Tropical storms and hurricanes have always been lumped together because of the effects they have on shipping traffic in the oceans. It was far more important a century ago to record and track all such storms than it is today. However, today we have much better technology (satellites, long-range aircraft, etc.), and so we can track storms far better than we ever could before. That's not to say that most storms in the past were missed, as, again, shipping was far more prevalent in centuries passed than it is today.
There are records of hurricanes and tropical storms in the western North Atlantic dating back to 1492.
Meteorologists have only been naming storms for about 60 years. The 2nd most active storm season was 1933, prior to the naming convention.
The World Meteorological Organization has very stringent rules on what a named storm is -- it requires that the storm be tropical storm strength or greater. We "greenies" can't just choose to start doing things differently.
And it wouldn't matter anyway, since the record was for storms of tropical storm strength or greater. There were also records broken as far as hurricanes and major hurricanes (over category 3, so winds of 111 MPH or greater) go.
If we counted tropical depressions as well as tropical storms and hurricanes, we would have had a whopping 2 or 3 more this year.
If we didn't count the storms that were only detectable by satellite, we would have still been 4 storms over 1933's record.
And I should know, as hurricanes are my area of expertise.
Next time, research a bit before you start spewing forth your "information".
Equating the spending of taxpayer dollars with a personal sense of caring and repsonsibility is how this country is trillions of dollars in debt.
No, I think the cost of "defense" is the reason the country is trillions of dollars in debt. Bombs and missiles and tanks and planes and nuclear warheads and biological and chemical weapons are expensive. Storing them all... also expensive. Expensive enough that it caused the USSR to collapse.
An extra $1.2 million here and there does not $10 trillion make. Unless there have been 100,000 such here's and there's over the last 100 years...
Or, they could just be a bit more specific. For example, they could say something like, "... in annual proceeds..." to make it more clear what they mean.
No, it clearly wasn't ME who missed the point. Let me explain this to you in full detail... with proper equipment, you can blow up a photograph of a painting to the point where it is a near-perfect representation of the original. This is just like an mp3... it's not a PERFECT copy, because the mpeg standard is a lossy compression. That means some of the quality is lost. Hence, my example is valid.
On the other hand, taking a photo of a CD is the equivalent of taking an audio recording of a painting. The artwork itself is in no way, shape, or form duplicated. Thus, your "point," isn't.
Walk into a store and walk out with something you didn't pay for and argue with the store manager and police.
Again you show your ass. The point wasn't that it's not theft if you steal a TV from a store. The point was that it is just as much a theft if you steal my TV from my living room. Go ahead and try it. And after losing your kneecaps to my baseball bat (I swear, officer, he was reaching for a weapon!), try explaining to the police how, it's not theft because, after all, you weren't expected to PAY for it! I think it's YOU who's foolish. I wouldn't go so far as to say funny, tho.
The result of stealing CD's means that the RIAA has to put more filler crap onto CD's so that they can sell more CD's to make up for the profits that you've stolen.
But the thing is, if they fill the CD's with MORE filler crap, they're going to sell FEWER CD's. If you think that is a valid business model, you're as ignorant as the record execs are.
Once upon a time, an artist made money by performing their art. There was no way to reproduce that sound for the consumers. So there was no profit to be had by it. Modern case in point: Among the biggest opponents of file sharing is Metallica. Ironically enough, they wouldn't be where they are today were it not for music piracy. They started out as a no-name band, but as bootleg tapes of their SHOWS spread, more people started going to their SHOWS. People weren't buying their albums, but still, Metallica managed to make it pretty well. All thanks (in the beginning, at least) to music piracy.
Now, the artists make an inordinate amount of money by performing their art once. I wish I could get paid for 15 years for doing MY job once...
Well, I don't buy CD's, so the answer is simple.
Well aren't you special, then?
you could only buy the songs that you like an save some money at the same time.
So you want me to pay $8 for 2 songs vs. $15 for a whole CD? This to you is a savings? "But you get the album-verision, the radio-edit, the live version, and a remixed version, plus the video all on that CD-single!" Whoopdie-fuckin'-doo! How 'bout you just give me the album-version (un-edited, please) and charge me $1. Maybe then I'd think about it. And what if I decide I like the whole album at a later date? If I buy the album, do I get my money back from the singles? you bet I don't!
That's complete BS! If you want to be civil disobedient, protest. Just because you are being disobedient, does not justify ripping off the artist nor stealing his works.
Does it hurt to be so stupid? Civil disobedience is not protest. Civil disobedience involves, by very definition, breaking the law. Simply standing outside Virgin records with a sign is not being civilly disobedient (notice the use of the adverb there). And it sure as hell isn't going to bring about any changes in the world.
Want to do something that actually makes sense, stop buying their friggen music!
And I thought that was the problem! Silly me! People download music, so they're not buying it. How is this any different from just not buying it? (yeah, I know... because I'm stealing... even tho no tangible goods are arriving in my possession in the proces
Take a picture of your CD and then your example will actually mean somthing. Go on. Take a picture of your CD and send it to your friends. That's the only way your example makes any sense.
No no no... that makes no sense whatsoever. The example I gave was making a copy of a form of art so that I can enjoy that piece of art without paying for it. It's the exact same thing as copying a CD or downloading it off of the internet. Making a copy of a work of art for the sole purpose of enjoying it without paying. YOUR example, on the other hand, makes no sense.
Theft requires taking something to which you have no rights and have not paid for, especially when payment is expected.
Theft has nothing to do with payment. If you come to my house and steal my TV, that's just as much a theft as if you took a TV from Best Buy. If I make a photocopy of a picture you took (see above explanation for why this example parallels the discussion), you still have your original. Therefore, I took nothing. There is nothing tangible being removed from your possession. As has been stated MANY times in this thread, you are not a victim of a theft in that case. You are the victim of a copyright violation. You still have your original. Yes, there is a difference.
The only difference is here, in stead of a store lossing out, you're hurting and ripping off the artist.
There are other differences. Here's one. Shoplifting hurts everyone. The store doesn't get their money, so they in turn raise prices to compensate. They pass that on to the consumer, who on average makes significantly less than those who are hurt by music piracy. I don't feel sorry for James Hetfield if my little brother steals the Black Album. James Hetfield's bathroom is bigger than my house. I feel sorry for my little brother if he went out and bought St. Anger. That's $15 not even worthy of sitting under a drink.
How many times have you gone out and spent that hard-earned $15 on a CD from which you'd heard a couple of great singles, only to get home and find out that those were the only two songs on the entire disc worth two shits? Did you feel ripped off? The only difference is, $15 to me is a couple an hour or two of work. That same $15, divided amongst all involved amounts to less than a note. Yeah, those $15 add up when 10 million people do it. But perhaps the record execs should take a hint and realize people don't want filler bullshit. They want their money's worth.
If I go to an art museum and take a picture of a painting or a sculpture, that is not theft. If I then post that photograph on my website, I am not trafficking in stolen goods.
Theft requires that there a tangible object involved. Data is not a tangible object. That's all music is. As long as I don't physically remove a CD from a store without paying for it, I am not stealing anything.
Yes, you can argue till you're blue in the face that I'm depriving lots of people of their money if I download 2 songs rather than shelling out the $15 to get those 2 songs plus 8 to 10 crap filler tracks legally, plus a bunch of bonus Enhanced CD material that I don't want, anyway. But I'm not taking it from them. They never had it in their hands to begin with. Thus: not theft.
Slashdot Mirror
Can't... help... self...
When its maximum sustained winds reach 74 MPH!
(What do I win?)
It is indeed not the case.
Tropical storms and hurricanes have always been lumped together because of the effects they have on shipping traffic in the oceans. It was far more important a century ago to record and track all such storms than it is today. However, today we have much better technology (satellites, long-range aircraft, etc.), and so we can track storms far better than we ever could before. That's not to say that most storms in the past were missed, as, again, shipping was far more prevalent in centuries passed than it is today.
ACTUALLY:
There are records of hurricanes and tropical storms in the western North Atlantic dating back to 1492.
Meteorologists have only been naming storms for about 60 years. The 2nd most active storm season was 1933, prior to the naming convention.
The World Meteorological Organization has very stringent rules on what a named storm is -- it requires that the storm be tropical storm strength or greater. We "greenies" can't just choose to start doing things differently.
And it wouldn't matter anyway, since the record was for storms of tropical storm strength or greater. There were also records broken as far as hurricanes and major hurricanes (over category 3, so winds of 111 MPH or greater) go.
If we counted tropical depressions as well as tropical storms and hurricanes, we would have had a whopping 2 or 3 more this year.
If we didn't count the storms that were only detectable by satellite, we would have still been 4 storms over 1933's record.
And I should know, as hurricanes are my area of expertise.
Next time, research a bit before you start spewing forth your "information".
Equating the spending of taxpayer dollars with a personal sense of caring and repsonsibility is how this country is trillions of dollars in debt.
No, I think the cost of "defense" is the reason the country is trillions of dollars in debt. Bombs and missiles and tanks and planes and nuclear warheads and biological and chemical weapons are expensive. Storing them all... also expensive. Expensive enough that it caused the USSR to collapse.
An extra $1.2 million here and there does not $10 trillion make. Unless there have been 100,000 such here's and there's over the last 100 years...
Or, they could just be a bit more specific. For example, they could say something like, "... in annual proceeds..." to make it more clear what they mean.
They have XxOsama69xX on their buddy lists... what more do you want?
*sigh* Christ you're thick...
I think you missed the boat completely...
No, it clearly wasn't ME who missed the point. Let me explain this to you in full detail... with proper equipment, you can blow up a photograph of a painting to the point where it is a near-perfect representation of the original. This is just like an mp3... it's not a PERFECT copy, because the mpeg standard is a lossy compression. That means some of the quality is lost. Hence, my example is valid.
On the other hand, taking a photo of a CD is the equivalent of taking an audio recording of a painting. The artwork itself is in no way, shape, or form duplicated. Thus, your "point," isn't.
Walk into a store and walk out with something you didn't pay for and argue with the store manager and police.
Again you show your ass. The point wasn't that it's not theft if you steal a TV from a store. The point was that it is just as much a theft if you steal my TV from my living room. Go ahead and try it. And after losing your kneecaps to my baseball bat (I swear, officer, he was reaching for a weapon!), try explaining to the police how, it's not theft because, after all, you weren't expected to PAY for it! I think it's YOU who's foolish. I wouldn't go so far as to say funny, tho.
The result of stealing CD's means that the RIAA has to put more filler crap onto CD's so that they can sell more CD's to make up for the profits that you've stolen.
But the thing is, if they fill the CD's with MORE filler crap, they're going to sell FEWER CD's. If you think that is a valid business model, you're as ignorant as the record execs are.
Once upon a time, an artist made money by performing their art. There was no way to reproduce that sound for the consumers. So there was no profit to be had by it. Modern case in point: Among the biggest opponents of file sharing is Metallica. Ironically enough, they wouldn't be where they are today were it not for music piracy. They started out as a no-name band, but as bootleg tapes of their SHOWS spread, more people started going to their SHOWS. People weren't buying their albums, but still, Metallica managed to make it pretty well. All thanks (in the beginning, at least) to music piracy.
Now, the artists make an inordinate amount of money by performing their art once. I wish I could get paid for 15 years for doing MY job once...
Well, I don't buy CD's, so the answer is simple.
Well aren't you special, then?
you could only buy the songs that you like an save some money at the same time.
So you want me to pay $8 for 2 songs vs. $15 for a whole CD? This to you is a savings? "But you get the album-verision, the radio-edit, the live version, and a remixed version, plus the video all on that CD-single!" Whoopdie-fuckin'-doo! How 'bout you just give me the album-version (un-edited, please) and charge me $1. Maybe then I'd think about it. And what if I decide I like the whole album at a later date? If I buy the album, do I get my money back from the singles? you bet I don't!
That's complete BS! If you want to be civil disobedient, protest. Just because you are being disobedient, does not justify ripping off the artist nor stealing his works.
Does it hurt to be so stupid? Civil disobedience is not protest. Civil disobedience involves, by very definition, breaking the law. Simply standing outside Virgin records with a sign is not being civilly disobedient (notice the use of the adverb there). And it sure as hell isn't going to bring about any changes in the world.
Want to do something that actually makes sense, stop buying their friggen music!
And I thought that was the problem! Silly me! People download music, so they're not buying it. How is this any different from just not buying it? (yeah, I know... because I'm stealing... even tho no tangible goods are arriving in my possession in the proces
Take a picture of your CD and then your example will actually mean somthing. Go on. Take a picture of your CD and send it to your friends. That's the only way your example makes any sense.
No no no... that makes no sense whatsoever. The example I gave was making a copy of a form of art so that I can enjoy that piece of art without paying for it. It's the exact same thing as copying a CD or downloading it off of the internet. Making a copy of a work of art for the sole purpose of enjoying it without paying. YOUR example, on the other hand, makes no sense.
Theft requires taking something to which you have no rights and have not paid for, especially when payment is expected.
Theft has nothing to do with payment. If you come to my house and steal my TV, that's just as much a theft as if you took a TV from Best Buy. If I make a photocopy of a picture you took (see above explanation for why this example parallels the discussion), you still have your original. Therefore, I took nothing. There is nothing tangible being removed from your possession. As has been stated MANY times in this thread, you are not a victim of a theft in that case. You are the victim of a copyright violation. You still have your original. Yes, there is a difference.
The only difference is here, in stead of a store lossing out, you're hurting and ripping off the artist.
There are other differences. Here's one. Shoplifting hurts everyone. The store doesn't get their money, so they in turn raise prices to compensate. They pass that on to the consumer, who on average makes significantly less than those who are hurt by music piracy. I don't feel sorry for James Hetfield if my little brother steals the Black Album. James Hetfield's bathroom is bigger than my house. I feel sorry for my little brother if he went out and bought St. Anger. That's $15 not even worthy of sitting under a drink.
How many times have you gone out and spent that hard-earned $15 on a CD from which you'd heard a couple of great singles, only to get home and find out that those were the only two songs on the entire disc worth two shits? Did you feel ripped off? The only difference is, $15 to me is a couple an hour or two of work. That same $15, divided amongst all involved amounts to less than a note. Yeah, those $15 add up when 10 million people do it. But perhaps the record execs should take a hint and realize people don't want filler bullshit. They want their money's worth.
It's not theft. It's civil disobedience.
If I go to an art museum and take a picture of a painting or a sculpture, that is not theft. If I then post that photograph on my website, I am not trafficking in stolen goods.
Theft requires that there a tangible object involved. Data is not a tangible object. That's all music is. As long as I don't physically remove a CD from a store without paying for it, I am not stealing anything.
Yes, you can argue till you're blue in the face that I'm depriving lots of people of their money if I download 2 songs rather than shelling out the $15 to get those 2 songs plus 8 to 10 crap filler tracks legally, plus a bunch of bonus Enhanced CD material that I don't want, anyway. But I'm not taking it from them. They never had it in their hands to begin with. Thus: not theft.
That doesn't make it right, but it's not theft.