> Latest science says fossil fuels are good and protect against global warming.
No, it says the emission of fossil fuel by-products limit the effects of CO2-emissions. Stopping the emission of those by-products will release the full effect of the CO2 emission.
So, does that mean fossil fuels are good and protect us from global warming, like you concluded?
No, it means that some by-products are good and momentarily soften the effect of the consumption of fossil fuel.
It's like saying taking crack is good, because it prevents the signs of withdrawal.
> The beauty of modeling chaotic systems is that you can get any answer you want.
The ugliness of chaotic systems is, that people think they hear the word and now think they now everything about it.
A river is a chaotic system, nonetheless even without a degree in Mathematics, you will be able to estimate quite correctly that a leaf on a river will flow downwards (most of the time) and no butterfly in Australia will change that.
Yes, chaotic system put some limitations on the predictability, but strangely enough, those people researching a certain field are well versed in the dynamics of their systems. Or at least much more versed than some person reading some pop-sci.
> Yet the machine doesn't seem to give the shivers to its users.
Instead of asking, why the Japanese people do accept machines so willingly, and easily making xenophobia the culprit, one can ask why do Westerners reject them?
Read the comments here on Slashdot and you will notice that many people will mourn the lost workplaces. And that in a rather technophile commmunity and despite the fact that automatisation has happened over centuries (weavers in the industrialisation, Ford T., robots 90s? or 80s?) which lead to the life-style we currently can afford and maybe even enjoy.
Think of the representation of machines and robots in Western culture. What picture do they paint? Starting with Lang's "Metropolis", over to Charlie Chaplin's "Modern Times", Camerons "Terminator" or the more current "I, Robot", there are numerous films which are rather cautious, to say the least.
In contrast to, say, P.K. Dicks vision ("Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"), the stories of Asimov are one of the few which paint a rather positive few of robots.
On the other hand, in Japanese popular culture, robots are usually shown as in more positive way. (Starting with Astro Boy).
> That means that publishers should be forbidden to add any DRM, region codes, Macrovision and whatnot to their content.
I think this is the interesting part. Are works published with copy protection entitled to a share of those fees? If I understand the law (Article 54) correctly, they are not.
> because they assume you will illegally be using copyright-protected content on your computer.
No, you misunderstood the intent of the law. The intent of the law is not to make you pay in advance for breaking the law, but for extending your rights as consument by compensating the producer.
The tax was levied on copying devices and media because you were allowed to make copies of music and films. Not just for you personally, but also for friends and family.
I speak in past tense, because AFAIK, the law has been somewhat modified.
Every miserable fool who has nothing at all of which he can be proud, adopts as a last resource pride in the nation to which he belongs; he is ready and happy to defend all its faults and follies tooth and nail, thus reimbursing himself for his own inferiority. - Arthur Schopenhauer
As far as I could gather, the word "duits" was the same word as "diets". So was the German word "deutsch". They all stem from the Germanic word "theoda": The people.
However, since my Dutch is nonexistant, and I only gathered that information from my knowledge in German, so feel free to correct me: Here is my source.
I think, we had the Altamont topic topic before. The point was, Altamont farm is flawed. Others do not show such abnormal high mortalities. However, birds die from wind farms, but they die more often from collisions window panes, or cats, or cars, etc. than from wind farms.
B.4 Don't volcanoes naturally release far more CO2 into the atmosphere each year than humans?
Response: No. On a global scale, volcanoes release less than 1% of human emissions of carbon dioxide and hence are a minor contributor to changes in its atmospheric concentrations. Furthermore, emissions from volcanoes have always been part of the natural cycle, [...].
Or other concrete numbers e.g. SO2 : 79 Tg/a human-caused, 24 Tg/a due to natural processes, including volcanoes.
Except on that matter the FA is plain wrong: There is no statistical correlation between the GDP growth (economic growth) and CO2 emissions.
Contrary to your statement, the author suggested that the economical value of wind farms is debateable. But so is the economical value of pyramids. But on that matter, I refer you to Lord Keynes.
The reviewer explicitely stated that the political leaning of the author is clearly visible. Personally, I undestood it that way, that he (the author) is critical towards globalisation. Admittantly, a trait predominantly shared among the left, but also prevalent among conservative members of the society. (Buy *insert nationality here*!)
You criticise the review on the basis that the reviewer did not noted that the book is written by a socialist. This somewhat sounded to me like a person complaining about a lacking warning.
On a US centric site, where socialism is often equated with communism, which in turn is equated with dicatorship, it makes it even more sound being socialist is even more the point of criticism.
You can definitely tell which side the author is leaning, but subjective writing makes the reading more interesting.
> he's an out-and-out socialist, By the use of the term "class structure", you deduct that he's an "out-and-out" socialist?
You know that it is a term in social science and political science, used by Karl Marx, but also by Max Weber (in fact, both were sociologist), who had a view contrary to that of Marx. He wrote (among others) "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism".
The problem is less the complexity of the implementation.
How do you avoid votes being bought? And how do avoid a reversal of power? In other words, how do you avoid that you empowering your proxy doesn't give him the power to coerce you to make him your proxy? The anonymity of the voter is a very important part of democracy.
See, it's not like you couldn't vote in "Communistic" countries. In some, there were even other parties, or you could elect any person you like. But you may guess what will happen, if you'd actually did vote for a non-approved person.
The point is, you'll pay $300 for the storage alone and you'll have to take the PDA with you just to listen music, and finally you'll get the battery-life of a PDA with a 4gig CF card attached.
How about buying a 4Gig MP3-player and a USB host-capable PDA?
A normal lamp has about 11 lumen/W (a quite low estimate could maybe go up to 20lm/W) An energy saving lamp about 64lumen/W (a relativly efficient one)
Taking the 2 times more light than a 100W lamp this gives us 2200 lumen/22 watts: 100lumen/watt.
Sorry, I was under the strange misconception that CO2 emissions should be awarded to production, not consumerism, because production inevitably causes CO2 emissions.
> But the government is your main customer and there is a limit to what they can buy [...]
I didn't want to suggest that the military spending is used to artificially increase the GDP. It should be taken as one point how the GDP increased, without being necessarily of benefit. BTW, the US has raised its limit of deficit once again. This means a good thing for the GDP.
> I don't see what bearing that has on the discussion
You don't see what bearing it has, that there is no connection between GDP-growth and CO2 emissions (after a industrialisation phase)?
The Kyoto protocol is limiting the emissions of the US and other industrialised nations to that of 1995. Since the GDP is independent of CO2 emissions, their economic growth should not be hindered by it. It is merely a question of policies.
The developing countries will likely increase their CO2 emissions until they reach a certain level of industrialisation. But since they aren't industrialised, it is natural that they're CO2 emissions will increase. And since they are cheap countries, it is natural that their GDP is low. If you pay a tenth for your costs of living and only get a tenth in wages, the GDP will be a tenth.
> It looks at the U.S. and sees us as the #1 producer but ignores the fact that the amount of economic activity that we create is equally high.
Let's see the following kgCO2/$GDP table from the IEA:
I can see, how think the US is held to unfair standard.
> the fact that the organization in question seems to be a group of
You seemed to have spend more time on finding out about the group than reading the report. The report is external, made by scholars from the Oxford and Cambridge University, and criticises a report by the group itself.
Slashdot Mirror
> Latest science says fossil fuels are good and protect against global warming.
No, it says the emission of fossil fuel by-products limit the effects of CO2-emissions. Stopping the emission of those by-products will release the full effect of the CO2 emission.
So, does that mean fossil fuels are good and protect us from global warming, like you concluded?
No, it means that some by-products are good and momentarily soften the effect of the consumption of fossil fuel.
It's like saying taking crack is good, because it prevents the signs of withdrawal.
> The beauty of modeling chaotic systems is that you can get any answer you want.
The ugliness of chaotic systems is, that people think they hear the word and now think they now everything about it.
A river is a chaotic system, nonetheless even without a degree in Mathematics, you will be able to estimate quite correctly that a leaf on a river will flow downwards (most of the time) and no butterfly in Australia will change that.
Yes, chaotic system put some limitations on the predictability, but strangely enough, those people researching a certain field are well versed in the dynamics of their systems. Or at least much more versed than some person reading some pop-sci.
> Yet the machine doesn't seem to give the shivers to its users.
Instead of asking, why the Japanese people do accept machines so willingly, and easily making xenophobia the culprit, one can ask why do Westerners reject them?
Read the comments here on Slashdot and you will notice that many people will mourn the lost workplaces. And that in a rather technophile commmunity and despite the fact that automatisation has happened over centuries (weavers in the industrialisation, Ford T., robots 90s? or 80s?) which lead to the life-style we currently can afford and maybe even enjoy.
Think of the representation of machines and robots in Western culture. What picture do they paint? Starting with Lang's "Metropolis", over to Charlie Chaplin's "Modern Times", Camerons "Terminator" or the more current "I, Robot", there are numerous films which are rather cautious, to say the least.
In contrast to, say, P.K. Dicks vision ("Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"), the stories of Asimov are one of the few which paint a rather positive few of robots.
On the other hand, in Japanese popular culture, robots are usually shown as in more positive way. (Starting with Astro Boy).
Where is he saying that it is useless and a waste of lives and money? He merely states that there are limits to its success.
> you may be able to argue that there is an implied agreement
No, there is no implied agreement. There is an explicit agreement on which this tax is based.
Article 53 defines what kind of copying is allowed. Article 54 says there should be a compensation for it.
The publishers, the composers and the lyricists get each their share directly.
From the horses mouth.
> That means that publishers should be forbidden to add any DRM, region codes, Macrovision and whatnot to their content.
I think this is the interesting part. Are works published with copy protection entitled to a share of those fees?
If I understand the law (Article 54) correctly, they are not.
> because they assume you will illegally be using copyright-protected content on your computer.
No, you misunderstood the intent of the law. The intent of the law is not to make you pay in advance for breaking the law, but for extending your rights as consument by compensating the producer.
The tax was levied on copying devices and media because you were allowed to make copies of music and films. Not just for you personally, but also for friends and family.
I speak in past tense, because AFAIK, the law has been somewhat modified.
David Hilbert
> In democratic societies nobody tries to shove shit down your throat by issuing decrees.
In all democratic countries, you will get "shit shoved down your throat by issuing decrets".
Democracy is the dictatorship of the majority.
If you don't like that, go for anarchism.
I don't know about the whole industry, but at least for Sony the gaming division accounted for roughly the same turnover as the film division.
I believe that would include the rental and DVD sales market for Sony.
As far as I could gather, the word "duits" was the same word as "diets". So was the German word "deutsch". They all stem from the Germanic word "theoda": The people.
However, since my Dutch is nonexistant, and I only gathered that information from my knowledge in German, so feel free to correct me: Here is my source.
I think, we had the Altamont topic
topic before. The point was, Altamont farm is flawed. Others do not show such abnormal high mortalities. However, birds die from wind farms, but they die more often from collisions window panes, or cats, or cars, etc. than from wind farms.
Or other concrete numbers e.g. SO2 : 79 Tg/a human-caused, 24 Tg/a due to natural processes, including volcanoes.
Except on that matter the FA is plain wrong: There is no statistical correlation between the GDP growth (economic growth) and CO2 emissions.
Contrary to your statement, the author suggested that the economical value of wind farms is debateable. But so is the economical value of pyramids. But on that matter, I refer you to Lord Keynes.
The reviewer explicitely stated that the political leaning of the author is clearly visible. Personally, I undestood it that way, that he (the author) is critical towards globalisation. Admittantly, a trait predominantly shared among the left, but also prevalent among conservative members of the society. (Buy *insert nationality here*!)
You criticise the review on the basis that the reviewer did not noted that the book is written by a socialist. This somewhat sounded to me like a person complaining about a lacking warning.
On a US centric site, where socialism is often equated with communism, which in turn is equated with dicatorship, it makes it even more sound being socialist is even more the point of criticism.
> he's an out-and-out socialist,
By the use of the term "class structure", you deduct that he's an "out-and-out" socialist?
You know that it is a term in social science and political science, used by Karl Marx, but also by Max Weber (in fact, both were sociologist), who had a view contrary to that of Marx. He wrote (among others) "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism".
> and you don't have those silly western 'ethics' about doing tests on humans before doing animal tests
First, I assume you want to suggest that it is western ethics to do tests on animals before doing tests on humans.
And what makes you say, that? Do the article suggest anything like that?
The problem is less the complexity of the implementation.
How do you avoid votes being bought?
And how do avoid a reversal of power? In other words, how do you avoid that you empowering your proxy doesn't give him the power to coerce you to make him your proxy? The anonymity of the voter is a very important part of democracy.
See, it's not like you couldn't vote in "Communistic" countries. In some, there were even other parties, or you could elect any person you like. But you may guess what will happen, if you'd actually did vote for a non-approved person.
The point is, you'll pay $300 for the storage alone and you'll have to take the PDA with you just to listen music, and finally you'll get the battery-life of a PDA with a 4gig CF card attached.
How about buying a 4Gig MP3-player and a USB host-capable PDA?
A normal lamp has about 11 lumen/W (a quite low estimate could maybe go up to 20lm/W)
An energy saving lamp about 64lumen/W (a relativly efficient one)
Taking the 2 times more light than a 100W lamp this gives us 2200 lumen/22 watts: 100lumen/watt.
Lifetime for energy saving lamps are about 10E5h.
> But the government is your main customer and there is a limit to what they can buy [...]
I didn't want to suggest that the military spending is used to artificially increase the GDP. It should be taken as one point how the GDP increased, without being necessarily of benefit.
BTW, the US has raised its limit of deficit once again. This means a good thing for the GDP.
> I don't see what bearing that has on the discussion
You don't see what bearing it has, that there is no connection between GDP-growth and CO2 emissions (after a industrialisation phase)?
The Kyoto protocol is limiting the emissions of the US and other industrialised nations to that of 1995. Since the GDP is independent of CO2 emissions, their economic growth should not be hindered by it. It is merely a question of policies.
The developing countries will likely increase their CO2 emissions until they reach a certain level of industrialisation. But since they aren't industrialised, it is natural that they're CO2 emissions will increase. And since they are cheap countries, it is natural that their GDP is low. If you pay a tenth for your costs of living and only get a tenth in wages, the GDP will be a tenth.
> It looks at the U.S. and sees us as the #1 producer but ignores the fact that the amount of economic activity that we create is equally high.
Let's see the following kgCO2/$GDP table from the IEA:Now, we take the PPP into account, in order to try to eliminate the distortions of the GDP by the different costs of living:I can see, how think the US is held to unfair standard.
> the fact that the organization in question seems to be a group of
You seemed to have spend more time on finding out about the group than reading the report.
The report is external, made by scholars from the Oxford and Cambridge University, and criticises a report by the group itself.
See for yourself, what the GDP is.
Simply put, is says, how much money is spent in one country. However, it doesn't take into account on what.
> I'm half German and mah peeps have some experience with that.
With surrendering?