Note the key phrase "unmanned" in the legislation. If he's flying the plane, no problem.
The legislation is discriminatory against the use of satellites and drones rather than pictures taken manually, and as others have mentioned would criminalize Google Satellite view and Street View where the pic was taken by a driverless car. Since some of the blimps above sporting events are unmanned, this could also affect broadcasters. The intent seems to be to make it more difficult to take pictures of real property without exposing the photographer to the risk of trespassing charges, or the cost of chartering or owning a small plane or chopper.
It's probably just another one of those laws that will only be investigated on complaint, not seek'n'destroy. It's like the "no smoking in or within 50 feet of buildings' entrances or exits" law in Cincinnati. You can do it all you want, but you'll just get a light talk-to from a very bored cop if a person reports you. Everyone, including the cops, thinks it's a dumb law and YES, for those not in the know, police officers are not 100% to-the-law at all times.
There are two factors involved in a customer's decision. That which they get, and the price at which they get it. What's going on here is that most customers are not willing to shell out $50-$70 for Time Warner's top tiers, as the extra speed doesn't justify the cost over the lower tiers. On the surface, this would seem to back up Time Warner's assertion that customers don't want faster speeds for the most part. The analysis is missing one important factor, however: Time Warner has no real competition in most markets. As a result, they get to set the prices to dictate customer demand, not the other way around. To maximize their profit, Time Warner has chosen a price point at which most people will want to purchase the tier they're willing to provide minimizing the amount of investment in their infrastructure they would have to provide to support more people at higher tiers.
In a more competitive environment, other ISPs would compete by offering lower prices and faster tiers. Then we would see whether customers chose to pay less for the same speeds or get a faster internet for the same price.
I'll give that an amen.
Here in Cincinnati, there is only TWC and Cincinnati Bell. Bell has FiOS (10-100mbps speed) and the price is pretty much level or a hair better than TWC's. One problem - a lot of places aren't in hot areas (hot being near condos, apartments, businesses, large city blocks, etc). If you aren't in a hot area, you're on the "wait list." They say that they will notify you when service is available in your area. So you just have to.... wait. TWC speed-wise is the monopoly in most of Cincy right now. The odd part is that once Bell came out with their insane 100mpbs 'net, a lot of customers switched. In my personal circle, I know easily 20 people out of ~30 that have.
How you come up with data saying that demand is low when a lot of people are just considered "customers that left" is unknown and odd. I don't think 100% of the people that left them said exactly why they were (meaning it's because you don't have gigabit 'net service in my neighborhood). They might just say it's because they found a better deal someplace else. When they offer to counter with better TV deals yadda yadda people just end the conversation. It's all about the Internet speed, dumbass./rant Off-topic but on-topic, the other decision you can make is the dumb one. Let Bell convince you the service is way better with them, then when they're on-site for the install, mention that the service is FiOS, but some services (like streamed TV and backup power) aren't able to be used. The reason being, they are running freakin' POTS to your house and setting you up with DSL but claiming that it's their "FiOS" service. Certain people have fallen victim to that; one is my aunt.
Did I get my thought across there or does that make no sense?
If what you want to assert is that calculating a precise decrease in productivity because of global warming is somewhere between difficult and impossible, I have some sympathy for that idea. But the basic idea is clearly sound, and it seems foolish to devote a lot of effort to attacking it.
Agreed. It doesn't make a lot of sense to defend that waste of resources and money, either.
look at the industrial revolution followed by the formation of unions. The "amount of labor" decreased significantly when unions were formed; that doesn't exactly point to factory conditions, though they may have sucked.
Doesn't exactly point to factory conditions what? You forgot part of that sentence fragment.
Sorry; rewrite: The "amount of labor" decreased significantly when unions were formed; that doesn't exactly point to factory conditions in terms of temperature, though they may have sucked.
There is no direct or indirect correlation that ties temperature increase or decrease to increase or decrease in labor
Actually, there is. There's a very large body of evidence which the paper itself is based upon.
It's one factor; it does not say that the reason labor is impacted is because of global warming. That was the statement being made. Yes, it's *A* factor, but that's akin to me saying that my stress is caused by caffeine. Not a cause-effect, 1-1 ratio. It's just a factor. It could leave me stress-free, add any degree of stress, or kill me with stress factors. A paper doesn't need to be written on the (pardon my expression) freakin' obvious. Honestly, if we have people who really think that there isn't an impact on those working outside anywhere in the world from the temperature and thousand of other variants, we have a bigger problem that could use a paper or ten thousand - Ignorance and Failure to Learn the Most Basic Facts of Living on the Planet Earth.
That's the whole statement I'm making - what a waste of time and money (I do believe tax payers are the funding for NOAA).
I'm not disagreeing at all that temperature is *A* factor, but it isn't all good, all bad, limited to, or not limited to labor.
If people take more breaks in the shade won't that reduce the amount of work they do? Isn't that exactly what the model is supposing when it uses those same guidelines on safe working conditions to predict how temperatures will impact labour output?
Yes, yes it does. I was making reference to global -vs- U.S. only if you read the whole comment. Other countries aren't always as nice and forgiving to those who work in the heat.
That doesn't factor into the total point of the article, though. You're right - there are quite a few companies that suck. I don't think global warming with a few degrees in temperature and humidity variance can be hard pointed to the loss of productivity, though. I mean, look at the industrial revolution followed by the formation of unions. The "amount of labor" decreased significantly when unions were formed; that doesn't exactly point to factory conditions, though they may have sucked.
Did I get my thought across there or does that make no sense?
If things get hotter, do you need to take more breaks? If you take more breaks will your productivity rise, or fall?
GO RTFA troll
Riddle me this, oh troll commenter: How do you correlate global temperature as a reduction in labor without factoring in other information and variables? Does your communication reduce your labor time (it is, mine, right now)? Does your distraction with mobile devices interrupt time? Does contract labor time filling and limitation requirements limit your work time? How about the freedom to do so -vs- past "work-till-ya-drop" rules?
I read the fucking article, oh name caller. There is no direct or indirect correlation that ties temperature increase or decrease to increase or decrease in labor - there are more OTHER factors than you can count that come into existence every day, month, year, decade, ad nauseam.
The paper is a WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY. Just like my commenting on here is. I just don't HAVE to do it to get paid or promoted; climate research individuals do.
Quick final question to you, oh anonymous commenter that won't even bother reading this... What would you do if your superiors said you needed to produce writings or papers to prove a point but you don't have any solid data to tie anything together? If you don't write it, you lose your job (oh, and believe me, you can't be secure in getting another one should you lose this one). I think you would write a paper and pick through as much data as you could to try and make some correlation that can look solid in the minds of shallow thinkers that wouldn't bother to tear it apart and think a bit deeper than "A+B/C*D/(A^2(F))+(mc^2)=COOL REPORT".
Fucking use your brain. There are more things than temperature that lead to loss of productivity and/or breaks in work. As I said before: rubbish.
You've never actually worked outside in the South in the summer have you?
I read your comment and I'm confused. What does discomfort have to do with increase or decrease in labor productivity? It's been hot and humid since Humanity came into existence in some places and it's been cold and dry as **** in others. Some are warming and some are cooling. This paper's point is completely useless because it's trying to tie overall global warming to reduction in labor.
Should I write a paper on why the sky is blue? It's always been perceived in that color since Humans came into existence. Hot/humid and cold/dry have also been perceived the same.
The data is cool (no pun); the paper is completely a waste of time and money. I need to quit commenting and replying now; I'm losing work time by doing so. Just to clarify, the atmospheric properties did not just reduce my labor time... online communications did.
Did you read the paper? if so please show me where it's rubbish. If not, STFU and let us adults who have read the paper talk about it, m'kay?
. One heat-stress metric with broad occupational health applications4, 5, 6 is wet-bulb globe temperature. We combine wet-bulb globe temperatures from global climate historical reanalysis7 and Earth System Model (ESM2M) projections8, 9, 10 with industrial4 and military5 guidelines for an acclimated individual’s occupational capacity to safely perform sustained labour under environmental heat stress (labour capacity)"
SO they took known data involving sustaining labour under heat stressed and applied it to the climate change.
You apparently can't read comments when they don't agree with your logic.
I'm not saying the data is wrong; I am saying there is NO PROOF OF CORRELATION because there are more external variables than you can possibly count or even use. Therefore, the report is a conjecture of unproven relational attributes and theoretical, hypothetical, time-wasting attempts to tie information together into something that proves *ANY POINT* in relation.
That data can be read, reported, graphed, and put into reports all you want. What you can't do, unless you're completely lacking scientific process, is to tie something that has hundreds of thousands (and I'm just making that number up, BTW) of external modifiers to data points and to say that they are related in a cause-effect relationship.
The fucking data is fine. The use of the data in generating a relational cause and effect REPORT is COMPLETE BS.
Did I stutter on this reply, or is my initial comment clear now?
The statistic mentioned by/. in their synopsis is very misleading. It implies (to me at least) that world total labor capacity has decreased by 10%, but the NOAA study is just stating that when it is hot out, people tend to be 10% less productive.
If that's true, I have some nifty data to throw in.......
When temperatures exceed a certain limit with humidity at a certain point (dewpoint), they issue a Heat Advisory or Heat Warning. In each warning, they advise people to drink lots of water and to, GASP, take more breaks in the shade!
Wait, so are they saying that their warnings are actually working?
Oh, wait, that only includes the U.S. My central logic processor is overloading and using adrenaline to cool. This sort of report pisses me off! lol
Uncertainties and caveats associated with these projections include climate sensitivity, climate warming patterns, CO2 emissions, future population distributions, and technological and societal change.
Because this is after all, just a projection based on computer models. And we know how well they work "out of sample."
Looks like John's doing an awesome job of feeding the computers data, getting result sets, massaging the results into a nifty little report, then throwing complete garbage logic into the report with little result set image representations in it to make it look all on the up-n-up.:)
Talk about a study that has too many variables to conclude something so major... How did they eliminate the effect of today's technology and culture on work ethic and demand? Among the thousands of other variables...
5 degrees isn't going to reduce overall labor by 5%, let alone 10%. And the 10% is considered with far less than 5 degrees in increased temperature.
NOAA was one of the most respected organizations in my head until this BS.
Is John P. Dunne trying to keep his job or something??? How in one's sane and collected mind are they actually corroborating reduction in labor by increased temperature?
This is akin to me releasing a report, with data of my choosing that has changed since 1991, stating that the fall of the Soviet Union contributed to the increase in population in the rest of the world.
The two are completely unrelated! There is NO evidence whatsoever that they can possibly be connected. I don't care if one is a believer in climate change/global warming or not, this is complete tripe!
Oh, and let me tell you while I'm at it, my headache frequency has increased by 10% due to the EMI from electronics in the past decade. Rubbish!
So the takedown "was done out of respect for those injured."? Yeah, we lied about owning the copyright of newsfilm of a public event, in order to CMA, we didn't want to look bad or not caring about safety, we just wanted to suppress it all, so we invalidly exploited a stupid law. Who cares? We're important and those people injured are nobodies.
Now that's the sickest peer-level advertizing attempt I've ever seen.
No, a false take down notice if it is knowingly false, subject whoever made the false accusation to liability to all damages including legal fees as a result of the take down.
The problem is in showing you were injured in a way that can be monetized.
There may be rules of the court in which allow for someone to be restricted from an action in the future, but the law only provides for the recovery of damages, costs, and lawyer fees involved with it.
LOL I can see the news stories already: "It hurt my feelings, and that cannot be compensated for monetarily... but $20mil is a good start on the path to healing."
I don't know but they have really gotten batshit on the pricing. when I was a teen i went to concerts almost weekly because you could easily afford to, now tickets in the nosebleed section often run close to a hundred bucks.
And is it just me or is anybody else having trouble with YouTube not buffering worth a shit? I go to speedtest and it consistently shows I'm hitting 20Mbps and all the other video sites load and play perfectly but for the past week or so YouTube has stuttered like its on dialup no matter what res I set the video to. I have asked those around me and they are all seeing the same thing, I get told "Oh thank God I thought there was something wrong with my PC" but I've tried 4 different PCs and the results are the same, stutter city. So I am just curious if others are seeing this or if its only in my area.
My thought is a weird one, but here 'goes:
Since the notification of MarkMonitor going live today (2/25/13), people may be making the transition from 'torrenting to just listening to their music of choice on YouTube. The slowness kinda started once the news came out and really killed streaming starting about Saturday.
Not to be off-topic, but I was wondering the same thing so... There ya have it; my crazy, weird thought.:)
This "represetation of the artists" will be the DRM and studios... I get your point about the public domain, but who is going to represent the _actual_ artists and other creatives?
More liars!
(people who say they are representing some little private entity but are really just a strawman entity for the corps)
It's inconvenient to you, but if you transmit it to someone to whom it's actually life-threatening, you are fucking with them, which is kind of uncool. And it's not "God knows what" - the contents of the flu shots are well understood. It sounds like you simply don't know what you're talking about.
I thought customs made the mistake in monetary value. She compounded it by refusing to fix her error immediately. If she waits long enough to fix her error, does the detained boat become "abandoned property" subject to public auction?
*Her* error? Where did you see that she was the root cause of the error? I must have missed something.
No more than just "terminated as unfit to serve the public in any capacity", but rather placed in a federal detention facility for no less than 25 years for grand larceny (the offense of illegally taking the property of another—in which the value of the property taken is greater than that set for petit larceny.) under color of law (the appearance of an act being performed based upon legal right or enforcement of statute, when in reality no such right exists)
So you're saying the DHS should have never been created with the ability to treat the law as they see fit, when they see fit, for as long as they see fit? Uh, yeah. Of course it shouldn't have happened. This is a stupid squabble over a much larger problem but made it to the public's eye because of the wealth and status of the individual who was "wronged".
If he was being an incredible dick toward the agent, I'm sure she was excited to seize property from an asshole who thinks his money makes him the coolest thing since the last ice age.
And that was her mistake. Acting on such an impulse was petty and unprofessional. Period. It should cost her.
That's cool.
The mistake in monetary value costs him. The Human response she erred in exhibiting costs her. It's a wash.
Slashdot Mirror
Note the key phrase "unmanned" in the legislation. If he's flying the plane, no problem.
The legislation is discriminatory against the use of satellites and drones rather than pictures taken manually, and as others have mentioned would criminalize Google Satellite view and Street View where the pic was taken by a driverless car. Since some of the blimps above sporting events are unmanned, this could also affect broadcasters. The intent seems to be to make it more difficult to take pictures of real property without exposing the photographer to the risk of trespassing charges, or the cost of chartering or owning a small plane or chopper.
It's probably just another one of those laws that will only be investigated on complaint, not seek'n'destroy. It's like the "no smoking in or within 50 feet of buildings' entrances or exits" law in Cincinnati. You can do it all you want, but you'll just get a light talk-to from a very bored cop if a person reports you. Everyone, including the cops, thinks it's a dumb law and YES, for those not in the know, police officers are not 100% to-the-law at all times.
There are two factors involved in a customer's decision. That which they get, and the price at which they get it. What's going on here is that most customers are not willing to shell out $50-$70 for Time Warner's top tiers, as the extra speed doesn't justify the cost over the lower tiers. On the surface, this would seem to back up Time Warner's assertion that customers don't want faster speeds for the most part. The analysis is missing one important factor, however: Time Warner has no real competition in most markets. As a result, they get to set the prices to dictate customer demand, not the other way around. To maximize their profit, Time Warner has chosen a price point at which most people will want to purchase the tier they're willing to provide minimizing the amount of investment in their infrastructure they would have to provide to support more people at higher tiers.
In a more competitive environment, other ISPs would compete by offering lower prices and faster tiers. Then we would see whether customers chose to pay less for the same speeds or get a faster internet for the same price.
I'll give that an amen.
Here in Cincinnati, there is only TWC and Cincinnati Bell. Bell has FiOS (10-100mbps speed) and the price is pretty much level or a hair better than TWC's. One problem - a lot of places aren't in hot areas (hot being near condos, apartments, businesses, large city blocks, etc). If you aren't in a hot area, you're on the "wait list." They say that they will notify you when service is available in your area. So you just have to.... wait. TWC speed-wise is the monopoly in most of Cincy right now. The odd part is that once Bell came out with their insane 100mpbs 'net, a lot of customers switched. In my personal circle, I know easily 20 people out of ~30 that have.
How you come up with data saying that demand is low when a lot of people are just considered "customers that left" is unknown and odd. I don't think 100% of the people that left them said exactly why they were (meaning it's because you don't have gigabit 'net service in my neighborhood). They might just say it's because they found a better deal someplace else. When they offer to counter with better TV deals yadda yadda people just end the conversation. It's all about the Internet speed, dumbass. /rant
Off-topic but on-topic, the other decision you can make is the dumb one. Let Bell convince you the service is way better with them, then when they're on-site for the install, mention that the service is FiOS, but some services (like streamed TV and backup power) aren't able to be used. The reason being, they are running freakin' POTS to your house and setting you up with DSL but claiming that it's their "FiOS" service. Certain people have fallen victim to that; one is my aunt.
Yes, it's "one factor", that's all the paper ever claims it to be. You're raging against a villain of your own invention.
Question: What do you think the point of, and the usefulness of the paper, is? I'd like to hear your sane side.
Did I get my thought across there or does that make no sense?
If what you want to assert is that calculating a precise decrease in productivity because of global warming is somewhere between difficult and impossible, I have some sympathy for that idea. But the basic idea is clearly sound, and it seems foolish to devote a lot of effort to attacking it.
Agreed. It doesn't make a lot of sense to defend that waste of resources and money, either.
look at the industrial revolution followed by the formation of unions. The "amount of labor" decreased significantly when unions were formed; that doesn't exactly point to factory conditions, though they may have sucked.
Doesn't exactly point to factory conditions what? You forgot part of that sentence fragment.
Sorry; rewrite: The "amount of labor" decreased significantly when unions were formed; that doesn't exactly point to factory conditions in terms of temperature, though they may have sucked.
There is no direct or indirect correlation that ties temperature increase or decrease to increase or decrease in labor
Actually, there is. There's a very large body of evidence which the paper itself is based upon.
It's one factor; it does not say that the reason labor is impacted is because of global warming. That was the statement being made. Yes, it's *A* factor, but that's akin to me saying that my stress is caused by caffeine. Not a cause-effect, 1-1 ratio. It's just a factor. It could leave me stress-free, add any degree of stress, or kill me with stress factors. A paper doesn't need to be written on the (pardon my expression) freakin' obvious.
Honestly, if we have people who really think that there isn't an impact on those working outside anywhere in the world from the temperature and thousand of other variants, we have a bigger problem that could use a paper or ten thousand - Ignorance and Failure to Learn the Most Basic Facts of Living on the Planet Earth.
That's the whole statement I'm making - what a waste of time and money (I do believe tax payers are the funding for NOAA).
I'm not disagreeing at all that temperature is *A* factor, but it isn't all good, all bad, limited to, or not limited to labor.
If people take more breaks in the shade won't that reduce the amount of work they do? Isn't that exactly what the model is supposing when it uses those same guidelines on safe working conditions to predict how temperatures will impact labour output?
Yes, yes it does. I was making reference to global -vs- U.S. only if you read the whole comment. Other countries aren't always as nice and forgiving to those who work in the heat.
That doesn't factor into the total point of the article, though. You're right - there are quite a few companies that suck. I don't think global warming with a few degrees in temperature and humidity variance can be hard pointed to the loss of productivity, though. I mean, look at the industrial revolution followed by the formation of unions. The "amount of labor" decreased significantly when unions were formed; that doesn't exactly point to factory conditions, though they may have sucked.
Did I get my thought across there or does that make no sense?
So you concede the data is correct?
Simple logic exercise then.
If things get hotter, do you need to take more breaks?
If you take more breaks will your productivity rise, or fall?
GO RTFA troll
Riddle me this, oh troll commenter: How do you correlate global temperature as a reduction in labor without factoring in other information and variables? Does your communication reduce your labor time (it is, mine, right now)? Does your distraction with mobile devices interrupt time? Does contract labor time filling and limitation requirements limit your work time? How about the freedom to do so -vs- past "work-till-ya-drop" rules?
I read the fucking article, oh name caller. There is no direct or indirect correlation that ties temperature increase or decrease to increase or decrease in labor - there are more OTHER factors than you can count that come into existence every day, month, year, decade, ad nauseam.
The paper is a WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY. Just like my commenting on here is. I just don't HAVE to do it to get paid or promoted; climate research individuals do.
Quick final question to you, oh anonymous commenter that won't even bother reading this... What would you do if your superiors said you needed to produce writings or papers to prove a point but you don't have any solid data to tie anything together? If you don't write it, you lose your job (oh, and believe me, you can't be secure in getting another one should you lose this one). I think you would write a paper and pick through as much data as you could to try and make some correlation that can look solid in the minds of shallow thinkers that wouldn't bother to tear it apart and think a bit deeper than "A+B/C*D/(A^2(F))+(mc^2)=COOL REPORT".
Fucking use your brain. There are more things than temperature that lead to loss of productivity and/or breaks in work. As I said before: rubbish.
You've never actually worked outside in the South in the summer have you?
I read your comment and I'm confused. What does discomfort have to do with increase or decrease in labor productivity? It's been hot and humid since Humanity came into existence in some places and it's been cold and dry as **** in others. Some are warming and some are cooling. This paper's point is completely useless because it's trying to tie overall global warming to reduction in labor.
Should I write a paper on why the sky is blue? It's always been perceived in that color since Humans came into existence. Hot/humid and cold/dry have also been perceived the same.
The data is cool (no pun); the paper is completely a waste of time and money. I need to quit commenting and replying now; I'm losing work time by doing so. Just to clarify, the atmospheric properties did not just reduce my labor time... online communications did.
Well, the NOAA is up for budget cuts. It's a 'crisis' within a 'crisis'... you know... the Great Sequester and all.
Sweet. So now the politicians have an excuse for not showing up for work! NOAA gets a budget increase for making an excuse for them. :)
I'm sorry, I had to. Humor, humor.
If the paper tried to correlate temperature data to labour output data you'd have a point, but that's not what they did.
I hear ya...
P.2 paragraph 2. How are you interpereting their comparisons?
If only there was a paper explaining it~
Did you read the paper? if so please show me where it's rubbish. If not, STFU and let us adults who have read the paper talk about it, m'kay?
. One heat-stress metric with broad occupational health applications4, 5, 6 is wet-bulb globe temperature. We combine wet-bulb globe temperatures from global climate historical reanalysis7 and Earth System Model (ESM2M) projections8, 9, 10 with industrial4 and military5 guidelines for an acclimated individual’s occupational capacity to safely perform sustained labour under environmental heat stress (labour capacity)"
SO they took known data involving sustaining labour under heat stressed and applied it to the climate change.
They aren't making data up.
YOU otoh are claiming an increase in temperature does not effect production based on..what, your ass?
please, tell me, specifically, what you find wrong with the report:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/nclimate1827-s1.pdf
You apparently can't read comments when they don't agree with your logic.
I'm not saying the data is wrong; I am saying there is NO PROOF OF CORRELATION because there are more external variables than you can possibly count or even use. Therefore, the report is a conjecture of unproven relational attributes and theoretical, hypothetical, time-wasting attempts to tie information together into something that proves *ANY POINT* in relation.
That data can be read, reported, graphed, and put into reports all you want. What you can't do, unless you're completely lacking scientific process, is to tie something that has hundreds of thousands (and I'm just making that number up, BTW) of external modifiers to data points and to say that they are related in a cause-effect relationship.
The fucking data is fine. The use of the data in generating a relational cause and effect REPORT is COMPLETE BS.
Did I stutter on this reply, or is my initial comment clear now?
The statistic mentioned by /. in their synopsis is very misleading. It implies (to me at least) that world total labor capacity has decreased by 10%, but the NOAA study is just stating that when it is hot out, people tend to be 10% less productive.
If that's true, I have some nifty data to throw in.......
When temperatures exceed a certain limit with humidity at a certain point (dewpoint), they issue a Heat Advisory or Heat Warning. In each warning, they advise people to drink lots of water and to, GASP, take more breaks in the shade!
Wait, so are they saying that their warnings are actually working?
Oh, wait, that only includes the U.S. My central logic processor is overloading and using adrenaline to cool. This sort of report pisses me off! lol
Uncertainties and caveats associated with these projections include climate sensitivity, climate warming patterns, CO2 emissions, future population distributions, and technological and societal change.
Because this is after all, just a projection based on computer models. And we know how well they work "out of sample."
Looks like John's doing an awesome job of feeding the computers data, getting result sets, massaging the results into a nifty little report, then throwing complete garbage logic into the report with little result set image representations in it to make it look all on the up-n-up. :)
Talk about a study that has too many variables to conclude something so major... How did they eliminate the effect of today's technology and culture on work ethic and demand? Among the thousands of other variables...
5 degrees isn't going to reduce overall labor by 5%, let alone 10%. And the 10% is considered with far less than 5 degrees in increased temperature.
Your math makes my head hurt. :>
NOAA was one of the most respected organizations in my head until this BS.
Is John P. Dunne trying to keep his job or something??? How in one's sane and collected mind are they actually corroborating reduction in labor by increased temperature?
This is akin to me releasing a report, with data of my choosing that has changed since 1991, stating that the fall of the Soviet Union contributed to the increase in population in the rest of the world.
The two are completely unrelated! There is NO evidence whatsoever that they can possibly be connected. I don't care if one is a believer in climate change/global warming or not, this is complete tripe!
Oh, and let me tell you while I'm at it, my headache frequency has increased by 10% due to the EMI from electronics in the past decade. Rubbish!
So the takedown "was done out of respect for those injured."? Yeah, we lied about owning the copyright of newsfilm of a public event, in order to CMA, we didn't want to look bad or not caring about safety, we just wanted to suppress it all, so we invalidly exploited a stupid law. Who cares? We're important and those people injured are nobodies.
Now that's the sickest peer-level advertizing attempt I've ever seen.
Liveleak has one of the most racist communites on the publically available internet
You just advertized it indirectly. Nice.
No, a false take down notice if it is knowingly false, subject whoever made the false accusation to liability to all damages including legal fees as a result of the take down.
The problem is in showing you were injured in a way that can be monetized.
There may be rules of the court in which allow for someone to be restricted from an action in the future, but the law only provides for the recovery of damages, costs, and lawyer fees involved with it.
LOL I can see the news stories already: "It hurt my feelings, and that cannot be compensated for monetarily... but $20mil is a good start on the path to healing."
I don't know but they have really gotten batshit on the pricing. when I was a teen i went to concerts almost weekly because you could easily afford to, now tickets in the nosebleed section often run close to a hundred bucks.
And is it just me or is anybody else having trouble with YouTube not buffering worth a shit? I go to speedtest and it consistently shows I'm hitting 20Mbps and all the other video sites load and play perfectly but for the past week or so YouTube has stuttered like its on dialup no matter what res I set the video to. I have asked those around me and they are all seeing the same thing, I get told "Oh thank God I thought there was something wrong with my PC" but I've tried 4 different PCs and the results are the same, stutter city. So I am just curious if others are seeing this or if its only in my area.
My thought is a weird one, but here 'goes:
Since the notification of MarkMonitor going live today (2/25/13), people may be making the transition from 'torrenting to just listening to their music of choice on YouTube. The slowness kinda started once the news came out and really killed streaming starting about Saturday.
Not to be off-topic, but I was wondering the same thing so... There ya have it; my crazy, weird thought. :)
This "represetation of the artists" will be the DRM and studios... I get your point about the public domain, but who is going to represent the _actual_ artists and other creatives?
More liars!
(people who say they are representing some little private entity but are really just a strawman entity for the corps)
It's inconvenient to you, but if you transmit it to someone to whom it's actually life-threatening, you are fucking with them, which is kind of uncool. And it's not "God knows what" - the contents of the flu shots are well understood. It sounds like you simply don't know what you're talking about.
One name: Darwin.
The mistake in monetary value costs him.
I thought customs made the mistake in monetary value. She compounded it by refusing to fix her error immediately. If she waits long enough to fix her error, does the detained boat become "abandoned property" subject to public auction?
*Her* error? Where did you see that she was the root cause of the error? I must have missed something.
No more than just "terminated as unfit to serve the public in any capacity", but rather placed in a federal detention facility for no less than 25 years for grand larceny (the offense of illegally taking the property of another—in which the value of the property taken is greater than that set for petit larceny.) under color of law (the appearance of an act being performed based upon legal right or enforcement of statute, when in reality no such right exists)
So you're saying the DHS should have never been created with the ability to treat the law as they see fit, when they see fit, for as long as they see fit? Uh, yeah. Of course it shouldn't have happened. This is a stupid squabble over a much larger problem but made it to the public's eye because of the wealth and status of the individual who was "wronged".
If he was being an incredible dick toward the agent, I'm sure she was excited to seize property from an asshole who thinks his money makes him the coolest thing since the last ice age.
And that was her mistake. Acting on such an impulse was petty and unprofessional. Period. It should cost her.
That's cool.
The mistake in monetary value costs him. The Human response she erred in exhibiting costs her. It's a wash.