I think, in the long run, companies like Netflix and Amazon are going to end acquiring more and more new shows that broadcast monopolies will break down anyways. That will obviously take some time, but with cord cutting on the rise, I think at some point in the next five to ten years the tipping point will be reached. Amazon and Netflix will be aided by the incompetence of the broadcasters, either trying to turning streaming into just another version of the standard broadcast, or with really buggy streaming interfaces, or often both.
This seems to be replicating what the music industry went through in the 2000s, before the record companies finally admitted defeat and basically handed over online distribution to companies like Apple.
Clouds are accounted for in all models, and recent research indicates that the amount of ice in clouds as opposed to water vapor means your much exaggerated albedo effect is even less pronounced.
Your fantasy is crumbling down. The universe doens't give a fuck about the price of gas or how that may hurt your feelings. Be a fucking adult, and not a pathetic child hiding his head and declaring "Nothing's wrong!"
Yes, the scientific evidence backs up global warming, but this is slashdot, where idiots and Koch Brothers mouthpieces freely demonstrate their ignorance and/or malevolence.
But hey, prove me wrong, Mr. AC. Where is all the additional energy that increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere going? Where is this magic energy sink that is removing all the additional energy being trapped in the lower atmosphere? Go on, let's hear all about it.
Well, considering the number of human beings already being affected by rising sea levels, I think you're wrong on that score, not to mention those who already being affected by changing precipitation patterns. And those in marginal economies are going to be the first to get hit very hard, and guess what, a lot of them will do what human beings have been doing for the entire history of genus Homo, getting up and moving, which will begin to hit more developed nations, and ultimately the First World, where you seem to believe the only people that give a fuck live.
I'd say "Sell them, and you'll never buy another piece of American military equipment again, and there won't be a single US soldier within your borders within six months."
As oil's importance fades, I think the response to anything from Saudi Arabia should "Fuck you, fuck you very very much."
Since neither Netflix or Comcast are in the smart phone business, so the fuck what? Why not compare the liters of oil the Saudis pumped out of the ground in the same period, if actual similarity of product is of no concern?
The problem is, other than a bit of bold text in a manual, there's not much in the way of education. Any fucking idiot in most places can buy a drone, use it to fly in the path of aircraft, spy on their neighbors, and so forth, and there's usually no way to tie a particular offending drone to the fucking moron whose using it.
Oh look, another "God would never create physical laws that would allow us to damage ourselves" types. Here's the facts. CO2 traps energy in the lower atmosphere. The more CO2, the more energy trapped. Care to tell us where that energy is going, if not into raising temperatures? Go on, tell us how the lower atmosphere is exempt from thermodynamics.
Current nuclear technology requires finite resources and is nonrenewable. It would only kick the ball down the road. If you're going to invest in sustainable energy, wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal, tidal and so forth are the better long-term investment.
If and when we develop efficient large-scale fusion technology, that will be different, but simply moving our energy reliance from one non-renewable (fossil fuels) to another (uranium and other radioactive elements) really is not a great leap forward.
Most of the critics aren't even real critics; in that they're not attacking any climatological theory, but rather partaking in various forms of fallacious argument, in many cases, like pseudo-scientific purveyors before, simply repeating discredited claims over and over and over again.
Here's the facts. CO2 absorbs and the emits certain frequencies of solar radiation. In other words, CO2 traps energy. No matter how you try to handwave it away, the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more energy is trapped in the atmosphere, raising atmospheric, surface and ocean temperatures. Coupled with CO2's reaction with seawater to alter sea pH levels, the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more pronounced the effects get. You can wave your hands and jump up and down about how the poow whittle cwitics are so badly abused, but the fact is that the one group that counts, which is atmospheric scientists, say very clearly that human CO2 emissions are raising the temperature of the lower atmosphere because it is trapping energy. This is not in the least bit controversial, and has been known for over a century.
The only controversy is that it's going to cost lots of money, and it's going to reduce the profits of some very rich people. But that's an economic and political controversy, that fossil fuel companies and an exceedingly small number of critics who have any real credentials at all are trying to make into a scientific one.
The universe does not give one single fuck about the Koch Brother's investment portfolio. It doesn't give one single fuck about how much you have to pay for gasoline to go to work, or much it costs to transport tomatoes to your local grocery store. It does not give one single fuck about Saudis, Russians, OPEC, Canadian tar sands, or the price of jet fuel. It doesn't give one single fuck how you feel about the physical properties of CO2. It does not give one single fuck whether you want to ignore those physical principles at all. What is is, so demonstrate some capacity to think like an adult and try to imagine a universe in which we are captives of physical laws, and where our actions actually can have fairly significant effects.
Or continue to be a child, and grasp at every pathetic straw the likes of Spencer, who makes a lot more money spreading bullshit about his former field of research than anyone actually actively in that field does.
But she's representative of a large group of people who, when confronted with science they don't like, just discard the science, declare the researchers in question frauds, and then assume somehow the universe will be okay, because, you know, apparently the universe owes specific ideologies a big favor, and would never dream of having physical laws that would create some sort of problem for that ideology. In Palin's case, she's a pretty hard right Christian, so I'm fairly certain she believes God would never make oil harmful, because, well, God loves oil and wants us to burn as much of it as we can possibly can.
Suppose I implemented a freely available and easily obtainable encryption algorithm...
This is the problem. The mindless retards who write this kind of legislation are so incredibly stupid they don't understand that outlawing encryption is like trying to outlaw Pi, nuclear fission or Fermat's theorem.
Of course the politicians involved are retards. They're just doing what the FBI and NSA are telling them to do. So far as these stunningly mindless halfwits are concerned, computers are magic bosses and those weirdo nerdy wizards should just do what they are told.
Slashdot Mirror
I think, in the long run, companies like Netflix and Amazon are going to end acquiring more and more new shows that broadcast monopolies will break down anyways. That will obviously take some time, but with cord cutting on the rise, I think at some point in the next five to ten years the tipping point will be reached. Amazon and Netflix will be aided by the incompetence of the broadcasters, either trying to turning streaming into just another version of the standard broadcast, or with really buggy streaming interfaces, or often both.
This seems to be replicating what the music industry went through in the 2000s, before the record companies finally admitted defeat and basically handed over online distribution to companies like Apple.
Because the rights holders demand it. It's the only way Netflix can guarantee they'll continue being allowed to show their content.
Clouds are accounted for in all models, and recent research indicates that the amount of ice in clouds as opposed to water vapor means your much exaggerated albedo effect is even less pronounced.
Your fantasy is crumbling down. The universe doens't give a fuck about the price of gas or how that may hurt your feelings. Be a fucking adult, and not a pathetic child hiding his head and declaring "Nothing's wrong!"
Yes, the scientific evidence backs up global warming, but this is slashdot, where idiots and Koch Brothers mouthpieces freely demonstrate their ignorance and/or malevolence.
But hey, prove me wrong, Mr. AC. Where is all the additional energy that increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere going? Where is this magic energy sink that is removing all the additional energy being trapped in the lower atmosphere? Go on, let's hear all about it.
Well, considering the number of human beings already being affected by rising sea levels, I think you're wrong on that score, not to mention those who already being affected by changing precipitation patterns. And those in marginal economies are going to be the first to get hit very hard, and guess what, a lot of them will do what human beings have been doing for the entire history of genus Homo, getting up and moving, which will begin to hit more developed nations, and ultimately the First World, where you seem to believe the only people that give a fuck live.
Considering CO2 emissions, I'd say it's hard to find a dirtier energy source than coal. So no, it is not equivalent.
This is pushing further back than lobe finned fish from what I can gather. Lobe finned fish weren't the first tetrapods.
Nothing batshit crazy about it. We have to preserve our precious bodily fluids!
I'd say "Sell them, and you'll never buy another piece of American military equipment again, and there won't be a single US soldier within your borders within six months."
As oil's importance fades, I think the response to anything from Saudi Arabia should "Fuck you, fuck you very very much."
Since neither Netflix or Comcast are in the smart phone business, so the fuck what? Why not compare the liters of oil the Saudis pumped out of the ground in the same period, if actual similarity of product is of no concern?
To bad that no matter how much the music industry profits, the artists are still getting screwed.
Ah my, but what was old is new again.
The problem is, other than a bit of bold text in a manual, there's not much in the way of education. Any fucking idiot in most places can buy a drone, use it to fly in the path of aircraft, spy on their neighbors, and so forth, and there's usually no way to tie a particular offending drone to the fucking moron whose using it.
He's Italian. It would be more like "That's some nice data you got there. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it..."
Enter the carbon tax. Price emissions for their actual costs they incur. You know, the free market solution.
Scientific pseudoskepticism coupled with conspiracy theories. David Icke met Roy Spencer, and you're the product of that unholy union,.
Oh look, another "God would never create physical laws that would allow us to damage ourselves" types. Here's the facts. CO2 traps energy in the lower atmosphere. The more CO2, the more energy trapped. Care to tell us where that energy is going, if not into raising temperatures? Go on, tell us how the lower atmosphere is exempt from thermodynamics.
Current nuclear technology requires finite resources and is nonrenewable. It would only kick the ball down the road. If you're going to invest in sustainable energy, wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal, tidal and so forth are the better long-term investment.
If and when we develop efficient large-scale fusion technology, that will be different, but simply moving our energy reliance from one non-renewable (fossil fuels) to another (uranium and other radioactive elements) really is not a great leap forward.
China is investing heavily in renewables as well.
The world is changing whether people who own fossil fuel stocks like it or not.
This is what I mean by mindlessly repeating talking points.
Most of the critics aren't even real critics; in that they're not attacking any climatological theory, but rather partaking in various forms of fallacious argument, in many cases, like pseudo-scientific purveyors before, simply repeating discredited claims over and over and over again.
Here's the facts. CO2 absorbs and the emits certain frequencies of solar radiation. In other words, CO2 traps energy. No matter how you try to handwave it away, the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more energy is trapped in the atmosphere, raising atmospheric, surface and ocean temperatures. Coupled with CO2's reaction with seawater to alter sea pH levels, the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more pronounced the effects get. You can wave your hands and jump up and down about how the poow whittle cwitics are so badly abused, but the fact is that the one group that counts, which is atmospheric scientists, say very clearly that human CO2 emissions are raising the temperature of the lower atmosphere because it is trapping energy. This is not in the least bit controversial, and has been known for over a century.
The only controversy is that it's going to cost lots of money, and it's going to reduce the profits of some very rich people. But that's an economic and political controversy, that fossil fuel companies and an exceedingly small number of critics who have any real credentials at all are trying to make into a scientific one.
The universe does not give one single fuck about the Koch Brother's investment portfolio. It doesn't give one single fuck about how much you have to pay for gasoline to go to work, or much it costs to transport tomatoes to your local grocery store. It does not give one single fuck about Saudis, Russians, OPEC, Canadian tar sands, or the price of jet fuel. It doesn't give one single fuck how you feel about the physical properties of CO2. It does not give one single fuck whether you want to ignore those physical principles at all. What is is, so demonstrate some capacity to think like an adult and try to imagine a universe in which we are captives of physical laws, and where our actions actually can have fairly significant effects.
Or continue to be a child, and grasp at every pathetic straw the likes of Spencer, who makes a lot more money spreading bullshit about his former field of research than anyone actually actively in that field does.
But she's representative of a large group of people who, when confronted with science they don't like, just discard the science, declare the researchers in question frauds, and then assume somehow the universe will be okay, because, you know, apparently the universe owes specific ideologies a big favor, and would never dream of having physical laws that would create some sort of problem for that ideology. In Palin's case, she's a pretty hard right Christian, so I'm fairly certain she believes God would never make oil harmful, because, well, God loves oil and wants us to burn as much of it as we can possibly can.
Suppose I implemented a freely available and easily obtainable encryption algorithm...
This is the problem. The mindless retards who write this kind of legislation are so incredibly stupid they don't understand that outlawing encryption is like trying to outlaw Pi, nuclear fission or Fermat's theorem.
Of course the politicians involved are retards. They're just doing what the FBI and NSA are telling them to do. So far as these stunningly mindless halfwits are concerned, computers are magic bosses and those weirdo nerdy wizards should just do what they are told.
Want better politicians, don't elect fucking morons.
I had no idea Howard Hughes was still alive and posting on the Internet.
Dyson Airblades, or as microbiologists like to call the, Dyson Germ Cannons