There are many sits where you can see expiring and recently expired domains. Google "expired domain search" or something simular
But the question is: Where do they get this information? Is my registrar giving out my information to third parties--maybe I didn't read the TOS carefully enough? How do these people know what is and what is not going to expire?
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured--
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Happend to me too. I decided not to renew my domain name (thinking it was too obscure, and noone would buy it off me). I hadn't updated in a long time and was quite bored with it, and especially having it hanging over my head. I did have really good traffic for a while.
Long story short: A day or two after I let it expire it became a porn portal, then a redirect to a different porn portal. Then about 2 years later, a "search engine". Now it's that same porn portal again. 4 years and counting.
What I want to know is who the hell was giving out my traffic information and who the hell let these ***holes know that I hadn't renewed it?
What do they do? Search google for URLs randomly all day? Or randomly type in names into networksolutions to see if they're available??
I'm not pissed someone took it, that's fine. What I am pissed about is that now people think I turned my site into some junk spam porno crap. They even kept my folder names!
Haven't heard that ad hominem argument against climatology before. You might want to rely on the standard talking points instead:
1. Climatologists said in the 70s that maybe the Earth is cooling. LOL fLiP FlOp! Did Kerry write it omgrofl!
2. Volcanoes release pollution!! LOL a giant volcano explosion releases TONS of pollution! We are just like millions of volcanoes, idiots. LOL! WRONG AGAIN.
3. That weather guy on the tv got it wrong!! LOL climate is weather so they're WRONG too!
4. Climate change is a NATURAL CYCLE so therefore climate isn't changing LOL!!!! ANd has nothing to do with anything except itself STUPID SCIENTISTS rofl!
5. Hurricanes happen all the time and you STUPID people, excluding scientists who say it cannot be attributed to climate change and don't imply there is any categorical increase in weather-related disasters but say climate change in the long run could affect weather in this manner, say it is climate change! WRONG.
6. It's all Politics it is the LIEBERAL COMMUNISTS WHO WANT TO DESTROY INDUSTRY. The scientists Never Even Did Any Science they just Say Things and never do any Experiments or Tests or Anything they are LIARS as WELL as stupid. omg I can't believe you don't realize this!
7. etc.
Isn't it time to use hydrogen as fuel? Hydrogen + oxygen = pure water
The problem with hydrogen is that no "natural" hydrogen available. Hydrogen essentially acts like an efficient battery and the energy used up creating it (via electrolysis of water, or the current cheapest way it's produced now, seperation of natural gas) is simply transferred into as potential chemical energy. Electrolysis is like charging up hydrogen, where water is the "used up" battery.
When you factor in the costs of transporting it along pipes or in trucks, well, my guess is that it soon starts to diminish in terms of just how good it is. I just assume hydrogen is the "next step" because it's the only step that will keep oil companies ("energy companies") in business. They get to use up all the natural gas, and they get to keep the fuel-style infrastructure in place.
The best bet for humanity in my opinion is to use the current electricity infrastructure and use the most efficient battery (electrochemical, kinetic, or etc.) in a car. That way power plants create the energy and it's just passed along to the car, since a) power plants can be more efficient in creating energy, b) energy can come from different sources (solar, wind, tidal etc.) and c)the wires are all in place already. Granted, if the best battery is hydrogen, then by all means, fuel cells would be great. If hydrogen can be created at home efficiently, instead of piped and trucked around all day, then it would be good. Other than that, I have my doubts about hydrogen. I just don't think it can be manufactured and transported efficiently enough when we have a perfectly good energy delivery system (power lines) in place already, and essentially all hydrogen is is a battery.
We, as intelligent beings are unique in that we can choose to live in harmony with nature.
Only after the last tree has been cut down,
Only after the last river has been poisoned,
Only after the last fish has been caught,
Only then will you discover that money cannot be eaten.
Now that I think about it, I probably explained it wrong, but whatever. You can't include the non-responders in your "15%" statistic, that should be obvious.
Please learn how statistics work before saying that a low response rate plays a role in the actual statistics. A low response rate changes the margin of error, not the percentages. The actual statistic is >50% of 1,400 scientists +/- some margin of error that they don't give, not 15% of scientists, since you have no data on what those other 70% who didn't respond think.
See, the problem is, whether it's natural or not, if global warming continues the oceans will still rise and kill everybody, no matter which politician says what. If you want to ignore that and go on to that "level II civilization" of yours then go ahead, in the meantime, I'll do what I can to save some lives. Namely, trying to find the cause, whatever it may be.
Now you're going to change your mind and say "there is no warming trend." Make up your mind please. Better yet, download the temperature data and calculate the average temperature of the Earth. You might want to take off your tinfoil hat though. (I've done this before, see?)
p.s. just because we don't "understand" something or are only "vaguely aware of" of something doesn't mean we can't effect it. That is so ridiculous I don't even know why I replied to anything you said, but hey I'm bored.
Now to reply to my own post (don't want it to get modded down for my opinions of course)
It's hardly correct for AP to say they "now think" it's caused by vulcanism since that was probably their theory in the first place, they were probably looking for supporting evidence, not "omg look we discovered the cuase!!1". Crappily written article, the guy at the end even says "this is an ongoing discussion," probably in response to the AP writer saying "Can you tell us this caused global warming and the extinction?" for the 5th time.
The theory about vulcanism leading to global warming as a cause of the "Great Dying," or as it is scientifically known, the Permian-Triassic extinction event, is not new. The researchers just found some more supporting evidence for this theory.
I think Mozilla would benefit from a coherent and consistent naming scheme.
I'm using Mozilla 1.6. Does that mean I'm using Firefox? Is that the name of the browser? If not, then what the heck is Firefox? Is Thunderbird just the e-mail part? How come I already have an e-mail part with my Mozilla (Firefox)? I don't have Mozilla suite since I don't have any IRC or the other features....
First of all, data shows that the average temperature of the Earth is unequivocably increasing, anyone who calls it global cooling is going to have a hard time proving that trend.
If you're curious about the "global cooling" supposition in the 70's, then you should know that this was a theoretical proposal, not really proven. For instance, in the 70's they considered only water and CO2 as greenhouse gases (knowing they warm the planet). Their concern about cooling was mainly particulate pollution (aerosols) blocking out sunlight. Now methane (which effects climate far more than CO2, though there is obviously less of it) and other gases are included, and it has been shown that, basically, the effects of current particulate matter do not outweigh the effects of current greenhouse gas emmissions. In fact, the destruction of ozone contributes to cooling, and since the banning of CFC's and the slow adjustment of the ozone layer back to previous levels, this additional cooling effect is wearing off, and the underlying trend revealed is still warming.
Furthermore, it goes without saying that climate modeling has vastly improved because of computing capability.
More about 60's and 70's cooling (in section C): FAQ
That's called "abrupt climate change" and would be due to freshwater being introduced into the ocean which would upset the "thermohaline conveyor." That's a type of ocean circulation which is a result of the density of salt water increasing, and sinking, as it moves north and gets colder. Increased amounts of freshwater could upset the circulation, and some say cause it to "stall". The thermohaline conveyor plays a major part in regulating Earth's current climate by heating and cooling (and moving) the air above it.
This is considered a plausible theory, attributed to the "Younger Dryas" period which occurred after the last ice age. However, it is also considered highly unlikely.
The Pentagon did a study on it, in fact, as abrupt climate change would indeed be disastrous.
Regional climate is effected by the amount of energy in the atmospheric (and oceanic) systems. Currently scientists affirm that there is an increased amount of energy, retained via the greenhouse effect, in the global climate system. This increase in the amount of energy in the climate system can effect different climates in different ways, including more or less average precipitation, higher or lower temperatures, etc.
Then there's the problem of people so stubbornly committed to a Wikipedia article they've worked on that they will never let anyone else change anything but the smallest typo, (usually claiming expert knowledge--though that doesn't mean expert communication skills) Even if everyone on the talk pages says "this article is crap," or "I don't understand this part" or, god forbid, changes anything, the article hog will revert it back. It eventually just comes down to who can hold out the longest, and you end up with a poorly written article by one person, not a community. They may even have their facts straight, but that doesn't mean it's written well and easy to understand.
These people end up not just managing, but micromanaging the article and won't let anyone else get a word in edgewise. It's not really community-based when there's a dictator running the show.
Well, data mining is still profitable, creating and selling demographics and psychographics is still profitable, and that's what you give them license to do.
... Google's computers process the information in your email for various purposes, including formatting and displaying the information to you, delivering targeted related information (such as advertisements and related links)...and other purposes relating to offering you Gmail.
...Google will never sell, rent or share your personal information, including your Gmail address or email content, with any third parties for marketing purposes without your express permission.
Building psychographics, demographics, geographics, profiles, etc. from keywords (as well as cataloguing keywords) is not selling/renting/sharing personal information and is not selling/renting/sharing email content, and can therefore be sold to third parties. I can't see anything in Google's privacy page that prevents them from mining and selling this information.
Websites I've found (with a quick (google) search just now) charge $500-1000/month+ for access to plain old demographics. Just think how much money would be made from samples of millions of people talking about products, when they talk about products, how they talk about products etc etc. Why do you think Google search needs to assign an ID to you and remember what search terms you used anyway?
We use cookies to improve the quality of our service and to better understand how people interact with us. Google does this by storing user preferences in cookies and by tracking user trends and patterns of how people search.
Just some info: PTC is a subsidiary of Media "Research" Center (www.mediaresearchcenter.org). (MRC was also sued by the WWE as the parent organization of PTC, they're run by the same guy.)
I'm pretty sure CNSnews.com or NewsMax.com is involved too... but either I forget how, or I never really figured that out.
Slashdot Mirror
0 minutes. See the post following yours.
There are many sits where you can see expiring and recently expired domains. Google "expired domain search" or something simular
But the question is: Where do they get this information? Is my registrar giving out my information to third parties--maybe I didn't read the TOS carefully enough? How do these people know what is and what is not going to expire?
IANAL, but this comes to mind, seems somewhat similar:
US Code, Title 18, Section 241.
241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured--
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
also see 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
(Guatanamo Bay comes to mind)
Happend to me too. I decided not to renew my domain name (thinking it was too obscure, and noone would buy it off me). I hadn't updated in a long time and was quite bored with it, and especially having it hanging over my head. I did have really good traffic for a while.
Long story short: A day or two after I let it expire it became a porn portal, then a redirect to a different porn portal. Then about 2 years later, a "search engine". Now it's that same porn portal again. 4 years and counting.
What I want to know is who the hell was giving out my traffic information and who the hell let these ***holes know that I hadn't renewed it?
What do they do? Search google for URLs randomly all day? Or randomly type in names into networksolutions to see if they're available??
I'm not pissed someone took it, that's fine. What I am pissed about is that now people think I turned my site into some junk spam porno crap. They even kept my folder names!
Nuclear power isn't "green". It produces waste. Highly toxic radioactive waste to be exact.
Haven't heard that ad hominem argument against climatology before. You might want to rely on the standard talking points instead:
1. Climatologists said in the 70s that maybe the Earth is cooling. LOL fLiP FlOp! Did Kerry write it omgrofl!
2. Volcanoes release pollution!! LOL a giant volcano explosion releases TONS of pollution! We are just like millions of volcanoes, idiots. LOL! WRONG AGAIN.
3. That weather guy on the tv got it wrong!! LOL climate is weather so they're WRONG too!
4. Climate change is a NATURAL CYCLE so therefore climate isn't changing LOL!!!! ANd has nothing to do with anything except itself STUPID SCIENTISTS rofl!
5. Hurricanes happen all the time and you STUPID people, excluding scientists who say it cannot be attributed to climate change and don't imply there is any categorical increase in weather-related disasters but say climate change in the long run could affect weather in this manner, say it is climate change! WRONG.
6. It's all Politics it is the LIEBERAL COMMUNISTS WHO WANT TO DESTROY INDUSTRY. The scientists Never Even Did Any Science they just Say Things and never do any Experiments or Tests or Anything they are LIARS as WELL as stupid. omg I can't believe you don't realize this!
7. etc.
Isn't it time to use hydrogen as fuel? Hydrogen + oxygen = pure water
The problem with hydrogen is that no "natural" hydrogen available. Hydrogen essentially acts like an efficient battery and the energy used up creating it (via electrolysis of water, or the current cheapest way it's produced now, seperation of natural gas) is simply transferred into as potential chemical energy. Electrolysis is like charging up hydrogen, where water is the "used up" battery.
When you factor in the costs of transporting it along pipes or in trucks, well, my guess is that it soon starts to diminish in terms of just how good it is. I just assume hydrogen is the "next step" because it's the only step that will keep oil companies ("energy companies") in business. They get to use up all the natural gas, and they get to keep the fuel-style infrastructure in place.
The best bet for humanity in my opinion is to use the current electricity infrastructure and use the most efficient battery (electrochemical, kinetic, or etc.) in a car. That way power plants create the energy and it's just passed along to the car, since a) power plants can be more efficient in creating energy, b) energy can come from different sources (solar, wind, tidal etc.) and c)the wires are all in place already. Granted, if the best battery is hydrogen, then by all means, fuel cells would be great. If hydrogen can be created at home efficiently, instead of piped and trucked around all day, then it would be good. Other than that, I have my doubts about hydrogen. I just don't think it can be manufactured and transported efficiently enough when we have a perfectly good energy delivery system (power lines) in place already, and essentially all hydrogen is is a battery.
Frequently asked questions about the science of climate change
I find it very helpful.
Gummi bears defeat fingerprint sensors
Apparently, Microsoft now has offical plans to begin charging for Antispyware (like they didn't before)
:/.)
1.Create vulnerable software.
2.Sell antispyware software to protect said software instead of fixing the holes.
3.Profit
Ah now I get it, I had step 2 wrong this whole time!
(Granted, the "expiry date" could just be to prevent security lapses and will also be free. And why can't I html "strike" things here
We, as intelligent beings are unique in that we can choose to live in harmony with nature.
Only after the last tree has been cut down,
Only after the last river has been poisoned,
Only after the last fish has been caught,
Only then will you discover that money cannot be eaten.
Now that I think about it, I probably explained it wrong, but whatever. You can't include the non-responders in your "15%" statistic, that should be obvious.
Please learn how statistics work before saying that a low response rate plays a role in the actual statistics. A low response rate changes the margin of error, not the percentages. The actual statistic is >50% of 1,400 scientists +/- some margin of error that they don't give, not 15% of scientists, since you have no data on what those other 70% who didn't respond think.
I said nt. Jeez.
See, the problem is, whether it's natural or not, if global warming continues the oceans will still rise and kill everybody, no matter which politician says what. If you want to ignore that and go on to that "level II civilization" of yours then go ahead, in the meantime, I'll do what I can to save some lives. Namely, trying to find the cause, whatever it may be.
Now you're going to change your mind and say "there is no warming trend." Make up your mind please. Better yet, download the temperature data and calculate the average temperature of the Earth. You might want to take off your tinfoil hat though. (I've done this before, see?)
p.s. just because we don't "understand" something or are only "vaguely aware of" of something doesn't mean we can't effect it. That is so ridiculous I don't even know why I replied to anything you said, but hey I'm bored.
Now to reply to my own post (don't want it to get modded down for my opinions of course)
It's hardly correct for AP to say they "now think" it's caused by vulcanism since that was probably their theory in the first place, they were probably looking for supporting evidence, not "omg look we discovered the cuase!!1". Crappily written article, the guy at the end even says "this is an ongoing discussion," probably in response to the AP writer saying "Can you tell us this caused global warming and the extinction?" for the 5th time.
The theory about vulcanism leading to global warming as a cause of the "Great Dying," or as it is scientifically known, the Permian-Triassic extinction event, is not new. The researchers just found some more supporting evidence for this theory.
The Great Dying Permian-Triassic extinction event
You guys are funny.
I think Mozilla would benefit from a coherent and consistent naming scheme.
I'm using Mozilla 1.6. Does that mean I'm using Firefox? Is that the name of the browser? If not, then what the heck is Firefox? Is Thunderbird just the e-mail part? How come I already have an e-mail part with my Mozilla (Firefox)? I don't have Mozilla suite since I don't have any IRC or the other features....
First of all, data shows that the average temperature of the Earth is unequivocably increasing, anyone who calls it global cooling is going to have a hard time proving that trend.
If you're curious about the "global cooling" supposition in the 70's, then you should know that this was a theoretical proposal, not really proven. For instance, in the 70's they considered only water and CO2 as greenhouse gases (knowing they warm the planet). Their concern about cooling was mainly particulate pollution (aerosols) blocking out sunlight. Now methane (which effects climate far more than CO2, though there is obviously less of it) and other gases are included, and it has been shown that, basically, the effects of current particulate matter do not outweigh the effects of current greenhouse gas emmissions. In fact, the destruction of ozone contributes to cooling, and since the banning of CFC's and the slow adjustment of the ozone layer back to previous levels, this additional cooling effect is wearing off, and the underlying trend revealed is still warming.
Furthermore, it goes without saying that climate modeling has vastly improved because of computing capability.
More about 60's and 70's cooling (in section C): FAQ
That's called "abrupt climate change" and would be due to freshwater being introduced into the ocean which would upset the "thermohaline conveyor." That's a type of ocean circulation which is a result of the density of salt water increasing, and sinking, as it moves north and gets colder. Increased amounts of freshwater could upset the circulation, and some say cause it to "stall". The thermohaline conveyor plays a major part in regulating Earth's current climate by heating and cooling (and moving) the air above it.
This is considered a plausible theory, attributed to the "Younger Dryas" period which occurred after the last ice age. However, it is also considered highly unlikely.
The Pentagon did a study on it, in fact, as abrupt climate change would indeed be disastrous.
That'd be "climate change" changing the wind patterns.
"Global warming" doesn't "produce increased precipitation".
Regional climate is effected by the amount of energy in the atmospheric (and oceanic) systems. Currently scientists affirm that there is an increased amount of energy, retained via the greenhouse effect, in the global climate system. This increase in the amount of energy in the climate system can effect different climates in different ways, including more or less average precipitation, higher or lower temperatures, etc.
Climate change FAQ
Then there's the problem of people so stubbornly committed to a Wikipedia article they've worked on that they will never let anyone else change anything but the smallest typo, (usually claiming expert knowledge--though that doesn't mean expert communication skills) Even if everyone on the talk pages says "this article is crap," or "I don't understand this part" or, god forbid, changes anything, the article hog will revert it back. It eventually just comes down to who can hold out the longest, and you end up with a poorly written article by one person, not a community. They may even have their facts straight, but that doesn't mean it's written well and easy to understand.
These people end up not just managing, but micromanaging the article and won't let anyone else get a word in edgewise. It's not really community-based when there's a dictator running the show.
Well, data mining is still profitable, creating and selling demographics and psychographics is still profitable, and that's what you give them license to do.
... Google's computers process the information in your email for various purposes, including formatting and displaying the information to you, delivering targeted related information (such as advertisements and related links)...and other purposes relating to offering you Gmail.
...Google will never sell, rent or share your personal information, including your Gmail address or email content, with any third parties for marketing purposes without your express permission.
Building psychographics, demographics, geographics, profiles, etc. from keywords (as well as cataloguing keywords) is not selling/renting/sharing personal information and is not selling/renting/sharing email content, and can therefore be sold to third parties. I can't see anything in Google's privacy page that prevents them from mining and selling this information.
Websites I've found (with a quick (google) search just now) charge $500-1000/month+ for access to plain old demographics. Just think how much money would be made from samples of millions of people talking about products, when they talk about products, how they talk about products etc etc. Why do you think Google search needs to assign an ID to you and remember what search terms you used anyway?
We use cookies to improve the quality of our service and to better understand how people interact with us. Google does this by storing user preferences in cookies and by tracking user trends and patterns of how people search.
http://www.google.com/privacy.html
http://gmail.google.com/gmail/help/privacy.html
http://www.demographicsnow.com/
Just some info: PTC is a subsidiary of Media "Research" Center (www.mediaresearchcenter.org). (MRC was also sued by the WWE as the parent organization of PTC, they're run by the same guy.)
I'm pretty sure CNSnews.com or NewsMax.com is involved too... but either I forget how, or I never really figured that out.