What do you think copyright is designed to do? It is designed to give a monopoly on the distribution rights of certain works. Yes, Ford has a monopoly on selling Ford stuff, but that's because of their monopoly on the use of "Ford" enforced through trademarks. The difference is that the products offered by Ford and Toyota under their monopoly brands are not different enough to create significant switching barrier. However, copyrighted works have to differ significantly to be able to be sold - if they don't, it's copyright infringement.
So yes, there is a monopoly at work here.
It's also a case of buyers and sellers negotiating a price, but realize that the market in which the negotiation takes place is not a free market. One side has significantly less bargaining power than the other.
Welcome to corporations gaming the social world. They understand that advertisements only barely work, and are looking to game the system we trust. Expect it to get worse, as social network datamining and posting tools improve from their current stone-age level.
Instead of reading a blog, you should read the actual article. Much more informative, and much less wrong. See above for various links with far more informational content than Watt's blog.
Yes, and QED is just a computer model. Unless I see specific comments on what is wrong with the individual models, this makes as much sense as "automobile expert says that feeding one gear into another gear that feeds into another gear that drives a shaft that drives more gears is not a valid way to move an object."
I think what's kinda telling is that the prediction services and government agencies can't win. Shrug it off as another storm; people crucify you if one person dies. Sound the alarm, shut down major cities, and people crucify you if there aren't at least a few hundred dead. Unless everything happens exactly according to predictions, and everything can be fixed up within a week, it's a major disaster and scapegoats need to be scapegoated. And the media is definitely part of the problem. We are hardwired to look at how people in our surroundings behave to figure out how we should behave. If everyone on TV is going ape-shit, we're going to go ape-shit as well. I'd love the news media to take a hard look at how they report on events, and how it influences the discussion around events.
I guess there's a reason that the only news agencies I've paid money for in the last 5 years are The Economist and my local public radio station.
You, unlike a corporation, will die at some point. Furthermore, a lease needs to be approved by both parties. Copyright extensions only need to be approved by one party to the deal, with said party being immortal.
Like most Economists, you're assuming that people make long-term, rational decisions when deciding about purchases or actions. They don't. They mostly go for the immediate fix, for the immediate pleasure rather than the delayed one, etc.
And that's even ignoring the fact that in some situations, even culling a small percentage of the population puts the entire species at risk.
I'm not going to go through the paper again to show you the quote that you misunderstood, so I'll just ask you to support your claim by quoting the relevant part of the original paper. Good luck with that.
I stop paying attention to people who don't understand what censorship really is. It's as sad and pathetic as white people complaining that they're being oppressed. To quote South Park: "You don't get it."
And yet, the CERN research showed that cosmic rays are at best a tiny fraction of the nucleation factors that create clouds.
I remember when this possibility came up during climate change discussions. What you were most likely modded down for is that you took a very speculative article with little supporting evidence, and trumpeted it as proof that AGW is bogus.
Sometimes, the masses are right, and they are laughing at Bozo the clown.
Employment status is often - not always - but often - a good gauge of whether someone is an adult and whether they are the kind of person I, personally, am interested (read: motivated, adult, capable of supporting themselves)
Ok, so now we're in the details. How often is often? 51%? 99% Why?
But here's the more important question: Border's laid off pretty much its entire work force. Cape Canaveral is going to see a massive exodus of engineers. Lockheed Martin lost a good chunk of its workers. Do these people undergo a phase change from being a motivated adult, capable of supporting themselves to leeches on society? Yes? No? Why? Focus on how their personality changes. Show your work. Also include how many people are unemployed because of a company lay-off versus because they'd rather not work than work.
The more you post, and the more I'm convinced that the value you're assigning to employment is as asinine as the one of Gold diggers. And at least, Gold diggers are straight forward in their assessment: money is more important than personality. You, on the other hand, use a proxy for personality that is at best very weakly correlated with it. I wish you best of luck in your endeavors, but I'll have very little understanding or compassion if your search fails.
Judging from the comments, I have no idea whether people are modding me up because they get the sarcasm, or because they agree that Volcanoes emit more CO2 than people, or are modding me down for the opposite reasons.
Kinda funny that one post can be read in two exactly opposite ways. And there people thought that context was dead.
The logic of the slide is correct. There is a diminishing return, and, for a given amount of IR radiation, there is a limit where adding more CO2 to the system isn't going to change the radiation profile. However, the question is where we are in that range. I haven't seen any evidence for the notion that we are indeed at a point where additional CO2 won't have any measurable impact on IR absorption.
Structures built on permafrost will have to be completely rebuilt once the permafrost goes. Permafrost is also sequestering significant amounts of methane. Don't knock the status quo until you have tried the alternatives.
Because CO2 is part of a positive feedback loop for global temperatures. Once CO2 goes up, temperatures keep going up, regardless of why they went up in the first place. Another way to start the loop is to increase CO2 concentrations.
1: CO2 doesn't absorb as much IR as generally accepted theory states. 2: Volcanoes emit more CO2 in one explosion than all of humanity in one year.
There. That was easy. I think understand why people like to post these statements. It's so easy, you get to feel so smug, you don't need to read actual research papers or do real research..... Man, being ignorant is kinda cool. Maybe I can even make money off of it... although that field is awfully crowded right now.
They all drink from the same teat of government money, and therefore are all in cahoots. No one working in universities or research groups has any credibility. The only people who are not biased are the ones who only have a web site, and have otherwise nothing to do with climate science.
Did I get that right? I figured I'd save a lot of people some time by posting their argument now. Sometimes I wonder why these stories are still posted. Nothing short of a personal disaster is going to change these people's minds. And then, I expect the equivalent of the placard that told the federal government to keep its hands off of Medicare.
Ugh. I'm responding to this just because I've had this exact discussion with my girlfriend (full disclosure - I met her on a dating site). My question always is: I've been unemployed in the past. Sometimes for more than a few months. I've had shitty night-shift jobs to cover living expenses. Yet I'm apparently awesome enough that she sticks around. So why let a temporary situation that has nothing to do with who I am dictate whether to get to know me? The answer I got back was the same as yours - that the quality of the nest is an important part of women being attracted to men. Well, fine, but then don't go bitch to me about how there are no good men around. You're artificially reducing the pool of available men based on a criteria that is utterly temporary and is only marginally related to who that person is.
Furthermore, why stop at a man being unemployed? Why not just flat out say "He has to make at least 50K a year and own at least 800 square feet of home? Why not 100k? Why not a 2000 square foot home? Because those are just material things that are not important to a person? Yeah.... if that's your response, you're just papering over the fact that you have decided that someone like that is probably out of your league. You decided your price was employment and their own place, others decided that their price was 100k and 2000 square feet.
I'm not going to date an out-of-work guy and I think he probably shouldn't be dating either as he has bigger problems to work on than being dateless.
Really? The only thing he should be doing is to find a job? No social life, no meeting new people, no going out on a date in the park? You do realize that the only people who work like that are people who don't socialize to begin with, right? Not to mention that the social network is what keeps people going in tough times? And don't feed me the line that dating is different from socializing. Dating is just socializing with a different end-goal in mind.
The point of my post, and the larger point of TFA, is that without getting past that first part you can't get to the part that involves timing, spark or luck.
And my point to you is that I'm tired of hearing women complain about the lack of men, when their selection criteria contain items that have nothing to do with what makes a relationship successful. Unless, of course, your measurement of a successful relationship is the number of digits in your bank account.
I thought it was long established that autism has strong genetics factors, and that mild forms of autism are more strongly represented in technical fields than non-technical fields. Why is it shocking that when two people marry who are both from a population with a strong predisposition towards autism, their child has a higher chance to get autism as well?
Either there's something in the paper I'm missing, or the submitter got trolled by the language used in the paper.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you think copyright is designed to do? It is designed to give a monopoly on the distribution rights of certain works. Yes, Ford has a monopoly on selling Ford stuff, but that's because of their monopoly on the use of "Ford" enforced through trademarks. The difference is that the products offered by Ford and Toyota under their monopoly brands are not different enough to create significant switching barrier. However, copyrighted works have to differ significantly to be able to be sold - if they don't, it's copyright infringement.
So yes, there is a monopoly at work here.
It's also a case of buyers and sellers negotiating a price, but realize that the market in which the negotiation takes place is not a free market. One side has significantly less bargaining power than the other.
Welcome to corporations gaming the social world. They understand that advertisements only barely work, and are looking to game the system we trust. Expect it to get worse, as social network datamining and posting tools improve from their current stone-age level.
Instead of reading a blog, you should read the actual article. Much more informative, and much less wrong. See above for various links with far more informational content than Watt's blog.
Pretty weak troll. You should have stopped after paragraph one. About a 3 on a scale of 1-10. For the record, Dr. Bob sits at a solid 10.
Yes, and QED is just a computer model. Unless I see specific comments on what is wrong with the individual models, this makes as much sense as "automobile expert says that feeding one gear into another gear that feeds into another gear that drives a shaft that drives more gears is not a valid way to move an object."
I think what's kinda telling is that the prediction services and government agencies can't win. Shrug it off as another storm; people crucify you if one person dies. Sound the alarm, shut down major cities, and people crucify you if there aren't at least a few hundred dead. Unless everything happens exactly according to predictions, and everything can be fixed up within a week, it's a major disaster and scapegoats need to be scapegoated. And the media is definitely part of the problem. We are hardwired to look at how people in our surroundings behave to figure out how we should behave. If everyone on TV is going ape-shit, we're going to go ape-shit as well. I'd love the news media to take a hard look at how they report on events, and how it influences the discussion around events.
I guess there's a reason that the only news agencies I've paid money for in the last 5 years are The Economist and my local public radio station.
You're still on that? Haven't people explained to you already a million times the difference between weather and climate?
You, unlike a corporation, will die at some point. Furthermore, a lease needs to be approved by both parties. Copyright extensions only need to be approved by one party to the deal, with said party being immortal.
See the difference?
Sure is. The head of the government isn't an inherited position. The more interesting country is the DPRK, which gets everything wrong in its name.
Like most Economists, you're assuming that people make long-term, rational decisions when deciding about purchases or actions. They don't. They mostly go for the immediate fix, for the immediate pleasure rather than the delayed one, etc.
And that's even ignoring the fact that in some situations, even culling a small percentage of the population puts the entire species at risk.
I'm not going to go through the paper again to show you the quote that you misunderstood, so I'll just ask you to support your claim by quoting the relevant part of the original paper. Good luck with that.
I stop paying attention to people who don't understand what censorship really is. It's as sad and pathetic as white people complaining that they're being oppressed. To quote South Park: "You don't get it."
And yet, the CERN research showed that cosmic rays are at best a tiny fraction of the nucleation factors that create clouds.
I remember when this possibility came up during climate change discussions. What you were most likely modded down for is that you took a very speculative article with little supporting evidence, and trumpeted it as proof that AGW is bogus.
Sometimes, the masses are right, and they are laughing at Bozo the clown.
Employment status is often - not always - but often - a good gauge of whether someone is an adult and whether they are the kind of person I, personally, am interested (read: motivated, adult, capable of supporting themselves)
Ok, so now we're in the details. How often is often? 51%? 99% Why?
But here's the more important question: Border's laid off pretty much its entire work force. Cape Canaveral is going to see a massive exodus of engineers. Lockheed Martin lost a good chunk of its workers. Do these people undergo a phase change from being a motivated adult, capable of supporting themselves to leeches on society? Yes? No? Why? Focus on how their personality changes. Show your work. Also include how many people are unemployed because of a company lay-off versus because they'd rather not work than work.
The more you post, and the more I'm convinced that the value you're assigning to employment is as asinine as the one of Gold diggers. And at least, Gold diggers are straight forward in their assessment: money is more important than personality. You, on the other hand, use a proxy for personality that is at best very weakly correlated with it. I wish you best of luck in your endeavors, but I'll have very little understanding or compassion if your search fails.
Judging from the comments, I have no idea whether people are modding me up because they get the sarcasm, or because they agree that Volcanoes emit more CO2 than people, or are modding me down for the opposite reasons.
Kinda funny that one post can be read in two exactly opposite ways. And there people thought that context was dead.
The logic of the slide is correct. There is a diminishing return, and, for a given amount of IR radiation, there is a limit where adding more CO2 to the system isn't going to change the radiation profile. However, the question is where we are in that range. I haven't seen any evidence for the notion that we are indeed at a point where additional CO2 won't have any measurable impact on IR absorption.
Structures built on permafrost will have to be completely rebuilt once the permafrost goes. Permafrost is also sequestering significant amounts of methane. Don't knock the status quo until you have tried the alternatives.
Yeah. I'm either not nearly as funny as I think I am, or people take this stuff too seriously. Either way, I think I need that sarcasm punctuation.
Psst. Might want to read the full post. Or calibrate your irony meter.
Because CO2 is part of a positive feedback loop for global temperatures. Once CO2 goes up, temperatures keep going up, regardless of why they went up in the first place. Another way to start the loop is to increase CO2 concentrations.
Capiche?
Water vapor is not a forcing effect, and doesn't create a positive feed back loop. Try again.
1: CO2 doesn't absorb as much IR as generally accepted theory states.
2: Volcanoes emit more CO2 in one explosion than all of humanity in one year.
There. That was easy. I think understand why people like to post these statements. It's so easy, you get to feel so smug, you don't need to read actual research papers or do real research..... Man, being ignorant is kinda cool. Maybe I can even make money off of it... although that field is awfully crowded right now.
They all drink from the same teat of government money, and therefore are all in cahoots. No one working in universities or research groups has any credibility. The only people who are not biased are the ones who only have a web site, and have otherwise nothing to do with climate science.
Did I get that right? I figured I'd save a lot of people some time by posting their argument now. Sometimes I wonder why these stories are still posted. Nothing short of a personal disaster is going to change these people's minds. And then, I expect the equivalent of the placard that told the federal government to keep its hands off of Medicare.
Do be employed, don't live at home.
Ugh. I'm responding to this just because I've had this exact discussion with my girlfriend (full disclosure - I met her on a dating site). My question always is: I've been unemployed in the past. Sometimes for more than a few months. I've had shitty night-shift jobs to cover living expenses. Yet I'm apparently awesome enough that she sticks around. So why let a temporary situation that has nothing to do with who I am dictate whether to get to know me? The answer I got back was the same as yours - that the quality of the nest is an important part of women being attracted to men. Well, fine, but then don't go bitch to me about how there are no good men around. You're artificially reducing the pool of available men based on a criteria that is utterly temporary and is only marginally related to who that person is.
Furthermore, why stop at a man being unemployed? Why not just flat out say "He has to make at least 50K a year and own at least 800 square feet of home? Why not 100k? Why not a 2000 square foot home? Because those are just material things that are not important to a person? Yeah.... if that's your response, you're just papering over the fact that you have decided that someone like that is probably out of your league. You decided your price was employment and their own place, others decided that their price was 100k and 2000 square feet.
I'm not going to date an out-of-work guy and I think he probably shouldn't be dating either as he has bigger problems to work on than being dateless.
Really? The only thing he should be doing is to find a job? No social life, no meeting new people, no going out on a date in the park? You do realize that the only people who work like that are people who don't socialize to begin with, right? Not to mention that the social network is what keeps people going in tough times? And don't feed me the line that dating is different from socializing. Dating is just socializing with a different end-goal in mind.
The point of my post, and the larger point of TFA, is that without getting past that first part you can't get to the part that involves timing, spark or luck.
And my point to you is that I'm tired of hearing women complain about the lack of men, when their selection criteria contain items that have nothing to do with what makes a relationship successful. Unless, of course, your measurement of a successful relationship is the number of digits in your bank account.
I thought it was long established that autism has strong genetics factors, and that mild forms of autism are more strongly represented in technical fields than non-technical fields. Why is it shocking that when two people marry who are both from a population with a strong predisposition towards autism, their child has a higher chance to get autism as well?
Either there's something in the paper I'm missing, or the submitter got trolled by the language used in the paper.