Who says concerts are for extra income? The record companies, not artists. Artists make the most money through concerts/live performances, as they get a more reasonable cut. Record sales only directly help the record companies - they indirectly help the artists by advertising them for when they decide to go play live.
Shouldn't the artists be making money from touring and tour merchandise, like they did before the record labels decided to turn the album into a commodity instead an advertisement?
So as long as there is a worse way of doing something militarily, it's fine? How about if your own shitty foreign policy caused those bad people in the bunker under the apartment block to want to attack you - is it still moral to attack them there?
Oversimplifying this topic isn't doing anyone any favours.
They have attacked his science - it's been thoroughly debunked time and time again. This time, however, it is shown that the scientist in question didn't disclose his funding, which is an ethics problem regardless of the quality of your science.
The difference is they disclose where their funding comes from, instead of lying about it. Oh, and they put out proper papers which are not thoroughly torn apart by other teams around the world. Apart from that, though, yeah! Spot on!
You might want to read where the NIPCC got its funding from, how it kept that quiet, and the validity of its science. None of those answers point to respectable science.
The difference is this clown's papers regularly get destroyed by other scientists for being bad science, and this clown keeps hiding the conflict of interests when he's specifically required not to. That's the difference. It's not about moral high-ground, but integrity. This joker has very little, and those calling him out on it are being attacked for running a smear campaign, when it's nothing of the sort.
You do realise that the increased sea ice is because ice on the land is melting, right? Of course you don't. You've thought about this for 20 seconds and decided you know more than all those scientists out there who have been studying this for generations. Yes, climate change has happened before, but never at this rate (without a comet/asteroid impact). It saddens me that a society can let loose people like you upon the world with such a flawed understanding of science.
People keep trotting out this "very expensive" excuse, but so far it seems a decent, effective amount to spend on this problem would be less than 0.1% of the GDP of any nation wishing to get serious.
You should actually read what happened in the climategate "scandal". You are embarrassing yourself and hurting your position by parroting nonsense such as that.
So we should shun technology because it might be misused some point in the future? That sounds a bit like an overreaction to me. "Exact same data-set"? Puh-lease.
It's got nothing to do with a "cool factor" - instead of converting your intention to a series of physical gestures on your device (finding the right application, typing in a search query, looking through the results for the answer), you simply voice your intention, and the device does the rest. That seems an efficient use of a device, not something "cool".
And you don't have to shout - to claim that smacks of trying to make the whole interaction seem absurd, comical, or impractical - which doesn't exactly reflect well on you;) I'm sure you didn't mean it, though. Unless you've actually found a use for some of these technologies, it can be hard to picture a need or use for them. The fact you've failed to do so doesn't automatically make that the case for everyone, though.
Because shaping doesn't work that way. How your network treats traffic has no say on how the rest of the internet treats traffic. If your ISP honoured your QoS settings, then service would quickly cease due to the never-ending number of numpties abusing QoS to the detriment of other users.
Keep telling yourself that and see how well it does you. The US wasn't the trailblazer of infrastructure, so your argument kind of immediately falls flat. I know it might hurt you to admit the US is terrible when it comes to infrastructure, but until people start to admit it, nothing will improve. You can come up with as many time-travelling explanations as you want, but the facts remain - the US under-invests in infrastructure, public health, and social security and it shows.
Keyboard mashing can produce word patterns. If someone is mashing a keyboard and accidentally mashes "t" and "h", there is no magical force in the universe which quickly checks an English dictionary and stops the masher from mashing any button which would create a word ("the", for example). That's the thing about infinity - it makes the massively unlikely infinitely more likely. As long as something is not impossible, if attempted an infinite number of times, it is possible that it will happen.
Nonsense. The US does its own dirty work for its own purposes. It doesn't help Europe out for Europe's sake. Europe has been involved in every military action in recent years, in many different roles. Stop pretending the US is some bastion of goodness when it comes to military action - it's not. If it were, it wouldn't have overthrown democracy after democracy time and time again, then got all surprised when "their guy" either turned on them, or got kicked out and replaced with someone vehemently anti-US.
The Chinese approach you describe is the non-military American approach. The US has been doing that for decades. That you don't know this pertinent fact kind of shows you are not in possession of all the facts. Just research the "School of the Americas" to see just how dedicated to this tactic the US has been.
Slashdot Mirror
Who says concerts are for extra income? The record companies, not artists. Artists make the most money through concerts/live performances, as they get a more reasonable cut. Record sales only directly help the record companies - they indirectly help the artists by advertising them for when they decide to go play live.
Shouldn't the artists be making money from touring and tour merchandise, like they did before the record labels decided to turn the album into a commodity instead an advertisement?
So as long as there is a worse way of doing something militarily, it's fine? How about if your own shitty foreign policy caused those bad people in the bunker under the apartment block to want to attack you - is it still moral to attack them there?
Oversimplifying this topic isn't doing anyone any favours.
... and then using cars, causing even more traffic for you to deal with.
It has been warming for 18 years. You lying or being ignorant isn't helping your position/
The "climate mess" you refuse to learn about. Celebrating your ignorance is not making you look particularly rational or intelligent.
They have attacked his science - it's been thoroughly debunked time and time again. This time, however, it is shown that the scientist in question didn't disclose his funding, which is an ethics problem regardless of the quality of your science.
The difference is they disclose where their funding comes from, instead of lying about it. Oh, and they put out proper papers which are not thoroughly torn apart by other teams around the world. Apart from that, though, yeah! Spot on!
You might want to read where the NIPCC got its funding from, how it kept that quiet, and the validity of its science. None of those answers point to respectable science.
The difference is this clown's papers regularly get destroyed by other scientists for being bad science, and this clown keeps hiding the conflict of interests when he's specifically required not to. That's the difference. It's not about moral high-ground, but integrity. This joker has very little, and those calling him out on it are being attacked for running a smear campaign, when it's nothing of the sort.
You do realise that the increased sea ice is because ice on the land is melting, right? Of course you don't. You've thought about this for 20 seconds and decided you know more than all those scientists out there who have been studying this for generations. Yes, climate change has happened before, but never at this rate (without a comet/asteroid impact). It saddens me that a society can let loose people like you upon the world with such a flawed understanding of science.
People keep trotting out this "very expensive" excuse, but so far it seems a decent, effective amount to spend on this problem would be less than 0.1% of the GDP of any nation wishing to get serious.
You should see what field Dyson works in, then come back here and apologise.
You should actually read what happened in the climategate "scandal". You are embarrassing yourself and hurting your position by parroting nonsense such as that.
Says the guy calling himself "Sardaukar86". Genius.
I thought John Smeaton was a baggage handler, and he kicked the firey terrorist in the balls. He got a gallantry medal for that from Liz.
So we should shun technology because it might be misused some point in the future? That sounds a bit like an overreaction to me. "Exact same data-set"? Puh-lease.
It can be pretty useful, actually. I was cooking dinner the other night and needed to set a timer. My hands were caked in all sorts of gunk from the food I was making. I turned to my phone and said "OK, Google - set a timer for 10 minutes", and it did it. And last night I was watching a movie with my fiancée, and we thought the actor in it might have played some other character in a TV show we watch, so I simply asked my phone. It took a couple of seconds, and gave us the precise answer.
It's got nothing to do with a "cool factor" - instead of converting your intention to a series of physical gestures on your device (finding the right application, typing in a search query, looking through the results for the answer), you simply voice your intention, and the device does the rest. That seems an efficient use of a device, not something "cool".
And you don't have to shout - to claim that smacks of trying to make the whole interaction seem absurd, comical, or impractical - which doesn't exactly reflect well on you ;) I'm sure you didn't mean it, though. Unless you've actually found a use for some of these technologies, it can be hard to picture a need or use for them. The fact you've failed to do so doesn't automatically make that the case for everyone, though.
Because shaping doesn't work that way. How your network treats traffic has no say on how the rest of the internet treats traffic. If your ISP honoured your QoS settings, then service would quickly cease due to the never-ending number of numpties abusing QoS to the detriment of other users.
Keep telling yourself that and see how well it does you. The US wasn't the trailblazer of infrastructure, so your argument kind of immediately falls flat. I know it might hurt you to admit the US is terrible when it comes to infrastructure, but until people start to admit it, nothing will improve. You can come up with as many time-travelling explanations as you want, but the facts remain - the US under-invests in infrastructure, public health, and social security and it shows.
It's called "The Man Who Fell to Earth".
Until he started spouting off about the Jews, then I'm sure the fun would cease...
Keyboard mashing can produce word patterns. If someone is mashing a keyboard and accidentally mashes "t" and "h", there is no magical force in the universe which quickly checks an English dictionary and stops the masher from mashing any button which would create a word ("the", for example). That's the thing about infinity - it makes the massively unlikely infinitely more likely. As long as something is not impossible, if attempted an infinite number of times, it is possible that it will happen.
Nonsense. The US does its own dirty work for its own purposes. It doesn't help Europe out for Europe's sake. Europe has been involved in every military action in recent years, in many different roles. Stop pretending the US is some bastion of goodness when it comes to military action - it's not. If it were, it wouldn't have overthrown democracy after democracy time and time again, then got all surprised when "their guy" either turned on them, or got kicked out and replaced with someone vehemently anti-US.
The Chinese approach you describe is the non-military American approach. The US has been doing that for decades. That you don't know this pertinent fact kind of shows you are not in possession of all the facts. Just research the "School of the Americas" to see just how dedicated to this tactic the US has been.
If Homo sapiens sapiens is around, then Homo sapiens is also around, as the former is a subspecies of the latter.