was a member of the IPCC who picked up the error, a bit late maybe, but still the process caught it. The IPCC is nothing more than a giant peer-review process, the reports they write are their evidence and summaries and are generally conservative in their statements due to the difficulty of getting a large number of experts to agree.Their budget is ~$5M/yr soureced from hundreds of nations of all political colours, the money is spent mainly on conference rooms and planes, no scientist is paid a dime by the IPCC for their work on the reports. I cannot think of another scientific question that has been put to such a rigorous bullshit filter. The remarkably small number of real errors that have found their way into the final reports over the last 20yrs is a testament to their accuracy. The 90,000 review comments and answers for their last set of reports are also available somewhere on the site..
The whole "1970's ice age" thing is based on a half truth and misdirection. Before Nixon's clean air act it was a bit of a toss up between warming from GHG's and cooling from aerosols (mainly sulphur that was also causing acid rain). Regan permanently fixed the sulphur problem with a cap and trade system in the early 90's, so now it's mostly warming from GHG's but still a bit of short term cooling from smog. This graph shows the best guesstimates of various forgings.
You mean the acid rain that was stopped by Reagan's cap and trade treaty on sulphur emissions?
The government is not corrupted by capitalism, capitalism has been corrupted by the government.
From where I stand that ideological divide is the only real difference between the Tea Party and OWS. The Who said "we won't get fooled again", but to me the whole thing is like a 1970's flashback, various groups of myopic radicals who achieve nothing because they're too busy attacking strawmen of each other.
"Politics is the art of compromise", the western world may be far from perfect now but it's a whole lot better than it would be if ANY of these uncompromising ideologies of blame and ignorance somehow managed to seize real power.
"useful idiots" (ala Stalin).
Kruschev actually, but the comparison is still an informative one. To me the rise of both the TP and OWS says that people are angry at the status quo but have no idea how to articulate their grievances into a coherent message that resonates with the rest of us. It's a lot like an internet argument where one side blames everything on government conspiracies while the other blames corporate conspiracies, and everyone else just ignores them.
If either group were to take one specific issue at a time then society may slowly change the status quo for the better (as it has done so in my 50yr lifetime), but a full blown revolution requires that an existing society must be torn down before it can be replaced.
What kind of animal allows another animal that's 1/10 of its weight to hop on its back and make it follow orders, with only a small whip to use for enforcement?
An Elephant, but if you push it too far it will crush you like a grape.