Nasa says Florida didn't get hotter, it got colder. Also Russia got hotter, but not as much as indicated. The effect is much more subdued on the 10 year map Nasa gives.
Amusingly, while everything in the world is trapped in a furnace, the global mean has moved about half a degree. I usually hear 3-4 degrees in the past decade quoted.
I see that the temperature change map explains New York and Florida having cooler summers and colder winters for the past decade as "The average temperature here was hotter." Thanks for clearing that up.
You need to investigate the proposition that many others believe that global climate change isn't conjecture.
Did you just use that line?
Robert: Joey would never do that!
William Anchor Insurance Man: Don't be so sure! Our surveys show 42% of robot owners are afraid their robots could go rogue!
Joey: This is bull shit, Foster; don't listen to this moron.
There's a lot of really wisely tested data that you can find that's very convincing.
Weasel words.
Also on electric cars: hybrids might be better, specifically line-level diesel hybrids which increase generation load on the engine to generate more power under battery drain, and decrease load on the engine as battery charge level increases. The generator becomes easier to crank, less fuel needed to overcome load. Use a small (25 mile?) battery and a motor that can lay down some serious power; keep the diesel at its peak efficiency speed. It's a small battery, less toxic chemical load, less maintenance; and this design is highly efficient, especially in larger installation (freight trains, but also scale down to i.e. freight trucks on the highway).
I dislike the prospect of straining the grid so much. Transmission loss, grid maintenance, power plant maintenance, etc. Never mind the huge batteries needed for satisfactory performance; or the load, considering we blow transformers here when people kick on the AC, much less a multi-KW car charger, much less three.
The global temperature is raising. As climate shifts, some areas will get colder. Bizarre things will happen, like hurricanes in the US and AUS. We don't have the final equations of the outcome. Weather and climate are incredibly dynamic. We need computing resources and deep thinkers to help the world understand the problem and the plausible and real solutions.
This.
This is what I'm talking about.
Everyone thinks they have an absolute solution, or at least part of it: "A bunch of weird shit is happening, we don't understand it, but three men make a tiger and everyone says we're causing this global warming thing, must be true!" We don't have an absolute solution, though; we have conjecture, we have confusion, and studies geared toward proving a hypothesis.
Everyone thinks electric cars are going to save the world. When they don't, and the batteries that last 10 years start going into landfill or causing recycling problems (maybe by consuming tons of resources to recycle, maybe by being hard to dispose of and consuming tons of resources to dispose of, you know, same trouble as always), we'll bitch about all the toxic chemicals dumped in the environment, and the power plants producing so much shit to power the cars. (Mind you, gasoline V8 engine, 23mpg average highway, 20mpg average city if driven nicely, power when you need it--you can get 8mpg if you really want to--and I'd like to see you haul 3500 pounds 23 miles after chugging a gallon of pork fat, at a run. Diesel even better, and a diesel train with an electric transmission gets 200+mpg running 230mph, without running on electric rails!)
Particulate in the air, clean that. Pump out CO2 from the factories, reclaim the methane, remove the sulfates and other acidic compounds, remove the heavy carbon particulates that cause respiratory problems and cancer (by the way, these make great fertilizer or fuel... easier to dump into the soil for fertilizer). I'm all for that.
We need to understand what's happening; instead we're working on a popularly repeated conjecture that has only been investigated in the form of looking for proof, rather than looking for disproof. It's a political toy. Remember we went straight from global cooling to global warming; there wasn't an actual explanation.
You are the guy working with fallacies and strawmen here;D
So they said back in the medieval warm period,...
What has the medieval warming to do with global warming? Nothing ofc as it was very certainly not man made. Unfortunately we do not even know what caused it. So bringing it in any argument regarding CO2 makes no sense at all.
Yes, but what caused it was obviously not what caused our current warm period, because now we have factory-pumped CO2 output so it must be the CO2 from factories. IIRC there was evidence of high CO2 during the MWP too; I'd like to clarify that now, that I'm discounting the absolute assumption of man-made warming.
Also, that was a warm period; climate change involves climate patterns changing. Hot areas become cold, cold areas become hot. We're not just heating up our little sphere, we're experiencing something that doesn't make any damn sense.
None, now that they've shifted from a multi-faceted study to using only data from tree rings for that period. Not even core sampling. Diminishing the data set to only reflect what you want to reflect always works wonders.
So they said back in the medieval warm period, when our pre-industrial-revolution factories were burning so much coal and undiscovered oil that temperatures skyrocketed. There is overwhelming evidence that an ice shelf that's not nearly 3000 years old has broken off entirely from mad-made phenomena, as the climate has been such that the ice there could form since the earth was created almost 4000 years ago (it takes 1000 years for the freezer to really get going, you know). It's not like volcanos belch out tons of CO2, or weather patterns ever change for other reasons, or mars and venus are getting hotter, or the gulf stream temperature patterns have changed, right?
Dirty air. It's stressful on my car's engine and on my lungs. It also wears the paint off my house. It also slows the overall reproduction rate of animals I could be eating. We can prove these things, as there's far less noise compared to fuzzy ideas about how much cars and factories impact global climates. We can't even associate what's happening to the world with what we're supposedly doing: it gets colder here and warmer here and it's "global warming" but which particular human activities caused it? Did the fallout from factories in China blow a huge gas cloud to Russia that created a dome of deadly heat retention? What about all the smog from NY, which is getting colder? Are they affected by something else someone else did, while their toxic cloud breezes to California and makes it hotter?
False conclusions fallacy. This is happening, this is what we've done, therefore we must have caused this. And politicians fallacy. Something must be done, this is something, thus this must be done. Great.
I don't think that global warming is a man-made phenomena. I do think that Beijing is a travesty. We should look into cleaning some shit up just because clean air is more fun to breath.
The presence of carbon dioxide is unbelievably important. "Huge amounts" is relative. Common sense isn't so common; a lot of common sense is fallacious.
For example, shove all those factories in the middle of a wildlife reserve, pumping their particulate and toxic gasses into the air in the middle of dense forests, separated by swaths of trees. When it rains, the particulate runs to the ground and becomes fertilizer; and the gasses are absorbed by the trees to make sugar. Dense opaque smog would be a problem, as would be high sulfur content; hence we should desulfate the fuels used, or scrub the sulfates from the exhaust.
See? The location suddenly matters. All that greenhouse gas emission means nothing in the midst of an ecology that thrives on it; but then we cite the specific needs of the ecology and find that a small subset of chemicals in the emissions cause wilting by chemical damage, or block out the sun and prevent photosynthesis.
So, should we start building up forests around our coal processing plants and oil burning power plants? We could bubble the exhaust through a water-channel airlock shaped such that the fluid flow caused mass turbulence to wash the exhaust, dropping out the particulates, capturing most of the acidic compounds like sulfates... dissolve lime in the water to neutralize the acids, then exhaust it into irrigation nearby. Now the emissions are helpful.
Something like 30,000 people have worked on Linux, on and off in groups of a dozen main contributors for the last 20 years [...] how can I sell it if I can't sell it? It can't be sold because it's so insanely easy to duplicate
Don't tightly associate the general argument with a side argument. A lot of cost went into making Linux; I wanted to establish that the OS has a huge cost to make, even though it's free to get. I was trying to break the connection between "Well people make X for free so see, stuff is free to make," because it's not. Go back one sentence before your ellipses. Putting it together was not a no-op.
You can sell it. You can make a lot of money selling it, even when it's being given out for free (gratis) at the same time. RHEL/CentOS. Sure, some people say Redhat sells support, but not from the practical view of it. Very very few sysadmins require Redhat support.
Yeah but can you sell support for music? Movies? Whatever that new fad is now... Ornery Birds? That's my point. How do we compensate people for making a fucking awesome CD?
it just kills you that all that effort went without money changing hands, doesn't it?
No, what kills me is that people think they're entitled to it. Who is entitled to Alan Cox's work? What if Linus decided to retire from running the project? Under the consideration that Linux might take a radically different, perhaps not as good, path without his leadership, should he be forced to continue working on it for free?
Musicians make music. Artists make art. Developers make games. Somewhere, they expect to get paid. Somewhere, someone is saying, "But I can download a copy for FREE, I shouldn't have to PAY them for that!" You honestly expect people to do all this work without just compensation?
Linux is not free. Free software is not free. It's all paid for by the sweat and blood of thousands of individuals who made a generous donation to society. You should thank them for paying for it with their time, effort, and experience so you don't have to. What you should not do is rationalize that, because somebody made something you can get a copy of for free, it's just fine to copy it and they don't deserve to be paid for the copying because hell, it doesn't cost them anything for you to get a copy. People who put this shit up for money have done a lot of hard work.
The problem is not money but people. Communism doesn't work because of people. Capitalism also doesn't work because of people. Communism is broken from the start; capitalism is broken because people find the holes and jump through them to string the rest of the people along as puppets. One supports those in power at the expense of the many; one allows the few to manipulate those in power, again at the expense of the many.
The truth is something must be done. The politician's fallacy is that this is something, thus it must be done; the truth is that what must be done must actually be effective. And there we find our answer: the politicians please the masses by doing something, anything, even the nonsensical. Obviously, what must be done must address the masses' inability to think on their own.
This means a cultural shift by educating the masses in philosophy, by which they will learn meditation (personal, takes form of yoga, zen meditation, quiet reflection--i.e. while doing slow tasks like washing dishes by hand or gardening), the argumentation of logic (the study of logical fallacies and the like, reasoning skills), or some other facility that trains them to mentally assess and carefully consider everything that passes them.
That is the critical point: everything is too fast, everything is instant-gratification, entitlement, the works. The government must save us from everything, hence social security and the like. We want instant access to anything and everything. We don't want time to think, because we want to move on to the next thing the moment we're bored. That is a problem; any number of solutions address this.
This is why I support the study of philosophy and the cultural shift to the study of the game of Go. Studying philosophy, applied correctly (i.e. not studying existentialism, although I don't invalidate that completely in its own right) is akin to studying Go, but in the field of argumentation: you become versed in the more technical meanings of ethics, morals, logic, things that you think about. The playing of Go is a cognitive process that improves the relevant mental facilities, and teaches you to approach simple and difficult problems by examining both the local situation and the overall situation as far as is relevant, an extremely important skill. Either having a toolkit to structure your approach to all arguments (moral, ethical, logical) or having the mental facilities to approach problems in general is an improvement; having both is ideal.
Understanding the world sufficiently will also allow you to understand the role of money: it is societal credit for the value of your existence. Rather than trading a sheep for a plow, we value the sheep and the plow similarly, trade money for a plow, and you use the money to buy not-a-sheep from a guy who buys not-a-sheep from another guy, who uses that money to buy the sheep from me. You made a plow, this is a valuable contribution to society, since I make the food you eat and I could definitely use a plow; the money is a token that says this is how much the plow is worth to me. It's hard to set up, but it evens out naturally... in a healthy system. Obviously a plow allows the production of much food, so food will cost about as much as everything that goes into it, including the plow divided by how much food you can grow before the plow breaks, yes?
We are ill because we fail to recognize these things, and now money is pure value, but only for the sake of money. Sad.
Linux isn't actually free. Linux is distributed for free, and it is legally released as free software. Linux cost a lot to create, however; not in dollars (although there has been funding, for example the netfilter guy was paid for 1 whole year "to do nothing" while he wrote netfilter, as a business was interested in it) but in effort. It takes work, it takes stress, it takes knowledge, education, experience, and it takes time to make these things. People could be out socializing, out working a real job for money (those who are being paid are, of course, being paid--compensation for their time), out learning a new skill, or working on anything else such as other free software.
Many of them ask for no compensation for their efforts; but there is a cost. They pay that cost themselves.
How do people expect authors and software creators and musicians to ask for compensation for the effort they put into their work? Remember these people don't churn out 50,000 songs a year either; you think it's so easy, how about you try it? Nobody wants piles and piles of garbage anyway; we only want the creative stuff, the stuff that we haven't heard a thousand times before, the stuff that's actually good.
The operating system is given away free; but it sure as hell ain't free. People don't understand that stuff doesn't magically come from a hole out of nowhere.
The challenge includes a randomly-generated one-use public key and the response is encrypted with it. I know I created this key for this session, I verify the response by decrypting it with the private key and then discard all that. There is no MitM attack for this.
I also invented the one-way no-acid chip for this purpose. The chip is immune to all chemical decay attacks (that's not to say the chemicals don't work; I designed it so that you can't get into the chip that way without destroying it. You will need a high-accuracy nanometer targeting laser to strip the housing off the chip and get at the circuit in a nondestructive manner). It's overkill though: reverse engineering the chip is a waste, too expensive, takes too long. The scheme I cooked up makes this stupid, so I don't really care.
The idea for THAT though was based around a 100% perfect security credit system within current capabilities. That means it has full security of what we're capable of in any context (availability is a security concern, just destroying the card isn't an option). I considered ALL use cases. There were minor trade-offs. It's been refined over the years, and I think I've got it right this time... I should probably hire a lawyer to sit with me (as in be present) and propose this to a bank.
In this case we're dealing with shit simpler than even copyright. While downloading a song/movie is subject to transfer of a good to your possession (a good of digital bits and bytes) and a flawed argument over the value of information (I'm tired of people thinking, "It costs nothing to get infinite copies of the final product to infinite people, therefor the work that went into the final product is valueless," or "Okay, the work has a value, but find another way to get money for it than making me pay you to get it!")......... online games are online games. If you buy 2000 hours of MMO time, and a week later you get a complaint about it, you cancel the 2000 hours. Eat the 5 days, or charge the $3 for the access, or what (yes, that's reasonable-- moreso if it's $90/mo access and you're changing even 3x op costs for the week of access you gave rather than 15 times your op costs). If you sell in-game real estate, the margin is 100%; get a complaint, then delete the in-game real estate and refund. No matter.
You're a tool and a fool. Free toast? You're comparing some bits and bytes - imaginary, abstract nonsense, to real world, concrete possessions.
Fallacious.
Those bits and bytes? Holy mother of God - I have an entire OPERATING SYSTEM which is given away free (gratis), not to mention that it is also free (as in, unencumbered by patents, copyrights, yada yada yada) Now, if my superior (superior to the most common proprietary system) operating system is so very dirt cheap - how in hell do you justify any claim that people downloading bits and bytes are STEALING something?
Also fallacious. That entire operating system took thousands of years to make. Something like 30,000 people have worked on Linux, on and off in groups of a dozen main contributors for the last 20 years, GNU longer, all the tools shorter. GNOME has a different set of people working on it-- not that it matters whether 3 people work 5 hours a day or one person works 15 hours a day, it's still 15 hours of work.
Somebody did a lot of work. A lot of somebodies did a lot of work. You want to say that putting all this shit together is a no-op: how can I sell it if I can't sell it? It can't be sold because it's so insanely easy to duplicate, and it's "free" because it's "just bits and bytes." I guess what we need to do is destroy all recording studios, create sound-proof music halls with low-frequency static noise generators and EM fields to screw with your electronic recorders, and make sure nobody can make recorded music at all. No more DVDs either, only music theaters with film, again with an EM field to introduce noise into your CCD so you can't record the video. That'll make shit marketable.
We need to control the physical distribution chain now, that way nobody can argue that they have a copy of "just bits and bytes" since they can't GET a copy.
My food is highly toxic. Although the same guy responded as 4 ACs. You're right; he's enough of a dork that I don't need to go debasing his social assassination attempts.
And this is relevant to anything that Americano had posted how? You're still misdirecting the conversation to topics that are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
"Me:
1) Degree in Biotechnology and Computer Science. (Did your troll factory offer dual majors, or just the standard "how to be an obnoxious twat on the internet" syllabus?)" - by Americano (920576) on Friday February 18, @02:27PM (#35247076)
Poisoning the well fallacy. Argument by innuendo (that having a minor in a discipline is meaningless, i.e. by the inverse error fallacy that since having a degree indicates some grasp of a discipline, not having a major degree indicates no grasp in a discipline).
LMAO - it took you 6 YEARS to get a CSC MINOR? Rotflmao...
Ad-hominem fallacy. Poisoning the well fallacy. Argument by innuendo (that somehow taking 6 years to study two disciplines to some form of completion indicates a lack of grasp of one or both of thes disciplines). Fallacy of many questions (any answer confirms some innuendo).
You know, the courses YOU DID NOT TAKE (like LOGIC) and THUS YOU DO NOT HAVE A CSC DEGREE... bullshit artist that you are.
Equivocation fallacy: "logic" referenced is digital and mathematical logic; "bullshit artist" referenced deals with philosophical and cognitive reasoning logic.
P.S.=> Which, of course, makes you out to be a BLATANT LIAR, Americano... apk
Undistributed middle fallacy. Affirming the consequent.
Finally, this entire post is an example of proof by verbosity (it appears to be well researched and well constructed, so it must be a valid argument); and irrelevant conclusion in the form of argumentum ad hominem.
See my signature. All civilized men should study philosophy, including logic and reasoning. Try Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer, but it's got a somewhat liberal slant (in the form of many logical fallacies being demonstrated using faulty arguments made by conservative politicians-- remember all politicians base their careers on the Politician's Syllogism, because they are fucking con artists or fucking stupid). Still, the subject matter itself renders any political slant and any propaganda within pointless unless you are retarded; this topic is about learning to draw your own conclusions about shit by identifying when somebody is bullshitting you.
Slashdot Mirror
So is your currency invalid if you microwave it?
Hmm I like this better.
Temperature pattern
Nasa says Florida didn't get hotter, it got colder. Also Russia got hotter, but not as much as indicated. The effect is much more subdued on the 10 year map Nasa gives.
Amusingly, while everything in the world is trapped in a furnace, the global mean has moved about half a degree. I usually hear 3-4 degrees in the past decade quoted.
I see that the temperature change map explains New York and Florida having cooler summers and colder winters for the past decade as "The average temperature here was hotter." Thanks for clearing that up.
You need to investigate the proposition that many others believe that global climate change isn't conjecture.
Did you just use that line?
There's a lot of really wisely tested data that you can find that's very convincing.
Weasel words.
Also on electric cars: hybrids might be better, specifically line-level diesel hybrids which increase generation load on the engine to generate more power under battery drain, and decrease load on the engine as battery charge level increases. The generator becomes easier to crank, less fuel needed to overcome load. Use a small (25 mile?) battery and a motor that can lay down some serious power; keep the diesel at its peak efficiency speed. It's a small battery, less toxic chemical load, less maintenance; and this design is highly efficient, especially in larger installation (freight trains, but also scale down to i.e. freight trucks on the highway).
I dislike the prospect of straining the grid so much. Transmission loss, grid maintenance, power plant maintenance, etc. Never mind the huge batteries needed for satisfactory performance; or the load, considering we blow transformers here when people kick on the AC, much less a multi-KW car charger, much less three.
In denying global weather change is man-made, you leave only women. That makes you misogynistic. The evidence is overwhelming. Yet you deny it.
By the way, fallacy of equivocation. The term "man" has two different meanings, and you are shifting from one to the other mid-sentence.
Jackasses have long ears. Postbigbang is a jackass. Therefore, postbigbang has long ears.
The global temperature is raising. As climate shifts, some areas will get colder. Bizarre things will happen, like hurricanes in the US and AUS. We don't have the final equations of the outcome. Weather and climate are incredibly dynamic. We need computing resources and deep thinkers to help the world understand the problem and the plausible and real solutions.
This.
This is what I'm talking about.
Everyone thinks they have an absolute solution, or at least part of it: "A bunch of weird shit is happening, we don't understand it, but three men make a tiger and everyone says we're causing this global warming thing, must be true!" We don't have an absolute solution, though; we have conjecture, we have confusion, and studies geared toward proving a hypothesis.
Everyone thinks electric cars are going to save the world. When they don't, and the batteries that last 10 years start going into landfill or causing recycling problems (maybe by consuming tons of resources to recycle, maybe by being hard to dispose of and consuming tons of resources to dispose of, you know, same trouble as always), we'll bitch about all the toxic chemicals dumped in the environment, and the power plants producing so much shit to power the cars. (Mind you, gasoline V8 engine, 23mpg average highway, 20mpg average city if driven nicely, power when you need it--you can get 8mpg if you really want to--and I'd like to see you haul 3500 pounds 23 miles after chugging a gallon of pork fat, at a run. Diesel even better, and a diesel train with an electric transmission gets 200+mpg running 230mph, without running on electric rails!)
Particulate in the air, clean that. Pump out CO2 from the factories, reclaim the methane, remove the sulfates and other acidic compounds, remove the heavy carbon particulates that cause respiratory problems and cancer (by the way, these make great fertilizer or fuel... easier to dump into the soil for fertilizer). I'm all for that.
We need to understand what's happening; instead we're working on a popularly repeated conjecture that has only been investigated in the form of looking for proof, rather than looking for disproof. It's a political toy. Remember we went straight from global cooling to global warming; there wasn't an actual explanation.
You are the guy working with fallacies and strawmen here ;D
What has the medieval warming to do with global warming? Nothing ofc as it was very certainly not man made. Unfortunately we do not even know what caused it. So bringing it in any argument regarding CO2 makes no sense at all.
Yes, but what caused it was obviously not what caused our current warm period, because now we have factory-pumped CO2 output so it must be the CO2 from factories. IIRC there was evidence of high CO2 during the MWP too; I'd like to clarify that now, that I'm discounting the absolute assumption of man-made warming.
Also, that was a warm period; climate change involves climate patterns changing. Hot areas become cold, cold areas become hot. We're not just heating up our little sphere, we're experiencing something that doesn't make any damn sense.
None, now that they've shifted from a multi-faceted study to using only data from tree rings for that period. Not even core sampling. Diminishing the data set to only reflect what you want to reflect always works wonders.
So they said back in the medieval warm period, when our pre-industrial-revolution factories were burning so much coal and undiscovered oil that temperatures skyrocketed. There is overwhelming evidence that an ice shelf that's not nearly 3000 years old has broken off entirely from mad-made phenomena, as the climate has been such that the ice there could form since the earth was created almost 4000 years ago (it takes 1000 years for the freezer to really get going, you know). It's not like volcanos belch out tons of CO2, or weather patterns ever change for other reasons, or mars and venus are getting hotter, or the gulf stream temperature patterns have changed, right?
Dirty air. It's stressful on my car's engine and on my lungs. It also wears the paint off my house. It also slows the overall reproduction rate of animals I could be eating. We can prove these things, as there's far less noise compared to fuzzy ideas about how much cars and factories impact global climates. We can't even associate what's happening to the world with what we're supposedly doing: it gets colder here and warmer here and it's "global warming" but which particular human activities caused it? Did the fallout from factories in China blow a huge gas cloud to Russia that created a dome of deadly heat retention? What about all the smog from NY, which is getting colder? Are they affected by something else someone else did, while their toxic cloud breezes to California and makes it hotter?
False conclusions fallacy. This is happening, this is what we've done, therefore we must have caused this. And politicians fallacy. Something must be done, this is something, thus this must be done. Great.
I don't think that global warming is a man-made phenomena. I do think that Beijing is a travesty. We should look into cleaning some shit up just because clean air is more fun to breath.
The presence of carbon dioxide is unbelievably important. "Huge amounts" is relative. Common sense isn't so common; a lot of common sense is fallacious.
For example, shove all those factories in the middle of a wildlife reserve, pumping their particulate and toxic gasses into the air in the middle of dense forests, separated by swaths of trees. When it rains, the particulate runs to the ground and becomes fertilizer; and the gasses are absorbed by the trees to make sugar. Dense opaque smog would be a problem, as would be high sulfur content; hence we should desulfate the fuels used, or scrub the sulfates from the exhaust.
See? The location suddenly matters. All that greenhouse gas emission means nothing in the midst of an ecology that thrives on it; but then we cite the specific needs of the ecology and find that a small subset of chemicals in the emissions cause wilting by chemical damage, or block out the sun and prevent photosynthesis.
So, should we start building up forests around our coal processing plants and oil burning power plants? We could bubble the exhaust through a water-channel airlock shaped such that the fluid flow caused mass turbulence to wash the exhaust, dropping out the particulates, capturing most of the acidic compounds like sulfates... dissolve lime in the water to neutralize the acids, then exhaust it into irrigation nearby. Now the emissions are helpful.
Something like 30,000 people have worked on Linux, on and off in groups of a dozen main contributors for the last 20 years [...] how can I sell it if I can't sell it? It can't be sold because it's so insanely easy to duplicate
Don't tightly associate the general argument with a side argument. A lot of cost went into making Linux; I wanted to establish that the OS has a huge cost to make, even though it's free to get. I was trying to break the connection between "Well people make X for free so see, stuff is free to make," because it's not. Go back one sentence before your ellipses. Putting it together was not a no-op.
You can sell it. You can make a lot of money selling it, even when it's being given out for free (gratis) at the same time. RHEL/CentOS. Sure, some people say Redhat sells support, but not from the practical view of it. Very very few sysadmins require Redhat support.
Yeah but can you sell support for music? Movies? Whatever that new fad is now... Ornery Birds? That's my point. How do we compensate people for making a fucking awesome CD?
it just kills you that all that effort went without money changing hands, doesn't it?
No, what kills me is that people think they're entitled to it. Who is entitled to Alan Cox's work? What if Linus decided to retire from running the project? Under the consideration that Linux might take a radically different, perhaps not as good, path without his leadership, should he be forced to continue working on it for free?
Musicians make music. Artists make art. Developers make games. Somewhere, they expect to get paid. Somewhere, someone is saying, "But I can download a copy for FREE, I shouldn't have to PAY them for that!" You honestly expect people to do all this work without just compensation?
Linux is not free. Free software is not free. It's all paid for by the sweat and blood of thousands of individuals who made a generous donation to society. You should thank them for paying for it with their time, effort, and experience so you don't have to. What you should not do is rationalize that, because somebody made something you can get a copy of for free, it's just fine to copy it and they don't deserve to be paid for the copying because hell, it doesn't cost them anything for you to get a copy. People who put this shit up for money have done a lot of hard work.
The problem is not money but people. Communism doesn't work because of people. Capitalism also doesn't work because of people. Communism is broken from the start; capitalism is broken because people find the holes and jump through them to string the rest of the people along as puppets. One supports those in power at the expense of the many; one allows the few to manipulate those in power, again at the expense of the many.
The truth is something must be done. The politician's fallacy is that this is something, thus it must be done; the truth is that what must be done must actually be effective. And there we find our answer: the politicians please the masses by doing something, anything, even the nonsensical. Obviously, what must be done must address the masses' inability to think on their own.
This means a cultural shift by educating the masses in philosophy, by which they will learn meditation (personal, takes form of yoga, zen meditation, quiet reflection--i.e. while doing slow tasks like washing dishes by hand or gardening), the argumentation of logic (the study of logical fallacies and the like, reasoning skills), or some other facility that trains them to mentally assess and carefully consider everything that passes them.
That is the critical point: everything is too fast, everything is instant-gratification, entitlement, the works. The government must save us from everything, hence social security and the like. We want instant access to anything and everything. We don't want time to think, because we want to move on to the next thing the moment we're bored. That is a problem; any number of solutions address this.
This is why I support the study of philosophy and the cultural shift to the study of the game of Go. Studying philosophy, applied correctly (i.e. not studying existentialism, although I don't invalidate that completely in its own right) is akin to studying Go, but in the field of argumentation: you become versed in the more technical meanings of ethics, morals, logic, things that you think about. The playing of Go is a cognitive process that improves the relevant mental facilities, and teaches you to approach simple and difficult problems by examining both the local situation and the overall situation as far as is relevant, an extremely important skill. Either having a toolkit to structure your approach to all arguments (moral, ethical, logical) or having the mental facilities to approach problems in general is an improvement; having both is ideal.
Understanding the world sufficiently will also allow you to understand the role of money: it is societal credit for the value of your existence. Rather than trading a sheep for a plow, we value the sheep and the plow similarly, trade money for a plow, and you use the money to buy not-a-sheep from a guy who buys not-a-sheep from another guy, who uses that money to buy the sheep from me. You made a plow, this is a valuable contribution to society, since I make the food you eat and I could definitely use a plow; the money is a token that says this is how much the plow is worth to me. It's hard to set up, but it evens out naturally... in a healthy system. Obviously a plow allows the production of much food, so food will cost about as much as everything that goes into it, including the plow divided by how much food you can grow before the plow breaks, yes?
We are ill because we fail to recognize these things, and now money is pure value, but only for the sake of money. Sad.
If you receive more than $500 a day or something you need one.
Linux isn't actually free. Linux is distributed for free, and it is legally released as free software. Linux cost a lot to create, however; not in dollars (although there has been funding, for example the netfilter guy was paid for 1 whole year "to do nothing" while he wrote netfilter, as a business was interested in it) but in effort. It takes work, it takes stress, it takes knowledge, education, experience, and it takes time to make these things. People could be out socializing, out working a real job for money (those who are being paid are, of course, being paid--compensation for their time), out learning a new skill, or working on anything else such as other free software.
Many of them ask for no compensation for their efforts; but there is a cost. They pay that cost themselves.
How do people expect authors and software creators and musicians to ask for compensation for the effort they put into their work? Remember these people don't churn out 50,000 songs a year either; you think it's so easy, how about you try it? Nobody wants piles and piles of garbage anyway; we only want the creative stuff, the stuff that we haven't heard a thousand times before, the stuff that's actually good.
The operating system is given away free; but it sure as hell ain't free. People don't understand that stuff doesn't magically come from a hole out of nowhere.
The challenge includes a randomly-generated one-use public key and the response is encrypted with it. I know I created this key for this session, I verify the response by decrypting it with the private key and then discard all that. There is no MitM attack for this.
I also invented the one-way no-acid chip for this purpose. The chip is immune to all chemical decay attacks (that's not to say the chemicals don't work; I designed it so that you can't get into the chip that way without destroying it. You will need a high-accuracy nanometer targeting laser to strip the housing off the chip and get at the circuit in a nondestructive manner). It's overkill though: reverse engineering the chip is a waste, too expensive, takes too long. The scheme I cooked up makes this stupid, so I don't really care.
The idea for THAT though was based around a 100% perfect security credit system within current capabilities. That means it has full security of what we're capable of in any context (availability is a security concern, just destroying the card isn't an option). I considered ALL use cases. There were minor trade-offs. It's been refined over the years, and I think I've got it right this time... I should probably hire a lawyer to sit with me (as in be present) and propose this to a bank.
In this case we're dealing with shit simpler than even copyright. While downloading a song/movie is subject to transfer of a good to your possession (a good of digital bits and bytes) and a flawed argument over the value of information (I'm tired of people thinking, "It costs nothing to get infinite copies of the final product to infinite people, therefor the work that went into the final product is valueless," or "Okay, the work has a value, but find another way to get money for it than making me pay you to get it!")......... online games are online games. If you buy 2000 hours of MMO time, and a week later you get a complaint about it, you cancel the 2000 hours. Eat the 5 days, or charge the $3 for the access, or what (yes, that's reasonable-- moreso if it's $90/mo access and you're changing even 3x op costs for the week of access you gave rather than 15 times your op costs). If you sell in-game real estate, the margin is 100%; get a complaint, then delete the in-game real estate and refund. No matter.
The US is civilized, but it's still a third world country.
You're a tool and a fool. Free toast? You're comparing some bits and bytes - imaginary, abstract nonsense, to real world, concrete possessions.
Fallacious.
Those bits and bytes? Holy mother of God - I have an entire OPERATING SYSTEM which is given away free (gratis), not to mention that it is also free (as in, unencumbered by patents, copyrights, yada yada yada) Now, if my superior (superior to the most common proprietary system) operating system is so very dirt cheap - how in hell do you justify any claim that people downloading bits and bytes are STEALING something?
Also fallacious. That entire operating system took thousands of years to make. Something like 30,000 people have worked on Linux, on and off in groups of a dozen main contributors for the last 20 years, GNU longer, all the tools shorter. GNOME has a different set of people working on it-- not that it matters whether 3 people work 5 hours a day or one person works 15 hours a day, it's still 15 hours of work.
Somebody did a lot of work. A lot of somebodies did a lot of work. You want to say that putting all this shit together is a no-op: how can I sell it if I can't sell it? It can't be sold because it's so insanely easy to duplicate, and it's "free" because it's "just bits and bytes." I guess what we need to do is destroy all recording studios, create sound-proof music halls with low-frequency static noise generators and EM fields to screw with your electronic recorders, and make sure nobody can make recorded music at all. No more DVDs either, only music theaters with film, again with an EM field to introduce noise into your CCD so you can't record the video. That'll make shit marketable.
We need to control the physical distribution chain now, that way nobody can argue that they have a copy of "just bits and bytes" since they can't GET a copy.
Politician's Fallacy:
My food is highly toxic. Although the same guy responded as 4 ACs. You're right; he's enough of a dork that I don't need to go debasing his social assassination attempts.
And this is relevant to anything that Americano had posted how? You're still misdirecting the conversation to topics that are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Amazon Print On Demand. Think about it.
"Me: 1) Degree in Biotechnology and Computer Science. (Did your troll factory offer dual majors, or just the standard "how to be an obnoxious twat on the internet" syllabus?)" - by Americano (920576) on Friday February 18, @02:27PM (#35247076)
Ad-hominem fallacy: Obnoxious twat, troll fallacy.
But your online profiles only show a MINOR in CSC (which is far from a MAJOR, much less a dual major), here:
AMERICANO = Kevin B. Pease has a MINOR only in CSC, for starters:
http://www.linkedin.com/in/kbpease
Poisoning the well fallacy. Argument by innuendo (that having a minor in a discipline is meaningless, i.e. by the inverse error fallacy that since having a degree indicates some grasp of a discipline, not having a major degree indicates no grasp in a discipline).
LMAO - it took you 6 YEARS to get a CSC MINOR? Rotflmao...
Ad-hominem fallacy. Poisoning the well fallacy. Argument by innuendo (that somehow taking 6 years to study two disciplines to some form of completion indicates a lack of grasp of one or both of thes disciplines). Fallacy of many questions (any answer confirms some innuendo).
You know, the courses YOU DID NOT TAKE (like LOGIC) and THUS YOU DO NOT HAVE A CSC DEGREE... bullshit artist that you are.
Equivocation fallacy: "logic" referenced is digital and mathematical logic; "bullshit artist" referenced deals with philosophical and cognitive reasoning logic.
P.S.=> Which, of course, makes you out to be a BLATANT LIAR, Americano... apk
Undistributed middle fallacy. Affirming the consequent.
Finally, this entire post is an example of proof by verbosity (it appears to be well researched and well constructed, so it must be a valid argument); and irrelevant conclusion in the form of argumentum ad hominem.
See my signature. All civilized men should study philosophy, including logic and reasoning. Try Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer, but it's got a somewhat liberal slant (in the form of many logical fallacies being demonstrated using faulty arguments made by conservative politicians-- remember all politicians base their careers on the Politician's Syllogism, because they are fucking con artists or fucking stupid). Still, the subject matter itself renders any political slant and any propaganda within pointless unless you are retarded; this topic is about learning to draw your own conclusions about shit by identifying when somebody is bullshitting you.