Nice try, but that's not entirely appropriate. WHen you look in the phone book, you are generally looking for something that you want right now, which Internet purchasing cannot provide.
Additionally, advertisers paid for advertising in that particular book and the phone book company get the money for advertising in their book.
This, however, is nothing more than paying Google for advertising and Google putting the advertising in someone else's phone book without that other's permission just because they have a larger audience. If purchases are going to be made through a link that appears to be from Slashdot via the text and information on Slashdot, then Slashdot should get a portion of proceeds that are received through said advertising. This Google method does not do that.
Just because you don't see a difference doesn't mean that there's not one.
YAY for arrogant moderators who dislike not only someone who disagrees with their politics but also are not afraid to use their mod points for meaningless, childish vengeance rather than save it for posts that deserve to be modded UP!
Okay. So, take a web site with lots of advertising. Let's say.. Slashdot. They depend on that advertising to generate revenue to keep that web site afloat.
Now, here comes Google with links to its own services that are funded by... you guessed it... Google advertisers. So, now Google is potentially usurping Slashdot's advertising by encouraging people who are using Slashdot's web site to purchase services or merchandice that are in turn paying Google for advertising.
So, in effect Google is making Slashdot nothing more than a big-ass marketing tool for Google while not reimbursing Slashdot for the privilege. In fact, with respect to marketing they are indeed reducing the potential for Slashdot to make money on its own web site using its own advertisers. And they also are not going to give Slashdot the option of opting out of the practice.
Given all of that, I think that I'd prefer Smart Tags, thank you.
I need to proof-read more. After all, I've never heard of "totally-nonfactual fact", except for when I hear "Microsoft is very concerned about security.":)
Where did you come up with any statement of mine that comes CLOSE to saying that "nothing should be done" and that conservation is needless? Why is it that anyone who displutes yet another "study" is automatically branded as such?!
All that I'm saying is that just because it's a new study from yet another scientist does not make this study 100%, indisputable, totally-factual FACT that we should all take as climatological canon!
This thread makes it very clear that a hell of a lot of/.ers have faulty browsers. Clearly, your browsers are showing words that just are NOT there!
Agreed, but as I stated in another thread, EVERYTHING not natural is done due to "human activity". We have more people so we need more animals. More animals means more waste. More waste means more methance. More people means more vehicles to transport said people with more factories for food processing with more need for vehicles to deliver the food with more need for fuel to power the factories and the vehicles, etc. etc.
Except for that volcano erupting and any energy fluctuations from the sun, there is no other way that global warming can be attributed to anything other than the very broad "human activity" title. There's just no one else to blame.
The real question is, "What *aspect* of human activity *might* be causing this?" It just seems that cosmic forces are always discounted as are natural changes that we might not understand or have a darned thing to do with. But since we can't change those, we'll do what we can to change the population, even if it's not really going to have an impact on anything. That part really bothers me.
Oh, well. We'll probably never know before some huge comet slams into us and wipes us all out.:)
No, no, don't misunderstand. I'm not saying that we must or must not dispute it. I'm just saying that we must not accept it as climatological canon just because it's yet another study out of thousands of studies that have been done throughout the years. Too many people seem to take the totally illogical leap of, "See? SEE?! It's from a scientist and it's a new study; therefore, it automatically invalidates all previous studies, unless those happen to agree with my particular stance on the issue, of course."
And you are 100% correct. Nowhere did I or anyone else say that we should ignore the problem or stop trying to find out alleged causes.
The issue, however, is that there is no consensus anywhere. Science regarding this topic is far too politicized. As a result, any scientific "study" that happens to fit someone's political ideal is suddenly UNDISPUTABLE FACT, and anyone who goes against it is an ANTI-ENVIRONMENTALIST MORON! This is where the problem really lies.
These kinds of people and attitudes are destroying any real advances in climatological prediction.
Funny. I don't recall either affirming ot denying the existence of global warming. All this time I thought that my reply was a comment about how too many people think that because a statement comes from a scientist that it's 100% indisputable.
I think that you need to upgrade your browser. The one that you're using is apparently not displaying text properly as it's putting in words that aren't there.
...or in the case of/. just writing something that someone who happens to have moderator status doesn't want to hear, regardless of the method of delivery or the facts/basis behind the comment.
Oh, gee! And my initial post got hit with an "Overrated"! I must have pissed off one of the common, left-leaning/. moderators! Oh, do hear the shock in my voice over that! Oh, oh! The shock!
Agreed, however, that is not necessarily indicative of anything close to what we can gather today. But that was tackled in some other thread to this topic.
More humans = more cattle to serve as hamburgers and steaks = more methane.
More humans = more of any animal (really) to server as hot dogs, pork loin, etc. = more methane
It's all our fault! Oh, why did Bugs Bunny stop Marvin from blowing up the earth? Surely being able to view Venus from Mars would have been much more pleasant than the utter devastation that we bring. Blame our parents! They've propagated the species thus bringing more methane!
What? No, no, the billions of tons of gas and particulates from that enormous volcano burst is nothing compared to the expected methane output of fans during Super Bowl MCVII!
Yes, folks, this was sarcastic humor. Perhaps not at its finest, but its clear that this disclaimer needs to be specified lately since some/.ers are too stuffy to recognize it any more. { waiting for some offended moderator to throw his/her all-mighty "troll" powers around }
Why is it that anyone who goes against the common, left-leaning attitude here on/. regarding politics or science is automatically branded with either "troll" or "overrated"? The parent is 100% correct! We have practically no climate data of any real value beyond a few hundred years or so, yet we're expected to just ooh and aah every time some simulation from some scientist comes across that purports exactly how climates change over eons.
Our own weather forecasters can't even get the weather correct 48 hours in advance most of the time (save for areas like the equator and extreme north/south, of course). Yet, we're supposed to believe that the climate can be accurately simulated for millions or billions of years by having a few hundred years of data and some simulations?
We're going to have global warming because the scientists so! Oh, wait! Just 30 years ago we were supposed to be entering a new ice age because the scientists said so!
Sailors from hundreds of years ago reported the unusually warm, Pacific waters hundreds of hears before the Industrial Revolution! Oh, wait! El Nino is actually being caused by global warming because the scientists said so!
An asteroid is going to slam into us in 30 years because scientists said so! Oh, wait! It's actually going to miss us by about 1 million miles because other scientists said so.
And now... humans are the cause of global warming because some scientist said so, and the parent is a troll because some moderator said so. Oh, wait!...
Actually, the way that it works is that if the company owns any buildings or has any employees in a given state, they charge people in that state sales taxes unless there is a provision that excluses them from sales taxes.
For example, if I buy a Gateway PC (stop sniggering) and they have any office or store in Pennsylvania, where I live, I get charged PA sales taxes even if I'm buying from their web site. Conversely, if Gateway has NO offices or stores in PA, I do not get charged sales taxes.
This is one reason why a lot of on-line and mail-order companies say that "Residents of XX, XX, XX, and XX must include sales tax."
Regardless of how the states try to phrase it, it most certainly still *is* a sales tax. It is the state's way of collecting taxes that they did not get because you went outside of the borders. (Oh, you evil person!) You do not pay "use taxes" on items that you did *not* purchase outside of the state's borders because use taxes are based on the price that you paid to acquire the item; therefore, it is a sales tax. But because states cannot force other states' business entities to collect taxes, they have used this "use tax" as an excuse.
It is, in effect, nothing more than punishing citizens of a state for daring to purchase items in places other than that particular state. This is offensive is way that cannot possibly be described in mere words.
Taxes on interstate commerce are forbidden as per U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10, which states...
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
A "use tax" is nothing more than a euphemism importation duty. I don't know of any law that has ever gone through the U.S. Congress that allows duties of one state to another, thereby making "use taxes" in violation of the above clause at the current time.
Granted, I'm not a lawyer, but this is one of those things that I've done a lot of research on. I want desperately to shove this in the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue's every time they ask about this during income tax time.
I am not a lawyer, but I was under the impression that such wiretape laws were regarding installation of such software on hardware that *does not belong to you*. Most if not all States, as has been specified already, acknowledge a single individual in a marriage to speak for the whole except on matters, usually financial, that do not require dual signatures, such as the husband getting a credit card for himself.
In that case the PC is owned by both individuals; therefore, she did not install software on someone else's PC. She installed it on her own, so I don't see why that would be considered a violation.
Maybe I'm wrong, although I hope that I'm not. Personally, I wonder if this would have a different turn if she caught him doing something illegal as opposed to immoral.
According to the IMDB entry for the movie, this character was added specifically for the movie by Adams, who has credits as the screenwriter. So, any changes to the story line are most likely of his own doing.
Oh, I don't know. Just about all/. users are a part of natural and the natural order of things (I wonder about CmdrTaco sometimes) and we're always responsible for the repeated crashing of unsuspecting web sites, which certainly is a disaster for the web site owner. So, it could probably be considered to be a natural disaster in a way.
Now, "act of God"... well, I know that many of us have major egos, but let's not get too carried away.
Sheesh! Wesley Crusher already did this when he wanted nanites to interact! They started to reporduce after interacting for while! Man, why can't these scientists come up with some original ideas?
Wha...what do you mean, "Get a life. It's just a TV show"?
Oh, really? Tell that to the people who still run Windows 95 or Windows 98, both of which came before this sent-by-God "standard" that you worship so well.
That was a very poor example for you to give. The fact that they're completely different technologies not withstanding, GSM is the addition of another standard that really doesn't give any confusion and it certainly does not give off an impression of a loss of expected value. Adding GSM to CDMA is like adding DVD+R to DVD-R. It might be a different standard but the end results are the same AND the capacities are the same.
When the hard drive manufacturers decided that it would be in thier best interests to change the definition knowing full well that operating systems do NOT adhere to the same standards, they were in the wrong for doing this unilaterally.
With DVD-R or DVD+R you get the same thing - a 4.38 GB disc that can be playable on most players. With CDMA and GSM you get the same thing - a cellular phone that works in most areas.
Now someone buys a hard drive expecting to have 200 GB free. Suddenly, the operating system reports that they now have 186 GB. Well, where did that 14 GB disappear to? The customer paid for a 200 GB drive, not a 186 GB drive!
The end result is that the customer is being lied to. It's really sad that MGM gets punished for doing the same thing, yet the hard drive manufacturers can get away with it.
The movie was filmed full-matte and the filmmaker wanted to in widescreen, and thus cut off the extraneous stuff. When it was formatted for a 4:3 TV they simply used the whole matte (or part of the whole matte that wasnt in the widescreen version). If this is the case, how can a simple cutting decision turn into a class action lawsuit and actually get anywhere?
Exactly correct. As to why it turned into a lawsuit, MGM misrepresented exactly what you deduced. They made it seem on the back over *and* the insert booklets that the movies were actually 2.35:1 instead of 1.85:1 and were subjected to pan-and-scan. This would lead most people to think, "Oh, hey! I'm losing visuals on the side!"
In effect, they were fraudulent in their explanation regarding the differences between the widescreen and "full screen" versions, which of course was considered to be a deceitful marketing practice.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice try, but that's not entirely appropriate. WHen you look in the phone book, you are generally looking for something that you want right now, which Internet purchasing cannot provide.
Additionally, advertisers paid for advertising in that particular book and the phone book company get the money for advertising in their book.
This, however, is nothing more than paying Google for advertising and Google putting the advertising in someone else's phone book without that other's permission just because they have a larger audience. If purchases are going to be made through a link that appears to be from Slashdot via the text and information on Slashdot, then Slashdot should get a portion of proceeds that are received through said advertising. This Google method does not do that.
Just because you don't see a difference doesn't mean that there's not one.
Sweet! It's now at -1, troll!
YAY for arrogant moderators who dislike not only someone who disagrees with their politics but also are not afraid to use their mod points for meaningless, childish vengeance rather than save it for posts that deserve to be modded UP!
Okay. So, take a web site with lots of advertising. Let's say .. Slashdot. They depend on that advertising to generate revenue to keep that web site afloat.
... you guessed it ... Google advertisers. So, now Google is potentially usurping Slashdot's advertising by encouraging people who are using Slashdot's web site to purchase services or merchandice that are in turn paying Google for advertising.
Now, here comes Google with links to its own services that are funded by
So, in effect Google is making Slashdot nothing more than a big-ass marketing tool for Google while not reimbursing Slashdot for the privilege. In fact, with respect to marketing they are indeed reducing the potential for Slashdot to make money on its own web site using its own advertisers. And they also are not going to give Slashdot the option of opting out of the practice.
Given all of that, I think that I'd prefer Smart Tags, thank you.
Hmm... "Totally-factual fact."
:)
I need to proof-read more. After all, I've never heard of "totally-nonfactual fact", except for when I hear "Microsoft is very concerned about security."
Oh .. my .. GOD!
/.ers have faulty browsers. Clearly, your browsers are showing words that just are NOT there!
Where did you come up with any statement of mine that comes CLOSE to saying that "nothing should be done" and that conservation is needless? Why is it that anyone who displutes yet another "study" is automatically branded as such?!
All that I'm saying is that just because it's a new study from yet another scientist does not make this study 100%, indisputable, totally-factual FACT that we should all take as climatological canon!
This thread makes it very clear that a hell of a lot of
Agreed, but as I stated in another thread, EVERYTHING not natural is done due to "human activity". We have more people so we need more animals. More animals means more waste. More waste means more methance. More people means more vehicles to transport said people with more factories for food processing with more need for vehicles to deliver the food with more need for fuel to power the factories and the vehicles, etc. etc.
:)
Except for that volcano erupting and any energy fluctuations from the sun, there is no other way that global warming can be attributed to anything other than the very broad "human activity" title. There's just no one else to blame.
The real question is, "What *aspect* of human activity *might* be causing this?" It just seems that cosmic forces are always discounted as are natural changes that we might not understand or have a darned thing to do with. But since we can't change those, we'll do what we can to change the population, even if it's not really going to have an impact on anything. That part really bothers me.
Oh, well. We'll probably never know before some huge comet slams into us and wipes us all out.
No, no, don't misunderstand. I'm not saying that we must or must not dispute it. I'm just saying that we must not accept it as climatological canon just because it's yet another study out of thousands of studies that have been done throughout the years. Too many people seem to take the totally illogical leap of, "See? SEE?! It's from a scientist and it's a new study; therefore, it automatically invalidates all previous studies, unless those happen to agree with my particular stance on the issue, of course."
And you are 100% correct. Nowhere did I or anyone else say that we should ignore the problem or stop trying to find out alleged causes.
The issue, however, is that there is no consensus anywhere. Science regarding this topic is far too politicized. As a result, any scientific "study" that happens to fit someone's political ideal is suddenly UNDISPUTABLE FACT, and anyone who goes against it is an ANTI-ENVIRONMENTALIST MORON! This is where the problem really lies.
These kinds of people and attitudes are destroying any real advances in climatological prediction.
Funny. I don't recall either affirming ot denying the existence of global warming. All this time I thought that my reply was a comment about how too many people think that because a statement comes from a scientist that it's 100% indisputable.
I think that you need to upgrade your browser. The one that you're using is apparently not displaying text properly as it's putting in words that aren't there.
That's okay. Most of the /. users just lost the new Scientific Infallability Law. Scientist statement != undeniable fact.
...or in the case of /. just writing something that someone who happens to have moderator status doesn't want to hear, regardless of the method of delivery or the facts/basis behind the comment.
*sigh*
Oh, gee! And my initial post got hit with an "Overrated"! I must have pissed off one of the common, left-leaning /. moderators! Oh, do hear the shock in my voice over that! Oh, oh! The shock!
Agreed, however, that is not necessarily indicative of anything close to what we can gather today. But that was tackled in some other thread to this topic.
My GOD, man! Don't you see the correlation?
/.ers are too stuffy to recognize it any more. { waiting for some offended moderator to throw his/her all-mighty "troll" powers around }
More humans + more beer = more methane.
More humans = more cattle to serve as hamburgers and steaks = more methane.
More humans = more of any animal (really) to server as hot dogs, pork loin, etc. = more methane
It's all our fault! Oh, why did Bugs Bunny stop Marvin from blowing up the earth? Surely being able to view Venus from Mars would have been much more pleasant than the utter devastation that we bring. Blame our parents! They've propagated the species thus bringing more methane!
What? No, no, the billions of tons of gas and particulates from that enormous volcano burst is nothing compared to the expected methane output of fans during Super Bowl MCVII!
Yes, folks, this was sarcastic humor. Perhaps not at its finest, but its clear that this disclaimer needs to be specified lately since some
Why is it that anyone who goes against the common, left-leaning attitude here on /. regarding politics or science is automatically branded with either "troll" or "overrated"? The parent is 100% correct! We have practically no climate data of any real value beyond a few hundred years or so, yet we're expected to just ooh and aah every time some simulation from some scientist comes across that purports exactly how climates change over eons.
... humans are the cause of global warming because some scientist said so, and the parent is a troll because some moderator said so. Oh, wait! ...
Our own weather forecasters can't even get the weather correct 48 hours in advance most of the time (save for areas like the equator and extreme north/south, of course). Yet, we're supposed to believe that the climate can be accurately simulated for millions or billions of years by having a few hundred years of data and some simulations?
We're going to have global warming because the scientists so! Oh, wait! Just 30 years ago we were supposed to be entering a new ice age because the scientists said so!
Sailors from hundreds of years ago reported the unusually warm, Pacific waters hundreds of hears before the Industrial Revolution! Oh, wait! El Nino is actually being caused by global warming because the scientists said so!
An asteroid is going to slam into us in 30 years because scientists said so! Oh, wait! It's actually going to miss us by about 1 million miles because other scientists said so.
And now
Actually, the way that it works is that if the company owns any buildings or has any employees in a given state, they charge people in that state sales taxes unless there is a provision that excluses them from sales taxes.
For example, if I buy a Gateway PC (stop sniggering) and they have any office or store in Pennsylvania, where I live, I get charged PA sales taxes even if I'm buying from their web site. Conversely, if Gateway has NO offices or stores in PA, I do not get charged sales taxes.
This is one reason why a lot of on-line and mail-order companies say that "Residents of XX, XX, XX, and XX must include sales tax."
Regardless of how the states try to phrase it, it most certainly still *is* a sales tax. It is the state's way of collecting taxes that they did not get because you went outside of the borders. (Oh, you evil person!) You do not pay "use taxes" on items that you did *not* purchase outside of the state's borders because use taxes are based on the price that you paid to acquire the item; therefore, it is a sales tax. But because states cannot force other states' business entities to collect taxes, they have used this "use tax" as an excuse.
It is, in effect, nothing more than punishing citizens of a state for daring to purchase items in places other than that particular state. This is offensive is way that cannot possibly be described in mere words.
Taxes on interstate commerce are forbidden as per U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10, which states...
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
A "use tax" is nothing more than a euphemism importation duty. I don't know of any law that has ever gone through the U.S. Congress that allows duties of one state to another, thereby making "use taxes" in violation of the above clause at the current time.
Granted, I'm not a lawyer, but this is one of those things that I've done a lot of research on. I want desperately to shove this in the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue's every time they ask about this during income tax time.
I am not a lawyer, but I was under the impression that such wiretape laws were regarding installation of such software on hardware that *does not belong to you*. Most if not all States, as has been specified already, acknowledge a single individual in a marriage to speak for the whole except on matters, usually financial, that do not require dual signatures, such as the husband getting a credit card for himself.
In that case the PC is owned by both individuals; therefore, she did not install software on someone else's PC. She installed it on her own, so I don't see why that would be considered a violation.
Maybe I'm wrong, although I hope that I'm not. Personally, I wonder if this would have a different turn if she caught him doing something illegal as opposed to immoral.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371724/trivia
According to the IMDB entry for the movie, this character was added specifically for the movie by Adams, who has credits as the screenwriter. So, any changes to the story line are most likely of his own doing.
Oh, I don't know. Just about all /. users are a part of natural and the natural order of things (I wonder about CmdrTaco sometimes) and we're always responsible for the repeated crashing of unsuspecting web sites, which certainly is a disaster for the web site owner. So, it could probably be considered to be a natural disaster in a way.
Now, "act of God" ... well, I know that many of us have major egos, but let's not get too carried away.
Sheesh! Wesley Crusher already did this when he wanted nanites to interact! They started to reporduce after interacting for while! Man, why can't these scientists come up with some original ideas?
Wha...what do you mean, "Get a life. It's just a TV show"?
Oh, really? Tell that to the people who still run Windows 95 or Windows 98, both of which came before this sent-by-God "standard" that you worship so well.
That was a very poor example for you to give. The fact that they're completely different technologies not withstanding, GSM is the addition of another standard that really doesn't give any confusion and it certainly does not give off an impression of a loss of expected value. Adding GSM to CDMA is like adding DVD+R to DVD-R. It might be a different standard but the end results are the same AND the capacities are the same.
When the hard drive manufacturers decided that it would be in thier best interests to change the definition knowing full well that operating systems do NOT adhere to the same standards, they were in the wrong for doing this unilaterally.
With DVD-R or DVD+R you get the same thing - a 4.38 GB disc that can be playable on most players. With CDMA and GSM you get the same thing - a cellular phone that works in most areas.
Now someone buys a hard drive expecting to have 200 GB free. Suddenly, the operating system reports that they now have 186 GB. Well, where did that 14 GB disappear to? The customer paid for a 200 GB drive, not a 186 GB drive!
The end result is that the customer is being lied to. It's really sad that MGM gets punished for doing the same thing, yet the hard drive manufacturers can get away with it.
The movie was filmed full-matte and the filmmaker wanted to in widescreen, and thus cut off the extraneous stuff. When it was formatted for a 4:3 TV they simply used the whole matte (or part of the whole matte that wasnt in the widescreen version). If this is the case, how can a simple cutting decision turn into a class action lawsuit and actually get anywhere?
Exactly correct. As to why it turned into a lawsuit, MGM misrepresented exactly what you deduced. They made it seem on the back over *and* the insert booklets that the movies were actually 2.35:1 instead of 1.85:1 and were subjected to pan-and-scan. This would lead most people to think, "Oh, hey! I'm losing visuals on the side!"
In effect, they were fraudulent in their explanation regarding the differences between the widescreen and "full screen" versions, which of course was considered to be a deceitful marketing practice.