Far more then I ever imagined - I always assumed there was approximately as much as is cycled per year, turns out there is something like 1 million times as much, which just boggles my mind.
Try calculating the surface area of the earth, that's a start. Then you approximate how thick the atmosphere would be if it would have a constant density. Then you multiply the surface area of the earth with the thickness of the atmosphere, and you get the total volume. The density of air is about 1.3 kg/m^3, so now you have an approximation of the the mass.
I doubt that with out current CO2 release, we can extract "too much" carbon from the atmosphere.
Exactly. According to Wikipedia, 24 billion tons of CO2 are emitted every year from the combustion of fossil fuels. If the claims in the article are true, a square of 50x50 km entirely covered with these devices could capture all those 24 billion tons. I can't really believe that that many devices would be constructed, though enough could be put up to put a significant dent in the net emission.
And then in a couple of hundred years, when we pass the peak, and the temperature starts dropping towards the next ice age, we will have given it a head start.
If we come to a situation where a new ice age seems to be forming, why not release some of that sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere to keep the temperature stable? Nothing says that we shouldn't. Just like we could store more CO2 in periods of increasing temperature, to avoid the increase, since it does pose a lot of problems.
If we could stabilize the global temperature to the current level by varying the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, I'm all for it.
You know because the change is natural so we shouldn't change it right?
I bet you would also refrain from doing anything if a 10 km meteorite was detected on a certain collision course with the earth? I mean, "it's natural so we shouldn't try to avoid it".
The process of recycling paper is worse for the environment than simply "harvesting" new paper is.
I'd like a better explanation than the one you wrote. Wasting paper increases the demand for new trees, yes, but it also releases more CO2 into the atmosphere when the wasted paper is burned in the waste incinerator.
By recycling paper, you're ensuring that less trees get planted. If you want more trees, waste more paper.
But it also ensures that less trees are cut down. There is no intrinsic value in planting trees, it is done only to compensate for those that are cut down. With recycling, you cut down less trees and plant less trees, while if you waste paper (i.e. put a lot of it in the trash), a lot of trees are cut down and a lot are planted. The wasted paper is burned in an incinerator (releasing its carbon to the atmosphere) or placed on a landfill. Why is this better than recycling the paper? It just uses another carbon cycle.
The European Patent Office is regulated at the EU level.
Umm, no. The EPO is not an EU body, and cannot be regulated by the EU. The EPO was founded when the EPC was signed, and the set of countries that have signed the EPC is not the same set of countries that are members of the EU.
Telll you what, go pick up a friend whose a little heavier than you and carry him around for a while. You can't do it for six hours, dude!
Carrying something in your arms or anywhere else external to your body exerts a much greater strain on the body than if the mass was contained inside your body. The farther away from the body, the greater the strain. Compare lifting a weight with your outstretched arm to carrying it in a backpack. It feels a lot lighter in the backpack. If it was carried inside your body, it would pose much less of a problem.
We could take another example. My motorcycle helmet weighs 1.5 kg. I don't actually know how much my head weighs, but it is in the same order of magnitude. Keeping my helmet on in an upright position doesn't exert any noticeable strain on my neck, while it feels quite heavy if I lie down and lift my head.
Surface gravity does not scale linearly with planet mass.
If the planet radius is constant, it does, at least according to Newton's gravitational laws. But gravity also is inversely proportional to the square of the planet radius (given a constant mass), so a low density planet (large, but low mass) has lower gravity than a high density planet (small, but high mass), and the gravity decreases faster with increasing radius than it increases with increasing mass.
The planet in the article would have a gravity of approx. 2.223g according to my calculations.
Nope. They have to stick to what is written in the End User License Agreement like everybody else.
Except that the EULA uses laws for enforcement. If the licensor (i.e. Microsoft) ignores the law to increase its profits and/or stifle competition, I cannot see why the government should still enforce the laws that the EULA is based on.
The company is just operating under the assumption that the government is acting under good faith.
And it can, if the company abides by the rules imposed by said government. If it tramples all over them, it can not expect the government to ignore its infractions, and some of the privileges of the company may be revoked.
Beyond that, the government sets up the patent system with certain rules. Microsoft applies for patents under those rules, and now the government suddenly decides "oh, well those patents aren't really *innovative*, you can't charge for those." Well why were the fracking patents granted in the first place then?
Because the patents were granted by the EPO, which is (confusingly enough) not an EU body. EPO-granted patents need not be valid in the EU, which has a different standard to which they judge patents. The EPO consists of unelected patent attorneys, which should not be able to determine the patent policy of the EU.
An incorrectly configured terminal in *nix can produce a ^H when you press the backspace key instead of erasing the character to the left of the cursor. The ^H... is thus used in emails, chat and message boards to humorously indicate your real meaning of a polite or politically correct word or phrase.
But in the EU, they call lobbying "bribes". France outright bans the practice
That depends on who does the lobbying. The IPR Enforcement Directives have been extensively lobbied for by the music and movie industry. It sure helps that Janelly Fourtou, a French MEP, is married to Jean-René Fourtou, the former CEO of Vivendi-Universal.
This is a typical Europhile apologising for the fact that the EU is ruled by a cabal of unaccountable oligarchs.
If you want to discuss unaccountable oligarchs, one suitable organization to discuss is the EPO, the European Patent Organizaion. Consisting of unelected lawyers, they have a significant saying in the patent legislation field, and unfortunately have the ear of the commission and the council of ministers.
All this talk about balancing acts and compromise is irrelevant distraction form the simple truth that the Council of Ministers has final authority and makes all the real decisions.
I agree that the CoM and the commission have too much power. It was evident in their handling of the EU CII (software patent) directive. But still, this directive was voted down by the parliament, and thus scrapped, for the time being. The parliament is not powerless, but it could use much more power, and it should have since it is the only directly elected assembly in the EU.
OK so the governments who appoint these "Ministers" are elected but that does not make the process democratic.
I agree that it isn't even close to a good implementation, but it is still better than having the supreme court decide who will become president.:)
We actually have a lot more control over companies than we do electoral systems.
I can see where you are coming from, as the US has a really complicated (and I would argue antiquated) election system, with the people voting for electors, that in turn votes for their candidate. In addition, there is the "winner takes it all" rule in most states, that makes all electors in the state vote for the candidate that got more than 50% of the votes in said state, which in turn makes it possible for a candidate with just slightly above 25% support among voters nationwide to become the president. And finally, voting requires manual registration by the voter, which results in lower voter turnout since not everyone is aware of this fact (not to mention those being misled by one side into believing they don't need to register). And I'm not even going to discuss voting machines and the problems they bring.
Other countries, such as Sweden, where I live, have much more straightforward voting systems. In our election, we vote for three different assemblies, the national parliament, the regional parliament and the county parliament. Each citizen above the age of 18 automatically (no registration required) gets a voting card from the election authorities a few weeks in advance of election day. This card proves that you are entitled to vote, and specifies which regional and county parliament you can vote in. You bring this card to the election hall (usually a school, clinic, or some other public space), where you take three envelopes (one for each parliament) and ballots for the party you intend to vote for in the different parliaments (you can take ballots for as many parties as you want, if you don't want it to be obvious to onlookers which one you are voting for). You go behind a screen and put ballots into the envelopes according to your preference, and seal the envelopes. Then you show the voter card to the election official, who takes your card and registers that you have voted, and allows you to place the envelopes in their proper bins. Note that voting is not mandatory, you can ignore it if you like, but usually the voter turnout is high, in the 80% or more range.
In the evening, the votes are counted and the tallies are reported on national television and on the internet. If there is a close call or some other dispute, the votes can be recounted (an advantage of paper ballots). Detailed statistics (such as tallies for each neighborhood) are posted a few days later in local newspapers and on the election authority web site. Parliamentary seats are distributed proportionally according to the election results, except for a minimum limit of 4% voter support for a party to get seats in a parliament. The proportional election system assures that the parties that form the cabinet have more than 50% voter support, as well as making it possible for smaller parties to exist and take seats in the parliaments.
Software patents are not uniformly forbidden in the EU. It is up to member countries to decide on their validity.
Exactly. Since the CII (Computer-Implemented Inventions) directive (a.k.a. software patent directive) was voted down, there has been no harmonization between the countries. The EPC (European Patent Convention) forbids patents on software "as such", but in certain countries they are allowed if combined with a computer (just like in the US, IIRC). In Sweden, where I live, it appears that software patents are valid. Patent och Registreringsverket (the equivalent of the USPTO) states:
Vilka datorprogram kan patenteras?
När det gäller datorprogram får man inte patent på programmet i sig utan på kopplingen till den tekniska lösningen, alltså den funktion, metod eller process som blir resultatet av programmets körning i datorn.
Man kan även få patent på program som styr fysiska processer eller som behandlar fysiska signaler, eller program som styr kommunikation. Datorprogram som styr operativsystem kan patenteras.
Which roughly translates into:
Which computer programs can be patented?
Computer programs cannot themselves be patented, rather the patent covers the connection to the technical solution, that is the function, method or process that results from executing the program in the computer.
You can also patent programs that controls physical processes or (programs) that processes physical signals, or programs that controls communication. Computer programs that control operating systems can be patented.
Why is it that the overall consensus on Slashdot is that the US government aren't doing enough to regulate Microsoft or help stop the monopoly, but as soon as the EU government try to get Microsoft to publish their specifications for interoperability, there's a huge outcry?
You didn't consider the possibility that different people are attracted to different headlines? If you try to assign a set of opinions to "the Slashdot crowd", you are certain to get some conflicts, simply because this crowd consists of a whole range of people, many with very different opinions.
I'm just wondering about the implications of such a scenario. Would they fight back? It's not a question of courage, it would just be a futile fight IMO.
If the US shows that it is willing to invade a friendly country, I suggest that the EU and Russia help Canada, since otherwise we (the EU) could be next. I wonder how the US would react to such a development. Also note that everyone that sees the US as a threat might also help out, such as China, and possibly even arab states providing support in the form of suicide bombers.:)
You must believe that the government should regulate all human activites. Is this correct?
No, I don't, but I prefer a regulated market versus an unregulated one, since the latter is much more prone to monopolies and near-monopolies that stifle the innovation and raise prices, since no one is allowed to stop them.
Besides, the day a gov't chooses what software I run is the day I become a MS fanboi.
Since the GP discussed Microsoft pulling out because of EU punishment for bad behaviour, I guess this falls within your definition of "gov't chooses what software I run". Consequently, you must believe that governments shouldn't punish companies (such as Microsoft) even if they break the rules. In other words, you believe that Microsoft and its ilk are above the law. Is this correct?
Slashdot Mirror
Try calculating the surface area of the earth, that's a start. Then you approximate how thick the atmosphere would be if it would have a constant density. Then you multiply the surface area of the earth with the thickness of the atmosphere, and you get the total volume. The density of air is about 1.3 kg/m^3, so now you have an approximation of the the mass.
Umm, the sun perhaps? You have never tried to focus sunlight through a lens onto a piece of wood? The same can be done with parabolic mirrors.
Exactly. According to Wikipedia, 24 billion tons of CO2 are emitted every year from the combustion of fossil fuels. If the claims in the article are true, a square of 50x50 km entirely covered with these devices could capture all those 24 billion tons. I can't really believe that that many devices would be constructed, though enough could be put up to put a significant dent in the net emission.
If we come to a situation where a new ice age seems to be forming, why not release some of that sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere to keep the temperature stable? Nothing says that we shouldn't. Just like we could store more CO2 in periods of increasing temperature, to avoid the increase, since it does pose a lot of problems.
If we could stabilize the global temperature to the current level by varying the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, I'm all for it.
I bet you would also refrain from doing anything if a 10 km meteorite was detected on a certain collision course with the earth? I mean, "it's natural so we shouldn't try to avoid it".
I'd like a better explanation than the one you wrote. Wasting paper increases the demand for new trees, yes, but it also releases more CO2 into the atmosphere when the wasted paper is burned in the waste incinerator.
But it also ensures that less trees are cut down. There is no intrinsic value in planting trees, it is done only to compensate for those that are cut down. With recycling, you cut down less trees and plant less trees, while if you waste paper (i.e. put a lot of it in the trash), a lot of trees are cut down and a lot are planted. The wasted paper is burned in an incinerator (releasing its carbon to the atmosphere) or placed on a landfill. Why is this better than recycling the paper? It just uses another carbon cycle.
Umm, no. The EPO is not an EU body, and cannot be regulated by the EU. The EPO was founded when the EPC was signed, and the set of countries that have signed the EPC is not the same set of countries that are members of the EU.
I used a planet mass of five times the mass of the Earth, and 1.5 times the radius (both according to TFA).
Carrying something in your arms or anywhere else external to your body exerts a much greater strain on the body than if the mass was contained inside your body. The farther away from the body, the greater the strain. Compare lifting a weight with your outstretched arm to carrying it in a backpack. It feels a lot lighter in the backpack. If it was carried inside your body, it would pose much less of a problem.
We could take another example. My motorcycle helmet weighs 1.5 kg. I don't actually know how much my head weighs, but it is in the same order of magnitude. Keeping my helmet on in an upright position doesn't exert any noticeable strain on my neck, while it feels quite heavy if I lie down and lift my head.
If the planet radius is constant, it does, at least according to Newton's gravitational laws. But gravity also is inversely proportional to the square of the planet radius (given a constant mass), so a low density planet (large, but low mass) has lower gravity than a high density planet (small, but high mass), and the gravity decreases faster with increasing radius than it increases with increasing mass.
The planet in the article would have a gravity of approx. 2.223g according to my calculations.
Except that the EULA uses laws for enforcement. If the licensor (i.e. Microsoft) ignores the law to increase its profits and/or stifle competition, I cannot see why the government should still enforce the laws that the EULA is based on.
And it can, if the company abides by the rules imposed by said government. If it tramples all over them, it can not expect the government to ignore its infractions, and some of the privileges of the company may be revoked.
Because the patents were granted by the EPO, which is (confusingly enough) not an EU body. EPO-granted patents need not be valid in the EU, which has a different standard to which they judge patents. The EPO consists of unelected patent attorneys, which should not be able to determine the patent policy of the EU.
If someone breaks the law and is caught, he will be punished. Is that so strange?
But of course, you think that there should be no laws...
An incorrectly configured terminal in *nix can produce a ^H when you press the backspace key instead of erasing the character to the left of the cursor. The ^H... is thus used in emails, chat and message boards to humorously indicate your real meaning of a polite or politically correct word or phrase.
A very good and very extensive explanation for why you are right can be found here.
That depends on who does the lobbying. The IPR Enforcement Directives have been extensively lobbied for by the music and movie industry. It sure helps that Janelly Fourtou, a French MEP, is married to Jean-René Fourtou, the former CEO of Vivendi-Universal.
If you want to discuss unaccountable oligarchs, one suitable organization to discuss is the EPO, the European Patent Organizaion. Consisting of unelected lawyers, they have a significant saying in the patent legislation field, and unfortunately have the ear of the commission and the council of ministers.
All this talk about balancing acts and compromise is irrelevant distraction form the simple truth that the Council of Ministers has final authority and makes all the real decisions.I agree that the CoM and the commission have too much power. It was evident in their handling of the EU CII (software patent) directive. But still, this directive was voted down by the parliament, and thus scrapped, for the time being. The parliament is not powerless, but it could use much more power, and it should have since it is the only directly elected assembly in the EU.
OK so the governments who appoint these "Ministers" are elected but that does not make the process democratic.I agree that it isn't even close to a good implementation, but it is still better than having the supreme court decide who will become president. :)
I can see where you are coming from, as the US has a really complicated (and I would argue antiquated) election system, with the people voting for electors, that in turn votes for their candidate. In addition, there is the "winner takes it all" rule in most states, that makes all electors in the state vote for the candidate that got more than 50% of the votes in said state, which in turn makes it possible for a candidate with just slightly above 25% support among voters nationwide to become the president. And finally, voting requires manual registration by the voter, which results in lower voter turnout since not everyone is aware of this fact (not to mention those being misled by one side into believing they don't need to register). And I'm not even going to discuss voting machines and the problems they bring.
Other countries, such as Sweden, where I live, have much more straightforward voting systems. In our election, we vote for three different assemblies, the national parliament, the regional parliament and the county parliament. Each citizen above the age of 18 automatically (no registration required) gets a voting card from the election authorities a few weeks in advance of election day. This card proves that you are entitled to vote, and specifies which regional and county parliament you can vote in. You bring this card to the election hall (usually a school, clinic, or some other public space), where you take three envelopes (one for each parliament) and ballots for the party you intend to vote for in the different parliaments (you can take ballots for as many parties as you want, if you don't want it to be obvious to onlookers which one you are voting for). You go behind a screen and put ballots into the envelopes according to your preference, and seal the envelopes. Then you show the voter card to the election official, who takes your card and registers that you have voted, and allows you to place the envelopes in their proper bins. Note that voting is not mandatory, you can ignore it if you like, but usually the voter turnout is high, in the 80% or more range.
In the evening, the votes are counted and the tallies are reported on national television and on the internet. If there is a close call or some other dispute, the votes can be recounted (an advantage of paper ballots). Detailed statistics (such as tallies for each neighborhood) are posted a few days later in local newspapers and on the election authority web site. Parliamentary seats are distributed proportionally according to the election results, except for a minimum limit of 4% voter support for a party to get seats in a parliament. The proportional election system assures that the parties that form the cabinet have more than 50% voter support, as well as making it possible for smaller parties to exist and take seats in the parliaments.
Exactly. Since the CII (Computer-Implemented Inventions) directive (a.k.a. software patent directive) was voted down, there has been no harmonization between the countries. The EPC (European Patent Convention) forbids patents on software "as such", but in certain countries they are allowed if combined with a computer (just like in the US, IIRC). In Sweden, where I live, it appears that software patents are valid. Patent och Registreringsverket (the equivalent of the USPTO) states:
Vilka datorprogram kan patenteras?
När det gäller datorprogram får man inte patent på programmet i sig utan på kopplingen till den tekniska lösningen, alltså den funktion, metod eller process som blir resultatet av programmets körning i datorn.
Man kan även få patent på program som styr fysiska processer eller som behandlar fysiska signaler, eller program som styr kommunikation. Datorprogram som styr operativsystem kan patenteras.
Which roughly translates into:
Which computer programs can be patented?
Computer programs cannot themselves be patented, rather the patent covers the connection to the technical solution, that is the function, method or process that results from executing the program in the computer.
You can also patent programs that controls physical processes or (programs) that processes physical signals, or programs that controls communication. Computer programs that control operating systems can be patented.
You didn't consider the possibility that different people are attracted to different headlines? If you try to assign a set of opinions to "the Slashdot crowd", you are certain to get some conflicts, simply because this crowd consists of a whole range of people, many with very different opinions.
If the US shows that it is willing to invade a friendly country, I suggest that the EU and Russia help Canada, since otherwise we (the EU) could be next. I wonder how the US would react to such a development. Also note that everyone that sees the US as a threat might also help out, such as China, and possibly even arab states providing support in the form of suicide bombers. :)
No, I don't, but I prefer a regulated market versus an unregulated one, since the latter is much more prone to monopolies and near-monopolies that stifle the innovation and raise prices, since no one is allowed to stop them.
Since the GP discussed Microsoft pulling out because of EU punishment for bad behaviour, I guess this falls within your definition of "gov't chooses what software I run". Consequently, you must believe that governments shouldn't punish companies (such as Microsoft) even if they break the rules. In other words, you believe that Microsoft and its ilk are above the law. Is this correct?