Free speech is about being able to say what you want, not the right to make anyone else care that you said it. Slashdot's way of handling it is acceptable.
It makes one wonder, with Microsoft encroaching on Adobe's turf like this, shouldn't they at least try to cover their ass and give great support on non-MS platforms? I really don't get what's going on as far as their strategy goes... Or maybe there just isn't any strategic planning.
And by promoting the false left/right paradigm, you give them even more power.
It's like the pro/anti gay thing... You have the gay bashers on one side and the whining sissies on the other side, each building up more steam and clout in their respective clan as they face eachother. The result? An endless debate instead of the ideal solution where nobody actually gives a damn if someone is gay or not. Why? Because being gay, or black, or Jewish or a woman doesn't give you any rights. Being a human gives you rights. Conservatives should remember that because it's in their constitution and progressives should remember it because it's the way forward.
Sure, because making infantile comments about other people is just as important as being able to speak freely about your government's policies.
The entire point of free speech and all human rights is that they can't be categorized as more or less important. Once you start making them relative to each other, you enter the realm of what is often called 'the tyranny of the majority' whereas if the majority decides that your right is unimportant, or unacceptable, it vanishes.
This being said, libel is illegal and if you are a victim of it, you are well within your right to take your case to court. I think society would work better if we maintained that libelous statements must be false though.
Tell me, if you wanted to measure the temperature outside your house, would you consult a satellite measuring microwave transmissions or a thermometer adjacent to your house?
I thought the argument was that there is greenhouse effect. I'm not a climatologist but as far as I've studied, greenhouse effect happens in the upper atmosphere first (unless you're at the poles). If surface temperature is rising faster than atmospheric temperature, what you have isn't greenhouse effect.
On the time frame your data presents, it appears to be rising. Why did you pick such a short data set however? If you go back far enough, temperatures have been far warmer than this and humanity survived. The argument now is that CO2 is causing this increase and as such, we are orchestrating our own doom... What caused it back then? Could the factor that caused such a rise in global temperature back in the days before SUV or even coal be what is affecting us now? Do we know as a scientific fact that CO2 is the driving factor here or is it more of an hypothesis? Before you go "Of course it is CO2!" how about you follow your own advice and look at the data? You'll find studies that say yes, and studies that say no... And eventually you'll remember the good old "correlation vs causation" thing with no clear answer. Heck, if you want an interesting story in terms of correlation, we've had a decrease in solar activity since about 2002, that means more cloud cover which tends to correlate with less warming. So hey, it might also be possible the the sun has something to do with global temperature. As far as CO2 (and some say greenhouse effect in general) goes, the truth is that we have a lot of educated guesses but we don't actually *know*. What we know for a fact is that politics got involved and they all have a very good idea what guesses about climate scientists ought to make if they want grant money. This is true for both sides of the debate and this will lead to the side with the most money winning the debate, regardless of them being scientifically accurate or not.
Or, as ICANN members, we could all submit/vote for a proposal to pull IP address blocks from companies who do such things. That'll get some attention. Submit it Vixie and I'll vote.
Well, I'm not special enough a a coder to try and make a living out of it so I'm probably not one to tell you how to do it right. I enjoy working, so I try to get paid for the time I spend working.
I guess I'm too humble to think that something as simple as coming up with a good idea would afford me the ability to just sit there and get money for being so smart/creative. My creativity is its own reward.
I'll take money for implementing an idea, I'll take money for refining/improving it and I'll take money for teaching people how to use it. Essentially, I will take money for time spent performing work. I cannot earn back time I spent so money is a decent compromise for giving it to someone else. I don't loose any measurable quantity of my life when someone makes a copy of a song or program I wrote, why would I be entitled to any compensation?
If getting paid is your primary reason for writing the computer program. Don't write it until you find someone willing to pay you for writing it.
If you write it because it is useful to you, profit from its use either through the time it saves you or the things it allows you to do/make.
From a customer standpoint here's how I approach it. I have a project, it uses open source software but some functionality is missing for me to turn it into a profitable venture. I will gladly pay someone to add that functionality, even if I don't *own* that extra functionality.
So why did the WSJ play up Gore's involvement, but not Powell's?
Because they want to make sure people still think Republicans and Democrats aren't sleeping together and pushing the same agenda. Ventura said it best: Politics is a lot like pro wrestling... They fight for show, but off the ring, they're best buddies.
Probably some Right Wing cry baby or the oil industry behind the article so read it with a grain of salt.
It's pretty foolish to think the oil industry feels in any way threatened by anything 'green'. *Especially* the elitist do as I say not as I do Al-Gore kind of green. Even if cars used no fuel at all, they'd still make money off of the tires, the roads, the machinery building the road, the ships transporting the cars, the plastics to make the car, the trucks transporting parts and tools for the cars. And for every hostile environment oil rig they don't have to finance, they lower their cost of production. Their research investments are so diverse that they also likely make significant money off of several entirely green technologies as well. For example Exxon and algae biofuels, or most petroleum-based fertilizers used in ethanol production.
Very interesting point there... I wonder what use they might have for such low profit figures. Could it be used to justify draconian drm and lobbying against fair use, launching a crusade against p2p technologies, etc? Oh, I imagine there's a very nice tax incentive as well.
I'm not entirely sure just how much bias this thing has as I am not in the US, but I must admit it makes me scared to have to deal with the police there if I ever visit.
Slashdot Mirror
Free speech is about being able to say what you want, not the right to make anyone else care that you said it. Slashdot's way of handling it is acceptable.
Get off my lawn, you friggin' kids.
It makes one wonder, with Microsoft encroaching on Adobe's turf like this, shouldn't they at least try to cover their ass and give great support on non-MS platforms? I really don't get what's going on as far as their strategy goes... Or maybe there just isn't any strategic planning.
And by promoting the false left/right paradigm, you give them even more power.
It's like the pro/anti gay thing... You have the gay bashers on one side and the whining sissies on the other side, each building up more steam and clout in their respective clan as they face eachother. The result? An endless debate instead of the ideal solution where nobody actually gives a damn if someone is gay or not. Why? Because being gay, or black, or Jewish or a woman doesn't give you any rights. Being a human gives you rights. Conservatives should remember that because it's in their constitution and progressives should remember it because it's the way forward.
You were probably right at some point, but then the world changed...
Sure, because making infantile comments about other people is just as important as being able to speak freely about your government's policies.
The entire point of free speech and all human rights is that they can't be categorized as more or less important. Once you start making them relative to each other, you enter the realm of what is often called 'the tyranny of the majority' whereas if the majority decides that your right is unimportant, or unacceptable, it vanishes.
This being said, libel is illegal and if you are a victim of it, you are well within your right to take your case to court. I think society would work better if we maintained that libelous statements must be false though.
Tell me, if you wanted to measure the temperature outside your house, would you consult a satellite measuring microwave transmissions or a thermometer adjacent to your house?
I thought the argument was that there is greenhouse effect. I'm not a climatologist but as far as I've studied, greenhouse effect happens in the upper atmosphere first (unless you're at the poles). If surface temperature is rising faster than atmospheric temperature, what you have isn't greenhouse effect.
Amen... You make me wish I had mod points for you are the voice of reason in this forum.
On the time frame your data presents, it appears to be rising. Why did you pick such a short data set however? If you go back far enough, temperatures have been far warmer than this and humanity survived. The argument now is that CO2 is causing this increase and as such, we are orchestrating our own doom... What caused it back then? Could the factor that caused such a rise in global temperature back in the days before SUV or even coal be what is affecting us now? Do we know as a scientific fact that CO2 is the driving factor here or is it more of an hypothesis? Before you go "Of course it is CO2!" how about you follow your own advice and look at the data? You'll find studies that say yes, and studies that say no... And eventually you'll remember the good old "correlation vs causation" thing with no clear answer. Heck, if you want an interesting story in terms of correlation, we've had a decrease in solar activity since about 2002, that means more cloud cover which tends to correlate with less warming. So hey, it might also be possible the the sun has something to do with global temperature. As far as CO2 (and some say greenhouse effect in general) goes, the truth is that we have a lot of educated guesses but we don't actually *know*. What we know for a fact is that politics got involved and they all have a very good idea what guesses about climate scientists ought to make if they want grant money. This is true for both sides of the debate and this will lead to the side with the most money winning the debate, regardless of them being scientifically accurate or not.
I don't claim to say that's *why* he discounts the data, but I don't think there's a consensus on its positive or negative significance:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/08/24/agw-part-5-limitations-of-ice-core-data-or-the-smoking-gun/
I think the sticking point for a closed standard has more to do with drm than practicality. Flash 'just works', and flash lets you do rtmp.
Or, as ICANN members, we could all submit/vote for a proposal to pull IP address blocks from companies who do such things. That'll get some attention. Submit it Vixie and I'll vote.
Well, I'm not special enough a a coder to try and make a living out of it so I'm probably not one to tell you how to do it right. I enjoy working, so I try to get paid for the time I spend working.
I guess I'm too humble to think that something as simple as coming up with a good idea would afford me the ability to just sit there and get money for being so smart/creative. My creativity is its own reward.
I'll take money for implementing an idea, I'll take money for refining/improving it and I'll take money for teaching people how to use it. Essentially, I will take money for time spent performing work. I cannot earn back time I spent so money is a decent compromise for giving it to someone else. I don't loose any measurable quantity of my life when someone makes a copy of a song or program I wrote, why would I be entitled to any compensation?
You're kind of describing OpenWRT there.
Nah, they just factored in inflation.
If getting paid is your primary reason for writing the computer program. Don't write it until you find someone willing to pay you for writing it.
If you write it because it is useful to you, profit from its use either through the time it saves you or the things it allows you to do/make.
From a customer standpoint here's how I approach it. I have a project, it uses open source software but some functionality is missing for me to turn it into a profitable venture. I will gladly pay someone to add that functionality, even if I don't *own* that extra functionality.
So why did the WSJ play up Gore's involvement, but not Powell's?
Because they want to make sure people still think Republicans and Democrats aren't sleeping together and pushing the same agenda. Ventura said it best: Politics is a lot like pro wrestling... They fight for show, but off the ring, they're best buddies.
Rupert Murdoch doesn't hate Al Gore, but he loves misinformed people bickering about half-truths on both sides of any issue.
Probably some Right Wing cry baby or the oil industry behind the article so read it with a grain of salt.
It's pretty foolish to think the oil industry feels in any way threatened by anything 'green'. *Especially* the elitist do as I say not as I do Al-Gore kind of green. Even if cars used no fuel at all, they'd still make money off of the tires, the roads, the machinery building the road, the ships transporting the cars, the plastics to make the car, the trucks transporting parts and tools for the cars. And for every hostile environment oil rig they don't have to finance, they lower their cost of production. Their research investments are so diverse that they also likely make significant money off of several entirely green technologies as well. For example Exxon and algae biofuels, or most petroleum-based fertilizers used in ethanol production.
Wow, Al Gore himself couldn't have said it any better.... Wait, is that you?
Very interesting point there... I wonder what use they might have for such low profit figures. Could it be used to justify draconian drm and lobbying against fair use, launching a crusade against p2p technologies, etc? Oh, I imagine there's a very nice tax incentive as well.
I'm flattered.
Police are licensed gangs. They are not there to protect you. They are there to make sure that the status quo is maintained. That is all.
You must have seen this then...
I'm not entirely sure just how much bias this thing has as I am not in the US, but I must admit it makes me scared to have to deal with the police there if I ever visit.
This might actually encourage some slashdotters to go into the toxic waste disposal business.
I *didn't* RTFA, twice. Some of us have to stay true to tradition and make up for such heretics as that blasphemous mcgrew.