I had to update my bios on a system to stop the crashes in windows XP. the box the mainboard came in said it was designed for win xp, but it would go into crashing reboot fits after some automatic windows updates early on.
well, i just composed an email warning all my family and friends of this and the steps they need to protect themselves. I found this program on a Chinese website that automatically patches any bios concerning this risk from within windows explorer. but you have to make sure you disable your antivirus before running it else it will make your system inaccessible.
That problem has been around forever. It's likely when hope means despair or close to it when people run out of ideas. the rallying cry for fixing schools has been we aren't spending enough money. In some areas, there are schools spending 4 times or more per pupil then in others and aren't doing nearly as well. The answer seems to be, we need to spend more money.
I think of it sort of like what ends up getting gamblers in trouble. They place a bet or spend some money, win some, so they go bigger expecting large results. They lose it all, So they go get more money from the conveniently located ATM, and spend some more. They lose it too. But back in their mind, they remember the one time it worked so they get more and lose it too. Except in this case, the government doesn't run out of money and go home to explain to their wives why they got to pack up and move, they print or borrow more were the gambler goes bankrupt and admits he has a problem.
hmm.. lets phrase that question a little differently. Would it be a deterrent to state that something that's illegal (rightly or not), can be traced back to the guilty or responsible party no matter how many layers of obfuscation and anonymity the perpetrator attempts to employ while speaking about a case that required tracking back through several of these layers and resulted in a pretty serious punishment?
Either the guy is misinformed, or he is attempting to scare 95% of the potential violators of this law into thinking twice before assuming they can get away with it just because the person the hate mail is intended for wouldn't be able to figure it out on their own.
Those who did good science but were left out for no good reason, apparently. That is, if there was a significant number of such climate scientist, which there apparently isn't.
You do realize that there was no such thing as a climate scientists until the IPCC came about and global warming activists wanted to restrict who was commenting on it right? Go ahead and show me some degree information on becoming a climate scientists from before 2000 or so. i would be really surprised if you could come close to it.
The climate scientists we have today are invented specifically for climate change and i would suggest that the first thing they are going to do is not publish something contradicting it and lose the rest of their career being blackballed.
I'd tell you, but you wouldn't like that answer.
lol.. This is the entire problem with global warming, it's all "trust me", I know what 'I'm talking about". You don't see a problem there? How about if a used care salesman had that attitude?
Show me one example where climate scientists dismiss scientific paper on any other basis than flaws in its methodology. Analytic and statistical study are necessary but not sufficient qualifications to do climate science. There's a ton of stuff that one has to learn on top of that to actually do any meaningful work in climate science. You wouldn't trust engineer who designed car engines for most of his career to build a jet engine. You wouldn't trust a dentist to do surgery anywhere else but in your mouth. So why do you expect that scientists from fields unrelated to climate science would get climate science right at their first attempt? Those scientists from other fields who were asked to review climate science and spent a better part of a year learning it came to the conclusion that the evidence for man-made global warming is solid. Even those who were initially praised by deniers as the only impartial scientists "who will uncover the conspiracy for sure".
are you dense or something? The CRU emails were full of it. They blatantly dismissed research because it didn't fit into what they wanted.
Just a second here. There's a difference between modifying algorithms in the model and running the same model with more accurate external inputs (solar power output, volcanic activity, CO2 levels). Even a perfect model will make wrong predictions when you feed it inaccurate inputs (again, garbage in, garbage out). And as far as I know, current climate models, although far from perfect, are actually pretty good when you feed them correct inputs. But predicting those inputs is a whole another story for other fields of science.
the models are broken and do not work for predictions. That's a plain and simple fact. They can only validate historical information if tweaked enough and have not even come close to accurately predicting future climate.
Your point would be nice if i limited my statement to just data. But as we know, hansen's data is not the raw data available, he had manipulated it and refused to disclose how or why when it was requested of him until he was ordered to do so by the government after the so called y2k problem with his numbers..
Which would be downright impossible if the connection wasn't there in the first place. The IPCC doesn't do research. It was created to dig through heaps of third party research results and compile a summary for politicians. If they were feeding us bullshit, the climate scientists would be the first to stand up and complain. Hundreds of thousands of climate scientists across the world. Did they? No. The only people who stand up and claim that IPCC feeds us bullshit have degrees only in fields completely unrelated to climate science, if they have any at all.
If all they reported was where the connection is, then who is going to stand up and bitch? but hey, don't take my word for it, the IPCC itself says role is defined in Principles Governing IPCC Work."to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."
I have a question for you: How do you distinguish good science from bullshit in a topic which has been intentionally politicised by people who want the good science buried because there's an awful lot of money in burying it? Or do you think that we should completely give up all research on the whole topic just because somebody launched PR campaign against good science?
You tell me. I mean seriously, when scientific work and criticisms of peer reviewed works are dismissed because of some 20 year old connection to an oil company or because someone isn't a climate scientists even thought analytic and statistical study is what they are qualified with and nit picking over. How about when an entire research team purposely leaves out data that throws their preconceived theory into question and causes numbers and crap not to line up. How do you weed out the bad science and keep only the good science when modelling to date has not been able to accurately predict the state of climate change without going back and modifying the models to make historical data relevant- yet still isn't capable of an accurate forward looking prediction?
Good science where i am from is capable of standing on it's own merits. it doesn't need to be dismissed because of character assassinations or protected by doing them. the science is either legit or it is not.
Do you think it's possible that he is motivated by political ideals and exaggerate his case to further those ideals?
Here is the problem, when he enters the realm of politics and starts pushing opinion, unlike science, you cannot verify those opinions nor can you validate them. What you can do is accept them or deny them and base that decision on all sorts of observations concerning him. I would say with his initial refusal to disclose his numbers and methodology, how he was in one democrat staffers rigging the AC before he spoke to congress, how Hansen himself admitted to exaggerating claims because he felt the ends justified the means, and one of the people who was refused access to the data and methodology finding a flaw in his calculations, says a lot about him politically.
Like the parent said, when you take science into the realm of politics, expect politics to be the realm you are in.
His logic is not flawed at all. It's your analogy that's broken. To be more apt, your comparison would need the politician mentioning inertia and demanding all of science do something differently that is also costly right now. Remember when someone from Indiana tried to change the value of Pi, think more along those lines.
And yes, that is what some climate scientists are/where doing in the name of their science. James Hansen comes to mind directly, but the CRU climate research unit had some similar models of political punditry. The IPCC was pretty much a political organization with the intent of showing a connection between global warming and humans. Only the true believers refuse to see that most of climate science has been politicized when it comes to global warming
I partially agree. although Lamaism has lost it, it's important to some degree to mention it in order to know what has been there before. To understand science, in a lot of instances, you need a brief understand of how we got to the understandings we hold today. I see nothing wrong with mentioning religions or societies before X date when science started verifying observations held creation- brief explanation of what it is,- as the means or informational portion of the course. You simply have to make it clear that in science, evolutionary theory is what is used.
I seriously see it as no different then discussing, the geocentric earth and how it it became a heliocentric principle and how that's been modified and validated over the years.
It the rest of the life of the author plus 70 years not 95. And that's only for non-corporate authorship. For a corporation or business, it's 95 years from publication or 120 years from the creation, whichever come first.
But I'm not sure how many people consider that reasonable expect for those with a finger in the pie.
yawn.. just one sided dribble not worth a reply but i'll give you a short one anyways.
There are constitutional issues with the changes attempting to be made to the healthcare as it exists. Changing the constitution first, or changing the laws within the constitution is not doing away with health care. BTW, do you understand that the mess with health care right now is largely due to the HMO act of 68 and medicare? If anyone sorted by political party has done more to benefit insurance companies, you would have to say it is the democrats. But lets pout and complain when it isn't fixed the way you want it to be fixed while ignoring what got us here in the first place and reward those same idiots by bashing the political opposite.
But none of what you wrote is close to doing what was asked. "show where republicans are trying to do away will +_all_science_art_education and health care". You go on with your opinion about things but it's not even close. anti something even if there is some way to find credit for the statement is not doing away with all of it.,
As for creation being taught in Texas schools, it doesn't really matter does it? It's not being taught in stead of evolution and unless you think biological evolution theory is so weak on it's own merits that teaching about creation or any other purposes method of existence threatens it, there is nothing to worry about is there?
That's one thing that really has puzzled me. If evolution is so right, it's almost a fact, then why does an alternative method threaten you guys into a point of hysteria? I mean seriously, someone can hold both to be true and never have any problems in any field of work or part of life they encounter, yet the slightest mention of creation places some people so far on the defense it's hard to recognize them.
appropriations, while authorized by the congress, is under the purview of the presidency.
Please, by all means show where republicans are trying to do away will +_all_science_art_education and health care.
You will not be able to honestly do it. What you will find is people who value certain things over others and think the limited form of government that the federal government was designed to be means something to this day.
cans float in water.. it's a little more difficult to break the neck off a can and use as a weapon. but more practical, a lot of event areas as well as concerned parents bar glass bottles so your broken bottle today doesn't end up causing the cut foot 2 weeks later when little sally runs across it barefoot.
But i agree, otherwise, it's not a good idea to trade a bottle for a can.
You do understand that deliberately knocking off a brand generally involves some sort of IP infringement, right?;)
we are talking about copyright and you feel the need to include everything under the sun?
I'm not saying they don't care about it completely, but the art of diplomacy is leveraging perception to gain the advantage.
As long as China can point to some very loud domestic media coverage of a measly few people getting tossed into prison for infringement, they can maintain the appearance both at home and abroad of doing something about it without potentially rocking the boat as far the domestic population is concerned by instituting a massive crackdown on manufacturing and use of counterfeit items.
While China is taking a token appearance of action for diplomatic reasons for all intents and purposes it basically amounts to nothing as they've never made the slightest actual effort to reform and crack down on counterfeit and pirated goods and services beyond raising the arrest quota.
so what your saying is that china takes copyright, or at least the trade advantages of it seriously at times and not so much at other times. hmm... I'm not sure that detracts from what i have said.
That's my whole point! The thing that laws, treaties and (especially;) UN resolutions have in common is that they are all just words on paper without a means of enforcement to back them up with, thereby ensuring that people abide by them!
Most UN resolutions, sure. But treaties generally carry a benefit to both parties involved. the loss of this benefit or even going further with sanctions of some sort are the enforcement. you violate the treaty or do not faithfully implement it, you do not get trade advantage and suffer a trade penalty.
Yes, but to be fair, that's not really a valid example in this case for two reasons:
1. As much as I love the Old Country, I'm afraid that Great Britain is an empire no more, hence they would have little diplomatic leverage internationally to allow other countries to overlook what they were doing in that regard, versus China, which while currently experiencing an (IMO) unsustainable level of economic growth coupled with the fact that they own a great deal of the US's national debt, means that they can get away with (in effect basically) ignoring the international outcry as long as they make a token effort for appearances.
2. I'm hard pressed to think of a change in a country's policies that major occurring in history regarding copyright. Generally as far as I'm aware off the top of my head, most countries have either tightened their laws or maintained the status quo after signing.
lol.. do you even pay attention to the world around you? do you remember antigua fighting the us and winning over gambling laws?Your entire premise is shot down by recent events.
I do like how you are fighting so hard to clasp onto a wrong idea.
Because talk is cheap and so is making a bunch of laws purely for the sake of appearances. It's the effort that you put into creating and enforcing those laws that matters.
yawn... those efforts only nee dto satisfy the terms of the treaty, not your expectations.
No, I can certainly validate it, I was just being lazy and hoping you'd do it yourself thereby saving me the trouble;)
that doesn't validate your claim. it's just a bunch of links where either the *iaa's are celebrating something or using the law in civil proceedings. i think you are confused.
You seem to keep trying to make certain points into extremes here, either China is abiding by copyright treaties or it isn't, either the mafiAA is making the laws
yep, and if you do not posses the technology, resources, and/or, means to build it, then you will never invent it because as soon as you ask for my help in any of the above, i will develop it and patent it before you.
This first to patent is going to be awesome for the little guy.. Imagine all those open innovations where instead of showing it was described and talked about in a mag or something two years ago, I can take my implementation of it and lock it down good and tight with my first to be filed patent.
You do understand that apparel and accessories are not copyright right?
I'm not saying that they don't toss a few counterfeiters in jail occasionally to fill a PR quota (not to mention the fact that it's just one of several convient excuses Beijing has to draw upon if they want to jail dissidents), but my point is that it's so prevalent in Asia that when you factor in the fact that the majority of the world's population is there, a few arrests means very little in the grand scheme of things.
Ok, ask yourself this question. What would motivate China to toss counterfeiters in jail for PR in the first place? If they do not care about it, then what would motivate them other then compliance with international treaties and trade favors?
Not really, my point was that national security was the driving concern regarding the adoption of Linux, however as I stated earlier:
lol.. ok, then provide a link which also says so. I mean seriously, all the talk at the time was because of getting into the WTO. If your right, i'm sure is was discussed somewhere. Either way, what we know to be true is that even China made an effort over copyright for trade advantages so even if you do find a link, it doesn't invalidate what was said.
I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying that the treaties are for the most part meaningless because the actual laws that are made and enforced are done so by each country so the treaty is in effect entirely contingent on upon how it is interpreted in each country, even assuming that the country in question doesn't just ignore it beyond giving it lip service.
The treaties spell out terms and conditions the laws need to meet. They do not spell out punishment or fines and such, but the laws created have to be strong enough to meet the spirit of the treaty. If the UK all the sudden decided the penalty for piracy was a $10 fine plus court costs, they would receive trade sanctions or lose trade benefits from other countries that are part of the treaty. Some countries only make the laws because of the treaties in hopes that trade favors help their economy. I'm not sure how you can claim that's not taking it seriously.
Well you seemed to like Google searches so much I figured you wouldn't have a problem doing a search on Slashdot for stories with the header YRO that have a bearing on this issue.;)
lol.. nice troll there. I see how it is now. You want me to validate your point that you cannot validate.. I think this conversation is about over.
I really like the irony in how you proceed to imply paranoid hysteria on my part there by spontaneously constructing an elaborate narrative fiction that has absolutely no bearing on anything I stated after suggesting a few paragraphs earlier that I should stay within the context of what you said and what it was said in.;)
Then please, in clear and concise wording, without all the evil dribble, explain to me exactly what it is you are trying to say. I mean is it government creating the laws and treaties or is it RIAA and it's cohorts making laws and treaties? Last I heard, only government could create laws and treaties. And since almost all of the countries around the world have participated in that concerning copyright, something has to be true here.
Again, just because a country is a signatory to something, it doe
Yeah, but China is just one example amongst many that I chose to bring up regarding how blatantly widespread piracy is overlooked by other countries if they have resources that other countries (but mostly the US) need.
And a quick google search shows that China is not really even a good good example. That seems to paint a different picture then your describing.
Hmm, given that China was eventually given a WTO membership, despite the fact that besides making a bunch of noise over tossing a few of the usual politically dissident suspects in prison for infringement they've never undertaken any serious efforts to crack down and reform on this issue, I kinda tend to think that history actually proves me right here.;)
In regards to Microsoft, sanctions had pretty much nothing to do with China's decision to endorse Red Linux. The reason the Chinese government was pushing Red Linux to become so prevalent (nationalist attitudes aside;) was that Beijing wanted an open source OS that they could see every line of code in, as they were very concerned about potential back doors being built in that could be accessible by foreign governments.
Yes, because even in the context of theory rather than how these treaties are applied in practice, individual countries shape their legislation and enforcement efforts on the framework of treaties that they are signatories of.
Another country has no power (basically) to prosecute a person for violating a treaty through the person's country justice system. They can extradite that person for trial and they can put pressure on the government to prosecute him for violating local laws that may have been enacted so as a result ultimately a treaty is secondary to local laws of each country.
Hence my reason for focusing on local law is that it's far more paramount to how copyright legislation and enforcement efforts are enacted and implemented then treaties are.
Well, lets stick with what I said and the context of what it was said in. Countries take copyright seriously enough that they have made international agreements over it. Local enforcement is meaningless in that context as countries do not make treaties pertaining to right turns on red or rolling stops at traffic devices. But they do make treaties on things important enough to effect trade and copyright is seen as one of them.
Incorrect, you need only look for YRO stories to find numerous examples of MPAA industry reps being present and active participants in efforts to draft treaties and (more scarily) aiding in enforcement of already existing laws during arrests.
Evidently someone forgot to tell that to the Chinese...;)
One or two countries out of the 170 some recognized in the world today does not invalidate what I said.
My point was in response to your view as stated in your previous post that nations are somehow going to restrict trade because of something as trivial as copyright infringement considering that nations freely overlook other countries blatant violations of laws and treaties if the other country provides them something that they need badly enough.
In the context of this discussion, I would point out that the US constantly overlooks China's blatant hypocrisy regarding the state and nature of piracy in their country because they own a great deal of US's national debt.
China was denied a seat at the WTO 4 times after they became eligible based on their inability to enforce anti-piracy measures pertaining to copyright. China announced a custom version of Linux (red linux??) to be the country's official operating system because of sanctions surrounding copyright violations with Microsoft's operating systems. I'm not sure that history and the facts line up with your world views.
You do understand that the whole concept of communism is based on the idea that (basically) the government owns everything and runs all business and means of consumption, right? So you see how the whole concept of a patent system and copyright in general could be kind of antithetical to that given that the government is (in effect) the only business allowed to operate in communism?;)
Sigh... We are talking about interactions between countries and you are focuses on a single political ideal within a country. The wiki article on it spells it out pretty well though. Copyright in communist systems become another form of censorship and control. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law#Copyright_in_communist_countries
Yes, I can sure see how seriously the US government takes it, given how patent reform has been such a huge priority for us for the past 10 years now, despite never being able to pass any legislation to that effect.;)
Seriously though, given the fact that the MPAA and RIAA (and their affiliate lobbying offices in other countries) have been the driving force behind pretty much all the major copyright legislation and enforcement crackdowns and "reforms" internationally in the last 10+ years, I don't see how you can view them as irrelevant in this issue?
They are not relevant because they are not a country and the country makes the laws. All these trade groups can do is use the laws to their advantage and ask for more laws. What you seem to be attempting to imply is that one trade organization has manage to convince the entire world to do something when the reality is that it has been doing just that already for a very long time before the tech supporting these trade groups and this the trade groups were even invented.
You are not only missing the forest for the trees, you are missing the other trees for the really ugly looking one right in front of you. Nothing RIAA or MPAA or any other trade group is doing concerning copyrights or patents or the protection of them is any different from what politicians have been doing for well over 150 years. The concept of intellectual property was invented and protected by governments of the world before the US was even a country and has continued to be so for it's entire existence. It's almost as if you are trying to blame the fans for a player getting injured at a football game because they were cheering the team on. Sure, they might have gotten the player excited, but the game would have gone on without the fans. If RIAA and MPAA and their sister organizations did not exist, little would be different from what we have today concerning the laws and treaties.
Sync? hell just give the option to access it and send it to the open window. That's what MAPI calls were created for- to allow programs to interact with each other and it's been around since the mid 90's.
There is really no reason why the scanning program cannot generically call the default address book or even allow the user to select one, open it, the put a right click option to send the details to the software's fields.
Spoken like a true warrior, hiding behind a civilian so the enemy doesn't shoot you.
Civilians working to further military efforts are fair game in a war. You certainly wouldn't fault a country's military for blowing up a tank factory or munitions plant staffed by civilians would you? And if that causes more people to enlist into the military of that country, does it really matter?
As for your Supposed satellites being hacked, I doubt it would happen for the control of the UAV, The satellite could be destroyed maybe, but then control would be switched to another source and life would go on. You do not seriously think any war machine would put all it's eggs in one basket do you. I mean it's common sense to not have only one way to control or communicate with troops or devices in active operations. The US military puts something like two satellites every 3 or 4 months into space and has more rocket launches then NASA To give an idea of what this means, in 2009, there were the US military put 21 publicly known satellites into orbit. In 2010, that number was 13, and so far in 2011, it has placed 10 publicly known satellites into space. This is just what we admit to.
And you are crazy of you think we would send tanks into an area that we do not control the airspace of except in some extreme and rare situation in which case you are not going to put a remote controlled spotlight up in the first place. The biggest military threat to a tank is air power. I
mean a jet or even some planes can come on at over 600 MPH, launch a missile target the next tank, launch, and clear out before it ever gets into the range of anything the tank could muster to destroy it. You cannot really do that from the ground. At least not covering the same amount of area as effectively.
I also do not think you understand just what these UAVs are capable of if you think a foreign airforce would just shoot them down like an Rc plane. We have weapons systems that are better then fire and forget with them. The remote operator can decide to change or even wait to set the target of a missile mid flight to intercept a more threatening enemy if the computer recognizes it's possible to do so), and this can be done regardless of the UAV's survival. So in your scenario, what would likely happen is 2 or 4 jets would acquire and target the UAV. It would transmit a friend or foe beacon and if not replied to, wait until it detects a weapons launch or an intercept course, then fire enough missiles to cover the threat, do a U-turn to flee to safety. and even if it is shot down, the 2 or 4 jets would be shot down too. So we lose a UAV, they lose a couple jets and the trained pilots operating them. We put another UAV in the air for a fraction of the cost and use the same experienced pilots and weapons crew.
The tank wouldn't be firing at it, the UAV providing tactical support will.
Tanks are awesome but can still be defeated by trenches large enough that they cannot cross and iron/concrete pilings arangde in certain configurations. They can look ahead pretty well, but they will not see a trench until they get close to it. A UAV on the other hand, can see the drop off and forward the information to the tanks.
The UAV will also most likely be armed as it's a war zone if tanks are sneaking up on your position.
Slashdot Mirror
I had to update my bios on a system to stop the crashes in windows XP. the box the mainboard came in said it was designed for win xp, but it would go into crashing reboot fits after some automatic windows updates early on.
well, i just composed an email warning all my family and friends of this and the steps they need to protect themselves. I found this program on a Chinese website that automatically patches any bios concerning this risk from within windows explorer. but you have to make sure you disable your antivirus before running it else it will make your system inaccessible.
Is that social enough?
That problem has been around forever. It's likely when hope means despair or close to it when people run out of ideas. the rallying cry for fixing schools has been we aren't spending enough money. In some areas, there are schools spending 4 times or more per pupil then in others and aren't doing nearly as well. The answer seems to be, we need to spend more money.
I think of it sort of like what ends up getting gamblers in trouble. They place a bet or spend some money, win some, so they go bigger expecting large results. They lose it all, So they go get more money from the conveniently located ATM, and spend some more. They lose it too. But back in their mind, they remember the one time it worked so they get more and lose it too. Except in this case, the government doesn't run out of money and go home to explain to their wives why they got to pack up and move, they print or borrow more were the gambler goes bankrupt and admits he has a problem.
Strangely, that's the same problem that thousands of battered women face every day.
hmm.. lets phrase that question a little differently. Would it be a deterrent to state that something that's illegal (rightly or not), can be traced back to the guilty or responsible party no matter how many layers of obfuscation and anonymity the perpetrator attempts to employ while speaking about a case that required tracking back through several of these layers and resulted in a pretty serious punishment?
Either the guy is misinformed, or he is attempting to scare 95% of the potential violators of this law into thinking twice before assuming they can get away with it just because the person the hate mail is intended for wouldn't be able to figure it out on their own.
You do realize that there was no such thing as a climate scientists until the IPCC came about and global warming activists wanted to restrict who was commenting on it right? Go ahead and show me some degree information on becoming a climate scientists from before 2000 or so. i would be really surprised if you could come close to it.
The climate scientists we have today are invented specifically for climate change and i would suggest that the first thing they are going to do is not publish something contradicting it and lose the rest of their career being blackballed.
lol.. This is the entire problem with global warming, it's all "trust me", I know what 'I'm talking about". You don't see a problem there? How about if a used care salesman had that attitude?
are you dense or something? The CRU emails were full of it. They blatantly dismissed research because it didn't fit into what they wanted.
the models are broken and do not work for predictions. That's a plain and simple fact. They can only validate historical information if tweaked enough and have not even come close to accurately predicting future climate.
Your point would be nice if i limited my statement to just data. But as we know, hansen's data is not the raw data available, he had manipulated it and refused to disclose how or why when it was requested of him until he was ordered to do so by the government after the so called y2k problem with his numbers..
As for the rigging the AC, they rigged the entire day. http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/17534/stagecraft/chris-horner
Then you either have not been paying attention, or are just didn't notice,
Which would be downright impossible if the connection wasn't there in the first place. The IPCC doesn't do research. It was created to dig through heaps of third party research results and compile a summary for politicians. If they were feeding us bullshit, the climate scientists would be the first to stand up and complain. Hundreds of thousands of climate scientists across the world. Did they? No. The only people who stand up and claim that IPCC feeds us bullshit have degrees only in fields completely unrelated to climate science, if they have any at all.
If all they reported was where the connection is, then who is going to stand up and bitch? but hey, don't take my word for it, the IPCC itself says role is defined in Principles Governing IPCC Work ."to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."
You tell me. I mean seriously, when scientific work and criticisms of peer reviewed works are dismissed because of some 20 year old connection to an oil company or because someone isn't a climate scientists even thought analytic and statistical study is what they are qualified with and nit picking over. How about when an entire research team purposely leaves out data that throws their preconceived theory into question and causes numbers and crap not to line up. How do you weed out the bad science and keep only the good science when modelling to date has not been able to accurately predict the state of climate change without going back and modifying the models to make historical data relevant- yet still isn't capable of an accurate forward looking prediction?
Good science where i am from is capable of standing on it's own merits. it doesn't need to be dismissed because of character assassinations or protected by doing them. the science is either legit or it is not.
Do you think it's possible that he is motivated by political ideals and exaggerate his case to further those ideals?
Here is the problem, when he enters the realm of politics and starts pushing opinion, unlike science, you cannot verify those opinions nor can you validate them. What you can do is accept them or deny them and base that decision on all sorts of observations concerning him. I would say with his initial refusal to disclose his numbers and methodology, how he was in one democrat staffers rigging the AC before he spoke to congress, how Hansen himself admitted to exaggerating claims because he felt the ends justified the means, and one of the people who was refused access to the data and methodology finding a flaw in his calculations, says a lot about him politically.
Like the parent said, when you take science into the realm of politics, expect politics to be the realm you are in.
His logic is not flawed at all. It's your analogy that's broken. To be more apt, your comparison would need the politician mentioning inertia and demanding all of science do something differently that is also costly right now. Remember when someone from Indiana tried to change the value of Pi, think more along those lines.
And yes, that is what some climate scientists are/where doing in the name of their science. James Hansen comes to mind directly, but the CRU climate research unit had some similar models of political punditry. The IPCC was pretty much a political organization with the intent of showing a connection between global warming and humans. Only the true believers refuse to see that most of climate science has been politicized when it comes to global warming
I partially agree. although Lamaism has lost it, it's important to some degree to mention it in order to know what has been there before. To understand science, in a lot of instances, you need a brief understand of how we got to the understandings we hold today. I see nothing wrong with mentioning religions or societies before X date when science started verifying observations held creation- brief explanation of what it is,- as the means or informational portion of the course. You simply have to make it clear that in science, evolutionary theory is what is used.
I seriously see it as no different then discussing, the geocentric earth and how it it became a heliocentric principle and how that's been modified and validated over the years.
Are you making this up as you go? Or did you put some considerable thought into that tall tale?
It the rest of the life of the author plus 70 years not 95. And that's only for non-corporate authorship. For a corporation or business, it's 95 years from publication or 120 years from the creation, whichever come first.
But I'm not sure how many people consider that reasonable expect for those with a finger in the pie.
yawn.. just one sided dribble not worth a reply but i'll give you a short one anyways.
There are constitutional issues with the changes attempting to be made to the healthcare as it exists. Changing the constitution first, or changing the laws within the constitution is not doing away with health care. BTW, do you understand that the mess with health care right now is largely due to the HMO act of 68 and medicare? If anyone sorted by political party has done more to benefit insurance companies, you would have to say it is the democrats. But lets pout and complain when it isn't fixed the way you want it to be fixed while ignoring what got us here in the first place and reward those same idiots by bashing the political opposite.
But none of what you wrote is close to doing what was asked. "show where republicans are trying to do away will +_all_science_art_education and health care". You go on with your opinion about things but it's not even close. anti something even if there is some way to find credit for the statement is not doing away with all of it.,
As for creation being taught in Texas schools, it doesn't really matter does it? It's not being taught in stead of evolution and unless you think biological evolution theory is so weak on it's own merits that teaching about creation or any other purposes method of existence threatens it, there is nothing to worry about is there?
That's one thing that really has puzzled me. If evolution is so right, it's almost a fact, then why does an alternative method threaten you guys into a point of hysteria? I mean seriously, someone can hold both to be true and never have any problems in any field of work or part of life they encounter, yet the slightest mention of creation places some people so far on the defense it's hard to recognize them.
appropriations, while authorized by the congress, is under the purview of the presidency.
Please, by all means show where republicans are trying to do away will +_all_science_art_education and health care.
You will not be able to honestly do it. What you will find is people who value certain things over others and think the limited form of government that the federal government was designed to be means something to this day.
cans float in water.. it's a little more difficult to break the neck off a can and use as a weapon. but more practical, a lot of event areas as well as concerned parents bar glass bottles so your broken bottle today doesn't end up causing the cut foot 2 weeks later when little sally runs across it barefoot.
But i agree, otherwise, it's not a good idea to trade a bottle for a can.
i guess you need to drink more then?
we are talking about copyright and you feel the need to include everything under the sun?
so what your saying is that china takes copyright, or at least the trade advantages of it seriously at times and not so much at other times. hmm... I'm not sure that detracts from what i have said.
Most UN resolutions, sure. But treaties generally carry a benefit to both parties involved. the loss of this benefit or even going further with sanctions of some sort are the enforcement. you violate the treaty or do not faithfully implement it, you do not get trade advantage and suffer a trade penalty.
lol.. do you even pay attention to the world around you? do you remember antigua fighting the us and winning over gambling laws?Your entire premise is shot down by recent events.
I do like how you are fighting so hard to clasp onto a wrong idea.
yawn... those efforts only nee dto satisfy the terms of the treaty, not your expectations.
that doesn't validate your claim. it's just a bunch of links where either the *iaa's are celebrating something or using the law in civil proceedings. i think you are confused.
yep, and if you do not posses the technology, resources, and/or, means to build it, then you will never invent it because as soon as you ask for my help in any of the above, i will develop it and patent it before you.
This first to patent is going to be awesome for the little guy.. Imagine all those open innovations where instead of showing it was described and talked about in a mag or something two years ago, I can take my implementation of it and lock it down good and tight with my first to be filed patent.
Seriously, has anyone thought this through?
You do understand that apparel and accessories are not copyright right?
Ok, ask yourself this question. What would motivate China to toss counterfeiters in jail for PR in the first place? If they do not care about it, then what would motivate them other then compliance with international treaties and trade favors?
lol.. ok, then provide a link which also says so. I mean seriously, all the talk at the time was because of getting into the WTO. If your right, i'm sure is was discussed somewhere. Either way, what we know to be true is that even China made an effort over copyright for trade advantages so even if you do find a link, it doesn't invalidate what was said.
The treaties spell out terms and conditions the laws need to meet. They do not spell out punishment or fines and such, but the laws created have to be strong enough to meet the spirit of the treaty. If the UK all the sudden decided the penalty for piracy was a $10 fine plus court costs, they would receive trade sanctions or lose trade benefits from other countries that are part of the treaty. Some countries only make the laws because of the treaties in hopes that trade favors help their economy. I'm not sure how you can claim that's not taking it seriously.
lol.. nice troll there. I see how it is now. You want me to validate your point that you cannot validate.. I think this conversation is about over.
Then please, in clear and concise wording, without all the evil dribble, explain to me exactly what it is you are trying to say. I mean is it government creating the laws and treaties or is it RIAA and it's cohorts making laws and treaties? Last I heard, only government could create laws and treaties. And since almost all of the countries around the world have participated in that concerning copyright, something has to be true here.
And a quick google search shows that China is not really even a good good example. That seems to paint a different picture then your describing.
actually, the decision to go with their own operating system was made largely in part to show they were doing something about copyright to gain entrance in the WTO. For many years, the same was true of China. But today China's principal reason for adopting Linux is membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO). As a condition of being admitted to the WTO in 2001, and in return for the trading and tariff advantages that WTO membership offers, China agreed to consistently crack down on software piracy and comply with international agreements protecting intellectual property. Again, a simple google search paints a different picture then you are describing.
Well, lets stick with what I said and the context of what it was said in. Countries take copyright seriously enough that they have made international agreements over it. Local enforcement is meaningless in that context as countries do not make treaties pertaining to right turns on red or rolling stops at traffic devices. But they do make treaties on things important enough to effect trade and copyright is seen as one of them.
Why don't you point them out? It's
One or two countries out of the 170 some recognized in the world today does not invalidate what I said.
China was denied a seat at the WTO 4 times after they became eligible based on their inability to enforce anti-piracy measures pertaining to copyright. China announced a custom version of Linux (red linux??) to be the country's official operating system because of sanctions surrounding copyright violations with Microsoft's operating systems. I'm not sure that history and the facts line up with your world views.
Sigh... We are talking about interactions between countries and you are focuses on a single political ideal within a country. The wiki article on it spells it out pretty well though. Copyright in communist systems become another form of censorship and control.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law#Copyright_in_communist_countries
They are not relevant because they are not a country and the country makes the laws. All these trade groups can do is use the laws to their advantage and ask for more laws. What you seem to be attempting to imply is that one trade organization has manage to convince the entire world to do something when the reality is that it has been doing just that already for a very long time before the tech supporting these trade groups and this the trade groups were even invented.
You are not only missing the forest for the trees, you are missing the other trees for the really ugly looking one right in front of you. Nothing RIAA or MPAA or any other trade group is doing concerning copyrights or patents or the protection of them is any different from what politicians have been doing for well over 150 years. The concept of intellectual property was invented and protected by governments of the world before the US was even a country and has continued to be so for it's entire existence. It's almost as if you are trying to blame the fans for a player getting injured at a football game because they were cheering the team on. Sure, they might have gotten the player excited, but the game would have gone on without the fans. If RIAA and MPAA and their sister organizations did not exist, little would be different from what we have today concerning the laws and treaties.
Sync? hell just give the option to access it and send it to the open window. That's what MAPI calls were created for- to allow programs to interact with each other and it's been around since the mid 90's.
There is really no reason why the scanning program cannot generically call the default address book or even allow the user to select one, open it, the put a right click option to send the details to the software's fields.
Spoken like a true warrior, hiding behind a civilian so the enemy doesn't shoot you.
Civilians working to further military efforts are fair game in a war. You certainly wouldn't fault a country's military for blowing up a tank factory or munitions plant staffed by civilians would you? And if that causes more people to enlist into the military of that country, does it really matter?
As for your Supposed satellites being hacked, I doubt it would happen for the control of the UAV, The satellite could be destroyed maybe, but then control would be switched to another source and life would go on. You do not seriously think any war machine would put all it's eggs in one basket do you. I mean it's common sense to not have only one way to control or communicate with troops or devices in active operations. The US military puts something like two satellites every 3 or 4 months into space and has more rocket launches then NASA To give an idea of what this means, in 2009, there were the US military put 21 publicly known satellites into orbit. In 2010, that number was 13, and so far in 2011, it has placed 10 publicly known satellites into space. This is just what we admit to.
And you are crazy of you think we would send tanks into an area that we do not control the airspace of except in some extreme and rare situation in which case you are not going to put a remote controlled spotlight up in the first place. The biggest military threat to a tank is air power. I
mean a jet or even some planes can come on at over 600 MPH, launch a missile target the next tank, launch, and clear out before it ever gets into the range of anything the tank could muster to destroy it. You cannot really do that from the ground. At least not covering the same amount of area as effectively.
I also do not think you understand just what these UAVs are capable of if you think a foreign airforce would just shoot them down like an Rc plane. We have weapons systems that are better then fire and forget with them. The remote operator can decide to change or even wait to set the target of a missile mid flight to intercept a more threatening enemy if the computer recognizes it's possible to do so), and this can be done regardless of the UAV's survival. So in your scenario, what would likely happen is 2 or 4 jets would acquire and target the UAV. It would transmit a friend or foe beacon and if not replied to, wait until it detects a weapons launch or an intercept course, then fire enough missiles to cover the threat, do a U-turn to flee to safety. and even if it is shot down, the 2 or 4 jets would be shot down too. So we lose a UAV, they lose a couple jets and the trained pilots operating them. We put another UAV in the air for a fraction of the cost and use the same experienced pilots and weapons crew.
The tank wouldn't be firing at it, the UAV providing tactical support will.
Tanks are awesome but can still be defeated by trenches large enough that they cannot cross and iron/concrete pilings arangde in certain configurations. They can look ahead pretty well, but they will not see a trench until they get close to it. A UAV on the other hand, can see the drop off and forward the information to the tanks.
The UAV will also most likely be armed as it's a war zone if tanks are sneaking up on your position.