Oh, if it were just that easy. It is impossible for me to get DSL from anybody but SBC. The best I can do is to go through someone who leases their lines from SBC. So if I don't want to route through SBC, I'm hosed. I'm completely dependent on the way they deal with traffic (which sucks, btw).
Why does that matter? The root cause of this idea is that SBC wants to suck as much money as possible from servers. Ultimately, this means metered connections, as well as the ability to shut off traffic completely, based on how much someone else pays SBC. Because what's the easiest way to enable tiered service? By reducing someone's capacity. And I know that SBC is stupid and greedy enough to go this route. So what does this mean for me? Let's say I create the next Gamefaqs.com or the next Craiglist.org. IGN or the Sunday Times could (nah, make that will) pay SBC to have their pages load faster than mine, since I'm in direct competition with them. What can I do? This is a hobby for me, not a job. I can't do anything but take it like a man and cry myself to sleep.
The guaranteed end of this kind of development is the stagnation of the Internet, with all new development coming from people with deep pockets. And we all know how much they innovate.
We can either do what makes us feel morally righteous and preach environmentalism to deaf ears, or use our technology, expertise, and money to find real solutions
Good point. It's more than that though. Technology is good. But the danger is that it is used to create more problems than it solves - see the Everglades. Most often, when people want to use technology to fix a problem, it is more akin to throw iron into the Pacific and induce an algae bloom that traps more CO2. Politicians and people like it because it is big and is something they can see. Unfortunately, it creates many more problems than it solves - and that's what needs to be avoided.
You missed the point. I guess that's partially the fault of my analogy - it wasn't the best one there.
I didn't say to stop all fixes. What is needed instead of even grander attempts at controlling nature is to reduce our impact on nature. The reason behind this is simple:
a) We don't have to worry about dealing with a massive amount of new interdependencies. We simply go back to a previous state.
b) It is cheap and simple. Did you know that LA wastes alone wastes about 200 million gallons of water a year, simply because people do not shut off the water faucet when they brush their teeth?
In short, what I was looking for is fewer grand schemes that smack of "look at the amount of money I'm spending! I must be doing something good!". We have plenty of failures in that area already
It would have. Because you conveniently left out an important part of the punishment: "a treaty designed to economically punish the United States for a few years for being far more responsible for CO2 on a per capita basis than any other nation in the world".
Good lord - did all the armchair scientists suddenly crawl out of their holes? This effect is called Thermohaline conversion, and the reason it is slowing down is because the melting arctic is reducing the salt content in the Atlantic.
At least google some info on this stuff before quoting your High School research from 20 years ago.
Yes, because all our current tinkering with the climate has been such a rousing success that we need to increase it. Check our success with the Everglades, the Assuan dam, etc. Let me guess - when you fall down a cliff and break your legs, you go back up and try again to see if it works better the second time?
The reason that this is important is that it validates some of the predictions made by the global warming models (http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/climate_dynamics/cli mate_impact_webpage.html/). Pay specific attention to the section titled "Thermohaline circulation changes". Essentially, it states that with the arctic ice melting, more sweet water (non-salty) gets released into the Atlantic Ocean, which changes the density of the water there, which in turn disrupts the gulf stream that keeps Europe warm.
It seems the idiots are out in force today. All I see is stupid "The Day after Tomorrow" jokes and braindead comments about how they think that "the earth is supposed to get warmer, and now it's getting colder! Stupid scientists!". Sheesh. Apparently, science education has been going downhill long before Intelligent Design flap.
Metropolis Street Racer was originally code named Project Gotham Racing. When the game moved to the Xbox, it became Project Gotham Racing. See also http://www.bizarrecreations.com/bc/games.htm/
As a security measure, I'm going to attach an explosive collar to your neck, complete with tracking system and personal identification. If you want to high jack a plane and crash it into a tower, we'll just blow the collar. If you do not, you will be completely safe.
Do you get the problem now? Security measures should not be accepted just because they are security measures. Lawcritters will make stupid rules, and it is everyone's job to keep a watchful eye on the lawcritters to make sure that they don't pass these laws. Unfortunately, in this day and age, it sometimes requires some disruptive antics to get your point properly across - not only to the lawcritters, but also to everyone involved.
Kudos to Stallmann for standing up for his beliefs in a non-violent, yet visible and effective manner. We need more people like him.
If they don't control the songs when they break away, they don't control them when they stay. I believe that was the major reason Prince broke from WB - he had no control over what they did with his songs, so why should he provide them with more?
The reasons artists don't break away is that they'll make less money than when the label is promoting them, and because the label generally owns their ass anyway.
Counterpoint to your devil's advocate - the countless project managers, receptionists, engineers, promoters, executives and more are completely replaceable and interchangeable. Not only among their peers, but among the population in general. David Gibbon is the only one who makes David Gibbon music. As such, he is far more valuable than anybody else.
Now, you would be right to say that a lot of musicians just imitate other musicians, and that there are good and bad musicians. True. But the musician is still the only component of the music-making business that is absolutely critical for its existence. All others are incidental, and merely feed off of the original product.
This is the USPTO we're talking about, which has never seen a patent it didn't like. It's never too early to start sounding the alarm bells when it comes to the USPTO.
When did Google start to index copyrighted works? The only books scanned so far are the ones where the copyright has expired, or copyrighted books which are out of print. Since the original author and publisher aren't profiting from the out-of-print books either, it is hard to argue that Google is somehow depriving them of income.
Regarding your last point - copyright is designed to increase the profit you reap from your creation. In your example, Google's approach is also increasing your profit. What's wrong with that?
Ever heard of diminishing returns? Apparently not. Ever heard of serendipity? Didn't think so. I'm glad there's people out there whose curiosity pushes them to investigate things that seem trivial and obvious, because no one knows where the next big breakthrough will come from.
Are they trying to make life insanely difficult for student and amateur video makers?
Of course they do. Remember son, this isn't about piracy. This is about control and owning the channel over which we get our entertainment. And this bill is one step closer to their wet dream - having a legislated monopoly over all entertainment.
Hey, this is the first I actually ran across one of your comments.:) Be assured that there will be some sort of penalty for these sorts of "accidents". I think I'll prefer tinfoil jackets for my passport.:)
Tooth
Now, if someone tells you that the eye cannot be explained through evolutionary mechanisms, do you respond that, well, ID can't be tested through the scientific method, so you're wrong?
That's actually not what the article is saying. What the article says is that since ID can't be tested, it has no place in a science class. Instead, the proper place for ID to be discussed is in philosophy class. Unfortunately, US public schools don't seem to have that class anymore.
Yet if Joe Redneck decides to stick his trailer 50 miles from nowhere who HAS to provide phone service for him?
Wrong. According to the FCC, over 6 million people have no land line. And a lot of these don't get phones because it is too expensive for the local phone monopoly to wire them up. This in spite of the Universal Service Charge fee that is on your phone bill, which was set up expressly to deal with this. In short, you got it all wrong. The Bells' only restriction was on long-distance data carriage, but other than that, they got to keep their monopoly and extract monopoly rents as well.
Little correction - Newton was not 100% wrong. In fact, it is amazing exactly how right he was when applied to the stuff he dealt with - apples, carts, stuff you can see and touch. What Einstein did was to offer an extension to Newton's theories that would expand them to the atomic level.
What this means is that you want to listen to what the scientists, and then see if it makes sense. You might not be able to come up with the theory of everything, but you might at least find out who the crackpots are. Science is a tool - use it. Saying that everything will change anyway, and that you can ignore everything that a scientists says means you're throwing science away as a tool.
Looks like you stayed awake in statistics, but didn't read the climate research. The problem is not that it is going up, the problem is that it is rising much faster than at any other point in the last 100,000 or so years.
I'll skip replying to your completely unsupported statements, such as models that were off by 300% in their temperature prediction (what, a model predicted that avg temperatures where supposed to be in the range of 200-400 degrees???), or that cutting human CO2 emissions will kill 1.5 billion people, and simply focus on where you actually provide some evidence for your random ramblings.
1) Models are inaccurate. True. No model takes into account ALL variables. That's why it is called a model. It takes the significant variables and removes the insignificant ones. However, the currently in vogue models are surprisingly good at predicting temperature evolutions. That's what matters. Not what variables a model uses.
2) The main cause of temperature increases is external, i.e. the sun. Shame you didn't read the article completely. Otherwise you would have read that the scientists in that article are quoted as stating that only about 10%-30% of the increase in surface temperatures can be attributed to the sun.
So far, you're exactly where everybody else is who is claiming that global warming is either not real, or that it is not our fault: with your head in the sand, ignoring anything that doesn't fit your preconceived notion.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, if it were just that easy. It is impossible for me to get DSL from anybody but SBC. The best I can do is to go through someone who leases their lines from SBC. So if I don't want to route through SBC, I'm hosed. I'm completely dependent on the way they deal with traffic (which sucks, btw). Why does that matter? The root cause of this idea is that SBC wants to suck as much money as possible from servers. Ultimately, this means metered connections, as well as the ability to shut off traffic completely, based on how much someone else pays SBC. Because what's the easiest way to enable tiered service? By reducing someone's capacity. And I know that SBC is stupid and greedy enough to go this route. So what does this mean for me? Let's say I create the next Gamefaqs.com or the next Craiglist.org. IGN or the Sunday Times could (nah, make that will) pay SBC to have their pages load faster than mine, since I'm in direct competition with them. What can I do? This is a hobby for me, not a job. I can't do anything but take it like a man and cry myself to sleep. The guaranteed end of this kind of development is the stagnation of the Internet, with all new development coming from people with deep pockets. And we all know how much they innovate.
Good point. It's more than that though. Technology is good. But the danger is that it is used to create more problems than it solves - see the Everglades. Most often, when people want to use technology to fix a problem, it is more akin to throw iron into the Pacific and induce an algae bloom that traps more CO2. Politicians and people like it because it is big and is something they can see. Unfortunately, it creates many more problems than it solves - and that's what needs to be avoided.
You missed the point. I guess that's partially the fault of my analogy - it wasn't the best one there. I didn't say to stop all fixes. What is needed instead of even grander attempts at controlling nature is to reduce our impact on nature. The reason behind this is simple: a) We don't have to worry about dealing with a massive amount of new interdependencies. We simply go back to a previous state. b) It is cheap and simple. Did you know that LA wastes alone wastes about 200 million gallons of water a year, simply because people do not shut off the water faucet when they brush their teeth? In short, what I was looking for is fewer grand schemes that smack of "look at the amount of money I'm spending! I must be doing something good!". We have plenty of failures in that area already
It would have. Because you conveniently left out an important part of the punishment: "a treaty designed to economically punish the United States for a few years for being far more responsible for CO2 on a per capita basis than any other nation in the world".
Good lord - did all the armchair scientists suddenly crawl out of their holes? This effect is called Thermohaline conversion, and the reason it is slowing down is because the melting arctic is reducing the salt content in the Atlantic. At least google some info on this stuff before quoting your High School research from 20 years ago.
Yes, because all our current tinkering with the climate has been such a rousing success that we need to increase it. Check our success with the Everglades, the Assuan dam, etc. Let me guess - when you fall down a cliff and break your legs, you go back up and try again to see if it works better the second time?
The reason that this is important is that it validates some of the predictions made by the global warming models (http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/climate_dynamics/cli mate_impact_webpage.html/). Pay specific attention to the section titled "Thermohaline circulation changes". Essentially, it states that with the arctic ice melting, more sweet water (non-salty) gets released into the Atlantic Ocean, which changes the density of the water there, which in turn disrupts the gulf stream that keeps Europe warm.
It seems the idiots are out in force today. All I see is stupid "The Day after Tomorrow" jokes and braindead comments about how they think that "the earth is supposed to get warmer, and now it's getting colder! Stupid scientists!". Sheesh. Apparently, science education has been going downhill long before Intelligent Design flap.
Metropolis Street Racer was originally code named Project Gotham Racing. When the game moved to the Xbox, it became Project Gotham Racing. See also http://www.bizarrecreations.com/bc/games.htm/
As a security measure, I'm going to attach an explosive collar to your neck, complete with tracking system and personal identification. If you want to high jack a plane and crash it into a tower, we'll just blow the collar. If you do not, you will be completely safe.
Do you get the problem now? Security measures should not be accepted just because they are security measures. Lawcritters will make stupid rules, and it is everyone's job to keep a watchful eye on the lawcritters to make sure that they don't pass these laws. Unfortunately, in this day and age, it sometimes requires some disruptive antics to get your point properly across - not only to the lawcritters, but also to everyone involved.
Kudos to Stallmann for standing up for his beliefs in a non-violent, yet visible and effective manner. We need more people like him.
If they don't control the songs when they break away, they don't control them when they stay. I believe that was the major reason Prince broke from WB - he had no control over what they did with his songs, so why should he provide them with more? The reasons artists don't break away is that they'll make less money than when the label is promoting them, and because the label generally owns their ass anyway.
You mean like Prince?
So you are the reason that I can't find 32/36 pants! At least I have an excuse now if I show up at work without pants.
Counterpoint to your devil's advocate - the countless project managers, receptionists, engineers, promoters, executives and more are completely replaceable and interchangeable. Not only among their peers, but among the population in general. David Gibbon is the only one who makes David Gibbon music. As such, he is far more valuable than anybody else.
Now, you would be right to say that a lot of musicians just imitate other musicians, and that there are good and bad musicians. True. But the musician is still the only component of the music-making business that is absolutely critical for its existence. All others are incidental, and merely feed off of the original product.
Or 4) they are in legal trouble. Like just happened in my company. Sigh. Enrons will always be around.
This is the USPTO we're talking about, which has never seen a patent it didn't like. It's never too early to start sounding the alarm bells when it comes to the USPTO.
When did Google start to index copyrighted works? The only books scanned so far are the ones where the copyright has expired, or copyrighted books which are out of print. Since the original author and publisher aren't profiting from the out-of-print books either, it is hard to argue that Google is somehow depriving them of income.
Regarding your last point - copyright is designed to increase the profit you reap from your creation. In your example, Google's approach is also increasing your profit. What's wrong with that?
Ever heard of diminishing returns? Apparently not. Ever heard of serendipity? Didn't think so. I'm glad there's people out there whose curiosity pushes them to investigate things that seem trivial and obvious, because no one knows where the next big breakthrough will come from.
Of course they do. Remember son, this isn't about piracy. This is about control and owning the channel over which we get our entertainment. And this bill is one step closer to their wet dream - having a legislated monopoly over all entertainment.
Hey, this is the first I actually ran across one of your comments. :) Be assured that there will be some sort of penalty for these sorts of "accidents". I think I'll prefer tinfoil jackets for my passport. :)
Tooth
That's actually not what the article is saying. What the article says is that since ID can't be tested, it has no place in a science class. Instead, the proper place for ID to be discussed is in philosophy class. Unfortunately, US public schools don't seem to have that class anymore.
Wrong. According to the FCC, over 6 million people have no land line. And a lot of these don't get phones because it is too expensive for the local phone monopoly to wire them up. This in spite of the Universal Service Charge fee that is on your phone bill, which was set up expressly to deal with this. In short, you got it all wrong. The Bells' only restriction was on long-distance data carriage, but other than that, they got to keep their monopoly and extract monopoly rents as well.
It's a sad world you live in if you believe that free speech is something that is granted and taken away at the whim of a constitutional amendment.
Little correction - Newton was not 100% wrong. In fact, it is amazing exactly how right he was when applied to the stuff he dealt with - apples, carts, stuff you can see and touch. What Einstein did was to offer an extension to Newton's theories that would expand them to the atomic level. What this means is that you want to listen to what the scientists, and then see if it makes sense. You might not be able to come up with the theory of everything, but you might at least find out who the crackpots are. Science is a tool - use it. Saying that everything will change anyway, and that you can ignore everything that a scientists says means you're throwing science away as a tool.
Looks like you stayed awake in statistics, but didn't read the climate research. The problem is not that it is going up, the problem is that it is rising much faster than at any other point in the last 100,000 or so years.
I'll skip replying to your completely unsupported statements, such as models that were off by 300% in their temperature prediction (what, a model predicted that avg temperatures where supposed to be in the range of 200-400 degrees???), or that cutting human CO2 emissions will kill 1.5 billion people, and simply focus on where you actually provide some evidence for your random ramblings.
1) Models are inaccurate.
True. No model takes into account ALL variables. That's why it is called a model. It takes the significant variables and removes the insignificant ones. However, the currently in vogue models are surprisingly good at predicting temperature evolutions. That's what matters. Not what variables a model uses.
2) The main cause of temperature increases is external, i.e. the sun.
Shame you didn't read the article completely. Otherwise you would have read that the scientists in that article are quoted as stating that only about 10%-30% of the increase in surface temperatures can be attributed to the sun.
So far, you're exactly where everybody else is who is claiming that global warming is either not real, or that it is not our fault: with your head in the sand, ignoring anything that doesn't fit your preconceived notion.