so manipulating the environment in order to make a claim about the climate have more impact then it otherwise would is part of his job huh? Getting arrested and leading protests is part of his job.
Bullshit. Hansen jumped the shark in the beginning and the reason he hasn't been fired is because it's near impossible to fire government employees not directly related to security.
Ever wonder why the US doesn't believe in the seriousness of global warming? It's because Hansen attempted to defraud us from the start and it's almost impossible to not look for the fraud in the claims ever since.
I'm not sure why all the sudden whoever appointed a judge is somehow any indication of the political affiliation of the judges. When Reagan was in office, they appointed judges based on their merit and qualifications, not phony support for some party ideals. Reagan had a democrat congress, there was no rubber stamping biased appointments.
Come on, how is he dishonest if he says he takes both sides the ends up on one of them.
Too bad this didn't happen 3 months ago, in time for everyone's power bill to go up before the election. However, I'm not sure the blame would be his as this is a result of legal authority and court action. I guess maybe he could ignore the law like with a lot of other things.
Because no matter how you want to think of the state of war being perpetual, we shouldn't enshrine it with appropriation for it in every budget for the rest of the US lifespan. When a war happens, congress needs to specifically consider the costs separate from any riders or pork spending and wars generally are not planned to start after a budget paying for them is passed. Going to war is an emergency thing. It should not be a permanent thing and it should not be institutionalized the same as providing for the social security of the population or staffing a firehouse.
Actually, the problem is not with it being classified with emergency spending, it is the congress' ability to re-appropriate the increased spending that was specifically caused by the war. A perfectly valid alternative to keeping it emergency spending and off budget is to legally isolate it from the rest of the budget with laws requiring the same appropriations actions required for new standard pertain to any monies created for war efforts.
You see, congress has to go through a special process to increase it's ability to spend money. If they do not go through that process, then new programs and increases to existing programs must be "paid for" in the budget by removing it from another expenditure in the budget. This separate process requires a larger majority of votes and a process to evaluate the costs verses impact of the spending- except in cases of emergency spending. Off budget spending like emergency spending simply disappears when the need for it disappears. With war spending on budget and no safeguards in place, as soon as the wars stop or dies down, congress can reallocate that increase in spending to the program of their choice just the same as if they cut the EPA funding to increase Medicare funding.
What we will have is a situation where it is actually politically advantageous to start a war to get the emergency funding in place initially, then move it on to the budget as regular spending without any of the existing checks, then end the war in efforts to create funding for unpopular projects or initiatives. The entire purpose of puting war funding on budget is to continue spending the money after the wars are over. Congress has not tried to hide that as they are already purposing ways to spend the money use to fund the Iraq war when it officially dies off.
Actually, it's fuck that, fuck him and yes, it is perfectly good enough for all that he deserves. Obviously you don't think so, so you can continue to suck his cock all you want.
When other scientists who do not exaggerate things like Hansen's co worker Dr. Hoerling come right out and say Hansen's latest puke of an article isn't science, I tend to not care about your insistence on honoring the shill.
sigh... James Hansen (with a couple democrat staffers in 1988) has been involved in turning the AC units off in congress claiming they were broken on the historically hottest day of the year in order to exaggerate his clams of global warming. The day wasn't an accident either, he admitted in an interview that they looked up the day and month that was statistically the hottest and orchestrated a scheduling to make sure it was that day so congress would be baking in the heat when he went and told them the world is getting hotter.
Then there is the work of other scientists like Dr. Hoerling who come right out and say he's exaggerating perception and not doing science.
There is a wealth of well known information about him. I suggest you learn for yourself.
I'm sorry that your actions have inspired that reaction so many times that it has a common name for you to refer to.
Perhaps if you look at yourself you will find WTF is it with you people. Usually, when you are confused to why people are treating you a certain way, self reflection helps you figure it out.
I'll give you a hint, it has a little to do with your comprehension skills and overly zealous approach to all things global warming advocacy. You see, not only did i not say Hansen didn't know anything, I never proceeded to make fun of your religion either. Yet somehow you perceived it and made the accusation.
"Because as we all know, people who0 have exaggerated claims, participated in fraud, and justified it with how they "felt about the situation", couldn't possibly have any insight into the statistical thermodynamics of gases."
FTFY.
And it isn't that they won't have any insight, its that I do not want to spend the effort weeding through the bullshit to find it from the exaggerations.
Any company would comply to multiple cease and desists./blockquote I don't know why, unless the C&D is in the form of a DMCA take down notice, the network is immune from copyright violations the C&D claims to point out.
From what i can tell, it appeared that he was an affiliate with barns and amazon until the entire taxing of internet activity in California thing went down and amazon removed affiliates in California. I do not know if he charged a membership or not to use the lending service, but it appeared you needed an account to access it.
Either way, it seems the linking of lenders was the secondary nature of the site, as a promotion service or something for users to go there. When they searched for a book, if someone was willing to lend it, it would show that as an option on the way to amazon's checkout (where ultimately the lending process would take place). If there wasn't someone willing to lend, you got an option to purchase the book.
I think the potential to getting a lend copy was the driving force behind difference between it and the otherwise 2 million other sites like this that sold ebooks for a commission.
What was the site really doing. Was it simply a service to say, I've got BookX and am looking for BookY? Were people simply asking for requested books to read or listing their inventory and trading or something? It seems to me that amazon and Kindle both have their readers locked down so you can't move the stuff around without their permission.
I don't do the Ebook thing. I demand a copy I can take from computer to computer, put on a thumb drive, or a hard copy of some sorts that I don't mind leaving in the crapper (printed pages don't work)..
I don't need to back peddle. We have been through this before, it's why you decided you had to show the entire world how pissed you are at me and put that foe dot on.
I simply do not go to the same church as you do and do not bow down to worship every fucktwit who preaches your gospel. Get over it. Hansen is a politically motivated self interested buffoon who doesn't interest me. HE could tell me there is a spider on my sleeve and I wouldn't pay attention until someone else told me it was there or I saw it for myself somehow. HE is nothing but a shill that happens to work for the government. His actions show this, not my ignorance or anything else you can imagine to make yourself feel good about hanging on his every thought.
the counter claim goes to the ISP/hosting company too. it doesn't require any justification to how you are legally entitled or not otherwise infringing, just a statement that your activities aren't infringing or something like that.
besides, you can recover legal fees to defend against this. The DMCA specificly allows this and the ISP is treating the C&Ds as take down notices regardless of the sender's intent to distance themselves from it.
A cease and desist is completely meaningless because an ISP is immune from copyright violations if it follows the DMCA. There is no fighting at all and the ISP including the claimed infringer can recover damages including costs and lawyer fees.
The DMCA does state that the ISP has to remove content if it becomes aware of infringing activity that are not allowed by the copyright holder or law. But a take down notice as prescribed by law is the only valid form of a copyright owner or their agent to notify the ISP of the infringing activity and the law states that notices that do not comply with the section 3 requirements do not count as actual knowledge of infringement activities.
No ISP has anything to fear over a cease and desist notice for copyright unless it complies with the take down notice requirements or substantially complies and the ISP will have to notify them of a proper take down format..
I doubt they are just complaints and not take down notices. the ISP seems to be demanding a DMCA counterclaim to be filed to turn the service back on. It is likely some trade group filing then all at once on behalf of its members using its members names dirctly to survive a new havean failure.
As for the ELUA, it isn't necessary. If the law already allows for recovery of damages, then just go for the damages, The only thing that limits an ISP from damages is the reliance on the DMCA. There is no limits to liability for the accuser outside the infringement claim being accurate and the accused infringing party not having any legitimate right to the covered material. And if the ISP is not in compliance with the DMCA provisions, IE complaints but no take down notices, they can be liable for damages too if they don't follow the counterclaim process.. Remember, the DMCA protects the ISP against copyright violation only unless there is a take down notice and they comply with it and the counter claim rules.
Actually, you are the crazy one here. You must be having conversations in your head and thinking I was actually there or something. I never said a NASA guy didn't know anything, I said I do not pay attention to him because he pulled some crap in the past in order to increased the perceived value of his statements and validated by saying his opinion matters more then exaggerating claims.
lol. Hansen.. I tend not to put much faith or credit in people who use stage tricks to exaggerate a point then claim it was justifiable because of his own belief in the urgency of it. He's sort of like the crazy guy on the street corner claiming the world is going to end on a specific date then running out in front of a bus on that day.
I suspect his being modded was the result of his questions. I've seen it happen too with someone spending all their points going down the list and down modding a specific user.
The problem with his understanding of the differences between weather and climate stems from the very global warming advocates themselves running out saying X happened, it is because of global warming, now support this legislation that will drive the costs of gas and electricity up. This is exactly what is happening right now, a NASA scientist, the same one who was involved with turning the AC units in congress off and attempting to schedule his speech on the historically hottest day of the year just to make a point about global warming to congress. When the leading scientist are grasping at anything and saying see, I'm right, it will create confusion and it will have people asking what about this or that which is essentially the same in return.
I think there is a serious problem with your analogy there. You show and state situations where someone deceives others, the magician reads the shilll's mind, the shill wins a rigged game, then go round the world saying that anyone without any evidence of fraud would be committing fraud if they looked or talked like that person who did something wrong at some time.
It just doesn't make sense to do this. If there is fraud going on, ten sure, but not disclosing potential relationships does not automatically equate to fraud.
I was actually attempting to make a joke on the GP's statement of the flawed methodology bringing up the possibility of proving a higher statistical certainty in the increase of alien abductions that i somewhat agree with.
But it seems that if we take into consideration the information you showed and corrected the data points in order to account for the lack of preparedness and IQ we might actually be able to pull it off.:)
It would be fraud if the content of the speech was solely that of the employer or somehow a misrepresentation of the true nature of events. Not disclosing employment or payments in and of itself would not make it fraud.
Slashdot Mirror
so manipulating the environment in order to make a claim about the climate have more impact then it otherwise would is part of his job huh? Getting arrested and leading protests is part of his job.
Bullshit. Hansen jumped the shark in the beginning and the reason he hasn't been fired is because it's near impossible to fire government employees not directly related to security.
Ever wonder why the US doesn't believe in the seriousness of global warming? It's because Hansen attempted to defraud us from the start and it's almost impossible to not look for the fraud in the claims ever since.
I'm not sure why all the sudden whoever appointed a judge is somehow any indication of the political affiliation of the judges. When Reagan was in office, they appointed judges based on their merit and qualifications, not phony support for some party ideals. Reagan had a democrat congress, there was no rubber stamping biased appointments.
Come on, how is he dishonest if he says he takes both sides the ends up on one of them.
Too bad this didn't happen 3 months ago, in time for everyone's power bill to go up before the election. However, I'm not sure the blame would be his as this is a result of legal authority and court action. I guess maybe he could ignore the law like with a lot of other things.
Because no matter how you want to think of the state of war being perpetual, we shouldn't enshrine it with appropriation for it in every budget for the rest of the US lifespan. When a war happens, congress needs to specifically consider the costs separate from any riders or pork spending and wars generally are not planned to start after a budget paying for them is passed. Going to war is an emergency thing. It should not be a permanent thing and it should not be institutionalized the same as providing for the social security of the population or staffing a firehouse.
Actually, the problem is not with it being classified with emergency spending, it is the congress' ability to re-appropriate the increased spending that was specifically caused by the war. A perfectly valid alternative to keeping it emergency spending and off budget is to legally isolate it from the rest of the budget with laws requiring the same appropriations actions required for new standard pertain to any monies created for war efforts.
You see, congress has to go through a special process to increase it's ability to spend money. If they do not go through that process, then new programs and increases to existing programs must be "paid for" in the budget by removing it from another expenditure in the budget. This separate process requires a larger majority of votes and a process to evaluate the costs verses impact of the spending- except in cases of emergency spending. Off budget spending like emergency spending simply disappears when the need for it disappears. With war spending on budget and no safeguards in place, as soon as the wars stop or dies down, congress can reallocate that increase in spending to the program of their choice just the same as if they cut the EPA funding to increase Medicare funding.
What we will have is a situation where it is actually politically advantageous to start a war to get the emergency funding in place initially, then move it on to the budget as regular spending without any of the existing checks, then end the war in efforts to create funding for unpopular projects or initiatives. The entire purpose of puting war funding on budget is to continue spending the money after the wars are over. Congress has not tried to hide that as they are already purposing ways to spend the money use to fund the Iraq war when it officially dies off.
Actually, it's fuck that, fuck him and yes, it is perfectly good enough for all that he deserves. Obviously you don't think so, so you can continue to suck his cock all you want.
When other scientists who do not exaggerate things like Hansen's co worker Dr. Hoerling come right out and say Hansen's latest puke of an article isn't science, I tend to not care about your insistence on honoring the shill.
sigh... James Hansen (with a couple democrat staffers in 1988) has been involved in turning the AC units off in congress claiming they were broken on the historically hottest day of the year in order to exaggerate his clams of global warming. The day wasn't an accident either, he admitted in an interview that they looked up the day and month that was statistically the hottest and orchestrated a scheduling to make sure it was that day so congress would be baking in the heat when he went and told them the world is getting hotter.
Then there is the work of other scientists like Dr. Hoerling who come right out and say he's exaggerating perception and not doing science.
There is a wealth of well known information about him. I suggest you learn for yourself.
The magician's shill is still attempting to deceive people. Someone who gives their honest opinion is not.
If it is the person's honest opinion, there is no reason to disclose anything.
I'm sorry that your actions have inspired that reaction so many times that it has a common name for you to refer to.
Perhaps if you look at yourself you will find WTF is it with you people. Usually, when you are confused to why people are treating you a certain way, self reflection helps you figure it out.
I'll give you a hint, it has a little to do with your comprehension skills and overly zealous approach to all things global warming advocacy. You see, not only did i not say Hansen didn't know anything, I never proceeded to make fun of your religion either. Yet somehow you perceived it and made the accusation.
"Because as we all know, people who0 have exaggerated claims, participated in fraud, and justified it with how they "felt about the situation", couldn't possibly have any insight into the statistical thermodynamics of gases."
FTFY.
And it isn't that they won't have any insight, its that I do not want to spend the effort weeding through the bullshit to find it from the exaggerations.
From what i can tell, it appeared that he was an affiliate with barns and amazon until the entire taxing of internet activity in California thing went down and amazon removed affiliates in California. I do not know if he charged a membership or not to use the lending service, but it appeared you needed an account to access it.
Either way, it seems the linking of lenders was the secondary nature of the site, as a promotion service or something for users to go there. When they searched for a book, if someone was willing to lend it, it would show that as an option on the way to amazon's checkout (where ultimately the lending process would take place). If there wasn't someone willing to lend, you got an option to purchase the book.
I think the potential to getting a lend copy was the driving force behind difference between it and the otherwise 2 million other sites like this that sold ebooks for a commission.
What was the site really doing. Was it simply a service to say, I've got BookX and am looking for BookY? Were people simply asking for requested books to read or listing their inventory and trading or something? It seems to me that amazon and Kindle both have their readers locked down so you can't move the stuff around without their permission.
I don't do the Ebook thing. I demand a copy I can take from computer to computer, put on a thumb drive, or a hard copy of some sorts that I don't mind leaving in the crapper (printed pages don't work)..
I don't need to back peddle. We have been through this before, it's why you decided you had to show the entire world how pissed you are at me and put that foe dot on.
I simply do not go to the same church as you do and do not bow down to worship every fucktwit who preaches your gospel. Get over it. Hansen is a politically motivated self interested buffoon who doesn't interest me. HE could tell me there is a spider on my sleeve and I wouldn't pay attention until someone else told me it was there or I saw it for myself somehow. HE is nothing but a shill that happens to work for the government. His actions show this, not my ignorance or anything else you can imagine to make yourself feel good about hanging on his every thought.
the counter claim goes to the ISP/hosting company too. it doesn't require any justification to how you are legally entitled or not otherwise infringing, just a statement that your activities aren't infringing or something like that.
besides, you can recover legal fees to defend against this. The DMCA specificly allows this and the ISP is treating the C&Ds as take down notices regardless of the sender's intent to distance themselves from it.
A cease and desist is completely meaningless because an ISP is immune from copyright violations if it follows the DMCA. There is no fighting at all and the ISP including the claimed infringer can recover damages including costs and lawyer fees.
The DMCA does state that the ISP has to remove content if it becomes aware of infringing activity that are not allowed by the copyright holder or law. But a take down notice as prescribed by law is the only valid form of a copyright owner or their agent to notify the ISP of the infringing activity and the law states that notices that do not comply with the section 3 requirements do not count as actual knowledge of infringement activities.
No ISP has anything to fear over a cease and desist notice for copyright unless it complies with the take down notice requirements or substantially complies and the ISP will have to notify them of a proper take down format..
I doubt they are just complaints and not take down notices. the ISP seems to be demanding a DMCA counterclaim to be filed to turn the service back on. It is likely some trade group filing then all at once on behalf of its members using its members names dirctly to survive a new havean failure.
As for the ELUA, it isn't necessary. If the law already allows for recovery of damages, then just go for the damages, The only thing that limits an ISP from damages is the reliance on the DMCA. There is no limits to liability for the accuser outside the infringement claim being accurate and the accused infringing party not having any legitimate right to the covered material. And if the ISP is not in compliance with the DMCA provisions, IE complaints but no take down notices, they can be liable for damages too if they don't follow the counterclaim process.. Remember, the DMCA protects the ISP against copyright violation only unless there is a take down notice and they comply with it and the counter claim rules.
Actually, you are the crazy one here. You must be having conversations in your head and thinking I was actually there or something. I never said a NASA guy didn't know anything, I said I do not pay attention to him because he pulled some crap in the past in order to increased the perceived value of his statements and validated by saying his opinion matters more then exaggerating claims.
How about I just pay attention to the scientists who don't remind you of a cross between a used car salesman and a TV evangelist preacher.
lol. Hansen.. I tend not to put much faith or credit in people who use stage tricks to exaggerate a point then claim it was justifiable because of his own belief in the urgency of it. He's sort of like the crazy guy on the street corner claiming the world is going to end on a specific date then running out in front of a bus on that day.
I suspect his being modded was the result of his questions. I've seen it happen too with someone spending all their points going down the list and down modding a specific user.
The problem with his understanding of the differences between weather and climate stems from the very global warming advocates themselves running out saying X happened, it is because of global warming, now support this legislation that will drive the costs of gas and electricity up. This is exactly what is happening right now, a NASA scientist, the same one who was involved with turning the AC units in congress off and attempting to schedule his speech on the historically hottest day of the year just to make a point about global warming to congress. When the leading scientist are grasping at anything and saying see, I'm right, it will create confusion and it will have people asking what about this or that which is essentially the same in return.
Interesting statement Do you have a cite discussing this or is it the result of your own mental quantifiers?
I think there is a serious problem with your analogy there. You show and state situations where someone deceives others, the magician reads the shilll's mind, the shill wins a rigged game, then go round the world saying that anyone without any evidence of fraud would be committing fraud if they looked or talked like that person who did something wrong at some time.
It just doesn't make sense to do this. If there is fraud going on, ten sure, but not disclosing potential relationships does not automatically equate to fraud.
Interesting consideration.
I was actually attempting to make a joke on the GP's statement of the flawed methodology bringing up the possibility of proving a higher statistical certainty in the increase of alien abductions that i somewhat agree with.
But it seems that if we take into consideration the information you showed and corrected the data points in order to account for the lack of preparedness and IQ we might actually be able to pull it off. :)
It would be fraud if the content of the speech was solely that of the employer or somehow a misrepresentation of the true nature of events. Not disclosing employment or payments in and of itself would not make it fraud.