"the people in a checkpoint line are far more densely packed than people on a plane" - You're either joking or travelling first class but I agree the security line is a sitting duck.
"The only choices available are (1) accept one of the various identical contracts, or (2) never be a publicly known musician."
Yes, that's the standard recording industry sales pitch. However if it were true then it implies the Beatles were not "publicly known" until 1962 and could not found their own record company six years later.
Option (3): If you want to be a billionare rock star like Paul McCartney or Elton John then you need to work at getting "publiclly known" before you get to sign a contract on your terms and become an "overnight sensation".
I don't know about the Canadian GG but the Aussie GG does not have the power to strike down laws. He (she actually) only has the power to sack the government in the specific case where a double dissolution deadlocks parliment to a point where it is incapable of financing the new law and the government of the day refuses to either back down, or hold an election to break the deadlock. Even in those specific cirumstances it depends on who sacks who first since the government of the day also has the power to sack the GG. (re:Whitlam vs Kerr).
I suppose that technically the GG could refuse to give royal accent to the new law but in that case the government of the day could simply sack the GG and appoint someone more cooperative.
If an artist signs away their work without understanding the fine print then it's poor judgement on their part. If a record company routinely fails to honour contracts by witholding royalties then they are a criminal organisation.
I can see it now, people being put on the sex offenders register for saying things like "suck my balls"
Is that something you're likely to say?
IMO "suck my balls" sounds like something a child would say from the saftey of their basement. My children are 28 and 23, they seem to have grown out of the childish insult phase.
The first record player I owned was a valve system from the early 50's with one giant 20inch speaker. Someone had thrown it out simply because one valve had blown (yes I was a geek even when I was 8yrs old). However I spent my teenage years listening to vinyl with a "top of the range system" using those giant headphones that were popular in the 70's. Perhaps it's the modern speakers or the electronics, but for whatever reason my old vinyl system would not hold a candle to the Bose stereo that came with the last car I bought.
PS: Not anti-audiophile, people like what they like, simple as that.
"Oh, Lordy, no replies to this so I'll be the one to go through it."
Thanks, I didn't bother to go through it because I asked for examples of code not examples of programmer frustration. I have great sympathy for the guy, I once worked on merging national and local address databases from various authorities for a telco in Australia. The project involving ~50 programmers and testers had been running for 2yrs when I started, it was still going when I left six months later.
"Because some of what Watts has reported has been simply contradicted by the people who did the original research doesn't mean that a compelling rebuttal has been presented."
Here is a short video detailing the lenghts that NOAA went to to debunk Watts. I'm not sure what Watts objected to in the video that made him abuse the DCMA in an attempt to remove it
Perhaps it's the fact that it notes NOAA took Watt's 70 cherry picked stations, re-ran their analysis and found no sinificant change?
"Is there anybody who doesn't sing from the RealClimate song sheet that you consider listening to?"
I'm listening (and responding) to you as I have in the past but so far you are not making a great deal of sense. Perhaps if you applied some of the self-skepticisim you seem to think I lack your argument would improve, ie: grit your teeth and spent the 8min to watch the video all the way to the end.
Thanks for the link, note the headline on the report includes the caveat "some". Here is a link supporting my claim from a similarly reputable source, note the conclusions are derived from observations not modelling. The WP entry on ocean acidification is also quite informative and includes a number of references. Also the ocean has been acidic in the distant past, softbodied animals dominated during those periods.
Finally I quote from your link - "“The oceans absorb much of the CO2 that we release to the atmosphere,” Ries says. However, he warns that this natural buffer may ultimately come at a great cost.
“It’s hard to predict the overall net effect on benthic marine ecosystems," he says. “In the short term, I would guess that the net effect will be negative. In the long term, ecosystems could re-stabilize at a new steady state.
“The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in the atmosphere.”"
What Yahoo is complaining about is the inavsion of it's privacy, but they can't call it that. The last thing they want is customers pointing out they should be ashamed of thier hypocracy.
"Er, why do you care about Watts' motives? Aren't the points raised on his site serious enough to merit consideration?"
When they were new they did merit consideration (see: McKyntre,et al), however it's now clearly disingenious to say they haven't been considered and debunked in the litrature.
In other words, the widely debunked points on his web site make me wonder about his motivation for keeping them up. IMO his strong connections to those particular lobbyists goes a long way to explaining his motivations.
But the kicker is he is claiming that the globe is cooling to the US senate based on temprature records he has long claimed are virtually useless.
So which is Mr Watts? Is the temprature record crap or is there a cooling trend? - logic dictates you can't have it both ways.
Slashdot Mirror
"Plain and simple, kiss your bosses ass. If your lucky enough to be liked..."
Rubbish, be yourself. If you're an arse kisser then kiss arse, if not then don't.
...is that typical? Here in Oz the federally mandated minimum hourly rate for any worker is roughly $12.50US/hr.
"the people in a checkpoint line are far more densely packed than people on a plane" - You're either joking or travelling first class but I agree the security line is a sitting duck.
Yeah, I'm proud of my kids. Judging by your immature post I doubt you are old enough to have any.
"The only choices available are (1) accept one of the various identical contracts, or (2) never be a publicly known musician."
Yes, that's the standard recording industry sales pitch. However if it were true then it implies the Beatles were not "publicly known" until 1962 and could not found their own record company six years later.
Option (3): If you want to be a billionare rock star like Paul McCartney or Elton John then you need to work at getting "publiclly known" before you get to sign a contract on your terms and become an "overnight sensation".
I don't know about the Canadian GG but the Aussie GG does not have the power to strike down laws. He (she actually) only has the power to sack the government in the specific case where a double dissolution deadlocks parliment to a point where it is incapable of financing the new law and the government of the day refuses to either back down, or hold an election to break the deadlock. Even in those specific cirumstances it depends on who sacks who first since the government of the day also has the power to sack the GG. (re:Whitlam vs Kerr).
I suppose that technically the GG could refuse to give royal accent to the new law but in that case the government of the day could simply sack the GG and appoint someone more cooperative.
If an artist signs away their work without understanding the fine print then it's poor judgement on their part. If a record company routinely fails to honour contracts by witholding royalties then they are a criminal organisation.
Yeah right, my grandchild was an immaculate conception.
Actually I'm on the other side of the Pacific or Indian depending which way you go round, but the translation is still correct.
"New" to this old dog.
Banning kids from the internet is akin to banning kids from books and toys. I say we ban the "think of the children" wankers.
Is that something you're likely to say?
IMO "suck my balls" sounds like something a child would say from the saftey of their basement. My children are 28 and 23, they seem to have grown out of the childish insult phase.
Thanks jcr, it's not the first time you have shown this old fart something new. :)
You can keep your new fangled wax cylinder, give me Bach on a harpsichord.
"I've always thought that people buy vinyl because it's just a bit more romantic. Or they're fucking idiots."
I'm an old fart, I thought dance DJ's used vinyl so they could put their finger on the record and make it go wuka-wuka-wuka.
The first record player I owned was a valve system from the early 50's with one giant 20inch speaker. Someone had thrown it out simply because one valve had blown (yes I was a geek even when I was 8yrs old). However I spent my teenage years listening to vinyl with a "top of the range system" using those giant headphones that were popular in the 70's. Perhaps it's the modern speakers or the electronics, but for whatever reason my old vinyl system would not hold a candle to the Bose stereo that came with the last car I bought.
PS: Not anti-audiophile, people like what they like, simple as that.
"Oh, Lordy, no replies to this so I'll be the one to go through it."
Thanks, I didn't bother to go through it because I asked for examples of code not examples of programmer frustration. I have great sympathy for the guy, I once worked on merging national and local address databases from various authorities for a telco in Australia. The project involving ~50 programmers and testers had been running for 2yrs when I started, it was still going when I left six months later.
"Because some of what Watts has reported has been simply contradicted by the people who did the original research doesn't mean that a compelling rebuttal has been presented."
Here is a short video detailing the lenghts that NOAA went to to debunk Watts. I'm not sure what Watts objected to in the video that made him abuse the DCMA in an attempt to remove it
Perhaps it's the fact that it notes NOAA took Watt's 70 cherry picked stations, re-ran their analysis and found no sinificant change?
"Is there anybody who doesn't sing from the RealClimate song sheet that you consider listening to?"
I'm listening (and responding) to you as I have in the past but so far you are not making a great deal of sense. Perhaps if you applied some of the self-skepticisim you seem to think I lack your argument would improve, ie: grit your teeth and spent the 8min to watch the video all the way to the end.
Reminds me of the old joke: Women are animal lovers, they want a Jaguar in the garage, a tiger in the bedroom, and a jack-ass to pay for it all.
Thanks for the link, note the headline on the report includes the caveat "some". Here is a link supporting my claim from a similarly reputable source, note the conclusions are derived from observations not modelling. The WP entry on ocean acidification is also quite informative and includes a number of references. Also the ocean has been acidic in the distant past, softbodied animals dominated during those periods.
Finally I quote from your link - "“The oceans absorb much of the CO2 that we release to the atmosphere,” Ries says. However, he warns that this natural buffer may ultimately come at a great cost. “It’s hard to predict the overall net effect on benthic marine ecosystems," he says. “In the short term, I would guess that the net effect will be negative. In the long term, ecosystems could re-stabilize at a new steady state. “The bottom line is that we really need to bring down CO2 levels in the atmosphere.”"
What Yahoo is complaining about is the inavsion of it's privacy, but they can't call it that. The last thing they want is customers pointing out they should be ashamed of thier hypocracy.
And why do you care so much? I certainly don't care that american's keep a pistol under their pillow. Your country, your rules.
I have no idea wether he was joking or not. What is important is not what he said, but how he acted.
"Er, why do you care about Watts' motives? Aren't the points raised on his site serious enough to merit consideration?"
When they were new they did merit consideration (see: McKyntre,et al), however it's now clearly disingenious to say they haven't been considered and debunked in the litrature.
In other words, the widely debunked points on his web site make me wonder about his motivation for keeping them up. IMO his strong connections to those particular lobbyists goes a long way to explaining his motivations.
But the kicker is he is claiming that the globe is cooling to the US senate based on temprature records he has long claimed are virtually useless.
So which is Mr Watts? Is the temprature record crap or is there a cooling trend? - logic dictates you can't have it both ways.
You have a good point about examples, AGW is much more difficult to point to in everyday life.