LOL! Oh, yeah! An age-18 "wall"! Ooooh! You have to click an "I am over 18" button. Yeah, children under 18 will never click that button. Yeah, let's all give thanks there is a "wall" there!!! Now our children are "protected" and we don't have to do anything as parents.
That's not a good argument. This is just one big crap shoot? Maybe something horrible will happen. Maybe some "solution" will make things better. Maybe we'll be better off or maybe we won't. "Do I feel lucky?" No science doesn't operate that way. We don't just throw a dart and hope that is the solution.
Whatever bad scenario you cast in your mind when you contemplate doing something about climate change, keep in mind that doing nothing will cause things to get much, much worst.
Why? Why should anyone "keep in mind" something that isn't known, isn't provable and still quite open to question. Given that we keep seeing statements from scientists saying "Gee, things aren't nearly as bad as we predicted they would be by now", why should we take as fact the assumption that things will get "much, much worse". If we take that as fact we have lost all objectivity.
Following that, why should we assume that "doing something" will make things better? Or, at least, make things "less bad". There is every possibility that doing "something" could make things "much, much worse".
You want everyone to assume that doing "nothing" (and that isn't actually what's happening) would "make things much, much worse" and that doing "something" would fix it. You've stacked the deck in favor of your proposition to "do something" even if there is no evidence that that would solve anything.
Personally, if we are going to dramatically change our economy and our lives, and possibly make a lot of people suffer, I'd prefer a path with fewer assumptions and more hard evidence that the proposed "somethings" would actually do good.
No, it was called Greenland as a marketing ploy. Greenland:
"The name Greenland comes from the early Scandinavian settlers. In the Icelandic sagas, it is said that Norwegian-born Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder. He, along with his extended family and thralls, set out in ships to find a land rumored to lie to the northwest. After settling there, he named the land Grønland ("Greenland"), supposedly in the hope that the pleasant name would attract settlers."
Did you miss the parts where the article stated "it is said that" and "supposedly in the hope that". In case you have difficulty parsing that, it means there is no proof. It's myth.
So, when you said "No, it was.., a marketing ploy" you were quoting a myth as if it were fact.
You need to work out how to tell myth from fact, it would improve your later postings.
Rather than "immensely stupid", I think this is immensely good. Oracle is claiming that you cannot create any implementation of the Java language (which Sun open sourced) without paying Oracle. This is evil and greedy and wrong. Google could have just folded and passed the cost onto the users -- but that would be agreeing with Oracle and giving them precedent and power.
Let me repeat that: Google could have easily caved and passed the cost on to the users. Financially, it would have been a "smart" decision -- ethically wrong but beancounter smart.
Google decided to fight for the rights of developers to use Java as Sun promised they could.
Sun open sourced Java and encouraged people to use it -- even in independent, unlicensed ways. You could say that, when Oracle bought Sun, they also bought Sun's promises and obligations and now they are betraying those promises.
And you call Google's actions "immensely stupid". You must be a beancounter.
They want people to wear Google Goggles which will give your data to Google.
Did you miss the fact that there are no "Google Goggles"? How can "they" want people to wear Google Goggles when they don't exist?
Did you miss the fact that there are "Google Goggles"? Have a look here. Guess what El Goog does with all those crummy pixel streams coming thru those shaky phone'cum'webcams? Right.
The original comment talks about "people wearing Google Goggles", which meant, to me, they were referring to the concept "Google Glasses" that Google announced recently. One does not "wear" Google Goggles.
We both were using the wrong name for "Google Glasses".
I don't think "don't use the internet" is a reasonable suggestion just if you want to avoid Google's spying. And aside from how stupid suggestion that is, it doesn't just include internet anymore. Google is driving around the world and photographing everyones life with their cars.
How is one snapshot of a public roadway "photographing everyone's life"?
They want people to wear Google Goggles which will give your data to Google.
Did you miss the fact that there are no "Google Goggles"? How can "they" want people to wear Google Goggles when they don't exist?
You cannot anymore escape Google by just not using their services. Even if you don't use them, someone else will make data about you available to Google.
And, even if this were true, how is this Google's fault?
We need to regulate these things before it gets out of hand. And in fact many countries with stricter privacy laws have (like most of Europe), but Google just ignores them and pay the fines they might get.
[citation needed]
They know they will eventually make much more money by openly abusing now so they can establish it all.
Panic! Emergency! The sky is falling and Google is to blame!!!!!!1111! Wow, hyperbole much?
Google is moving for a mistrial on the first jury question not on the rest of the verdict. As I understand it, mistrial on that part allows that part to be retried.
From Groklaw: "The judge has stated, pending judgment as a matter of law, that there is "zero finding of copyright liability" other than the 9 lines of code to which Oracle's damages report attributes no value."
In other words, a very good day for Google, not Oracle.
All companies and all people build on what came before -- without necessarily giving credit or money or even being aware how much they depend on the inspiration (and hard work) of others. The fact that they pay for some of others' ideas and hard work does not prove they paid for all or even most of the prior concepts, ideas and hard work of others. This is actually perfectly fine and inevitable.
What is wrong is to build something based in part on concepts, ideas and hard work of hundreds (thousands) of others who came before and then claim you own those concepts and ideas and now everyone must pay. That's the way the world works today but that doesn't make it right.
"Settle" translation: We want Google to pay us lots and lots of money for OUR ideas (which we took from everyone who came before us -- and never paid for.).
Clearly Google did something with Java that Sun didn't want.
According to the documents Google is showing, Sun was very happy with what Google did with Android. Even immediately after Oracle bought Sun, Oracle made happy-happy noises. It was only later, after Oracle failed to create their own Java-based phone, that Oracle decided to go after Android for money.
The problem with Climate Change isn't the science or the scientists, it's the politics and politicians. "Climate Change" is primarily owned by political forces who are using it as a tool to force their agenda. The different political groups use their influence to fund and support "research" to support their agenda.
What is lost in all the political maneuvering, posturing, lying and name-calling is science. I doubt any of the politicians care about the science, they only care about what they can make "science" say to further their agenda. Science rarely deals in absolutes in their research but, with "Climate Change" they are being required to say "This is so. This will happen." or "This will not happen". These are not scientific statements, these are statements to further political aims.
It is difficult to ferret out the actual truth because both sides have worked so hard to twist and manipulate things. Even some scientists have become politicized.
I just wish it were just scientists doing science, but that is just not going to happen with trillions of dollars at stake for both sides.
"Climate Change" isn't about science, it's about control -- and, yes, I'm talking about both sides.
1. Make up some silly theory about some problem without any research or proof.
2. Say it has something to do with the Intertubes!
3. Write a book
4....
5. Profit!!!1!
"Most of the computer scenarios found population and economic growth continuing at a steady rate until about 2030. But without 'drastic measures for environmental protection,' the scenarios predict the likelihood of a population and economic crash."
I dunno, the programmer side of me says, "Sounds like they've found a glitch in their algorithms and assumptions."
Slashdot Mirror
LOL! Oh, yeah! An age-18 "wall"! Ooooh! You have to click an "I am over 18" button. Yeah, children under 18 will never click that button. Yeah, let's all give thanks there is a "wall" there!!! Now our children are "protected" and we don't have to do anything as parents.
Got kids?
Got Internet?
Do what you should do to protect your kids online.
Don't blame Wikipedia, Google or whoever if you fail as a parent.
That's not a good argument. This is just one big crap shoot? Maybe something horrible will happen. Maybe some "solution" will make things better. Maybe we'll be better off or maybe we won't. "Do I feel lucky?" No science doesn't operate that way. We don't just throw a dart and hope that is the solution.
Whatever bad scenario you cast in your mind when you contemplate doing something about climate change, keep in mind that doing nothing will cause things to get much, much worst.
Why? Why should anyone "keep in mind" something that isn't known, isn't provable and still quite open to question. Given that we keep seeing statements from scientists saying "Gee, things aren't nearly as bad as we predicted they would be by now", why should we take as fact the assumption that things will get "much, much worse". If we take that as fact we have lost all objectivity.
Following that, why should we assume that "doing something" will make things better? Or, at least, make things "less bad". There is every possibility that doing "something" could make things "much, much worse".
You want everyone to assume that doing "nothing" (and that isn't actually what's happening) would "make things much, much worse" and that doing "something" would fix it. You've stacked the deck in favor of your proposition to "do something" even if there is no evidence that that would solve anything.
Personally, if we are going to dramatically change our economy and our lives, and possibly make a lot of people suffer, I'd prefer a path with fewer assumptions and more hard evidence that the proposed "somethings" would actually do good.
But that's just me.
no it was called greenland because it was green.
No, it was called Greenland as a marketing ploy. Greenland:
"The name Greenland comes from the early Scandinavian settlers. In the Icelandic sagas, it is said that Norwegian-born Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder. He, along with his extended family and thralls, set out in ships to find a land rumored to lie to the northwest. After settling there, he named the land Grønland ("Greenland"), supposedly in the hope that the pleasant name would attract settlers."
Did you miss the parts where the article stated "it is said that" and "supposedly in the hope that". In case you have difficulty parsing that, it means there is no proof. It's myth.
So, when you said "No, it was.., a marketing ploy" you were quoting a myth as if it were fact.
You need to work out how to tell myth from fact, it would improve your later postings.
If he is a member of the "most powerful organization on Earth", why is he in hiding? What a dork!
Rather than "immensely stupid", I think this is immensely good. Oracle is claiming that you cannot create any implementation of the Java language (which Sun open sourced) without paying Oracle. This is evil and greedy and wrong. Google could have just folded and passed the cost onto the users -- but that would be agreeing with Oracle and giving them precedent and power.
Let me repeat that: Google could have easily caved and passed the cost on to the users. Financially, it would have been a "smart" decision -- ethically wrong but beancounter smart.
Google decided to fight for the rights of developers to use Java as Sun promised they could.
Sun open sourced Java and encouraged people to use it -- even in independent, unlicensed ways. You could say that, when Oracle bought Sun, they also bought Sun's promises and obligations and now they are betraying those promises.
And you call Google's actions "immensely stupid". You must be a beancounter.
They want people to wear Google Goggles which will give your data to Google.
Did you miss the fact that there are no "Google Goggles"? How can "they" want people to wear Google Goggles when they don't exist?
Did you miss the fact that there are "Google Goggles"? Have a look here. Guess what El Goog does with all those crummy pixel streams coming thru those shaky phone'cum'webcams? Right.
The original comment talks about "people wearing Google Goggles", which meant, to me, they were referring to the concept "Google Glasses" that Google announced recently. One does not "wear" Google Goggles.
We both were using the wrong name for "Google Glasses".
You are right, "Google Goggles" already exist.
Google just ignores them and pay the fines they might get.
[citation still needed]
Hint: It's a lie.
I don't think "don't use the internet" is a reasonable suggestion just if you want to avoid Google's spying. And aside from how stupid suggestion that is, it doesn't just include internet anymore. Google is driving around the world and photographing everyones life with their cars.
How is one snapshot of a public roadway "photographing everyone's life"?
They want people to wear Google Goggles which will give your data to Google.
Did you miss the fact that there are no "Google Goggles"? How can "they" want people to wear Google Goggles when they don't exist?
You cannot anymore escape Google by just not using their services. Even if you don't use them, someone else will make data about you available to Google.
And, even if this were true, how is this Google's fault?
We need to regulate these things before it gets out of hand. And in fact many countries with stricter privacy laws have (like most of Europe), but Google just ignores them and pay the fines they might get.
[citation needed]
They know they will eventually make much more money by openly abusing now so they can establish it all.
Panic! Emergency! The sky is falling and Google is to blame!!!!!!1111! Wow, hyperbole much?
Nice answer!
More from the judge on the copyright part of the trial (from Groklaw) "Judge: Zero finding of liability so far."
How is that not terrific news for Google and horrible news for Oracle? Talk about total denial, you've got it.
More from the judge on the copyright part of the trial (from Groklaw) "Judge: Zero finding of liability so far."
Google is moving for a mistrial on the first jury question not on the rest of the verdict. As I understand it, mistrial on that part allows that part to be retried.
From Groklaw: "The judge has stated, pending judgment as a matter of law, that there is "zero finding of copyright liability" other than the 9 lines of code to which Oracle's damages report attributes no value."
In other words, a very good day for Google, not Oracle.
No, your chestnuts are fine.
All companies and all people build on what came before -- without necessarily giving credit or money or even being aware how much they depend on the inspiration (and hard work) of others. The fact that they pay for some of others' ideas and hard work does not prove they paid for all or even most of the prior concepts, ideas and hard work of others. This is actually perfectly fine and inevitable.
What is wrong is to build something based in part on concepts, ideas and hard work of hundreds (thousands) of others who came before and then claim you own those concepts and ideas and now everyone must pay. That's the way the world works today but that doesn't make it right.
Stop calling these people "cybercriminals"! Just don't. They are criminals, not androids, robots, AI entities or "cyber" anything.
... cyberstupid.
God, I so hate people labeling everything even remotely related to the Internet as "cyber-".
It's, it's
Correlation does not indicate causation.
Apple's iPhone was not the first phone with that form factor.
"Settle" translation: We want Google to pay us lots and lots of money for OUR ideas (which we took from everyone who came before us -- and never paid for.).
A true professional should be able to ...
Well, that certainly leaves out Florian Mueller then.
Clearly Google did something with Java that Sun didn't want.
According to the documents Google is showing, Sun was very happy with what Google did with Android. Even immediately after Oracle bought Sun, Oracle made happy-happy noises. It was only later, after Oracle failed to create their own Java-based phone, that Oracle decided to go after Android for money.
The problem with Climate Change isn't the science or the scientists, it's the politics and politicians. "Climate Change" is primarily owned by political forces who are using it as a tool to force their agenda. The different political groups use their influence to fund and support "research" to support their agenda.
What is lost in all the political maneuvering, posturing, lying and name-calling is science. I doubt any of the politicians care about the science, they only care about what they can make "science" say to further their agenda. Science rarely deals in absolutes in their research but, with "Climate Change" they are being required to say "This is so. This will happen." or "This will not happen". These are not scientific statements, these are statements to further political aims.
It is difficult to ferret out the actual truth because both sides have worked so hard to twist and manipulate things. Even some scientists have become politicized.
I just wish it were just scientists doing science, but that is just not going to happen with trillions of dollars at stake for both sides.
"Climate Change" isn't about science, it's about control -- and, yes, I'm talking about both sides.
[citation needed]
1. Make up some silly theory about some problem without any research or proof. ...
2. Say it has something to do with the Intertubes!
3. Write a book
4.
5. Profit!!!1!
"Most of the computer scenarios found population and economic growth continuing at a steady rate until about 2030. But without 'drastic measures for environmental protection,' the scenarios predict the likelihood of a population and economic crash."
I dunno, the programmer side of me says, "Sounds like they've found a glitch in their algorithms and assumptions."