Well, if it was something that was actually a result of his actions, he wouldn't be taking credit for it. There's a pattern to these things. Look at how presidents get credit for the economy, of all things.
Actually, soccer moms are the kinds of ridiculously overenthusiastic people that, you know, vote. And the kind that make you look rather bad for screwing them over, to boot.
Didn't read your whole post, but I'll note that ice core samples won't tell us much about the ozone layer's status, since there's no reliable chemical meter present in the lower atmosphere where precipitation forms. So, in this specific case, we're stuck with under half a century of real data.
Actually, It's the French's fault. Whose bright idea was it to build a city in a hurricane-prone area using levies below the tide mark anyhow? Silly Frenchies.
I kid, I kid. But only kind of. A lot of our problems with weather would be solved if people didn't do things like... oh, building their houses on the damned floodplain of the Mississippi river. Same goes for a lot of other countries. I know you like to be close to the shipping lines, but does 'putting all your eggs in one basket' really mean nothing to humans these millennia?
You realize that the ozone layer is way the hell up in the atmosphere (away from anywhere it could reasonably be absorbed by ice), and would degrade quickly to oxygen even if it were trapped in ice? Oh, silly me, of course you don't.
In our defense, we fixed the acid rain and CFC release problems (to an extent where they're annoying rather than dangerous, anyhow. Will still be a bit before we're perfect.) While i'm still somewhat dubious about human governance of the greenhouse effect, I'm all for figuring out how to control the greenhouse effect. It'll give us the tech to terraform mars and have a nice new frontier eventually.
Because, you know, it's not like cities and states post their own bonds and raise their own taxes for civic improvements. Good job blaming a random person for no apparrent reason.
You do realize that the two studies said the same thing, and the uneducated media idiots just took it on themselves to interpret the results beyond what the scientists said. And also that the OP actually makes a factual error in his citation of one of the articles.
The grandparent post you're replying to is a joke, not a serious statement of scientific fact. Fluids in a well-mixed system (which is what the atmosphere basically is) are distributed pretty much uniformly throughout the system (regardless of molecular weight), apart from localized/boundary effects. The reason that the ozone layer is in the upper atmosphere is that it's created by solar radiation, which its formation absorbs, and by the time it has diffused far enough downward to be beyond the band of absorbed radiation, it has decayed back into oxygen. I.E. The ozone layer is a layer because of the short life of ozone. If ozone hung around for a long, long time after it was created, the layer would be thicker as a result of diffusion, and if Ozone was actually stable, then it would be distributed near-uniformly throughout the atmosphere, just like the relatively stable CFC molecules would, eventually. (CFC molecules stick around a good long while... if they were unstable, we'd probably be more worried about them poisoning us directly than destroying some ozone)
That said, the well-mixed approximation isn't EXACTLY what's happening, being an approximation. But it should give you a slightly better idea of what's going on in general in this particular case.
Right, this is why John Kerry's debate style didn't work. One Of Your Opponents Being Wrong Does Not Make You Right. There, was that clear enough? I would capitalize it all, but that would be lame.
Uh, the facts are that the legal rights of the compnies in question have been violated, and they are well within their rights to sue. Secondly, even if they were a moral organization, the moral thing to do is to defend your dependents from legal violation, regarless of wether they're making money off of it or not. Thirdly, the recording industry today wouldn't be any worse off if no one had ever sent a file over a linked network. There are these things called 'radios'. People listen to them and then buy music they like. Though/. (and apparrently half-assed studies) likes to ignore them, they're still a big chunk of where people find new music. And those people buy CDs, go to concerts, etc.
Yes, yes it is. In fact, ensuring that the majority never gain complete control of the system just becuse they are the majority was pretty much the entire point of that whole 'constitution' thing everyone makes so much fuss about. If we wanted rule by majority, the constitution would have been a one-liner: "vote on it". Ideally, people in the US are ruled by their laws, which compel them to behave in a way that makes the society run correctly. In practice, this blends a bit into people being ruled by government, but the people making up the government being subject to the same laws goes a long way to ensuring that it is, in fact, rule of law and not majority tyrrany that decides what's what. Damn good thing, too, or biology would be screwed by a mandated ban on teaching evolution in public schools and we'd be legally banning every political sect that offended majority sentiments, just like europe. In fact, independent music would probqbly be dead, too, as the majority of people would add legal force to those stupid pop idol television crapfests.
The flaw here is that copyrighted works are being made available (albeit free of charge) without the originator's explicit permission, well beyond the terms of fair use. This is a violation of the system put in place to allow writers et al the chance to make a living off of producing a quality product. That's the legal angle.
The moral angle is that, if you're paid a percentage of total sales of your work, it doesn't matter if someone liked a song they loaded for free and bought every other single the label produced, the author of the original song is still fucked unless he wrote a lot of said other songs signed to the label. Perhaps this situation doesn't happen a lot, but it has a strong potential to happen, and designing a moral system around a strong probability of screwing someone over is called 'being an asshole', which is generally frowned on in modern society.
We need lawyers because apparrently legality and the 'don't be an asshole' aspect of modern morals seem to have completely eluded a number of people, and the old animal imperative of "do the right thing or you'll get screwed over yourself" has to be applied, i.e. they are attempting to create an effective deterrent.
Of course, the record companies' motives are probably far less socially responsible than that, but that's why I would sue your ass if it were up to me, anyhow.
Oh, right, i should have put the answer to your question in context of your metaphor. Well, too late now. Postination time.
Speaking for those of us with real jobs, we couldn't care less wether information was 'compelling' if we tried. We only care wether information is informative. You know, the whole point of information? Those crappy company websites and nonenglish sites contain information that is useful, such as product specs for components we may be assembling. Slashdot doesn't. By this very slight variation on your own reasoning, the US network should block IPs associated with/. long before they even consider China.
Actually the answer is "because they are in violation of copyright law". I don't think recieving the traditional civil penalty for a copyright violation really requires any more justification than that.
Wether that copyright law is itself in 'the right' is certainly open to debate, but simply ignoring a legal restriction is not an acceptable form of protest against laws with which one disagrees. We have this whole 'voting' thing, you see...
Since you're not referencing, should we assume that your source is so unreliable and based on redefining terms like 'household' and 'intruder' that you're embarrased to post it, or just that you're full of shit?
They haven't been that, either, really. The Onion mocked it recently, posting a fake rant by the director of "The Island" about how he had been outgrossed by a bunch of bloody penguins. That was satire, but, as far as I know form occasional comments in the wall street journal, March of the Penguins is the only movie in the past 6 months or so that has turned a significant profit. A lot of studios can't even make a profit over the ridiculous markups that are movie DVDs: both pixar and dreamworks are currently under investigation by their respective investor groups for redlining in that area. It seems that the US has decided to actually wait on good movies coming out for once.
Real journals take months to years because real journals are peer reviewed, and have to find a bunch of other labs willing to repeat your probably overly expensive and inefficient experiment. The reason people react with horror when you question the journal system is that you're basically saying "Why don't you just publish whatever you want without somebody checking your work?" which is, you see, kind of insulting. Also, if you're, say, building a bridge that will be crossed by a million people a day, the suggestion that you might skimp on a bit of testing is also kind of... unsettling.
It tells us wether the data was probably correct or not, as peer review involves 10 or 20 labs repeating your experiment and seeing if your measurments are correct. As for the conclusions... no one reads journals for the conclusions anyway.
If by galileian relativity you're referring to things like Newton's Laws of Motion, then "proved wrong" is not quite the correct phrase. The laws formulated through experiment, etc were perfectly correct within the resolution of the experiments at the time. If you're arguing that not resolving mathematics perfectly (estimation) makes a theory wrong, then there's not a correct theory in existence. quantum mech at its bleeding edge can only give, I'm told by the physics dept, 13 decimal places of accuracy. They have to keep coming up with more complex calculations to resolve things on finer scales. And you don't even want to know what the allowable error is in the engineering department.
Well, there's the whole thing with 'human created plant' being an idiom for 'genetically modified plant', and not actually a life form designed from scratch. If they designed and built the plant from the ground up, it would probably be pretty damned obvious. Not that your point is necessarily invalid in the philosophical sense, but you need to find something better than a misinterpretation of (admittedly innacurate) terminology to back it up.
You forgot "wether". It's not like there have been repeated experiments pumping a completely known planet-scale biosphere that demonstrated that said biosphere wouldn't just go on as usual. Hell, we don't even have a completely known biosphere. Damn hard to hold things constant when you have no idea what 90% of the variables are. It's still basically guesswork at this point. But since the people excited about globabl warming would have gotten equally excited about something else otherwise, complaining is rather useless. At least the weather is a nice, traditional irrational fear, if we deprived them of that we'd start hearing a lot more about how aliens are going to abduct us all one at a time and replace us with exact copies of ourselves so no one would know the difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if it was something that was actually a result of his actions, he wouldn't be taking credit for it. There's a pattern to these things. Look at how presidents get credit for the economy, of all things.
Actually, soccer moms are the kinds of ridiculously overenthusiastic people that, you know, vote. And the kind that make you look rather bad for screwing them over, to boot.
Didn't read your whole post, but I'll note that ice core samples won't tell us much about the ozone layer's status, since there's no reliable chemical meter present in the lower atmosphere where precipitation forms. So, in this specific case, we're stuck with under half a century of real data.
I salute you for saving me a snarky post. /salute
Actually, It's the French's fault. Whose bright idea was it to build a city in a hurricane-prone area using levies below the tide mark anyhow? Silly Frenchies.
I kid, I kid. But only kind of. A lot of our problems with weather would be solved if people didn't do things like... oh, building their houses on the damned floodplain of the Mississippi river. Same goes for a lot of other countries. I know you like to be close to the shipping lines, but does 'putting all your eggs in one basket' really mean nothing to humans these millennia?
You realize that the ozone layer is way the hell up in the atmosphere (away from anywhere it could reasonably be absorbed by ice), and would degrade quickly to oxygen even if it were trapped in ice? Oh, silly me, of course you don't.
/eyeroll
In our defense, we fixed the acid rain and CFC release problems (to an extent where they're annoying rather than dangerous, anyhow. Will still be a bit before we're perfect.) While i'm still somewhat dubious about human governance of the greenhouse effect, I'm all for figuring out how to control the greenhouse effect. It'll give us the tech to terraform mars and have a nice new frontier eventually.
Because, you know, it's not like cities and states post their own bonds and raise their own taxes for civic improvements. Good job blaming a random person for no apparrent reason.
You do realize that the two studies said the same thing, and the uneducated media idiots just took it on themselves to interpret the results beyond what the scientists said. And also that the OP actually makes a factual error in his citation of one of the articles.
The grandparent post you're replying to is a joke, not a serious statement of scientific fact. Fluids in a well-mixed system (which is what the atmosphere basically is) are distributed pretty much uniformly throughout the system (regardless of molecular weight), apart from localized/boundary effects. The reason that the ozone layer is in the upper atmosphere is that it's created by solar radiation, which its formation absorbs, and by the time it has diffused far enough downward to be beyond the band of absorbed radiation, it has decayed back into oxygen. I.E. The ozone layer is a layer because of the short life of ozone. If ozone hung around for a long, long time after it was created, the layer would be thicker as a result of diffusion, and if Ozone was actually stable, then it would be distributed near-uniformly throughout the atmosphere, just like the relatively stable CFC molecules would, eventually. (CFC molecules stick around a good long while... if they were unstable, we'd probably be more worried about them poisoning us directly than destroying some ozone)
That said, the well-mixed approximation isn't EXACTLY what's happening, being an approximation. But it should give you a slightly better idea of what's going on in general in this particular case.
Right, this is why John Kerry's debate style didn't work. One Of Your Opponents Being Wrong Does Not Make You Right. There, was that clear enough? I would capitalize it all, but that would be lame.
Uh, the facts are that the legal rights of the compnies in question have been violated, and they are well within their rights to sue. Secondly, even if they were a moral organization, the moral thing to do is to defend your dependents from legal violation, regarless of wether they're making money off of it or not. Thirdly, the recording industry today wouldn't be any worse off if no one had ever sent a file over a linked network. There are these things called 'radios'. People listen to them and then buy music they like. Though /. (and apparrently half-assed studies) likes to ignore them, they're still a big chunk of where people find new music. And those people buy CDs, go to concerts, etc.
Yes, yes it is. In fact, ensuring that the majority never gain complete control of the system just becuse they are the majority was pretty much the entire point of that whole 'constitution' thing everyone makes so much fuss about. If we wanted rule by majority, the constitution would have been a one-liner: "vote on it". Ideally, people in the US are ruled by their laws, which compel them to behave in a way that makes the society run correctly. In practice, this blends a bit into people being ruled by government, but the people making up the government being subject to the same laws goes a long way to ensuring that it is, in fact, rule of law and not majority tyrrany that decides what's what. Damn good thing, too, or biology would be screwed by a mandated ban on teaching evolution in public schools and we'd be legally banning every political sect that offended majority sentiments, just like europe. In fact, independent music would probqbly be dead, too, as the majority of people would add legal force to those stupid pop idol television crapfests.
The flaw here is that copyrighted works are being made available (albeit free of charge) without the originator's explicit permission, well beyond the terms of fair use. This is a violation of the system put in place to allow writers et al the chance to make a living off of producing a quality product. That's the legal angle.
The moral angle is that, if you're paid a percentage of total sales of your work, it doesn't matter if someone liked a song they loaded for free and bought every other single the label produced, the author of the original song is still fucked unless he wrote a lot of said other songs signed to the label. Perhaps this situation doesn't happen a lot, but it has a strong potential to happen, and designing a moral system around a strong probability of screwing someone over is called 'being an asshole', which is generally frowned on in modern society.
We need lawyers because apparrently legality and the 'don't be an asshole' aspect of modern morals seem to have completely eluded a number of people, and the old animal imperative of "do the right thing or you'll get screwed over yourself" has to be applied, i.e. they are attempting to create an effective deterrent.
Of course, the record companies' motives are probably far less socially responsible than that, but that's why I would sue your ass if it were up to me, anyhow.
Oh, right, i should have put the answer to your question in context of your metaphor. Well, too late now. Postination time.
Popup blocking has been a part of IE since January or so, so there's no reason for a plugin to add a redundant function.
You forgot the second half of your sig. The full quote is "Life is a sexually transmitted disease that is 100% fatal."
Speaking for those of us with real jobs, we couldn't care less wether information was 'compelling' if we tried. We only care wether information is informative. You know, the whole point of information? Those crappy company websites and nonenglish sites contain information that is useful, such as product specs for components we may be assembling. Slashdot doesn't. By this very slight variation on your own reasoning, the US network should block IPs associated with /. long before they even consider China.
Actually the answer is "because they are in violation of copyright law". I don't think recieving the traditional civil penalty for a copyright violation really requires any more justification than that.
Wether that copyright law is itself in 'the right' is certainly open to debate, but simply ignoring a legal restriction is not an acceptable form of protest against laws with which one disagrees. We have this whole 'voting' thing, you see...
Since you're not referencing, should we assume that your source is so unreliable and based on redefining terms like 'household' and 'intruder' that you're embarrased to post it, or just that you're full of shit?
They haven't been that, either, really. The Onion mocked it recently, posting a fake rant by the director of "The Island" about how he had been outgrossed by a bunch of bloody penguins. That was satire, but, as far as I know form occasional comments in the wall street journal, March of the Penguins is the only movie in the past 6 months or so that has turned a significant profit. A lot of studios can't even make a profit over the ridiculous markups that are movie DVDs: both pixar and dreamworks are currently under investigation by their respective investor groups for redlining in that area. It seems that the US has decided to actually wait on good movies coming out for once.
Real journals take months to years because real journals are peer reviewed, and have to find a bunch of other labs willing to repeat your probably overly expensive and inefficient experiment. The reason people react with horror when you question the journal system is that you're basically saying "Why don't you just publish whatever you want without somebody checking your work?" which is, you see, kind of insulting. Also, if you're, say, building a bridge that will be crossed by a million people a day, the suggestion that you might skimp on a bit of testing is also kind of... unsettling.
It tells us wether the data was probably correct or not, as peer review involves 10 or 20 labs repeating your experiment and seeing if your measurments are correct. As for the conclusions... no one reads journals for the conclusions anyway.
If by galileian relativity you're referring to things like Newton's Laws of Motion, then "proved wrong" is not quite the correct phrase. The laws formulated through experiment, etc were perfectly correct within the resolution of the experiments at the time. If you're arguing that not resolving mathematics perfectly (estimation) makes a theory wrong, then there's not a correct theory in existence. quantum mech at its bleeding edge can only give, I'm told by the physics dept, 13 decimal places of accuracy. They have to keep coming up with more complex calculations to resolve things on finer scales. And you don't even want to know what the allowable error is in the engineering department.
Well, there's the whole thing with 'human created plant' being an idiom for 'genetically modified plant', and not actually a life form designed from scratch. If they designed and built the plant from the ground up, it would probably be pretty damned obvious. Not that your point is necessarily invalid in the philosophical sense, but you need to find something better than a misinterpretation of (admittedly innacurate) terminology to back it up.
You forgot "wether". It's not like there have been repeated experiments pumping a completely known planet-scale biosphere that demonstrated that said biosphere wouldn't just go on as usual. Hell, we don't even have a completely known biosphere. Damn hard to hold things constant when you have no idea what 90% of the variables are. It's still basically guesswork at this point. But since the people excited about globabl warming would have gotten equally excited about something else otherwise, complaining is rather useless. At least the weather is a nice, traditional irrational fear, if we deprived them of that we'd start hearing a lot more about how aliens are going to abduct us all one at a time and replace us with exact copies of ourselves so no one would know the difference.