whose local coffee shop are to cheap to provide wifi access for their customers.
You say that as if it's a bad thing. There is nothing that says anyone must provide WiFi to anyone. Certainly nothing compelling a business to do so. Unless you mean a bunch of slackers using the shops electricity to power their laptops and occupying tables all the while ordering one cup of coffee.
Don't confuse cheap with being sensible. Maybe the shops don't want to deal with the expense and hassle of setting up WiFi. Sure, you could always offer to do it (you did offer your services to those cheapies, right? Right?) but they're the ones who will still be stuck with maintaining the system.
Just because you think a coffeeshop should be providing WiFi for your use doesn't mean they agree. You want access in a coffeeshop, go to someplace which offers it or start your own shop and offer WiFi.
Do you care to cite your reference for orders of magnitude greater, or at least give a number?
Sure, not a problem. I had this very discussion yesterday. I'll repost with I did then:
According to this article the amount of greenhouse gases that man puts out in one year is ~30 billion tons. Unfortunately the article doesn't have a date but judging by the references it is somewhere around 2000.
This article (which uses figures from 2000) indicates that the U.S. alone produced 1,583 million metric tons of carbon from burning fossil fuels.
Now, consider that in 1815 Mount Tambora (Indonesia) produced an estimated 400 million tons of sulfurous gases and ash and that caused the year without a summer (i.e. global cooling), it is quite easy to suggest that mans dumping of multiple times that amount of gases into the atmosphere could cause an increase in world temperatures.
As far as what NOAA has to say, you can read and make your own judgements. They seem to agree with my assertion that the global increase in temperatures seem to be the result of both natural and man-made factors. The page in question was last updated on Feb 3, 2006.
Then of course there is the Wiki entry which indicates the volume of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased from around 280 parts per million in 1800 to around 315 in 1958, 367 in 2000 (a 31% increase over 200 years), and about 380 in 2006. In other words, despite the huge quantity of atmosphere that exists around the planet, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing. Not remaining the same, not decreasing. Increasing. That's just CO2. In trying to find numbers to justify my claims I saw the same increase in other gases during the same timeframe (which is what the Wiki entry says in the next sentence).
After all that I found another source which says that on a yearly basis volcanoes contribute 100 million tons of CO2 whereas other sources of CO2 produce about 10 billion tons a year. It's under the section marked 'Influence on the Greenhouse Effect' halfway down the page.
As far as my quote about the amount of gases and such from Mt. Tambora, I left out a zero in my posting and didn't catch it during preview. The correct number is 400 million tons (as shown in this posting) of sulfuours gases though various sources differ. One says 200 million tons while another indicates 400 million tons.
Despite my mistake and even using the higher figure of 400 million tons, comparing that figure to the sources I listed in the beginning it still shows that what man produces is substantially more, every year, than what Mt. Tambora produced in a 3-month period. In the case of Tambora after the eruption stopped nature had a chance to recover. In the case of us burning fossil fuels, nature never gets a breather. We are always pumping out more and more gases.
I must state that I am not an uber-treehugger. I do, however, try to minimize to an extent my footprint. That said, there is not reason NOT to try and reduce our CO2 and other emissions if for no other reason than our health. Think LA and how wonderful it must be sucking in that brown atmosphere. For a better example think Mexico City. I don't know about you but I prefer to look through a clear atmospher, not a brown one.
Of course! It's no different than the ID vs. Evolution nonsense. They keep moving the goalposts everytime new information is gathered and presented.
The recent posting about a new fossil link between water creatures moving onto land is the classic example (as is archaeopteryx). Such a creature was predicted both in the evolutionary path as well as the geologic path. And the prediction was confirmed by the discovery.
But the IDers will now say (and this was discussed ad nauseum in the postings) "Well what about the creature that came before or after it? Where are those fossils?"
So off the paleontologists go and find those fossils and the IDers repeat the same questions. Same thing here. The evidence for global warming continues to be found and expanded upon and every time the data is presented someone chimes in "But man can't affect the Earth! We're too small in the grand scheme of things."
In 1815 Mt Tamboras eruption caused the year without a summer. It spewed out roughly 40 million tons of gases and ash from April through June. In one year man produces orders of magnitude more pollutants through the burning of fossil fuels than was done in those two months. Apparently it's ok for a volcano to influence the worlds climate but when man throws out, on a continuing basis, enormous quantities of pollutants every year, well that can't have an effect on the climate.
It's time to get over ourselves. We are, to an extent, influencing global warming which may or may not be a natural phenomenon. These are facts which cannot be disputed. But as the parent poster said, as you watch the ice caps come washing over us, just remember it isn't because of mankind, President Bush says so.
The really sad part is that if prevention or at least mitigation would take place it would provide a needed boost to employment in this country. Think of all the companies who would need to expand or be created to produce the pollution control products for factories and power plants. Think of all the people who be needed to service those products.
If nothing else, think of the influx of taxes that the Republicans could use to create a bigger, more intrusive government. Think of the children and all that porn that could be banished from the interweb! Won't someone think of the children!
I guess using that standard Ingvar Kamprad (founder of IKEA) should be kicked out since he has a 13 year-old Volvo, takes the bus and flies economy class.
If anything Ross should have been congratulated on his foresight to want to improve services. Simply sitting in an ivory tower won't get the job done. Witness what not checking on quality and service has done for GM.
but that Man is a divinely created being who is outside of evolution as a process, or at least did not evolve from any "lower" animal.
To which my reply always is: if man is not evolved from another animal then why do we share 88%-95% of our DNA with the great apes? If we're not related to any other creature there shouldn't be ANY similarity between us and other creatures. But there is.
Usually after I ask that question I get the deer-in-the-headlights look as they try to reconcile that thought with their own beliefs.
I was trying to be brief when I made my statement about stealing. I didn't want to go into all the possible exceptions. In the case of FF, no, of course you're not stealing. The folks at Moz Inc have been kind enough not to charge for their product.
But that is their choice. They developed the product and chose not to put a price on it. This is different from someone downloading a song from someone else who had no right to offer the song in the first place. In the first instance the person offering the song has violated the copyright of the distributor and artist. In the second instance the person receiving the song has stolen it since neither the artist nor the distributor is receiving any compensation for their work. It's irrelevant if you decide that you don't like the song and delete it. You still had a copy which you should normally have paid for.
I've been very consistent in my comments regarding this whole issue. The artists and their distributors, for better or worse, own the rights to the songs and can make whatever rules regarding the distribution of those songs.
Where I disagree with that policy are areas such as fair use (i.e. not being allowed to make copies or backups) or not allowing others to listen to the song without paying for it. That's bullshit. Assuming you legally purchased the song or were gifted it you can do whatever you want with it while it is in your possession for your personal use.
I'd never say free is wrong. Free is good. When Wendy's had their promotion last year where anyone could walk into their store and receive a free small Frosty, did I take advantage of it? You bet! Twice in fact. Once for me and once for my dad who for whatever reason will never do anything like that (get something for free without buying something else). They offered the Frosty to me free. I didn't walk into their store and help myself to a Frosty.
Free is good and should be encouraged. But taking something that someone else produced and not compensating them for it when you are required to do so is not free. It is stealing.
Just to make this clear, the "shark" is actually the RIAA.
Really? Gee, hadn't noticed.
Also, she's implying that she's a veggie because she's kind to animals, not the other way around.
No, she's saying she is a vegetarian and so understands about not being cruel to animals.
The specific sentence you quote is in fact an appeal to those components of the RIAA which are not moronic - the author is assuming they exist and hence admitting the likelihood that this particular representative does not represent the intelligence level of her actual accuser.
Understood. After rereading what I wrote I could have been more clear. Regardless, her quote implies that all reps within the RIAA are incompetent and is hoping that there is someone competent within the organization that she can speak to. Her words:
Please, RIAA -- if any competent representative happens to enjoy flipping through The Tech. . .
Regardless, calling someone in the organization a moron (ok, we've all done it at one time or another) doesn't do much to sway opinion to her side or endear her to anyone within the RIAA.
The point of this story, which parent ignores, was the absolutely bizzare quote about how people should drop out of college to pay their settlements.
I ignored it because I was fascinated by the contortions and hyperbole she went through to try to justify her not paying for the music. She even admits that not everyone pays for their music. If you don't pay for something then you've stolen it (excluding having it gifted to you). If you steal and get caught you pay the price.
The RIAA rep merely offered her a suggestion. Sure, it seems bizarre but it is a valid option. When you owe money you have to make choices about how to pay your debts. Generally people cut down on their expenses. In some cases they take a second job. In her case she has the option of not going to school. They didn't say stop going altogether. She could stop for one semester and use that money to pay for the music.
If the RIAA rep said, 'Get a job' would that be bizarre? Oh, but she's a college student and doesn't have time for a job you say? Hogwash. I worked my way through my schooling and ended up paying for 70% of everything out of my own pocket. By everything I mean tuition, room, board, travel expenses, supplies, entertainment and anything else associated with schooling. I worked 40 hour weeks when home and my first two years and worked on weekends when away for my last two years. She can do the same.
My post got modded insightful because it is. I saw through her words and chose to concentrate on her actions. She's complaining about a situation which is her doing. While the response she received isn't one she expected it is still valid. Trying to appeal to the public by using metaphor doesn't make up for her own lack of responsibility in accepting that what she did was wrong and now has to pay the price for her actions.
Either since the day I visited my first aquarium or the day Goldie came into my family's life, our parents have told us not to tap the glass of the fish tank. It's cruel to Goldie -- I understand and respect that. I mean, heck, I am a vegetarian.
Ok, sounds good. Be nice to animals because she's a veggie.
But would we have many qualms over a little water perturbation if Goldie were, say, a bloodthirsty shark? I'd knock on that glass to the near-cracking point.
Except if they're not cute and cuddly.
Please, RIAA -- if any competent representative happens to enjoy flipping through The Tech -- please tell me Bowie is a moronic tool who can't help what the Superior Gray Coverage Golden Blonde hair dye does to her mental facilities.
Calling your accuser a moron does much to further your image as someone who is innocent.
Your evil pirates are people too,
So you're admitting you're a pirate. Acceptance is the first step.
people who enjoy music and almost always still purchase it legitimately.
Almost only counts in hand grenades and horseshoes.
Each has an individual life and circumstances that deserve consideration, if not for the sake of empathy for your fellow man, then for the sake of business sense.
Your life and circumstances are irrelevant to the situation. You chose to make a decision about whether to pay for a product or service. You chose not to pay. The RIAAs business sense tells them that to allow people to not pay for the product would mean they and the music industry would not survive. Self preservation and all that.
Sure, if you commit a crime against someone, you should be held accountable.
Which is exactly what is taking place.
But I find it horrifying that anyone would single-mindedly and without compassion process people like a meat grinder set to purée.
No one said the penalty would be pleasant.
So while the RIAA continues to play the part of shark, I'll continue to stand behind the glass, tapping away, wondering which of us is on displa
Which goes back to my opening remarks about your lack of resolve about being a vegetarian and being kind to all animals.
She's whining because she got caught and contradicts herself about being cruel to animals. Guess what girlie, you're boned. Suck it up and deal with it. Maybe you'll learn something about taking something which isn't yours and being nice to all animals.
The amount of air is irrelevant since the size of the atmosphere doesn't change. What is relevant is the concentration of CO2 and other gases within that area which have been shown to be increasing. As the concentration of greenhouse gases increases their effect on heat retention becomes measurable.
Besides, if one volcano can affect global temperature and weather conditions it is easy to see how a sustained infusion of greenhouses gases on a much larger scale can also affect global temperatures. You apparently didn't have a problem with that fact.
However, to amuse you, the answer to your question is 87997536000 tons of atmosphere. I used 197 million square miles for my reference of the earths surface in square inches.
But this isn't even a valid answer since what part of the atmosphere are you talking about and how high to does one go? Most of what we call atmosphere is found within 50 km of the surface and 97% of the mass of the atmosphere is found within 30 km of the surface. For a more detailed discussion try this.
I'm certainly no tree hugger but to deny that man has some influence on the climate due to the burning of fossil fuels is pretty much head-in-the-sand thinking
Here's a little thought experiment for you. Post the amount of tonnage of pollutants man dumps in the atmosphere in a year.
According to this article the amount of greenhouse gases that man puts out in one year is ~30 billion tons. Unfortunately the article doesn't have a date but judging by the references it is somewhere around 2000.
This article (which uses figures from 2000) indicates that the U.S. alone produced 1,583 million metric tons of carbon from burning fossil fuels.
Now, consider that in 1815 Mount Tambora (Indonesia) produced an estimated 400 million tons of sulfurous gases and ash and that caused the year without a summer (i.e. global cooling), it is quite easy to suggest that mans dumping of multiple times that amount of gases into the atmosphere could cause an increase in world temperatures.
As far as what NOAA has to say, you can read and make your own judgements. They seem to agree with my asserttion that the global increase in temperatures seem to be the result of both natural and man-made factors. The page in question was last updated on Feb 3, 2006.
Then of course there is the Wiki entry which indicates the volume of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased from around 280 parts per million in 1800 to around 315 in 1958, 367 in 2000 (a 31% increase over 200 years), and about 380 in 2006. In other words, despite the huge quantity of atmosphere that exists around the planet, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing. Not remaining the same, not decreasing. Increasing. That's just CO2. In trying to find numbers to justify my claims I saw the same increase in other gases during the same timeframe (which is what the Wiki entry says in the next sentence).
So my original statement stands. The increase in global temperatures is probably caused by both natural and man-made actions. How much mans contribution to the effect is debatable but it does exist. The issue now is what, if anything, can we do to at least stabilize our contribution.
If you don't want to believe that man contributes to global warming, fine. That's your right. However, rather than sit around and do nothing I prefer to take some measures to reduce my impact. Think of it like getting kids vaccinated. You don't know for sure if they'll get the mumps (like what is now appearing in Iowa) or any other disease. However, you're willing to spend the money now to prevent them from getting something in the future. Same thing with global warming. Take a few preventitive measures now to curtail our influence in the future.
Besides, controlling greenhouse gases is a job creation package. Think of the industries that will need to expand or be created to produce new equipment to reduce gases. What about the people who will have to service that equipment? It's a win-win situation.
How are taking two known facts and saying they appear to be related, fallacious? Note that in my original statement I said it appears that the answer is the result of a and b, not that the answer is definitely the result of a and b. I qualified my statement since there is the possibility that the industrial revolution coincided with a natural increase in global temperatures.
Regardless of that little nitpick the fact remains that man can influence weather on a local scale. What we don't know is how much, if any, does that influence affect overall weather patterns.
However, please feel free to follow those who cover their ears and shout LALALALALA at the top of their lungs whenever the issue of taking reasonable actions to control pollution or destruction of natural habitats arises. After all, with the bison roaming over millions of acres in the central U.S. your viewpoint is clearly the correct one.
Every time the issue of global warming comes up both sides never seem to get to the real issue of whether global warming is the result of mans activities? We know that global temperatures are rising. The data shows it. What is in dispute is how much have mans activties contributed to this rise. There are three possible scenarios:
a) mans activities are the direct cause of global warming
b) global warming is a natural phenomenon, unaffected by mans activities
c) global warming is a natural phenomenon but mans activities have incresed the speed at which it occurs
If we assume a is correct then the data from ice core samples and elsewhere should show an increase in global tempertaures coinciding with the industrial revolution. This has been shown to be true.
If we assume b is correct then the data from ice core samples and elsewhere should show times in Earths past when man wasn't present that the temperature increased. This has been shown to be true.
If we assume c is correct then the issue becomes how much has man influenced the rise in global temperatures. In my opinion this is where the real discussion should lay. Since both a and b have been shown to be true then c is the real answer and we must look for ways to counteract our influence while realizing at the same time that nature will do what it wants and we will have to adapt.
For example, we know for a fact that cities produce their own microclimates. They produce excess heat due to the concentration of paved roads and heat from buildings in a small area which do affect local weather patterns.
We also know that deforestation has lead to increases in local weather temperatures whereas the planting of trees on rooftops has lowered temperatures (not to mention helps suck up some of the excess CO2). Deforestation also has an impact on streams and rivers since the removal of foliage allows the water temperature to rise which prevents certain species of fish and other wildlife from reproducing or significantly reduces their breeding areas. Deforestation also leads to exess silt flowing into waterways which clouds the water and kills off wildlife.
Again, the issue isn't whether global warming is occuring, we know it is, but rather what is causing it? Is it natural, manmade or a combination of both. Data seems to point to a combination of the two. As stated earlier, the real issue is what can we do to minimize our impact on this process?
I took my parents down to the Smithsonians Air & Space Annex near Dulles Airport on saturday. While we were in the space/rocketry section my dad mentioned that some hams had received a message from 'one of those spacecraft way out there'. I thought he meant Pioneer but, my dad being my dad, had obviously misremembered which spacecraft.
I questioned him on this and he assured me that the signal reception had been confirmed.
Not that this adds anything to the conversation other than a weird coincidence of him telling me about this and now seeing the story.
As an aside, I would highly recommend visiting the annex if you get the chance. The number and variety of planes in the hangar is impressive. Essentially the entire history of flight, from a competitor to the Wright Brothers to ballooning and on to spaceflight, is represented. They even have the model of the mother ship from 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' and you can see the easter eggs the designers added such as an R2D2 figure, a graveyard and two airplanes.
There are even several planes which are the only ones of their kind to exist anywhere in the world including several from WWII as well as the Enola Gay.
It will take the entire day to see everything so plan accordingly. The parking is $12 a car not including the tolls on the Dulles Toll Road.
He said the IE modifications spelled out by Microsoft, which will reportedly disrupt the way online advertising and streaming media content is delivered over the Internet, is an inconvenience users could do without.
Not having ads shoved down your throat is an inconvenience? To whom, the users? That's a good thing!
Me thinks Swords is really reaching to say a disruption of online advertising is a bad thing.
The only man who never lusted after a woman (or a man), was Jesus Christ.
And you know this because. . . ?
Find your mate, and stay with that one mate for the rest of your life. And never worry about AIDS.
But only if your mate is of the opposite sex, right?
God gave us some rules about sexuality in the Bible.
And God supposedly gave us rules about the type of clothes women can wear but they don't seem to be following them. Unless you mean it's ok to pick and choose which rules to follow. For instance, how many folks still follow Deuteronomy 21: 18-21?
It's great that you want to wait until you're married to have sex. Have at it. Just stop this nonsense that somehow anyone else who doesn't do the same is condemned for eternity or is a sinner or whatever else you can come up with.
409 scams still work so why not phishing?
on
Why Phishing Works
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
If you want to see how gullible or just plain stupid people are, check out the story in my Journal titled, 'Renowned psychiatrist bilked by Nigerian scam'. It was rejected by the editors so I plunked in my Journal.
Even after the guy knew it was a scam and promised his son he wouldn't send any more money, he still did it anyway!
Maybe a bit different than a phishing scam but along the same lines.
Thanks for the link. I wish Black Box could have provided the relevant portion of the contract where it states Funk has the right to an independent review of the systems rather than simply stating it says so in the contract.
Despite that, BBs findings were consistent with my initial thoughts: that the machines are not identical and that the discrepancies in the machines memory are not explainable if all the machines are identical (which BB found they were not).
After reading the article it should be even more clear that there is something wrong with these machines and Diebolds efforts to get these machines in use.
Funk should be acting like Steve Ballmer (though in a good way) and letting everyone know how bad these machines really are. If he gets taken to court, then so be it. At least then the truth behind his actions will be in the public record.
In case your post doesn't get seen, here is the link to the article in question.
Slashdot Mirror
Eh, I'm lazy. What can I say.
And no, it wasn't for the karma. I'm maxed out.
I didn't closely follow the case but if memory serves it went something like this:
1) RIM and NTP originally tried to negotiate an agreement so that RIM could use NTPs patented idea
2) No agreement was reached so RIM walked away
3) RIM, despite knowing of NTPs patented idea, went ahead and developed a communication system based directly on NTPs patent
4) RIM got caught and had to pay for its mistake
Am I missing something or is this just a case of someone getting caught and whining about it? I'm sincerely curious, not trolling.
You say that as if it's a bad thing. There is nothing that says anyone must provide WiFi to anyone. Certainly nothing compelling a business to do so. Unless you mean a bunch of slackers using the shops electricity to power their laptops and occupying tables all the while ordering one cup of coffee.
Don't confuse cheap with being sensible. Maybe the shops don't want to deal with the expense and hassle of setting up WiFi. Sure, you could always offer to do it (you did offer your services to those cheapies, right? Right?) but they're the ones who will still be stuck with maintaining the system.
Just because you think a coffeeshop should be providing WiFi for your use doesn't mean they agree. You want access in a coffeeshop, go to someplace which offers it or start your own shop and offer WiFi.
Sure, not a problem. I had this very discussion yesterday. I'll repost with I did then:
According to this article the amount of greenhouse gases that man puts out in one year is ~30 billion tons. Unfortunately the article doesn't have a date but judging by the references it is somewhere around 2000.
This article (which uses figures from 2000) indicates that the U.S. alone produced 1,583 million metric tons of carbon from burning fossil fuels.
Now, consider that in 1815 Mount Tambora (Indonesia) produced an estimated 400 million tons of sulfurous gases and ash and that caused the year without a summer (i.e. global cooling), it is quite easy to suggest that mans dumping of multiple times that amount of gases into the atmosphere could cause an increase in world temperatures.
As far as what NOAA has to say, you can read and make your own judgements. They seem to agree with my assertion that the global increase in temperatures seem to be the result of both natural and man-made factors. The page in question was last updated on Feb 3, 2006.
Then of course there is the Wiki entry which indicates the volume of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased from around 280 parts per million in 1800 to around 315 in 1958, 367 in 2000 (a 31% increase over 200 years), and about 380 in 2006. In other words, despite the huge quantity of atmosphere that exists around the planet, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing. Not remaining the same, not decreasing. Increasing. That's just CO2. In trying to find numbers to justify my claims I saw the same increase in other gases during the same timeframe (which is what the Wiki entry says in the next sentence).
After all that I found another source which says that on a yearly basis volcanoes contribute 100 million tons of CO2 whereas other sources of CO2 produce about 10 billion tons a year. It's under the section marked 'Influence on the Greenhouse Effect' halfway down the page.
As far as my quote about the amount of gases and such from Mt. Tambora, I left out a zero in my posting and didn't catch it during preview. The correct number is 400 million tons (as shown in this posting) of sulfuours gases though various sources differ. One says 200 million tons while another indicates 400 million tons.
Despite my mistake and even using the higher figure of 400 million tons, comparing that figure to the sources I listed in the beginning it still shows that what man produces is substantially more, every year, than what Mt. Tambora produced in a 3-month period. In the case of Tambora after the eruption stopped nature had a chance to recover. In the case of us burning fossil fuels, nature never gets a breather. We are always pumping out more and more gases.
I must state that I am not an uber-treehugger. I do, however, try to minimize to an extent my footprint. That said, there is not reason NOT to try and reduce our CO2 and other emissions if for no other reason than our health. Think LA and how wonderful it must be sucking in that brown atmosphere. For a better example think Mexico City. I don't know about you but I prefer to look through a clear atmospher, not a brown one.
The recent posting about a new fossil link between water creatures moving onto land is the classic example (as is archaeopteryx). Such a creature was predicted both in the evolutionary path as well as the geologic path. And the prediction was confirmed by the discovery.
But the IDers will now say (and this was discussed ad nauseum in the postings) "Well what about the creature that came before or after it? Where are those fossils?"
So off the paleontologists go and find those fossils and the IDers repeat the same questions. Same thing here. The evidence for global warming continues to be found and expanded upon and every time the data is presented someone chimes in "But man can't affect the Earth! We're too small in the grand scheme of things."
In 1815 Mt Tamboras eruption caused the year without a summer. It spewed out roughly 40 million tons of gases and ash from April through June. In one year man produces orders of magnitude more pollutants through the burning of fossil fuels than was done in those two months. Apparently it's ok for a volcano to influence the worlds climate but when man throws out, on a continuing basis, enormous quantities of pollutants every year, well that can't have an effect on the climate.
It's time to get over ourselves. We are, to an extent, influencing global warming which may or may not be a natural phenomenon. These are facts which cannot be disputed. But as the parent poster said, as you watch the ice caps come washing over us, just remember it isn't because of mankind, President Bush says so.
The really sad part is that if prevention or at least mitigation would take place it would provide a needed boost to employment in this country. Think of all the companies who would need to expand or be created to produce the pollution control products for factories and power plants. Think of all the people who be needed to service those products.
If nothing else, think of the influx of taxes that the Republicans could use to create a bigger, more intrusive government. Think of the children and all that porn that could be banished from the interweb! Won't someone think of the children!
If anything Ross should have been congratulated on his foresight to want to improve services. Simply sitting in an ivory tower won't get the job done. Witness what not checking on quality and service has done for GM.
To which my reply always is: if man is not evolved from another animal then why do we share 88%-95% of our DNA with the great apes? If we're not related to any other creature there shouldn't be ANY similarity between us and other creatures. But there is.
Usually after I ask that question I get the deer-in-the-headlights look as they try to reconcile that thought with their own beliefs.
I was trying to be brief when I made my statement about stealing. I didn't want to go into all the possible exceptions. In the case of FF, no, of course you're not stealing. The folks at Moz Inc have been kind enough not to charge for their product.
But that is their choice. They developed the product and chose not to put a price on it. This is different from someone downloading a song from someone else who had no right to offer the song in the first place. In the first instance the person offering the song has violated the copyright of the distributor and artist. In the second instance the person receiving the song has stolen it since neither the artist nor the distributor is receiving any compensation for their work. It's irrelevant if you decide that you don't like the song and delete it. You still had a copy which you should normally have paid for.
I've been very consistent in my comments regarding this whole issue. The artists and their distributors, for better or worse, own the rights to the songs and can make whatever rules regarding the distribution of those songs.
Where I disagree with that policy are areas such as fair use (i.e. not being allowed to make copies or backups) or not allowing others to listen to the song without paying for it. That's bullshit. Assuming you legally purchased the song or were gifted it you can do whatever you want with it while it is in your possession for your personal use.
I'd never say free is wrong. Free is good. When Wendy's had their promotion last year where anyone could walk into their store and receive a free small Frosty, did I take advantage of it? You bet! Twice in fact. Once for me and once for my dad who for whatever reason will never do anything like that (get something for free without buying something else). They offered the Frosty to me free. I didn't walk into their store and help myself to a Frosty.
Free is good and should be encouraged. But taking something that someone else produced and not compensating them for it when you are required to do so is not free. It is stealing.
Yes, this story was never accepted by the editors and it appears in my journal. Sue me.
Really? Gee, hadn't noticed.
Also, she's implying that she's a veggie because she's kind to animals, not the other way around.
No, she's saying she is a vegetarian and so understands about not being cruel to animals.
The specific sentence you quote is in fact an appeal to those components of the RIAA which are not moronic - the author is assuming they exist and hence admitting the likelihood that this particular representative does not represent the intelligence level of her actual accuser.
Understood. After rereading what I wrote I could have been more clear. Regardless, her quote implies that all reps within the RIAA are incompetent and is hoping that there is someone competent within the organization that she can speak to. Her words:
Regardless, calling someone in the organization a moron (ok, we've all done it at one time or another) doesn't do much to sway opinion to her side or endear her to anyone within the RIAA.
The point of this story, which parent ignores, was the absolutely bizzare quote about how people should drop out of college to pay their settlements.
I ignored it because I was fascinated by the contortions and hyperbole she went through to try to justify her not paying for the music. She even admits that not everyone pays for their music. If you don't pay for something then you've stolen it (excluding having it gifted to you). If you steal and get caught you pay the price.
The RIAA rep merely offered her a suggestion. Sure, it seems bizarre but it is a valid option. When you owe money you have to make choices about how to pay your debts. Generally people cut down on their expenses. In some cases they take a second job. In her case she has the option of not going to school. They didn't say stop going altogether. She could stop for one semester and use that money to pay for the music.
If the RIAA rep said, 'Get a job' would that be bizarre? Oh, but she's a college student and doesn't have time for a job you say? Hogwash. I worked my way through my schooling and ended up paying for 70% of everything out of my own pocket. By everything I mean tuition, room, board, travel expenses, supplies, entertainment and anything else associated with schooling. I worked 40 hour weeks when home and my first two years and worked on weekends when away for my last two years. She can do the same.
My post got modded insightful because it is. I saw through her words and chose to concentrate on her actions. She's complaining about a situation which is her doing. While the response she received isn't one she expected it is still valid. Trying to appeal to the public by using metaphor doesn't make up for her own lack of responsibility in accepting that what she did was wrong and now has to pay the price for her actions.
Ok, sounds good. Be nice to animals because she's a veggie.
But would we have many qualms over a little water perturbation if Goldie were, say, a bloodthirsty shark? I'd knock on that glass to the near-cracking point.
Except if they're not cute and cuddly.
Please, RIAA -- if any competent representative happens to enjoy flipping through The Tech -- please tell me Bowie is a moronic tool who can't help what the Superior Gray Coverage Golden Blonde hair dye does to her mental facilities.
Calling your accuser a moron does much to further your image as someone who is innocent.
Your evil pirates are people too,
So you're admitting you're a pirate. Acceptance is the first step.
people who enjoy music and almost always still purchase it legitimately.
Almost only counts in hand grenades and horseshoes.
Each has an individual life and circumstances that deserve consideration, if not for the sake of empathy for your fellow man, then for the sake of business sense.
Your life and circumstances are irrelevant to the situation. You chose to make a decision about whether to pay for a product or service. You chose not to pay. The RIAAs business sense tells them that to allow people to not pay for the product would mean they and the music industry would not survive. Self preservation and all that.
Sure, if you commit a crime against someone, you should be held accountable.
Which is exactly what is taking place.
But I find it horrifying that anyone would single-mindedly and without compassion process people like a meat grinder set to purée.
No one said the penalty would be pleasant.
So while the RIAA continues to play the part of shark, I'll continue to stand behind the glass, tapping away, wondering which of us is on displa
Which goes back to my opening remarks about your lack of resolve about being a vegetarian and being kind to all animals.
She's whining because she got caught and contradicts herself about being cruel to animals. Guess what girlie, you're boned. Suck it up and deal with it. Maybe you'll learn something about taking something which isn't yours and being nice to all animals.
Besides, if one volcano can affect global temperature and weather conditions it is easy to see how a sustained infusion of greenhouses gases on a much larger scale can also affect global temperatures. You apparently didn't have a problem with that fact.
However, to amuse you, the answer to your question is 87997536000 tons of atmosphere. I used 197 million square miles for my reference of the earths surface in square inches.
But this isn't even a valid answer since what part of the atmosphere are you talking about and how high to does one go? Most of what we call atmosphere is found within 50 km of the surface and 97% of the mass of the atmosphere is found within 30 km of the surface. For a more detailed discussion try this.
I'm certainly no tree hugger but to deny that man has some influence on the climate due to the burning of fossil fuels is pretty much head-in-the-sand thinking
According to this article the amount of greenhouse gases that man puts out in one year is ~30 billion tons. Unfortunately the article doesn't have a date but judging by the references it is somewhere around 2000.
This article (which uses figures from 2000) indicates that the U.S. alone produced 1,583 million metric tons of carbon from burning fossil fuels.
Now, consider that in 1815 Mount Tambora (Indonesia) produced an estimated 400 million tons of sulfurous gases and ash and that caused the year without a summer (i.e. global cooling), it is quite easy to suggest that mans dumping of multiple times that amount of gases into the atmosphere could cause an increase in world temperatures.
As far as what NOAA has to say, you can read and make your own judgements. They seem to agree with my asserttion that the global increase in temperatures seem to be the result of both natural and man-made factors. The page in question was last updated on Feb 3, 2006.
Then of course there is the Wiki entry which indicates the volume of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased from around 280 parts per million in 1800 to around 315 in 1958, 367 in 2000 (a 31% increase over 200 years), and about 380 in 2006. In other words, despite the huge quantity of atmosphere that exists around the planet, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing. Not remaining the same, not decreasing. Increasing. That's just CO2. In trying to find numbers to justify my claims I saw the same increase in other gases during the same timeframe (which is what the Wiki entry says in the next sentence).
So my original statement stands. The increase in global temperatures is probably caused by both natural and man-made actions. How much mans contribution to the effect is debatable but it does exist. The issue now is what, if anything, can we do to at least stabilize our contribution.
If you don't want to believe that man contributes to global warming, fine. That's your right. However, rather than sit around and do nothing I prefer to take some measures to reduce my impact. Think of it like getting kids vaccinated. You don't know for sure if they'll get the mumps (like what is now appearing in Iowa) or any other disease. However, you're willing to spend the money now to prevent them from getting something in the future. Same thing with global warming. Take a few preventitive measures now to curtail our influence in the future.
Besides, controlling greenhouse gases is a job creation package. Think of the industries that will need to expand or be created to produce new equipment to reduce gases. What about the people who will have to service that equipment? It's a win-win situation.
How are taking two known facts and saying they appear to be related, fallacious? Note that in my original statement I said it appears that the answer is the result of a and b, not that the answer is definitely the result of a and b. I qualified my statement since there is the possibility that the industrial revolution coincided with a natural increase in global temperatures.
Regardless of that little nitpick the fact remains that man can influence weather on a local scale. What we don't know is how much, if any, does that influence affect overall weather patterns.
However, please feel free to follow those who cover their ears and shout LALALALALA at the top of their lungs whenever the issue of taking reasonable actions to control pollution or destruction of natural habitats arises. After all, with the bison roaming over millions of acres in the central U.S. your viewpoint is clearly the correct one.
a) mans activities are the direct cause of global warming
b) global warming is a natural phenomenon, unaffected by mans activities
c) global warming is a natural phenomenon but mans activities have incresed the speed at which it occurs
If we assume a is correct then the data from ice core samples and elsewhere should show an increase in global tempertaures coinciding with the industrial revolution. This has been shown to be true.
If we assume b is correct then the data from ice core samples and elsewhere should show times in Earths past when man wasn't present that the temperature increased. This has been shown to be true.
If we assume c is correct then the issue becomes how much has man influenced the rise in global temperatures. In my opinion this is where the real discussion should lay. Since both a and b have been shown to be true then c is the real answer and we must look for ways to counteract our influence while realizing at the same time that nature will do what it wants and we will have to adapt.
For example, we know for a fact that cities produce their own microclimates. They produce excess heat due to the concentration of paved roads and heat from buildings in a small area which do affect local weather patterns.
We also know that deforestation has lead to increases in local weather temperatures whereas the planting of trees on rooftops has lowered temperatures (not to mention helps suck up some of the excess CO2). Deforestation also has an impact on streams and rivers since the removal of foliage allows the water temperature to rise which prevents certain species of fish and other wildlife from reproducing or significantly reduces their breeding areas. Deforestation also leads to exess silt flowing into waterways which clouds the water and kills off wildlife.
Again, the issue isn't whether global warming is occuring, we know it is, but rather what is causing it? Is it natural, manmade or a combination of both. Data seems to point to a combination of the two. As stated earlier, the real issue is what can we do to minimize our impact on this process?
I took my parents down to the Smithsonians Air & Space Annex near Dulles Airport on saturday. While we were in the space/rocketry section my dad mentioned that some hams had received a message from 'one of those spacecraft way out there'. I thought he meant Pioneer but, my dad being my dad, had obviously misremembered which spacecraft.
I questioned him on this and he assured me that the signal reception had been confirmed.
Not that this adds anything to the conversation other than a weird coincidence of him telling me about this and now seeing the story.
As an aside, I would highly recommend visiting the annex if you get the chance. The number and variety of planes in the hangar is impressive. Essentially the entire history of flight, from a competitor to the Wright Brothers to ballooning and on to spaceflight, is represented. They even have the model of the mother ship from 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' and you can see the easter eggs the designers added such as an R2D2 figure, a graveyard and two airplanes.
There are even several planes which are the only ones of their kind to exist anywhere in the world including several from WWII as well as the Enola Gay.
It will take the entire day to see everything so plan accordingly. The parking is $12 a car not including the tolls on the Dulles Toll Road.
Yes, I got the memo. It's right here. I just forgot. It won't happen again.
But those damn TPS reports, that's something to be afraid of!
Not having ads shoved down your throat is an inconvenience? To whom, the users? That's a good thing!
Me thinks Swords is really reaching to say a disruption of online advertising is a bad thing.
And you know this because. . . ?
Find your mate, and stay with that one mate for the rest of your life. And never worry about AIDS.
But only if your mate is of the opposite sex, right?
God gave us some rules about sexuality in the Bible.
And God supposedly gave us rules about the type of clothes women can wear but they don't seem to be following them. Unless you mean it's ok to pick and choose which rules to follow. For instance, how many folks still follow Deuteronomy 21: 18-21?
It's great that you want to wait until you're married to have sex. Have at it. Just stop this nonsense that somehow anyone else who doesn't do the same is condemned for eternity or is a sinner or whatever else you can come up with.
If you want to see how gullible or just plain stupid people are, check out the story in my Journal titled, 'Renowned psychiatrist bilked by Nigerian scam'. It was rejected by the editors so I plunked in my Journal.
Even after the guy knew it was a scam and promised his son he wouldn't send any more money, he still did it anyway!
Maybe a bit different than a phishing scam but along the same lines.
Come on guys. It was only 24 hours ago that the story was on the front page!
Where are mod points when you need them? That was a wonderfully put together takeoff of Agent Smiths line from The Matrix. Bravo!
Speaking of mod points, how come I haven't received any for months? Did I piss someone off?
You mean like Target?
Despite that, BBs findings were consistent with my initial thoughts: that the machines are not identical and that the discrepancies in the machines memory are not explainable if all the machines are identical (which BB found they were not).
After reading the article it should be even more clear that there is something wrong with these machines and Diebolds efforts to get these machines in use.
Funk should be acting like Steve Ballmer (though in a good way) and letting everyone know how bad these machines really are. If he gets taken to court, then so be it. At least then the truth behind his actions will be in the public record.
In case your post doesn't get seen, here is the link to the article in question.