They are going to attempt to refute the ruling. Whether they refute it or not in fact depends greatly upon whether their appeal is successful.
At any rate, Ireland's reputation for basically being a tax haven that allows cheap access to EU markets has long been established. The EU is finally getting around to fixing what amounts to a significant problem. If Ireland wants to be part of the Common Market, it needs to play by the Common Market's rules.
Except the EU does have that power. Ireland is a party to the treaties that create these power. If Ireland finds those rules so onerous, it can always join Britain in leaving the EU.
Forcing companies to pay taxes on earnings they made in a country, rather than allowing them to move that money to a lower-tax jurisdiction is hardly breaking that company's back. It's about time international bodies started going after these race-to-the-bottom tax avoidance schemes.
Even if you did, it strikes me that this is an absurd metric. Since a lot of C development goes on within communities; either closed source shops, or open source projects, where it's likely only a portion of the mailing list archives, if any of them at all, are archived. The majority of the BSD and Linux kernels are written in C, along with a significant percentage of the toolsets, so clearly there's one helluva lot of C coding going on. Whether search engines index that activity or not is irrelevant.
A better metric, though not perfect, would be to look at the activity in places like Git, to see how many lines of code roughly are in any given language.
How the hell can a completely unevidenced and completely concocted claim be modded up? If that's the case, then I'v ehears SuperKendall is in fact the secret love child of Pablo Escobar and a young Guatemalan fruit picker, and he has been methodically destroying Venezuela's economy because he loves grits.
A search engine could provide links to a news item without showing any of the content. Of course, that will heavily devalue the news item in question, but if the EU insists on trying to destroy any notion of fair use, there will be inevitable casualties.
Maybe Google could just pay for the rights to access AP, Reuters and the other news wires, and then just say "Fuck it" to the news publishers, much of their content coming from exactly the same sources.
Clearly his claims are rubbish. WTF does "direct detection" even fucking mean? One does hope the defense pops that balloon well and good, because this is hardly the first time we've heard some snake oil dealer proclaim he can identify the identity of P2P nodes with absolute fidelity.
I think scientists can make some larger statements on the impacts. No one can tell you what exactly it would be like at any particular location, But what you're doing is exaggerating the amount of uncertainty, and then trying to defend warming trends by invoking even less certain predictions. It's hard not to see how you aren't just being a contrarian simply because you don't like the answers science can provide.
When rain belts shift northward in North America, arid conditions will begin to become the norm in large parts of the American Midwest, and that will mean American food security will become, at some point over the next century so, one of the most serious issues the US has ever had to face. And this isn't a matter if whether it will happen or not, the debate is over WHEN it will happen.
Pumping vast amounts of formerly sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere is just plain bad. We should be moving at all speed to alternative energy sources, and either leaving the oil and coal in the ground, or finding some other use for it that doesn't involve releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.
You do understand, I trust, that different countries have different birth rates, right, so while one country may have a very high birth rate, another country may have a very low one. You know, how Japan's population is shrinking, and India's is growing?
It often makes me wonder if being a political partisan either causes stupidity, or political partisans are just inherently stupid people.
As appealing as a Senate hearing is, I'd prefer an actual citation from literature, and not a well known skeptic. In other words, let's see the actual data your claim is based off of. Do you possess this data, or did you just rush out and find the only link you could that you thought could justify your initial claim?
Recording of weather events in places like the US and Britain has been going on for well over a century, and certainly there are ways to determine extreme events further back than that in some cases, so it's not like we just started recording weather and climate data yesterday.
No, it would be impossible, as I say above, to link specific weather events to climate change. But you can analyze all weather systems and see if intensity and frequency trend up along with increasing temperature increases.
You have a citation for these figures? I'd wager Katrina's costs alone, once they're fully factored, probably significantly outweigh similar events, so I'm calling bullshit on your claim.
Quantum mechanics is astonishingly complex, and yet we can still predict radioactive decay rates. Just handwaving away observations with "it's too complex" isn't really a critique at all. The fact is that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will inevitably trap more energy in the atmosphere. Complexity doesn't overrule thermodynamics.
Except the developing world really isn't where a large amount of the greenhouse gasses are produced. Yes, China and India are offenders, but the Industrialized world still is responsible for a huge amount of emissions. While population is a factor, it's not a simple straight line like you suggest.
Well, to be honest with you, I don't have much time for either side. I think the Liberals, but more particularly the Left have done a lot of damage to AGW acceptance simply by trying to integrate into their own economic mumbo jumbo, and trying to beat conservative elements over the head with it. They've made one of the supreme challenges of humanity at this point of time and politicizing it for their own ends). The conservatives, on the other hand, are often just people easily manipulated by large commercial interests who want to delay significant responses to AGW long enough to maximize profits. That's why the fossil fuel companies fund crap "think tanks" like the Heartland Institute, because they serve to give conservative and libertarian types a pack of memes to trot out every time the topic of global warming comes up. A pox on both their houses, I say. Both groups are populated by idiots and demagogues.
To my mind, the time has come to simply look at the best way of dealing with the problem. For me, the simplest way and the way that it is the most market oriented is carbon pricing. Start upping the price of fossil fuels, thus allowing market forces to concentrate investment on alternatives. I don't even care if governments pocket the cash. The whole point isn't reinvestment of carbon taxes, but rather to create an artificial scarcity. This solution should be eminently favorable conservatives and libertarians, because it favors their economic approach, but of course, it will cost the likes of the Koch Brothers money, so the game goes on.
As with any branch of science that uses statistics, no one can say that any specific event has a specific cause where multiple causes are possible. For instance, you can't tell whether a specific decay event in a lump of plutonium was caused by radioactive decay, or maybe a stray high energy cosmic ray. But what you can do is measure a large number of decay events and come up with the most probable explanation. This is true of all statistics, and it's why we have tools like statistics.
So if anyone points to a specific storm and says "That's AGW", they're not going to get much support even in the climatological community. But if someone states "The number of major floods and the intensity of those floods is increasing, and the most likely agent is AGW", well that's a statement of probability.
Slashdot Mirror
They are going to attempt to refute the ruling. Whether they refute it or not in fact depends greatly upon whether their appeal is successful.
At any rate, Ireland's reputation for basically being a tax haven that allows cheap access to EU markets has long been established. The EU is finally getting around to fixing what amounts to a significant problem. If Ireland wants to be part of the Common Market, it needs to play by the Common Market's rules.
Except the EU does have that power. Ireland is a party to the treaties that create these power. If Ireland finds those rules so onerous, it can always join Britain in leaving the EU.
Forcing companies to pay taxes on earnings they made in a country, rather than allowing them to move that money to a lower-tax jurisdiction is hardly breaking that company's back. It's about time international bodies started going after these race-to-the-bottom tax avoidance schemes.
In other words, the money wasn't earned in Ireland, and Ireland and Apple colluded to create a partial tax shelter, just like the EU is claiming.
Even if you did, it strikes me that this is an absurd metric. Since a lot of C development goes on within communities; either closed source shops, or open source projects, where it's likely only a portion of the mailing list archives, if any of them at all, are archived. The majority of the BSD and Linux kernels are written in C, along with a significant percentage of the toolsets, so clearly there's one helluva lot of C coding going on. Whether search engines index that activity or not is irrelevant.
A better metric, though not perfect, would be to look at the activity in places like Git, to see how many lines of code roughly are in any given language.
Because no one has ever tried a natural language programming language or alternative keyboard layouts before...
I'm no more afraid it is true than I'm afraid you're a son of Zeus. It's an idiotic claim without a shred of evidence.
How the hell can a completely unevidenced and completely concocted claim be modded up? If that's the case, then I'v ehears SuperKendall is in fact the secret love child of Pablo Escobar and a young Guatemalan fruit picker, and he has been methodically destroying Venezuela's economy because he loves grits.
Reminds me of an old post of mine...
https://it.slashdot.org/commen...
A search engine could provide links to a news item without showing any of the content. Of course, that will heavily devalue the news item in question, but if the EU insists on trying to destroy any notion of fair use, there will be inevitable casualties.
Maybe Google could just pay for the rights to access AP, Reuters and the other news wires, and then just say "Fuck it" to the news publishers, much of their content coming from exactly the same sources.
Clearly his claims are rubbish. WTF does "direct detection" even fucking mean? One does hope the defense pops that balloon well and good, because this is hardly the first time we've heard some snake oil dealer proclaim he can identify the identity of P2P nodes with absolute fidelity.
That's largely because being a conservative these days largely seems to involve being mad about something.
No no, he ideolizes the future where Bezos doesn't have to work, and where he's the rule of a Metropolis like dystopia.
Why is pricing carbon anti-conservative? It's eminently conservative, putting the job of reducing emissions in the hands of the market.
I think scientists can make some larger statements on the impacts. No one can tell you what exactly it would be like at any particular location, But what you're doing is exaggerating the amount of uncertainty, and then trying to defend warming trends by invoking even less certain predictions. It's hard not to see how you aren't just being a contrarian simply because you don't like the answers science can provide.
When rain belts shift northward in North America, arid conditions will begin to become the norm in large parts of the American Midwest, and that will mean American food security will become, at some point over the next century so, one of the most serious issues the US has ever had to face. And this isn't a matter if whether it will happen or not, the debate is over WHEN it will happen.
Pumping vast amounts of formerly sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere is just plain bad. We should be moving at all speed to alternative energy sources, and either leaving the oil and coal in the ground, or finding some other use for it that doesn't involve releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.
You do understand, I trust, that different countries have different birth rates, right, so while one country may have a very high birth rate, another country may have a very low one. You know, how Japan's population is shrinking, and India's is growing?
It often makes me wonder if being a political partisan either causes stupidity, or political partisans are just inherently stupid people.
Further, climatologists have analyzed Pielke's methodology, and found it wanting:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...
As appealing as a Senate hearing is, I'd prefer an actual citation from literature, and not a well known skeptic. In other words, let's see the actual data your claim is based off of. Do you possess this data, or did you just rush out and find the only link you could that you thought could justify your initial claim?
Recording of weather events in places like the US and Britain has been going on for well over a century, and certainly there are ways to determine extreme events further back than that in some cases, so it's not like we just started recording weather and climate data yesterday.
No, it would be impossible, as I say above, to link specific weather events to climate change. But you can analyze all weather systems and see if intensity and frequency trend up along with increasing temperature increases.
You have a citation for these figures? I'd wager Katrina's costs alone, once they're fully factored, probably significantly outweigh similar events, so I'm calling bullshit on your claim.
Quantum mechanics is astonishingly complex, and yet we can still predict radioactive decay rates. Just handwaving away observations with "it's too complex" isn't really a critique at all. The fact is that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will inevitably trap more energy in the atmosphere. Complexity doesn't overrule thermodynamics.
Except the developing world really isn't where a large amount of the greenhouse gasses are produced. Yes, China and India are offenders, but the Industrialized world still is responsible for a huge amount of emissions. While population is a factor, it's not a simple straight line like you suggest.
Well, to be honest with you, I don't have much time for either side. I think the Liberals, but more particularly the Left have done a lot of damage to AGW acceptance simply by trying to integrate into their own economic mumbo jumbo, and trying to beat conservative elements over the head with it. They've made one of the supreme challenges of humanity at this point of time and politicizing it for their own ends). The conservatives, on the other hand, are often just people easily manipulated by large commercial interests who want to delay significant responses to AGW long enough to maximize profits. That's why the fossil fuel companies fund crap "think tanks" like the Heartland Institute, because they serve to give conservative and libertarian types a pack of memes to trot out every time the topic of global warming comes up. A pox on both their houses, I say. Both groups are populated by idiots and demagogues.
To my mind, the time has come to simply look at the best way of dealing with the problem. For me, the simplest way and the way that it is the most market oriented is carbon pricing. Start upping the price of fossil fuels, thus allowing market forces to concentrate investment on alternatives. I don't even care if governments pocket the cash. The whole point isn't reinvestment of carbon taxes, but rather to create an artificial scarcity. This solution should be eminently favorable conservatives and libertarians, because it favors their economic approach, but of course, it will cost the likes of the Koch Brothers money, so the game goes on.
As with any branch of science that uses statistics, no one can say that any specific event has a specific cause where multiple causes are possible. For instance, you can't tell whether a specific decay event in a lump of plutonium was caused by radioactive decay, or maybe a stray high energy cosmic ray. But what you can do is measure a large number of decay events and come up with the most probable explanation. This is true of all statistics, and it's why we have tools like statistics.
So if anyone points to a specific storm and says "That's AGW", they're not going to get much support even in the climatological community. But if someone states "The number of major floods and the intensity of those floods is increasing, and the most likely agent is AGW", well that's a statement of probability.