NOx reacts with ammonia, moisture, and other compounds to form nitric acid vapor and related particles. Small particles can penetrate deeply into sensitive lung tissue and damage it, causing premature death in extreme cases. Inhalation of such particles may cause or worsen respiratory diseases, such as emphysema or bronchitis, or may also aggravate existing heart disease.[10]
NOx reacts with volatile organic compounds in the presence of sunlight to form ozone. Ozone can cause adverse effects such as damage to lung tissue and reduction in lung function mostly in susceptible populations (children, elderly, asthmatics). Ozone can be transported by wind currents and cause health impacts far from the original sources. The American Lung Association estimates that nearly 50 percent of United States inhabitants live in counties that are not in ozone compliance.[11]
NOx also readily reacts with common organic chemicals, and even ozone, to form a wide variety of toxic products: nitroarenes, nitrosamines and also the nitrate radical some of which may cause biological mutations. Recently another pathway, via NOx, to ozone has been found that predominantly occurs in coastal areas via formation of nitryl chloride when NOx comes into contact with salt mist.[12]
NOx emissions also causes global cooling through the formation of OH groups that destroy methane molecules, countering the effect of greenhouse gases. The effect can be significant. For instance, according to the OECD "the large NOx emissions from ship traffic lead to significant increases in hydroxyl (OH), which is the major oxidant in the lower atmosphere. Since reaction with OH is a major way of removing methane from the atmosphere, ship emissions decrease methane concentrations. (Reductions in methane lifetimes due to shipping-based NOx emissions vary between 1.5% and 5% in different calculations)." "In summary, most studies so far indicate that ship emissions actually lead to a net global cooling. This net global cooling effect is not being experienced in other transport sectors. However, it should be stressed that the uncertainties with this conclusion are large, in particular for indirect effects, and global temperature is only a first measure of the extent of climate change in any event."[13]
NOx reacts with ammonia, moisture, and other compounds to form nitric acid vapor and related particles. Small particles can penetrate deeply into sensitive lung tissue and damage it, causing premature death in extreme cases. Inhalation of such particles may cause or worsen respiratory diseases, such as emphysema or bronchitis, or may also aggravate existing heart disease.[10]
NOx reacts with volatile organic compounds in the presence of sunlight to form ozone. Ozone can cause adverse effects such as damage to lung tissue and reduction in lung function mostly in susceptible populations (children, elderly, asthmatics). Ozone can be transported by wind currents and cause health impacts far from the original sources. The American Lung Association estimates that nearly 50 percent of United States inhabitants live in counties that are not in ozone compliance.[11]
NOx also readily reacts with common organic chemicals, and even ozone, to form a wide variety of toxic products: nitroarenes, nitrosamines and also the nitrate radical some of which may cause biological mutations. Recently another pathway, via NOx, to ozone has been found that predominantly occurs in coastal areas via formation of nitryl chloride when NOx comes into contact with salt mist.[12]
NOx emissions also causes global cooling through the formation of OH groups that destroy methane molecules, countering the effect of greenhouse gases. The effect can be significant. For instance, according to the OECD "the large NOx emissions from ship traffic lead to significant increases in hydroxyl (OH), which is the major oxidant in the lower atmosphere. Since reaction with OH is a major way of removing methane from the atmosphere, ship emissions decrease methane concentrations. (Reductions in methane lifetimes due to shipping-based NOx emissions vary between 1.5% and 5% in different calculations)." "In summary, most studies so far indicate that ship emissions actually lead to a net global cooling. This net global cooling effect is not being experienced in other transport sectors. However, it should be stressed that the uncertainties with this conclusion are large, in particular for indirect effects, and global temperature is only a first measure of the extent of climate change in any event."[13]
My problem is, I will never buy anything on those ads. I will never click on any ad and don't use them to get information.
ads are about a lot more than immediate clickthroughs to a purchase. e.g., brand name recognition. everyone like to think they are above any sort of subliminal manipulation by ads. we're all too smart for that huh? think about it. why do companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars and such things? trust me, nobody spends that sort of money without knowing without a doubt that it works.
What should I do? Stop using internet?
you should stop visiting sites where the advertising is offensive to you. why is that so complicated? if there are sites that you really enjoy that contain ads, deal with the ads. it's part of the bargain. it how the website owner gets paid. it's what allows them to give you the content. without SOMEONE consuming those ads, the content wouldn't exist.
a pretty good way to understand if something is moral is to ask what would happen if everyone did it / acted that way. if everyone blocked ads, there'd be no ad revenue, website would fold because of lack of income, and vast amounts of content (the content you are now enjoying with your ad blocker turned on) wouldn't exist. if you block ads, you're essentially mooching off the rest of the world that doesn't block ads. someone's paying for that content, it just isn't you.
There are a flood of content blockers now, you can't stuff that genie back in the bottle.
that's exactly why a payoff does make sense. he was first out of the gate, and attracted the attention of ad providers. being not dumb, he realizes there will be hundreds of ad blockers better than his in a matter of weeks. take the easy money.
I would most certainly pay them a couple bucks a month to have no ads, but it has to be reasonable.
and that's the problem. it wouldn't be reasonable, and the reason is that the revenue they can make from ads vastly outweighs the revenue they can get from trying to get a small number of people to subscribe to their content.
i don't need to prove that. the proof is empirical. how many websites support themselves through subscriptions? why not? is it because no one has thought of it before? is it because it's hard to accept digital payments these days? or maybe it's because people don't like money... or better yet, because everyone LOVES the idea of ads. so which is it?
Even in full view of the fact that almost all websites exist exclusively on ad based revenue and may stop existing if we are successful in blocking ads. Let them die or be replaced by something else.
there, fixed that for you.
i know, if you don't like their ads, why don't you stop consuming their content? oh, but no one gets hurt right? it's just bits right? websites do need to be hosted, and use resources that cost the owner money.
I would go one step further, any software is malware when it does something other than the user intended. It doesn't matter that the Ask toolbar had a checkbox in the installer, the fact was unless I went to Ask.com and downloaded it there it's malware. Likewise it doesn't matter that I installed Windows 10, the fact that it sends data without the user's intention makes it malware.
think about your OS and installed software, and really, think hard if you explicitly asked for them to them to do everything they do. you don't even know everything they do.
as for linux, not too long ago it forced Ubuntu One on me and had a persistent icon in my bar. i never asked for that. i guess Ubuntu is malware too.
a plane could also crash into your home. it has happened, it could happen to anyone. are you building a steal dome around your home to protect yourself?
considering their are 7 billion people in the world, anything that can happen will happen. that doesn't mean we need to make laws and regulations to block anything that can happen. it isn't free. it cost your taxpayer money, and the time lawyers and agencies spend on this is time they aren't spending on other things.
You're missing the point. Credit card numbers were just one example. Unless you're comfortable broadcasting everything that goes on in your house, this is an issue.
could you give some examples of what might be going on in a house that would make it worthwhile for a hacker to risk trespassing, incur the cost of leaving surveillance equipment on your property and risk it being destroyed or discovered, and spend their time placing the equipment, retrieving the equipment, then spending countless hours reviewing the data looking for something useful?
any type of information that could be discovered in this manner would be much more efficiently stolen via breaking in or simple hacking, or phishing. that's why you hear about those all the time, but you never hear about crime rings involving mass baby monitor snooping.
So... there is nothing that a microphone could pick up in your house that you wouldn't want overheard?
that's right, nothing. i guess i'd prefer it if i wasn't overheard, but i'm not willing to spend taxpayer money and introduce even more complexity in an already ridiculous spider's web of laws.
people need to understand that you are (almost) all boring nobodies. no one wants to listen to you. no one gives a crap that you even exist. you own nothing worth stealing, and there's no information you posses that's in the least bit interesting.
it's all narcissism. people think they are so special that someone would go to incredible lengths to get a glimpse of them in their underwear or to find out that they like babysitter pron. people won't. unless you are a billionaire, or famous, no one cares. get over it.
Now, continuously streaming a video feed of my babies over the Internet... What good would that be for? Maybe only for me to ensure a hypothetical nanny didn't abandon or mistreat them while I'm at work
looks like you answered your own question huh?
— But I'd have to be always on watch!
maybe you see them crying. and you check 10 minutes later and they are still crying. there you go.
This is why I don't give a damn about sites which want to charge me for a membership, because they have an interest in taking my money
and.... you lost us.
if someone is providing a service, they should be able to charge for it. how do you think things like netflix exist? it's up to you to judge if you think the transfer of money for services is worth it. it's not that hard. let me guess, you also use adblock right?
if you can give me directions to your magical fairy land where massive tech infrastructures and funded by good intentions, i'd be thankful.
Tinder is completely legit too, but it's not a site at all, really more of a hookup app and because of its lack of detailed profiles, doesn't facilitate finding compatible partners.
if i've learned anything, it's that people don't know what they want. the proof is is in the number of divorces. in western culture people are free to couple with whoever they want, but they consistently pick the wrong person.
point being, i think your chances of finding a "soulmate" from a random hookup are as good as from OKCupid or some other site that purports to link you with your perfect match.
they're making a lot less than if they were selling me both
for most people, they do sell them both. why? because internet costs $70, and it's only $30 more dollars for TV, and they get 150 channels! most people don't turn that down. the price of internet is inflated so they can make it seem like a bargain to get TV (+ phone).
Slashdot Mirror
here you go.
NOx reacts with ammonia, moisture, and other compounds to form nitric acid vapor and related particles. Small particles can penetrate deeply into sensitive lung tissue and damage it, causing premature death in extreme cases. Inhalation of such particles may cause or worsen respiratory diseases, such as emphysema or bronchitis, or may also aggravate existing heart disease.[10]
NOx reacts with volatile organic compounds in the presence of sunlight to form ozone. Ozone can cause adverse effects such as damage to lung tissue and reduction in lung function mostly in susceptible populations (children, elderly, asthmatics). Ozone can be transported by wind currents and cause health impacts far from the original sources. The American Lung Association estimates that nearly 50 percent of United States inhabitants live in counties that are not in ozone compliance.[11]
NOx also readily reacts with common organic chemicals, and even ozone, to form a wide variety of toxic products: nitroarenes, nitrosamines and also the nitrate radical some of which may cause biological mutations. Recently another pathway, via NOx, to ozone has been found that predominantly occurs in coastal areas via formation of nitryl chloride when NOx comes into contact with salt mist.[12]
NOx emissions also causes global cooling through the formation of OH groups that destroy methane molecules, countering the effect of greenhouse gases. The effect can be significant. For instance, according to the OECD "the large NOx emissions from ship traffic lead to significant increases in hydroxyl (OH), which is the major oxidant in the lower atmosphere. Since reaction with OH is a major way of removing methane from the atmosphere, ship emissions decrease methane concentrations. (Reductions in methane lifetimes due to shipping-based NOx emissions vary between 1.5% and 5% in different calculations)." "In summary, most studies so far indicate that ship emissions actually lead to a net global cooling. This net global cooling effect is not being experienced in other transport sectors. However, it should be stressed that the uncertainties with this conclusion are large, in particular for indirect effects, and global temperature is only a first measure of the extent of climate change in any event."[13]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
nice try.
NOx reacts with ammonia, moisture, and other compounds to form nitric acid vapor and related particles. Small particles can penetrate deeply into sensitive lung tissue and damage it, causing premature death in extreme cases. Inhalation of such particles may cause or worsen respiratory diseases, such as emphysema or bronchitis, or may also aggravate existing heart disease.[10]
NOx reacts with volatile organic compounds in the presence of sunlight to form ozone. Ozone can cause adverse effects such as damage to lung tissue and reduction in lung function mostly in susceptible populations (children, elderly, asthmatics). Ozone can be transported by wind currents and cause health impacts far from the original sources. The American Lung Association estimates that nearly 50 percent of United States inhabitants live in counties that are not in ozone compliance.[11]
NOx also readily reacts with common organic chemicals, and even ozone, to form a wide variety of toxic products: nitroarenes, nitrosamines and also the nitrate radical some of which may cause biological mutations. Recently another pathway, via NOx, to ozone has been found that predominantly occurs in coastal areas via formation of nitryl chloride when NOx comes into contact with salt mist.[12]
NOx emissions also causes global cooling through the formation of OH groups that destroy methane molecules, countering the effect of greenhouse gases. The effect can be significant. For instance, according to the OECD "the large NOx emissions from ship traffic lead to significant increases in hydroxyl (OH), which is the major oxidant in the lower atmosphere. Since reaction with OH is a major way of removing methane from the atmosphere, ship emissions decrease methane concentrations. (Reductions in methane lifetimes due to shipping-based NOx emissions vary between 1.5% and 5% in different calculations)." "In summary, most studies so far indicate that ship emissions actually lead to a net global cooling. This net global cooling effect is not being experienced in other transport sectors. However, it should be stressed that the uncertainties with this conclusion are large, in particular for indirect effects, and global temperature is only a first measure of the extent of climate change in any event."[13]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
you really think we're talking about water vapor here? nice attempt to derail the conversation though.
Maybe if the shareholders were held responsible for things like this
they are monetarily responsible, which is pretty much the maximum level of responsibility when it comes to corporate wrongdoing.
Their only advantages over PCs are mobility and size/weight.
and you'd have to deny the smartphone and tablet revolution to dismiss that, but i guess you did.
My problem is, I will never buy anything on those ads. I will never click on any ad and don't use them to get information.
ads are about a lot more than immediate clickthroughs to a purchase. e.g., brand name recognition. everyone like to think they are above any sort of subliminal manipulation by ads. we're all too smart for that huh? think about it. why do companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars and such things? trust me, nobody spends that sort of money without knowing without a doubt that it works.
What should I do? Stop using internet?
you should stop visiting sites where the advertising is offensive to you. why is that so complicated? if there are sites that you really enjoy that contain ads, deal with the ads. it's part of the bargain. it how the website owner gets paid. it's what allows them to give you the content. without SOMEONE consuming those ads, the content wouldn't exist.
a pretty good way to understand if something is moral is to ask what would happen if everyone did it / acted that way. if everyone blocked ads, there'd be no ad revenue, website would fold because of lack of income, and vast amounts of content (the content you are now enjoying with your ad blocker turned on) wouldn't exist. if you block ads, you're essentially mooching off the rest of the world that doesn't block ads. someone's paying for that content, it just isn't you.
There are a flood of content blockers now, you can't stuff that genie back in the bottle.
that's exactly why a payoff does make sense. he was first out of the gate, and attracted the attention of ad providers. being not dumb, he realizes there will be hundreds of ad blockers better than his in a matter of weeks. take the easy money.
I would most certainly pay them a couple bucks a month to have no ads, but it has to be reasonable.
and that's the problem. it wouldn't be reasonable, and the reason is that the revenue they can make from ads vastly outweighs the revenue they can get from trying to get a small number of people to subscribe to their content.
i don't need to prove that. the proof is empirical. how many websites support themselves through subscriptions? why not? is it because no one has thought of it before? is it because it's hard to accept digital payments these days? or maybe it's because people don't like money ... or better yet, because everyone LOVES the idea of ads. so which is it?
Even in full view of the fact that almost all websites exist exclusively on ad based revenue and may stop existing if we are successful in blocking ads. Let them die or be replaced by something else.
there, fixed that for you.
i know, if you don't like their ads, why don't you stop consuming their content? oh, but no one gets hurt right? it's just bits right? websites do need to be hosted, and use resources that cost the owner money.
I would go one step further, any software is malware when it does something other than the user intended. It doesn't matter that the Ask toolbar had a checkbox in the installer, the fact was unless I went to Ask.com and downloaded it there it's malware. Likewise it doesn't matter that I installed Windows 10, the fact that it sends data without the user's intention makes it malware.
think about your OS and installed software, and really, think hard if you explicitly asked for them to them to do everything they do. you don't even know everything they do.
as for linux, not too long ago it forced Ubuntu One on me and had a persistent icon in my bar. i never asked for that. i guess Ubuntu is malware too.
um, if you are selling something below cost, selling more of it means a greater loss (say it fast).
you can already buy sub-$50 tablets, and they already run Android.
http://www.walmart.com/ip/RCA-...
The only reason I'd see in buying a loss leading tablet is if I could hack it into something more useful.
um, what? do you know what a loss leader is? it's a product that's sold below it's market value. why wouldn't you want that?
Google fares better for allowing sideloading, though it says all sorts of aggressively scary things
i'm confused by your use of "though". are you suggesting that it's a bad thing that it warns users?
better yet, just upload the .epub or PDF to google play books.
https://support.google.com/goo...
you can upload up to 1000 books have it sync'd, and available in their e-reader app (which is as good as amazon's reader app AFAICT).
you don't need a prime subscription to buy things from amazon.
It has happened, it could happen to anyone.
a plane could also crash into your home. it has happened, it could happen to anyone. are you building a steal dome around your home to protect yourself?
considering their are 7 billion people in the world, anything that can happen will happen. that doesn't mean we need to make laws and regulations to block anything that can happen. it isn't free. it cost your taxpayer money, and the time lawyers and agencies spend on this is time they aren't spending on other things.
You're missing the point. Credit card numbers were just one example. Unless you're comfortable broadcasting everything that goes on in your house, this is an issue.
could you give some examples of what might be going on in a house that would make it worthwhile for a hacker to risk trespassing, incur the cost of leaving surveillance equipment on your property and risk it being destroyed or discovered, and spend their time placing the equipment, retrieving the equipment, then spending countless hours reviewing the data looking for something useful?
any type of information that could be discovered in this manner would be much more efficiently stolen via breaking in or simple hacking, or phishing. that's why you hear about those all the time, but you never hear about crime rings involving mass baby monitor snooping.
Have you any idea how fucking dumb and contrived that scenario is? Seriously, do you?
^^^^ this.
So... there is nothing that a microphone could pick up in your house that you wouldn't want overheard?
that's right, nothing. i guess i'd prefer it if i wasn't overheard, but i'm not willing to spend taxpayer money and introduce even more complexity in an already ridiculous spider's web of laws.
people need to understand that you are (almost) all boring nobodies. no one wants to listen to you. no one gives a crap that you even exist. you own nothing worth stealing, and there's no information you posses that's in the least bit interesting.
it's all narcissism. people think they are so special that someone would go to incredible lengths to get a glimpse of them in their underwear or to find out that they like babysitter pron. people won't. unless you are a billionaire, or famous, no one cares. get over it.
Now, continuously streaming a video feed of my babies over the Internet... What good would that be for? Maybe only for me to ensure a hypothetical nanny didn't abandon or mistreat them while I'm at work
looks like you answered your own question huh?
— But I'd have to be always on watch!
maybe you see them crying. and you check 10 minutes later and they are still crying. there you go.
Women didn't fall as easily for it
there's a difference between not falling for it, and not having interest in it.
This is why I don't give a damn about sites which want to charge me for a membership, because they have an interest in taking my money
and .... you lost us.
if someone is providing a service, they should be able to charge for it. how do you think things like netflix exist? it's up to you to judge if you think the transfer of money for services is worth it. it's not that hard. let me guess, you also use adblock right?
if you can give me directions to your magical fairy land where massive tech infrastructures and funded by good intentions, i'd be thankful.
Tinder is completely legit too, but it's not a site at all, really more of a hookup app and because of its lack of detailed profiles, doesn't facilitate finding compatible partners.
if i've learned anything, it's that people don't know what they want. the proof is is in the number of divorces. in western culture people are free to couple with whoever they want, but they consistently pick the wrong person.
point being, i think your chances of finding a "soulmate" from a random hookup are as good as from OKCupid or some other site that purports to link you with your perfect match.
they're making a lot less than if they were selling me both
for most people, they do sell them both. why? because internet costs $70, and it's only $30 more dollars for TV, and they get 150 channels! most people don't turn that down. the price of internet is inflated so they can make it seem like a bargain to get TV (+ phone).