Because they can turn around in a few years when this is normalised behaviour and say "Hey, isn't it ridiculous that we know who all these inveterate pirates are, but we aren't doing anything? Maybe we should pass a simple law that fines them a few hundred quid, that's not much of a problem, is it?"
A better analogy would be "we have enough evidence to justify a search, but we don't know whether the murder weapon is a gun, a knife, a potato, or a window, so we're going to be keeping an exact record of every single object in the house".
I'm wary of the slippery slope fallacy, but this seems like a genuine example of an instance where a slightly troubling activity - keeping images of people's entire hard drives - has led to a broader and more troubling one.
And if you tolerate this, Then your email will be next Will be next Will be next Will be next
The whole point of having a corporation (or any other sort of team for that matter) is that you find ways to be less failure-prone than you are as individuals. You have to do this to offset the fact that a failure of the group affects every member - the cost is multiplied.
If Apple and publishers wanted to attack Amazon's monopoly position, there is a legal mechanism to do so. That they chose a mechanism that make them all an enormous amount of money should tell you something about whose side they're on, and it's not yours.
Well, a group of libertarians in a region could band together to share the costs and the benefits, by a system of wealth distribution administered by elected representatives.
Admittedly that's just reinventing the system of government we have now but whatevs.
The adjustments generally lower the warming trend. Indeed, until the Muller report came out, WUWT's main talking point was that such adjustments were inadequate; I find it interesting that since that study arrived and indicated that the adjustments were sufficient, WUWT has shifted to an entirely fictitious narrative that the adjustments cause the trend in the first place.
I'm not sure how a level that's still lower than almost all of the years that preceded it is "a significant rebound". If I was getting shorter by a foot a decade and one year I found I grew by an inch, I'd not take much solace in the fact.
If I raised your core body temperature by 2C indefinitely you would eventually keel over and die. Don't underestimate small changes when they act globally.
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take from temperatures being fairly steady (e.g. a fairly small positive growth rate) over the past decade-ish. The preceding hundred years have been a very steady upward trend, and if that was some sort of fluke wouldn't the temperature have started regressing to the mean by now? It seems more likely to me that whatever long-scale effects are causing the upward trend have been attenuated by some short-term system.
I don't think you understand the point of cap-and-trade. It doesn't have to make the government money: all it has to do is put a price tag on a social harm, which means that there's an economic force to reduce it. In fact, if there's arbitrage and speculation that raises prices of the credits, the price of that harm goes up, and rational economics implies that the amount of that that harm actually bought goes down.
It's kind of like the housing bubble, only instead of making housing unaffordable and forcing everyone into rentals, it makes pollution unaffordable and forces everyone into renewables.
Slashdot Mirror
Because they can turn around in a few years when this is normalised behaviour and say "Hey, isn't it ridiculous that we know who all these inveterate pirates are, but we aren't doing anything? Maybe we should pass a simple law that fines them a few hundred quid, that's not much of a problem, is it?"
True, but at least in that case you'd expect them to limit their search to plausible bludgeons. It's a tantalising grey area, I think we both agree.
They'd presumably just seize the server as evidence.
A better analogy would be "we have enough evidence to justify a search, but we don't know whether the murder weapon is a gun, a knife, a potato, or a window, so we're going to be keeping an exact record of every single object in the house".
I'm wary of the slippery slope fallacy, but this seems like a genuine example of an instance where a slightly troubling activity - keeping images of people's entire hard drives - has led to a broader and more troubling one.
And if you tolerate this,
Then your email will be next
Will be next
Will be next
Will be next
Yep, one of their cited benefits is continuously variable torque without the weight of a transmission.
They seem to be "further up the tree" than arthropods, i.e. they predate the existence of distinct shrimp altogether.
The whole point of having a corporation (or any other sort of team for that matter) is that you find ways to be less failure-prone than you are as individuals. You have to do this to offset the fact that a failure of the group affects every member - the cost is multiplied.
If Apple and publishers wanted to attack Amazon's monopoly position, there is a legal mechanism to do so. That they chose a mechanism that make them all an enormous amount of money should tell you something about whose side they're on, and it's not yours.
Great, so if you have enough money to sue the other guy, you're fine.
Well, a group of libertarians in a region could band together to share the costs and the benefits, by a system of wealth distribution administered by elected representatives.
Admittedly that's just reinventing the system of government we have now but whatevs.
Sometimes being successful enough to wind up in a position of responsibility gives you responsibilities you don't want to have.
The adjustments generally lower the warming trend. Indeed, until the Muller report came out, WUWT's main talking point was that such adjustments were inadequate; I find it interesting that since that study arrived and indicated that the adjustments were sufficient, WUWT has shifted to an entirely fictitious narrative that the adjustments cause the trend in the first place.
I would prefer to have a lifespan that wasn't measured in tens of hours.
How can you possibly know when NASA was founded? Were you born in the 1940s?
I'm not sure how a level that's still lower than almost all of the years that preceded it is "a significant rebound". If I was getting shorter by a foot a decade and one year I found I grew by an inch, I'd not take much solace in the fact.
The physics are involved but pretty unambiguous, and we can (and have) confirmed this by satellite and atmospheric temperature observations.
http://judithcurry.com/2010/11...
Your second chart shows a positive temperature anomaly over most of the area covered.
If I raised your core body temperature by 2C indefinitely you would eventually keel over and die. Don't underestimate small changes when they act globally.
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take from temperatures being fairly steady (e.g. a fairly small positive growth rate) over the past decade-ish. The preceding hundred years have been a very steady upward trend, and if that was some sort of fluke wouldn't the temperature have started regressing to the mean by now? It seems more likely to me that whatever long-scale effects are causing the upward trend have been attenuated by some short-term system.
If an accumulation of statistics isn't your idea of direct evidence, I strongly advise you to avoid the sciences.
I don't think you understand the point of cap-and-trade. It doesn't have to make the government money: all it has to do is put a price tag on a social harm, which means that there's an economic force to reduce it. In fact, if there's arbitrage and speculation that raises prices of the credits, the price of that harm goes up, and rational economics implies that the amount of that that harm actually bought goes down.
It's kind of like the housing bubble, only instead of making housing unaffordable and forcing everyone into rentals, it makes pollution unaffordable and forces everyone into renewables.
Err, the first chart you've linked to shows the sea ice curve being shifted progressively lower on the chart with each passing year.
"If you can't season it, you don't known it."
RMS prepares scrambled eggs using home-grown peppers according to a GPL recipe.
"2014 is the year of Linux on the hot dog".
Is this a common usage that I'm just coming across?