Like move coastal populations so we aren't always on the hook for rebuilding people's beach houses?
Insurance will take care of that. The insurance industry will start charging through the nose for flood insurance, and then all that beach-front property will plummet in value.
As soon as someone takes on a monopoly (say telecoms, phama, oil, coal), those industries dump a pile of money on the GOP who go around talking about big government getting in the road of small businesses. The GOP faithful like this because it makes them feel like they have political power. It is all rather ironic.
How does current copyright law outstrip the original intent?
Because long copyright terms encourage rent-seeking behaviour, which was explicitly what the founders were trying to protect against with the verbiage: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.
If there would be just as much science and art with shorter copyright terms, then the law is in violation of the constitution. Congress does not have the/right/ to define a longer term.
Corporations and people are apples and oranges, despite what the supreme court says. If you cannot see the difference, then I'd suggest you have some sort of cognitive impairment. For example, do corporations ever grow old? Fall in love? To they need parents the wipe their bums? Do they feel anything? Do corporations need health insurance, or want to have children? Do they need maternity leave? Do they ever sleep?
Corporations are made out of people and laws, and the legal structure shapes the incentive structures of the people within them. If you confuse corporations with people, you are bound to endorse laws that encourage bad incentive structures to the behaviour of/people/.
The ocean contains most of the heat that drives surface temperatures. 1 unit of ocean holds more than 1000x the heat capacity as 1 unit of atmosphere, hence the huge effect of El Nino and La Nina on surface temp.
The "no warming since 1998" canard is based on carefully choosing the start-end years for a surface temperature time series such that the start year is at a record El Nino, and the end year at a La Nina. The p-value for a regression is almost statistically significant warming at p=0.05, even after this blatant cherry picking.
Don't believe me, the DO IT YOURSELF. You can download the time series. You only need year 12 math to do the regression. It is EASY.
Your just repeating something someone else wrote. What is the p-value for "no statistically significant" warming? What was the start-end date of the time series? What happens when you choose a slightly different start-end date?
If I told you the answers to these questions, you'd probably just copy and past some other nonsense. So if you want to convince me there was no warming since 1998, pull the numbers up, do the linear regression, and report the p-value.
The reason I ask, is that the trivial lie in this often repeated canard will be revealed to you -- by LOOKING AT THE DATA!
Ideological thinking means projecting your own inability to think critically onto others who disagree with you. All those scientists -- they're just biased ideologues.
Can't you see that that is an obviously specious argument. And besides, why choose the year 1998? What's wrong with any other year in the 70s, 80s, 90s?
The "leaks" worst offense was that in some cases scientists' felt pressure to modify the way they presented their facts to the public.
I disagree with that. The worst offense was that some of the scientists privately expressed frustration at denialists trolls who play political games, and waste their time. I don't think the emails show that the scientists were modifying how they presented anything to the public. But they do show occasional defensiveness and frustration from scientists.
The smear campaign works by being completely unreasonable, and then demanding to be taken seriously. Whenever people get frustrated, you just claim that they are being unreasonable, and are ideologues. It is classic projection.
So the way I see it, a bunch of trolls pissed off some scientists, and privately expressed defensiveness over the issues. The scientists in question should not be defensive (though it is understandable), and/should/ provide everything and the kitchen sink to "skeptics" even if you know they are going to be intellectually dishonest with the information. Doesn't matter. Let politics be politics, and science be science.
AGW then you are either one of the authors, or you are a fanatic who accepts any act,
You sir, are an ideologue. There is a third option. The person you are denouncing may actually have some scientific literacy. See this entertaining video on skeptics and climategate.
If you are genuinely skeptical because of the emails leaked from the university of east anglia, then I suggest looking at them again./Read/ the emails. If you have any basic level of scientific literacy, you'll see through the climategate charade. If you need the cliff notes version, then this and this give pretty damning information on the "scandal" surrounding the leaks.
Then you can read one of numerous official reports on the leaks.
Even with the kindest interpretation of "skeptic" arguments surrounding the emails, I have found it hard to find anything of interest. It is a classic nothing burger.
When you want something done 22 times the same way, the command line rocks.
If you use the CLI enough, eventually you will find it is faster than using a gui for most tasks. And I'm a mac user from way back to 1985. Point and click is great, and I grew up with it. For programming (computer vision), I much prefer the command line, and linux has an edge of OSX there. (Emacs is less stable on OSX, and the terminal app isn't quite as good as konsole.)
The U.S. was the terrorist in vietnam , and they killed more than a million
I'm not going to defend the US involvement in Vietnam; however, I do know the situation is far more complex than you suggest. I knew boat people growing up, there are a lot of them in Australia -- people who fled South Vietnam because they had a deep distaste for the North Vietnamese regime. The two "countries" were pawns in the cold war, with china and USSR on one side (before China back-stabbed both of them for nationalist reasons), and Load, Khmer, Thailand, USA, Australia, New Zealand on the other side. Back then, the Chinese/Soviets believed in a world-wide communist revolution. It was a different world. Speak to some boat people about their perception of the Vietnam war.
the opaque nature of FISA courts means that they're the black hand of government.
The FISA court members have lifetime appointments, and cannot be touched by the executive branch, or congress. They are effectively a law unto themselves, since their dirty laundry never gets aired by the supreme court. Oh course they're going to take the conservative approach and allow wide-spread surveillance. They can't get in trouble for doing so, but if they don't, then maybe something bad really will happen.
When you've used linux enough, and "get it", then you'll have no desire to do otherwise.
I am a life long mac user (since 1985, MacPlus), and love writing usable guis; however, I still prefer the power of text files for configuring my computer. A bad gui is terrible, and a good gui has a ridiculous amount of state to handle. Config files give you all the power you want, with the addition of allowing you to use unix tools to glue together various processes. I believe the main reason people don't write guis to edge config files is that they wouldn't use the resulting gui anyway.
Moderate democrats these day are usually not in favor of 2A as an individual right.
That is so untrue. Moderate democrats don't take a totalitarian view of the 2nd amendment, but they are definitely the right to bear arms. In that, they are like the current supreme court. If you can't see that, then you're spending too much time with the tin-foil hat crowd.
Or maybe the idea of labeling someone according to a very broad group of beliefs is flawed.
Obviously the left-right spectrum has problems; however, at the same time, politics is as much about tribalism as anything else. The mechanisms are atavistic -- part of the six million year old self. People who think they are above tribalism are probably deluding themselves, they may as well assert that branding has no effect on them either. Even apolitical people have political circuits primed and ready if you dig beneath the surface.
Nah...can't possibly be - we've been doing it for thousands of years and it seems to be working out really well for us.,
I recently listened to the excellent History of Rome podcast, and one thing that struck home is the politics of the old Roman Republic. It would be trivial to sort many Roman politicians into left-right. There is probably a biological basis -- twin studies suggest this. For example, electro-physical reactions of disgust to (say) photos of rotton food are correlated with peoples voting preferences, across the whole world. Crazy eh?
It is a little too black-and-white to say that labelling is flawed. It is also too black-and-white to say a person is X or Y in a given political group. That's where I stand.
Slashdot Mirror
And that would be... what? SInce we all know now that global climate change does not specifically mean warming all over.
Because they are poor, and the poor will get shafted, esp. if the price of food rises.
And STAY down, Africa.
The developing world is rolling out renewables. As of 2013, they are about price parity with coal anyway.
Like move coastal populations so we aren't always on the hook for rebuilding people's beach houses?
Insurance will take care of that. The insurance industry will start charging through the nose for flood insurance, and then all that beach-front property will plummet in value.
And their unions dump a pile of money to the Dems as well.
Look up how much money unions donate compared to big corps. (face-palm.)
How does this get modded insightful? Does anybody think that the government isn't paid for by tax dollars? Should be modded *face-palm* redundant.
As soon as someone takes on a monopoly (say telecoms, phama, oil, coal), those industries dump a pile of money on the GOP who go around talking about big government getting in the road of small businesses. The GOP faithful like this because it makes them feel like they have political power. It is all rather ironic.
How does current copyright law outstrip the original intent?
Because long copyright terms encourage rent-seeking behaviour, which was explicitly what the founders were trying to protect against with the verbiage: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.
/right/ to define a longer term.
If there would be just as much science and art with shorter copyright terms, then the law is in violation of the constitution. Congress does not have the
their payments to creators enables the creators' work.
The corporation can get a free license to the work from the author, for the lifetime of the copyright. Say 14 yeas renewable once by 14 years.
Corporations and people are apples and oranges, despite what the supreme court says. If you cannot see the difference, then I'd suggest you have some sort of cognitive impairment. For example, do corporations ever grow old? Fall in love? To they need parents the wipe their bums? Do they feel anything? Do corporations need health insurance, or want to have children? Do they need maternity leave? Do they ever sleep?
/people/.
Corporations are made out of people and laws, and the legal structure shapes the incentive structures of the people within them. If you confuse corporations with people, you are bound to endorse laws that encourage bad incentive structures to the behaviour of
The ocean contains most of the heat that drives surface temperatures. 1 unit of ocean holds more than 1000x the heat capacity as 1 unit of atmosphere, hence the huge effect of El Nino and La Nina on surface temp.
Here is a link to the raw NOAA data on ocean heat content. Download the files, and do the linear regression yourself. It is trivial to do.
The "no warming since 1998" canard is based on carefully choosing the start-end years for a surface temperature time series such that the start year is at a record El Nino, and the end year at a La Nina. The p-value for a regression is almost statistically significant warming at p=0.05, even after this blatant cherry picking.
Don't believe me, the DO IT YOURSELF. You can download the time series. You only need year 12 math to do the regression. It is EASY.
Your just repeating something someone else wrote. What is the p-value for "no statistically significant" warming? What was the start-end date of the time series? What happens when you choose a slightly different start-end date?
If I told you the answers to these questions, you'd probably just copy and past some other nonsense. So if you want to convince me there was no warming since 1998, pull the numbers up, do the linear regression, and report the p-value.
The reason I ask, is that the trivial lie in this often repeated canard will be revealed to you -- by LOOKING AT THE DATA!
What is the p-value for "no warming since 1998", for a linear regression line? What is the p-value for the time series starting 1997 and 1999?
Do you even know what I'm talking about?
Ideological thinking means projecting your own inability to think critically onto others who disagree with you. All those scientists -- they're just biased ideologues.
Can't you see that that is an obviously specious argument. And besides, why choose the year 1998? What's wrong with any other year in the 70s, 80s, 90s?
The "leaks" worst offense was that in some cases scientists' felt pressure to modify the way they presented their facts to the public.
I disagree with that. The worst offense was that some of the scientists privately expressed frustration at denialists trolls who play political games, and waste their time. I don't think the emails show that the scientists were modifying how they presented anything to the public. But they do show occasional defensiveness and frustration from scientists.
/should/ provide everything and the kitchen sink to "skeptics" even if you know they are going to be intellectually dishonest with the information. Doesn't matter. Let politics be politics, and science be science.
The smear campaign works by being completely unreasonable, and then demanding to be taken seriously. Whenever people get frustrated, you just claim that they are being unreasonable, and are ideologues. It is classic projection.
So the way I see it, a bunch of trolls pissed off some scientists, and privately expressed defensiveness over the issues. The scientists in question should not be defensive (though it is understandable), and
AGW then you are either one of the authors, or you are a fanatic who accepts any act,
You sir, are an ideologue. There is a third option. The person you are denouncing may actually have some scientific literacy. See this entertaining video on skeptics and climategate.
If you are genuinely skeptical because of the emails leaked from the university of east anglia, then I suggest looking at them again. /Read/ the emails. If you have any basic level of scientific literacy, you'll see through the climategate charade. If you need the cliff notes version, then this and this give pretty damning information on the "scandal" surrounding the leaks.
Then you can read one of numerous official reports on the leaks.
Even with the kindest interpretation of "skeptic" arguments surrounding the emails, I have found it hard to find anything of interest. It is a classic nothing burger.
When you want something done 22 times the same way, the command line rocks.
If you use the CLI enough, eventually you will find it is faster than using a gui for most tasks. And I'm a mac user from way back to 1985. Point and click is great, and I grew up with it. For programming (computer vision), I much prefer the command line, and linux has an edge of OSX there. (Emacs is less stable on OSX, and the terminal app isn't quite as good as konsole.)
The U.S. was the terrorist in vietnam , and they killed more than a million
I'm not going to defend the US involvement in Vietnam; however, I do know the situation is far more complex than you suggest. I knew boat people growing up, there are a lot of them in Australia -- people who fled South Vietnam because they had a deep distaste for the North Vietnamese regime. The two "countries" were pawns in the cold war, with china and USSR on one side (before China back-stabbed both of them for nationalist reasons), and Load, Khmer, Thailand, USA, Australia, New Zealand on the other side. Back then, the Chinese/Soviets believed in a world-wide communist revolution. It was a different world. Speak to some boat people about their perception of the Vietnam war.
the opaque nature of FISA courts means that they're the black hand of government.
The FISA court members have lifetime appointments, and cannot be touched by the executive branch, or congress. They are effectively a law unto themselves, since their dirty laundry never gets aired by the supreme court. Oh course they're going to take the conservative approach and allow wide-spread surveillance. They can't get in trouble for doing so, but if they don't, then maybe something bad really will happen.
When you've used linux enough, and "get it", then you'll have no desire to do otherwise.
I am a life long mac user (since 1985, MacPlus), and love writing usable guis; however, I still prefer the power of text files for configuring my computer. A bad gui is terrible, and a good gui has a ridiculous amount of state to handle. Config files give you all the power you want, with the addition of allowing you to use unix tools to glue together various processes. I believe the main reason people don't write guis to edge config files is that they wouldn't use the resulting gui anyway.
then there's no good reason for them to have root.
For god's sake, a student should (ideally) have the opportunity to use the package management system to fiddle with different libraries.
Moderate democrats these day are usually not in favor of 2A as an individual right.
That is so untrue. Moderate democrats don't take a totalitarian view of the 2nd amendment, but they are definitely the right to bear arms. In that, they are like the current supreme court. If you can't see that, then you're spending too much time with the tin-foil hat crowd.
I meant Mike Duncun's excellent podcast. Better than HCH in my opinion =0.
Or maybe the idea of labeling someone according to a very broad group of beliefs is flawed.
Obviously the left-right spectrum has problems; however, at the same time, politics is as much about tribalism as anything else. The mechanisms are atavistic -- part of the six million year old self. People who think they are above tribalism are probably deluding themselves, they may as well assert that branding has no effect on them either. Even apolitical people have political circuits primed and ready if you dig beneath the surface.
Nah...can't possibly be - we've been doing it for thousands of years and it seems to be working out really well for us.,
I recently listened to the excellent History of Rome podcast, and one thing that struck home is the politics of the old Roman Republic. It would be trivial to sort many Roman politicians into left-right. There is probably a biological basis -- twin studies suggest this. For example, electro-physical reactions of disgust to (say) photos of rotton food are correlated with peoples voting preferences, across the whole world. Crazy eh?
It is a little too black-and-white to say that labelling is flawed. It is also too black-and-white to say a person is X or Y in a given political group. That's where I stand.