It's not like Ann Arbor city taxes are all that high, so it might be okay. For a SEV of about $100,000 (property value of $200,000), it will only cost you about $5,000 a year. I say, "Go For It!"
I'm going to guess that some of that money per computer is going to be used for software licenses . . . I don't know. Even with an education discount, there's more than just the cost of the hardware.
simply because they were born a mere century and a half after the book was written?
How does 120 years equal a century and a half? You have children at 30 when the book was written. Grand-Children 30 years after the book was written, Great-Grand-Children 60 years after, Great-Great-Grand-Children 90 years after, and Great-Great-Great-Grand-Children 120 years after. If you die at 70, copyright would last another 70 years, so your copyright would expire 110 years after the book was written, 10 years before your Great-Great-Great-Grand-Children are born.
If you want to believe even part of the article, then the main cause for Apple being the most to blame, is that Apple is forcing Foxconn into these conditions. Apple repeatedly demands cheaper prices, which forces the suppliers to cut safety, eliminate breaks, mandate longer shifts, etc.
It would be interesting to compare the other areas and employees of Foxconn, to see if they are all treated the same way, or if it's just the Apple production lines that are inhumane.
Personally, I've never bought an Apple product, can't stand them, and don't want anything to do with them. I like the fact that my phone and tablet have a micro-sd card slot, and that I can load my own apps that I develop. I don't need to be told what I should and shouldn't do with hardware that I own, and that maybe a one-size-fits-all OS doesn't really. For a more informed point of view, check out Steve Wozniak's comments on why he loves Android.
Back to my original point, I'm sure not every factory in China operates the way Apple is portrayed in the article. In other words, just because something is made in China, or is sold at Walmart, doesn't mean it was created with slave labor in sweatshop conditions.
The Lenovo tablet was designed to enable note taking, with an intelligent stylus that communicates with the tablet, and handwriting recognition software as well. My girlfriend has one and likes it quite a bit:
Well, he did steal a few people's identities, as well as who knows how many people's cellular accounts. Running up tens of thousands of dollars in cell phone bills for all of those people, with cell rates around $1 a minute.
I don't think what he did was deserving of the punishment and poor treatment he received, but he did cause problems for a lot of people.
Another thing not mentioned in his book is how many people might have lost their jobs for being too trusting to the "engineer calling from the IT security department of their company", because the company didn't have better policies in place. I'm certain some of those people he social-engineered had to have been fired, and from the stories, some of them probably deserved it.
But let's not boil it down to taking trophies for personal use when it was a lot more than that.
Right, don't try and remove carbon dioxide from the air, in fact, don't even look at the viability of it. There's absolutely no reason anybody would ever need to know how to do that.
Not at all. CO2 traps heat, specifically IR radiation. Therefore, the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more heat is trapped. But there are many variables that relate to how much CO2 is in the air.
Also, where is the source for your claim that CO2 went up while temps went down? Or did you just make this up?
I'm sorry, what does Forbes magazine have to do with Climate Science?
Is it that they represent and cater to the type of organizations that need GW, and specifically AGW to not be true?
How many climate experts, you know the people who study this stuff for a living, believe in AGW? 97%
I'll do the math for you. That means 3% of climate experts don't believe or aren't sure about AGW. You'd think that number could be higher with Big Oil and conservative politicians bribing people to say differently . . .
Of all the notable scientists who believe GW is natural, including astronomers, geologists, and petroleum engineers, not a whole lot of them them offer any type of real proof, but they are listed here: 3%
Since you obviously have no clue, I'll try to explain it for you. Global warming is talking about average temperature. It isn't talking about Siberia becoming a tropical zone. Slightly warmer average temperatures of only a couple degrees can melt vast amounts if not all of the polar ice caps and the ice shelves, etc. This causes much more (and much colder) moisture around the globe.
Basically, you have more hurricanes and floods when it's warm, and massive blizzards when it's cold. You're like the idiot on Faux News who showed a horrific blizzard and said, "What happened to global warming? We could use some more of that right now."
Last time I checked, CO2 wasn't the only thing to come out of my car's exhaust pipe. Also, CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas. But since we've spent the last 20+ years debating whether or not the Earth was getting warmer, we're kind of behind the times with what to do next (namely, how bad is it going to get, and what can we do about it?)
Under the argument that, "we must do something, anything because the toll of inaction will be too high", it seems the issue is very similar to server and network equipment failover. How many extra servers, switches, firewalls and routers do companies buy, "in case" something goes wrong? And then how many times does that equipment never get used during the lifetime of the primary equipment?
We need to be prepared for the worst case scenario. Not doing anything and then having the climate change to unsurvivable extremes is not acceptable. Where are the contingency plans for the average global temperature rising 10 - 15 degrees, and all of the widespread disasters that accompany it?
Deniers have been wasting so much time, energy, and focus saying it isn't getting warmer, instead of figuring out what that means, and what can be done about it.
So, what you're saying is that I can hook up my car exhaust to the basement you live in, throw in few plants, and you'll be just fine, if not healthier because of it?
1. It is getting warmer. Even Faux News admitted it.
2. Grapes are being grown right now, today! in England. So then, what do you mean by "much warmer"? Were grapes grown in Greenland, or Antarctica, or something?
3. If it's a natural cycle for the Earth to get on average, 30 degrees warmer, it doesn't matter if it's man made or not. Also, there are many variables (hundreds if not thousands) that relate to the climate. Many of them we can't change, some we can. Deforestation, fossil fuel burning and many other things all contribute to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
4. Maybe if we hadn't spent the last 20 years arguing whether or not it was getting warmer, we could have spent that time figuring out just what was causing it, and what can be done about it. Also, increased sea levels won't be the only consequence of higher temperatures; you just can't move some coastal cities in a mile and call it good. With warmer temperatures you have more hurricanes, more inland and coastal flooding, more droughts, more tornadoes, etc.
Maybe vastly warmer temperatures were fine when the Earth contained less than 1 billion people, when there were no skyscrapers or densely packed neighborhoods, when it wouldn't be a big deal if several farms were destroyed through floods or drought. But today, it kind of does matter, unless you think it's okay for the temperature to rise to the point where all ice on the planet melts, and 7 billion people can live in Antarctica.
So, MM CO2 is causing some warming, so then AGW is at least partially going on. What are the effects of GW then, anthropogenic or not?
As for the planet being way hotter and way cooler before man existed, maybe that's the entire point? If everyone on the planet dies, it really doesn't matter what the temperature is, does it?
However, if humankind would like to continue inhabiting this planet, maybe we should look into mitigating these temperature fluctuations? If a "natural cycle" means it's bad for billions of humans, including a lot of them living near coastlines, we probably want to do something about it.
Yeah, except a lot of people have issues with the problems that go along with nuclear power, including, but not limited to, nuclear waste, spent fuel rod storage, radiation hazards, nuclear accidents, etc.
I can't imagine why some of these same people would want to increase research on harnessing more of the power from the sun (solar, wind, hydro, tidal, etc.) where there isn't as many drawbacks.
While a "radical environmental wacko agenda" may not be able to completely replace coal and gas today, it can reduce the usage of the pollutant-causing, limited natural resources, until renewable options can be perfected.
Do you really need to be told that correlation does not imply causation?
So at one point in the last 4 billion years, CO2 went up AND average temperature went down? Well then, let me ask you something, Were you there?
Was anything else going on across the entire globe that might have thrown a few hundred more variables into the mix? What was happening with all of the natural carbon sources and carbon sinks at the time? What was happening with ocean plant and animal life in regards to absorbing or releasing carbon dioxide? Were colder ocean temperatures killing off plant and animal life? Were vast stretches of the planet covered in snow and ice, and therefore reflecting a lot of the sun's energy instead of absorbing it?
Can we prove TODAY that higher levels of CO2 in the air trap more of the sun's energy?
Since I don't think your post is sarcastic, I'm going to assume you're an idiot.
All of the ice that isn't floating in the oceans (on land, on mountain tops, etc.) would raise the water level when it melts. Maybe that's what they are talking about. Warmer temperatures cause ice to melt, and therefore, sea levels to rise, and more moisture in the air. More moisture in the air of varying temperatures causes more hurricanes and more flooding. Higher temperatures in places like Texas causes severe droughts and millions to billions of dollars in lost crops as is happening now. These are some of the negative effects of global warming, anthropogenic or not.
But if the polar ice caps are melting and shrinking every year, then yes, it is getting warmer on average, and therefore, we have a problem.
Just because it has happened before, it doesn't mean that we want all the widespread natural disasters that can come along with it.
And after listening to all the idiots spout over and over again that the earth isn't getting warmer, there's not a lot of credibility left on your side when you now state, "It is getting warmer, but we need hardcore absolute proof that it's man-made."
How about paying attention to the problems that are going to happen from increasingly warmer temperatures? As has been often mentioned before, the Earth will be just fine regardless, whether or not humans will still be here isn't so certain.
The other day, a few different people on Faux News actually admitted that the Earth was getting warmer, I guess they decided they would look stupid even to their brain-washed masses with month-long temperatures over 100 degrees F in Texas. And that idiotic article in Forbes that used the phrase "alarmist" 13-14 times in 10 paragraphs even conceded that temperatures are rising, and that carbon dioxide plays 'some' role in it. So, what should we do next?
One elegant poster here a while back stated it similar to this:
Is the Earth getting warmer?
If yes, does this have negative effects?
If yes, what, if anything, can be done about it?
If it is going to cause widespread disasters, maybe we should look into what might be done to avoid them? Whether it's a naturally occurring cycle, or human caused, we need to figure out the root cause so we can figure out how to counteract the effects.
. . . The fact is, the models have proved to be 100% wrong 100% of the time. Period. The fact is, the models are only accurate at modeling yesterday, and ONLY after updating the model with information from today.
I'm confused, is yesterday (when the models are accurate) not included in the "100% of the time" that the models have proved to be 100% wrong?
Now then, there is other data to look up but even a lot of that data is FACTUALLY proven to be so noisy as to make massive chunks of it completely invalid. When your noise levels are above the signal you hope to find, its impossible to reliably find noise.
It's too noisy to find noise? This is not helping me to become any less confused.
Is global warming real? Probably. What is the cause. FACTUALLY speaking, no one knows. Do we have any clue as to what's actually going on? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Anyone who says otherwise is willfully lying. Period.
So nobody has any clue what's going on? Well, the FACT that CO2 and methane and other pollutants in the air are trapping heat, and something is melting the polar ice caps, warming the ocean, etc., sounds like at least a small clue to me.
Maybe if you put more words in all capital letters and had more random unsupported facts, coupled with more insults, then you could get more of the ignorant people to agree with you.
Not in this country. They can't prove that I didn't receive the CD with that song on it as a gift. Even a pre-law student could get that case thrown out of court.
The biggest problem with trying to do this, is figuring out which files he didn't pay for. And how is someone else (Amazon, Google, etc.) going to figure that out?
This is why the RIAA always go after the uploaders of the music. Downloading the same version of a song I already own is not illegal. Maybe I have the original CD, but it's scratched and microwaved beyond the point of playability. But since I already paid for them, downloading those same versions is perfectly fine.
My suggestion would be to go through the music and delete anything with a low bit-rate or other quality problems. Most of this can be done through software, and then when you're listening to your music, if you hear skips or problems with a track, delete it. Also, if you can sort the music by song release date or some other dating method, and you really haven't downloaded anything illegal since the original version of Napster, that should help you narrow it down as well. For example, this should help you rule out your Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber tracks.
It seems the only mp3's that they can easily prove are illegal, are the ones that aren't available for purchase (live recordings, or stuff that was never released) which should be a very, very small percentage of all the music out there. Beyond that, there isn't much of a financial reason to go after everybody with a handful of illegal tracks (too many lawsuits for way too little money, and way too much difficulty proving it). Also, keep in mind that Google making you promise not to upload any illegal tracks is mostly just them doing a little bit of CYA, to help them avoid future lawsuits.
My bank (Chase) talked me into using their "Pay Bills" feature, which is actually pretty good. Other companies aren't dipping into my account, and this is just as fast as paying through the companies websites, which is how I used to pay all my bills.
Have you ever tried to buy a flashlight that's not even this bright before? Look at the prices and then see how dumb your comment is. Oh, and I can recharge this one by USB, which is everywhere, and I can program it for intensity and other options . . . yeah, totally not worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not like Ann Arbor city taxes are all that high, so it might be okay. For a SEV of about $100,000 (property value of $200,000), it will only cost you about $5,000 a year. I say, "Go For It!"
I'm going to guess that some of that money per computer is going to be used for software licenses . . . I don't know. Even with an education discount, there's more than just the cost of the hardware.
simply because they were born a mere century and a half after the book was written?
How does 120 years equal a century and a half? You have children at 30 when the book was written. Grand-Children 30 years after the book was written, Great-Grand-Children 60 years after, Great-Great-Grand-Children 90 years after, and Great-Great-Great-Grand-Children 120 years after. If you die at 70, copyright would last another 70 years, so your copyright would expire 110 years after the book was written, 10 years before your Great-Great-Great-Grand-Children are born.
If you want to believe even part of the article, then the main cause for Apple being the most to blame, is that Apple is forcing Foxconn into these conditions. Apple repeatedly demands cheaper prices, which forces the suppliers to cut safety, eliminate breaks, mandate longer shifts, etc.
It would be interesting to compare the other areas and employees of Foxconn, to see if they are all treated the same way, or if it's just the Apple production lines that are inhumane.
Personally, I've never bought an Apple product, can't stand them, and don't want anything to do with them. I like the fact that my phone and tablet have a micro-sd card slot, and that I can load my own apps that I develop. I don't need to be told what I should and shouldn't do with hardware that I own, and that maybe a one-size-fits-all OS doesn't really. For a more informed point of view, check out Steve Wozniak's comments on why he loves Android.
Back to my original point, I'm sure not every factory in China operates the way Apple is portrayed in the article. In other words, just because something is made in China, or is sold at Walmart, doesn't mean it was created with slave labor in sweatshop conditions.
The Lenovo tablet was designed to enable note taking, with an intelligent stylus that communicates with the tablet, and handwriting recognition software as well. My girlfriend has one and likes it quite a bit:
http://www.lenovo.com/products/us/tablet/thinkpad/
Well, he did steal a few people's identities, as well as who knows how many people's cellular accounts. Running up tens of thousands of dollars in cell phone bills for all of those people, with cell rates around $1 a minute.
I don't think what he did was deserving of the punishment and poor treatment he received, but he did cause problems for a lot of people.
Another thing not mentioned in his book is how many people might have lost their jobs for being too trusting to the "engineer calling from the IT security department of their company", because the company didn't have better policies in place. I'm certain some of those people he social-engineered had to have been fired, and from the stories, some of them probably deserved it.
But let's not boil it down to taking trophies for personal use when it was a lot more than that.
Right, don't try and remove carbon dioxide from the air, in fact, don't even look at the viability of it. There's absolutely no reason anybody would ever need to know how to do that.
Not at all. CO2 traps heat, specifically IR radiation. Therefore, the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more heat is trapped. But there are many variables that relate to how much CO2 is in the air.
Also, where is the source for your claim that CO2 went up while temps went down? Or did you just make this up?
I'm sorry, what does Forbes magazine have to do with Climate Science?
Is it that they represent and cater to the type of organizations that need GW, and specifically AGW to not be true?
How many climate experts, you know the people who study this stuff for a living, believe in AGW? 97%
I'll do the math for you. That means 3% of climate experts don't believe or aren't sure about AGW. You'd think that number could be higher with Big Oil and conservative politicians bribing people to say differently . . .
Of all the notable scientists who believe GW is natural, including astronomers, geologists, and petroleum engineers, not a whole lot of them them offer any type of real proof, but they are listed here: 3%
Idiotic coward that can't post non-anonymously:
Since you obviously have no clue, I'll try to explain it for you. Global warming is talking about average temperature. It isn't talking about Siberia becoming a tropical zone. Slightly warmer average temperatures of only a couple degrees can melt vast amounts if not all of the polar ice caps and the ice shelves, etc. This causes much more (and much colder) moisture around the globe.
Basically, you have more hurricanes and floods when it's warm, and massive blizzards when it's cold. You're like the idiot on Faux News who showed a horrific blizzard and said, "What happened to global warming? We could use some more of that right now."
Last time I checked, CO2 wasn't the only thing to come out of my car's exhaust pipe. Also, CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas. But since we've spent the last 20+ years debating whether or not the Earth was getting warmer, we're kind of behind the times with what to do next (namely, how bad is it going to get, and what can we do about it?)
Under the argument that, "we must do something, anything because the toll of inaction will be too high", it seems the issue is very similar to server and network equipment failover. How many extra servers, switches, firewalls and routers do companies buy, "in case" something goes wrong? And then how many times does that equipment never get used during the lifetime of the primary equipment?
We need to be prepared for the worst case scenario. Not doing anything and then having the climate change to unsurvivable extremes is not acceptable. Where are the contingency plans for the average global temperature rising 10 - 15 degrees, and all of the widespread disasters that accompany it?
Deniers have been wasting so much time, energy, and focus saying it isn't getting warmer, instead of figuring out what that means, and what can be done about it.
So, what you're saying is that I can hook up my car exhaust to the basement you live in, throw in few plants, and you'll be just fine, if not healthier because of it?
1. It is getting warmer. Even Faux News admitted it.
2. Grapes are being grown right now, today! in England. So then, what do you mean by "much warmer"? Were grapes grown in Greenland, or Antarctica, or something?
3. If it's a natural cycle for the Earth to get on average, 30 degrees warmer, it doesn't matter if it's man made or not. Also, there are many variables (hundreds if not thousands) that relate to the climate. Many of them we can't change, some we can. Deforestation, fossil fuel burning and many other things all contribute to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
4. Maybe if we hadn't spent the last 20 years arguing whether or not it was getting warmer, we could have spent that time figuring out just what was causing it, and what can be done about it. Also, increased sea levels won't be the only consequence of higher temperatures; you just can't move some coastal cities in a mile and call it good. With warmer temperatures you have more hurricanes, more inland and coastal flooding, more droughts, more tornadoes, etc.
Maybe vastly warmer temperatures were fine when the Earth contained less than 1 billion people, when there were no skyscrapers or densely packed neighborhoods, when it wouldn't be a big deal if several farms were destroyed through floods or drought. But today, it kind of does matter, unless you think it's okay for the temperature to rise to the point where all ice on the planet melts, and 7 billion people can live in Antarctica.
So, MM CO2 is causing some warming, so then AGW is at least partially going on. What are the effects of GW then, anthropogenic or not?
As for the planet being way hotter and way cooler before man existed, maybe that's the entire point? If everyone on the planet dies, it really doesn't matter what the temperature is, does it?
However, if humankind would like to continue inhabiting this planet, maybe we should look into mitigating these temperature fluctuations? If a "natural cycle" means it's bad for billions of humans, including a lot of them living near coastlines, we probably want to do something about it.
Yeah, except a lot of people have issues with the problems that go along with nuclear power, including, but not limited to, nuclear waste, spent fuel rod storage, radiation hazards, nuclear accidents, etc.
I can't imagine why some of these same people would want to increase research on harnessing more of the power from the sun (solar, wind, hydro, tidal, etc.) where there isn't as many drawbacks.
While a "radical environmental wacko agenda" may not be able to completely replace coal and gas today, it can reduce the usage of the pollutant-causing, limited natural resources, until renewable options can be perfected.
Do you really need to be told that correlation does not imply causation?
So at one point in the last 4 billion years, CO2 went up AND average temperature went down? Well then, let me ask you something, Were you there?
Was anything else going on across the entire globe that might have thrown a few hundred more variables into the mix? What was happening with all of the natural carbon sources and carbon sinks at the time? What was happening with ocean plant and animal life in regards to absorbing or releasing carbon dioxide? Were colder ocean temperatures killing off plant and animal life? Were vast stretches of the planet covered in snow and ice, and therefore reflecting a lot of the sun's energy instead of absorbing it?
Can we prove TODAY that higher levels of CO2 in the air trap more of the sun's energy?
Since I don't think your post is sarcastic, I'm going to assume you're an idiot.
All of the ice that isn't floating in the oceans (on land, on mountain tops, etc.) would raise the water level when it melts. Maybe that's what they are talking about. Warmer temperatures cause ice to melt, and therefore, sea levels to rise, and more moisture in the air. More moisture in the air of varying temperatures causes more hurricanes and more flooding. Higher temperatures in places like Texas causes severe droughts and millions to billions of dollars in lost crops as is happening now. These are some of the negative effects of global warming, anthropogenic or not.
But if the polar ice caps are melting and shrinking every year, then yes, it is getting warmer on average, and therefore, we have a problem.
Just because it has happened before, it doesn't mean that we want all the widespread natural disasters that can come along with it.
And after listening to all the idiots spout over and over again that the earth isn't getting warmer, there's not a lot of credibility left on your side when you now state, "It is getting warmer, but we need hardcore absolute proof that it's man-made."
How about paying attention to the problems that are going to happen from increasingly warmer temperatures? As has been often mentioned before, the Earth will be just fine regardless, whether or not humans will still be here isn't so certain.
The other day, a few different people on Faux News actually admitted that the Earth was getting warmer, I guess they decided they would look stupid even to their brain-washed masses with month-long temperatures over 100 degrees F in Texas. And that idiotic article in Forbes that used the phrase "alarmist" 13-14 times in 10 paragraphs even conceded that temperatures are rising, and that carbon dioxide plays 'some' role in it. So, what should we do next?
One elegant poster here a while back stated it similar to this:
Is the Earth getting warmer?
If yes, does this have negative effects?
If yes, what, if anything, can be done about it?
If it is going to cause widespread disasters, maybe we should look into what might be done to avoid them? Whether it's a naturally occurring cycle, or human caused, we need to figure out the root cause so we can figure out how to counteract the effects.
. . . The fact is, the models have proved to be 100% wrong 100% of the time. Period. The fact is, the models are only accurate at modeling yesterday, and ONLY after updating the model with information from today.
I'm confused, is yesterday (when the models are accurate) not included in the "100% of the time" that the models have proved to be 100% wrong?
Now then, there is other data to look up but even a lot of that data is FACTUALLY proven to be so noisy as to make massive chunks of it completely invalid. When your noise levels are above the signal you hope to find, its impossible to reliably find noise.
It's too noisy to find noise? This is not helping me to become any less confused.
Is global warming real? Probably. What is the cause. FACTUALLY speaking, no one knows. Do we have any clue as to what's actually going on? ABSOLUTELY NOT! Anyone who says otherwise is willfully lying. Period.
So nobody has any clue what's going on? Well, the FACT that CO2 and methane and other pollutants in the air are trapping heat, and something is melting the polar ice caps, warming the ocean, etc., sounds like at least a small clue to me.
Maybe if you put more words in all capital letters and had more random unsupported facts, coupled with more insults, then you could get more of the ignorant people to agree with you.
Not in this country. They can't prove that I didn't receive the CD with that song on it as a gift. Even a pre-law student could get that case thrown out of court.
The biggest problem with trying to do this, is figuring out which files he didn't pay for. And how is someone else (Amazon, Google, etc.) going to figure that out?
This is why the RIAA always go after the uploaders of the music. Downloading the same version of a song I already own is not illegal. Maybe I have the original CD, but it's scratched and microwaved beyond the point of playability. But since I already paid for them, downloading those same versions is perfectly fine.
My suggestion would be to go through the music and delete anything with a low bit-rate or other quality problems. Most of this can be done through software, and then when you're listening to your music, if you hear skips or problems with a track, delete it. Also, if you can sort the music by song release date or some other dating method, and you really haven't downloaded anything illegal since the original version of Napster, that should help you narrow it down as well. For example, this should help you rule out your Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber tracks.
It seems the only mp3's that they can easily prove are illegal, are the ones that aren't available for purchase (live recordings, or stuff that was never released) which should be a very, very small percentage of all the music out there. Beyond that, there isn't much of a financial reason to go after everybody with a handful of illegal tracks (too many lawsuits for way too little money, and way too much difficulty proving it). Also, keep in mind that Google making you promise not to upload any illegal tracks is mostly just them doing a little bit of CYA, to help them avoid future lawsuits.
My bank (Chase) talked me into using their "Pay Bills" feature, which is actually pretty good. Other companies aren't dipping into my account, and this is just as fast as paying through the companies websites, which is how I used to pay all my bills.
I guess I would use this outside, where there aren't a whole lot of ceilings . . .
Have you ever tried to buy a flashlight that's not even this bright before? Look at the prices and then see how dumb your comment is. Oh, and I can recharge this one by USB, which is everywhere, and I can program it for intensity and other options . . . yeah, totally not worth it.