The expression says: you cannot step twice into the same river, not because the river is flowing past you. The Mississippi, the Red, the Nile -- they're the same, however YOU are not. You are not the same person you were when you last stepped in. The same reason you can't go home again (and of course, literally, you can). It's intro philosophy.
And of course you can experience the same emotion again. Memories are not emotions. Experiences are not emotions. Emotions are emotions. You're talking about intensity of emotions, and if a subsequent time isn't as intense (say, falling in love a second time) because of the repetition, there's nothing stopping the second one from being that much more intense, or the same intensity, for that matter. Yes, yes, "different" because it's someone else, la de da. But let's not let sentimentality obsure the meanings of words.
but could a person who had sufficient knowledge of the program(s) build a large document (say, the giant 9/11 intelligence-failure doc mentioned in the article) so as to fool the text-miners? Subtle misinformation -- let's say that widespread use of text miners results in larger docs being published, then unscrupulous types bury information in such a way that a ridiculously long human endeavour will turn them up, but the programs won't, so those responsible can say: "See? It's all in there. Your program is at fault."
It could be bad...
but hard to imagine it being worse than the Brit version from a few years back. Never realized how something so funny in print can become so painfully unfunny on the screen
Bingo! It seems an obvious point, but was wondering when someone was going to say it.
For the great majority of the people I see, music is fashion. At one time, pop culture meant talking about books everyone was reading. Later that became movies -- it wasn't so often you'd start chatting with someone and find they'd read the same book (unless you spotted them reading it and stopped to chat) but everyone had seen, say, Star Wars . Later, sadly, the most common denominators of culture seemed to become some episode of M*A*S*H* that everyone had seen, or reciting the lines of Holy Grail ad absurdum. Pop music simply continues that trend. "Oh, you don't have their newest CD?! It's great!" (but ten months from now I'll never admit to listening to them at all) To those vast legions, stating the obvious (eg: they sound like everybody else; why don't you try ___) is like working on popular attitudes to smoking. It's got (or had) cache because it's risky. Put skull-and-crossbones all over the package; it just makes it more attractive to that group.
Leave the bad music to the people who want it. Just remember, there's a lot of them, and they won't be satisfied with something popular in some distant state or province. Like sweatshop-produced goods, they're voting with their dollars to keep artists making their 2 cents a sale.
Yeah, hate those rich government types. All those public sector silver-spoon idiots driving to work in their BMW's, feet-up reading the paper in their spacious high-rise offices, making room only for thier relatives and friends...
Um... wait a minute... were you talking public or private sector?
All I see are people taking the bus using 20 year old office equipment, if they have an office. Retiring and not being replaced, just having their work spread out amongst those left due to seemingly endless "budget freezes", and scrutiny of the public purse that would make the tightest, most penny-pinching corporate watchdog blanche.
Nothing to do with your comments re: connection speed, but the Cogeco site states that they have a 15GB download cap. Nothing to sneeze at, but since that is the parent topic, thought I'd mention it.
It wouldn't take much to add a provision (were it passed) to make retention of such records mandatory. Rather like walking in to see a psychologist here (Canada) and asking him/her not to keep records, knowing that they could be subject to subpoena -- they'll tell you they must by law keep records, with certain minimum information.
On another sobering note, in 1983 the Supreme Court of Canada allowed evidence of a newspaper clipping found in an accused's home as sufficiently probative to admit, despite the potential prejudice of propensity evidence -- aka: "See? He's the kind of person who would do this." He had been charged with heroin smuggling from Hong Kong. The article was titled: "The heroin trade moves to Pakistan." This flew in the face of all caselaw on that point, but has been followed since. The lesson being: what you read can be held against you! The case is R. v. Morris [1983] 2 S.C.R. 190, if anyone is interested.
Why, back in the land of Ire, we used to simply cut cats in half and replant them, on and on again, but then this one year there was the great cat famine...
As you point out, copyright protects the expression. It doesn't protect the ideas (that's for patents to do, in the province of science, not artistry). When someone creates, do they draw on the expression of others or their ideas? Ok, could be both, but drawing on the ideas of other artists is not infringement.
I bought a dictaphone that uses regular-sized cassette tapes, so I could buy a 20-pack of cheapies instead of those pricey mini-tapes. What happens? I get a monstrous levy -- way more than the price of these cheap-ass tapes, and all I'm doing is organizing my study thoughts on tape so I can listen to them in the car on the way to the exam, and have another way to reinforce the memorization. How is this pirating, and why should I be punished for it?! Canadian copyright law has it that even indexing existing information isn't infringment of the original information, so condensing and annotating my own notes certainly isn't infringing the info in the texts I use.
The same would be true if I dictated short story material, as long as I didn't subconsiously dredge up the expression of other works (again, not their ideas).
It bloody well does assume guilt of pirating, and we all pay for it!!
Argh. *You* are correct with regard to the U.S. That's what I get for typing faster than I can think. I was responding to the point about double jeapardy protecting only against constitutional cases, and that's why I had both countries in mind. My comments (aside from that one -- double jeapardy does cover any charge, if I'm not mistaken) only apply to the Great White North (no racial reference implied).
To the previous poster: I can certainly understand the concern that prosecution appeals could permit abuse if unrestricted -- but why should a defendant be able to try and retry until they get a favorable judge and then say: "Ok! Hold it! No more cards, I'm staying at 20!" Is there a constitutional guarantee to a lucky trial?
First I'd recommend an excellent older read, The Demolished Man by Alfred Bester.
Steven Brust's "Taltos" series is one that you might like, given your apparent taste for series. It's: Jhereg Yendi Teckla Taltos Pheonix Ath yra Orca Dragon Issola (I think I've got them right)
I didn't care for his flowery court adventures (500 Years After and The Pheonix Guards) but one book that is an all-time fave is Cowboy Feng's Space Bar and Grille. Ignore the name. Give it a try.
I'd also recommend Time Pressure by Spider Robinson if you're looking for something a little different.
Didn't catch you mentioning Terry Brooks who's another monster series-writer, and got paid god knows how much to write the new Star Wars movies books. But forget all that. He started humbly enough with The Sword of Shannara, The Elfstones of Shannara, (and much later) The Wishsong of Shannara, before he went nuts and continued on (Scions, Druid, Elf Queen, Talismans, etc!). I'd recommend his first three, though they, ahem, "borrow" liberally from Tolkien. But who doesn't?
Yeah, damn man, go to the source. The Hobbit and the three LOTR books. Savour them.
Loved the first Dune (Frank Herbert) but found the others sooo dry.
Riddle of the Wren by Charles de Lint.
The Fionavar Tapestry by Guy Gavriel Kay.
Titan, Wizard, and Demon by John Varley if you really want to get weird (but inventive).
Douglas Adams, man! Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and it's sequels, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, So Long and Thanks For All The Fish, and Mostly Harmless.
Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury.
Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card.
Definitely "Neuromancer" by William Gibson (Argh! Just remembered something for another comment -- Gaiman lifted the whole "sky was the colour of television tuned to a dead channel"!! Argh!!) Give Neuromancer a nice, slow read. The prose is *dense* and lovely.
Mmm. One last. The Wizards and The Warriors by Hugh Cook. I think it was supposed to be continued but I never found others...
His joint works are indeed impressive, and no one even mentioned Good Omens (the Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch) which was my fave, written with the at-least-as-impressive Terry Pratchet.
But Neverwhere... (shudder) oi vey, people. 2-dimensional characters (the Hunter, her perfect lips, her caramel hands, her perfect caramel smile, her caramel perfect... ok already!), protagonist as plodding Arthur Dent replacement who rather simplistically undergoes character transformation, terrible, terrible dialogue, random character emotions. Uh. NO. That one was a real stinker.
Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?
on
"DVD-Jon" Faces Retrial
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Nay! The accused is protected from double jeapardy on any given charge -- Double jeapardy has nothing to do with appeals.
Not sure about the legal system in Norway, but in the U.S. and Canada, appeals must be based on possible mistakes of law or mixed fact/law at the trial level. This can result in a different verdict, or in a trial de novo. The intention, however, is not usually to retry the case. Rulings regarding fact usually remain intact from the trial level, unless there has been some obvious gross error.
Seriously, what's so strange about it? If trial judges can make mistakes of law in favour of the prosecution, they wouldn't occasionally do the same in favour of the accused? And shouldn't the justice system be able to say: hold on! That piece of evidence should have been admitted (or whatever the alleged mistake was)
Oh c'mon. We might as well be back to calling everything, including a nuclear holocaust "natural." Do I value forests, and reefs, and clean water? Yes. Is that human-centric of me, or biased by the kind of world I prefer? Of course. Is that supposed to be a profound revelation?
I used to tutor intro philosophy, and occasionally someone would react with an expression like they'd sucked on a lemon when I told them what I was doing. "Philosophy!" they'd sputter. "It's just people warring over definitions!" Well, in part this was true in that we need to establish some kind of vocabulary to talk about things. But I never found the obstinate ever-definition-challenging individual that people kept expecting. We meet at last.
Yes, other organisms will thrive even if we die. Yes, other environments will support life. Did you seriously think I was arguing otherwise?
There's a lot of talk about an asteroid, perhaps, someday hitting the Earth, and what we could/should do about it (I find this pretty unlikely, and a poor waste of resources, but that's just imho). And let's assume that the ozone fluctuation you speak of has nothing to do with us. In either of those cases, does that mean people should do nothing about it because it's "natural" or because it's conceivable that other life forms might benefit? From the sea bed point of view. Really. Just so happens that reefs foster wildlife diversity (which many of us, not necessarily you, consider to be a good thing). Natch all lifeforms change their environment. So if we could cover the Earth in asphault, that would be ok, cause we'd just be changing our environment, right? Oh, but what is "ok"? Everything is value-neutral, isn't it? In the classroom yes. But if you plan to actually take a hand in intelligently guiding the world to some given fate, instead of letting it happen haphazardly -- it's all the same to the universe -- then you need to choose what you value and fight for it.
It doesn't take much intelligence to play devil's advocate all day long and not actually advocate anything yourself. Go for a walk in the wild and then come back and tell me if you think there's anything worth saving, "natural" or not.
Obviously you've never survived a semester on bread, milk, and eggs. "Mmm, a little cheese and I could make a grilled-cheese sandwich... no, can't afford it."
But there are so many meals I eat when I'm in a rush and I don't care and man, good food is expensive! So my roomies and I, well, we'd never exactly wanted a pill for food. We just wanted a very inexpensive good food replacement. Like pet food but for humans, for those times you just don't care. Maybe call if FUD with a line over the "U" for the trendies. Bobby likes it. Sue likes it. Hey, Soylent Green really IS people!
You remember those breath-mint commercials? Trim looking woman is sucking away on one while telling you that it's only a few calories each, so you can work them off "walking, working... breathing " (wink, wink). Well, yes. True. Only a few calories. Except anyone who's seen someone order two diet specials knows that it's not a few calories. It's a few more calories. In the same way that people who say "No one can make a difference in pollution -- it's too big a problem" forgets that it was a lot of individuals who made the problem in the first place. Everyone adding their bit.
So yes, Pinatubo did massive ozone damage. So do flatulent cows (ha ha). And forests need to burn down every now and again. But there's a reason there wasn't an ozone problem until recently! There's a reason we hadn't run out of cod until recently (even though we've had seals, supposedly the culprit, a good long while). There are natural checks and balances that we humans are successfully overcoming. I was in Southeast Asia not long ago doing, among other things, a little reef research (I was just an assistant). Well, turns out that most of the reef damage in the area was caused by tropical storms. Hey, great. Good to hear. Of course, there was a whack of damage caused by fishermen using nets, poorly placed anchors, and cyanide, amongst other things. There was also a lot of damage from snorkelers, many of whom (heh) could not swim, and felt the need to stand on the coral where possible. There was also the dedicated work of the conservationists who, in trying to kill every crown-of-thorns starfish (that destroys reef) either created many more in some cases, or destroyed reef while destroying the starfish. All not good. Of course, again, the storm did the most damage. But on its own that storm damaged reef might recover given time. But you know, add all those things together and that section of reef was a goner. Natural processes at that point were exacerbating the situation (proliferation of those c.o.t. starfish and sea urchins, for example, both likely due to different human-added pollutants).
So, yes, I like to knock people's delusions of grandeur as much as anyone, and if Phil down the street comes out tearing his shirt off, screaming in guilt, "It was me! Me! I destroyed the ozone layer" I'll be the first to use that handy label. But collectively? Yes, absolutely. We're fucking the planet six ways from Sunday.
Slashdot Mirror
Slight correction.
The expression says: you cannot step twice into the same river, not because the river is flowing past you. The Mississippi, the Red, the Nile -- they're the same, however YOU are not. You are not the same person you were when you last stepped in. The same reason you can't go home again (and of course, literally, you can). It's intro philosophy.
And of course you can experience the same emotion again. Memories are not emotions. Experiences are not emotions. Emotions are emotions. You're talking about intensity of emotions, and if a subsequent time isn't as intense (say, falling in love a second time) because of the repetition, there's nothing stopping the second one from being that much more intense, or the same intensity, for that matter. Yes, yes, "different" because it's someone else, la de da. But let's not let sentimentality obsure the meanings of words.
but could a person who had sufficient knowledge of the program(s) build a large document (say, the giant 9/11 intelligence-failure doc mentioned in the article) so as to fool the text-miners? Subtle misinformation -- let's say that widespread use of text miners results in larger docs being published, then unscrupulous types bury information in such a way that a ridiculously long human endeavour will turn them up, but the programs won't, so those responsible can say: "See? It's all in there. Your program is at fault."
It could be bad... but hard to imagine it being worse than the Brit version from a few years back. Never realized how something so funny in print can become so painfully unfunny on the screen
Bingo!
It seems an obvious point, but was wondering when someone was going to say it.
For the great majority of the people I see, music is fashion. At one time, pop culture meant talking about books everyone was reading. Later that became movies -- it wasn't so often you'd start chatting with someone and find they'd read the same book (unless you spotted them reading it and stopped to chat) but everyone had seen, say, Star Wars . Later, sadly, the most common denominators of culture seemed to become some episode of M*A*S*H* that everyone had seen, or reciting the lines of Holy Grail ad absurdum. Pop music simply continues that trend. "Oh, you don't have their newest CD?! It's great!" (but ten months from now I'll never admit to listening to them at all) To those vast legions, stating the obvious (eg: they sound like everybody else; why don't you try ___) is like working on popular attitudes to smoking. It's got (or had) cache because it's risky. Put skull-and-crossbones all over the package; it just makes it more attractive to that group.
Leave the bad music to the people who want it. Just remember, there's a lot of them, and they won't be satisfied with something popular in some distant state or province. Like sweatshop-produced goods, they're voting with their dollars to keep artists making their 2 cents a sale.
Nope. Though the Mesopotamians did. http://www.beerinstitute.org/history2.htm
Yeah, hate those rich government types. All those public sector silver-spoon idiots driving to work in their BMW's, feet-up reading the paper in their spacious high-rise offices, making room only for thier relatives and friends...
Um... wait a minute... were you talking public or private sector?
All I see are people taking the bus using 20 year old office equipment, if they have an office. Retiring and not being replaced, just having their work spread out amongst those left due to seemingly endless "budget freezes", and scrutiny of the public purse that would make the tightest, most penny-pinching corporate watchdog blanche.
You use pretty words, though.
Nothing to do with your comments re: connection speed, but the Cogeco site states that they have a 15GB download cap. Nothing to sneeze at, but since that is the parent topic, thought I'd mention it.
and my penis.
It wouldn't take much to add a provision (were it passed) to make retention of such records mandatory. Rather like walking in to see a psychologist here (Canada) and asking him/her not to keep records, knowing that they could be subject to subpoena -- they'll tell you they must by law keep records, with certain minimum information.
On another sobering note, in 1983 the Supreme Court of Canada allowed evidence of a newspaper clipping found in an accused's home as sufficiently probative to admit, despite the potential prejudice of propensity evidence -- aka: "See? He's the kind of person who would do this." He had been charged with heroin smuggling from Hong Kong. The article was titled: "The heroin trade moves to Pakistan." This flew in the face of all caselaw on that point, but has been followed since. The lesson being: what you read can be held against you! The case is R. v. Morris [1983] 2 S.C.R. 190, if anyone is interested.
Well, Bill, how does this new thingamajiggy work?
I'm glad you asked, Frank. Let's just check out our U.S.A. 2SRVMN instruction manual... OH MY GOD, IT'S A COOKBOOK!
To test it on? No.
They'll save it for when they really mean business. Along with the aspirin factories, Chinese embassy, suspiciously tall peasants...
www.michaelmoore.com
So it's basically a giant rifle scope?
Hey! I can see my house from here! *BOOM* Ohhh...
it's neat till they hook it to your van at Lookout Point and post the results in the school gymnasium. bastards.
No, he's right.
:)
Why, back in the land of Ire, we used to simply cut cats in half and replant them, on and on again, but then this one year there was the great cat famine...
Genetic diversity is a good thing, kiddies.
As you point out, copyright protects the expression. It doesn't protect the ideas (that's for patents to do, in the province of science, not artistry). When someone creates, do they draw on the expression of others or their ideas? Ok, could be both, but drawing on the ideas of other artists is not infringement.
I bought a dictaphone that uses regular-sized cassette tapes, so I could buy a 20-pack of cheapies instead of those pricey mini-tapes. What happens? I get a monstrous levy -- way more than the price of these cheap-ass tapes, and all I'm doing is organizing my study thoughts on tape so I can listen to them in the car on the way to the exam, and have another way to reinforce the memorization. How is this pirating, and why should I be punished for it?! Canadian copyright law has it that even indexing existing information isn't infringment of the original information, so condensing and annotating my own notes certainly isn't infringing the info in the texts I use.
The same would be true if I dictated short story material, as long as I didn't subconsiously dredge up the expression of other works (again, not their ideas).
It bloody well does assume guilt of pirating, and we all pay for it!!
It's true, he wears a lot of makeup for an action figure...
Argh. *You* are correct with regard to the U.S. That's what I get for typing faster than I can think. I was responding to the point about double jeapardy protecting only against constitutional cases, and that's why I had both countries in mind. My comments (aside from that one -- double jeapardy does cover any charge, if I'm not mistaken) only apply to the Great White North (no racial reference implied).
To the previous poster: I can certainly understand the concern that prosecution appeals could permit abuse if unrestricted -- but why should a defendant be able to try and retry until they get a favorable judge and then say: "Ok! Hold it! No more cards, I'm staying at 20!" Is there a constitutional guarantee to a lucky trial?
about the Marilyn Manson action figure I just picked up?
First I'd recommend an excellent older read, The Demolished Man by Alfred Bester.
h yra
Steven Brust's "Taltos" series is one that you might like, given your apparent taste for series. It's:
Jhereg
Yendi
Teckla
Taltos
Pheonix
At
Orca
Dragon
Issola (I think I've got them right)
I didn't care for his flowery court adventures (500 Years After and The Pheonix Guards) but one book that is an all-time fave is Cowboy Feng's Space Bar and Grille. Ignore the name. Give it a try.
I'd also recommend Time Pressure by Spider Robinson if you're looking for something a little different.
Didn't catch you mentioning Terry Brooks who's another monster series-writer, and got paid god knows how much to write the new Star Wars movies books. But forget all that. He started humbly enough with The Sword of Shannara, The Elfstones of Shannara, (and much later) The Wishsong of Shannara, before he went nuts and continued on (Scions, Druid, Elf Queen, Talismans, etc!). I'd recommend his first three, though they, ahem, "borrow" liberally from Tolkien. But who doesn't?
Yeah, damn man, go to the source. The Hobbit and the three LOTR books. Savour them.
Loved the first Dune (Frank Herbert) but found the others sooo dry.
Riddle of the Wren by Charles de Lint.
The Fionavar Tapestry by Guy Gavriel Kay.
Titan, Wizard, and Demon by John Varley if you really want to get weird (but inventive).
Douglas Adams, man! Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and it's sequels, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, So Long and Thanks For All The Fish, and Mostly Harmless.
Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury.
Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card.
Definitely "Neuromancer" by William Gibson (Argh! Just remembered something for another comment -- Gaiman lifted the whole "sky was the colour of television tuned to a dead channel"!! Argh!!) Give Neuromancer a nice, slow read. The prose is *dense* and lovely.
Mmm. One last. The Wizards and The Warriors by Hugh Cook. I think it was supposed to be continued but I never found others...
His joint works are indeed impressive, and no one even mentioned Good Omens (the Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch) which was my fave, written with the at-least-as-impressive Terry Pratchet.
But Neverwhere... (shudder) oi vey, people. 2-dimensional characters (the Hunter, her perfect lips, her caramel hands, her perfect caramel smile, her caramel perfect... ok already!), protagonist as plodding Arthur Dent replacement who rather simplistically undergoes character transformation, terrible, terrible dialogue, random character emotions. Uh. NO. That one was a real stinker.
Nay! The accused is protected from double jeapardy on any given charge -- Double jeapardy has nothing to do with appeals.
Not sure about the legal system in Norway, but in the U.S. and Canada, appeals must be based on possible mistakes of law or mixed fact/law at the trial level. This can result in a different verdict, or in a trial de novo. The intention, however, is not usually to retry the case. Rulings regarding fact usually remain intact from the trial level, unless there has been some obvious gross error.
Seriously, what's so strange about it? If trial judges can make mistakes of law in favour of the prosecution, they wouldn't occasionally do the same in favour of the accused? And shouldn't the justice system be able to say: hold on! That piece of evidence should have been admitted (or whatever the alleged mistake was)
Oh c'mon. We might as well be back to calling everything, including a nuclear holocaust "natural." Do I value forests, and reefs, and clean water? Yes. Is that human-centric of me, or biased by the kind of world I prefer? Of course. Is that supposed to be a profound revelation?
I used to tutor intro philosophy, and occasionally someone would react with an expression like they'd sucked on a lemon when I told them what I was doing. "Philosophy!" they'd sputter. "It's just people warring over definitions!" Well, in part this was true in that we need to establish some kind of vocabulary to talk about things. But I never found the obstinate ever-definition-challenging individual that people kept expecting. We meet at last.
Yes, other organisms will thrive even if we die.
Yes, other environments will support life.
Did you seriously think I was arguing otherwise?
There's a lot of talk about an asteroid, perhaps, someday hitting the Earth, and what we could/should do about it (I find this pretty unlikely, and a poor waste of resources, but that's just imho). And let's assume that the ozone fluctuation you speak of has nothing to do with us. In either of those cases, does that mean people should do nothing about it because it's "natural" or because it's conceivable that other life forms might benefit? From the sea bed point of view. Really. Just so happens that reefs foster wildlife diversity (which many of us, not necessarily you, consider to be a good thing). Natch all lifeforms change their environment. So if we could cover the Earth in asphault, that would be ok, cause we'd just be changing our environment, right? Oh, but what is "ok"? Everything is value-neutral, isn't it? In the classroom yes. But if you plan to actually take a hand in intelligently guiding the world to some given fate, instead of letting it happen haphazardly -- it's all the same to the universe -- then you need to choose what you value and fight for it.
It doesn't take much intelligence to play devil's advocate all day long and not actually advocate anything yourself. Go for a walk in the wild and then come back and tell me if you think there's anything worth saving, "natural" or not.
Obviously you've never survived a semester on bread, milk, and eggs. "Mmm, a little cheese and I could make a grilled-cheese sandwich... no, can't afford it."
(and that hardly qualifies as great food)
Man, I love food. I mean, I love it. LOVE. IT.
But there are so many meals I eat when I'm in a rush and I don't care and man, good food is expensive! So my roomies and I, well, we'd never exactly wanted a pill for food. We just wanted a very inexpensive good food replacement. Like pet food but for humans, for those times you just don't care. Maybe call if FUD with a line over the "U" for the trendies. Bobby likes it. Sue likes it. Hey, Soylent Green really IS people!
Second, are you really in Tofino? Lucky you!
Man. Ok, where to start.
You remember those breath-mint commercials? Trim looking woman is sucking away on one while telling you that it's only a few calories each, so you can work them off "walking, working... breathing " (wink, wink). Well, yes. True. Only a few calories. Except anyone who's seen someone order two diet specials knows that it's not a few calories. It's a few more calories. In the same way that people who say "No one can make a difference in pollution -- it's too big a problem" forgets that it was a lot of individuals who made the problem in the first place. Everyone adding their bit.
So yes, Pinatubo did massive ozone damage. So do flatulent cows (ha ha). And forests need to burn down every now and again. But there's a reason there wasn't an ozone problem until recently! There's a reason we hadn't run out of cod until recently (even though we've had seals, supposedly the culprit, a good long while). There are natural checks and balances that we humans are successfully overcoming. I was in Southeast Asia not long ago doing, among other things, a little reef research (I was just an assistant). Well, turns out that most of the reef damage in the area was caused by tropical storms. Hey, great. Good to hear. Of course, there was a whack of damage caused by fishermen using nets, poorly placed anchors, and cyanide, amongst other things. There was also a lot of damage from snorkelers, many of whom (heh) could not swim, and felt the need to stand on the coral where possible. There was also the dedicated work of the conservationists who, in trying to kill every crown-of-thorns starfish (that destroys reef) either created many more in some cases, or destroyed reef while destroying the starfish. All not good. Of course, again, the storm did the most damage. But on its own that storm damaged reef might recover given time. But you know, add all those things together and that section of reef was a goner. Natural processes at that point were exacerbating the situation (proliferation of those c.o.t. starfish and sea urchins, for example, both likely due to different human-added pollutants).
So, yes, I like to knock people's delusions of grandeur as much as anyone, and if Phil down the street comes out tearing his shirt off, screaming in guilt, "It was me! Me! I destroyed the ozone layer" I'll be the first to use that handy label. But collectively? Yes, absolutely. We're fucking the planet six ways from Sunday.