Absolutely, This is a brilliant scheme by Google. All it takes is one change of copyright law and Google is sitting on a library of all the content that copyright holders have uploaded to it! Heck, they don't even have to digitize it, the copyright holder does it for them!
-We would be out of oil by now Conventional reserves of oil around the world are basically exhausted or in sharp decline, with the exception of Saudi Arabia where they have likely peaked. Now we're moving on to non-conventional deposits such as the Tar Sands and Coal bed methane, or hard to reach deposits like undersea. Expanding our reach like this allows some people to assume that everything is business-as-usual. But the reality is that their exploitation is extremely energy intensive which will drive energy prices through the roof. Considering that we haven't heeded the warnings of the 'prophets of the 1970' and seriously worked at alternative energy sources, we are going to have to foot whatever bill the oil companies hand us... at least until we do.
-Our forests would be gone by now(Remember those commercials - the one with the little girl walking with her grandfather that were wearing gas masks and they were in a dry river bed and she says "Grandaddy, what was it like to have trees?") Good thing we started re-forestation programs eh? Even then, we still have harvested most of the old growth forest around and are moving on to man made woods from former 'waste' species, like Aspen and Poplar. Still, I challenge you to fly from Alberta to BC over the Rocky Mountains and see the massive clear cutting for yourself.
-The ozone hole will get larger and eventually allow kill 80% of life on the planet Firm, direct action was taken on the issue of the Ozone. CFC's were banned outright in new products in most developed countries resulting in significant declines in their use. Seriously, do you not see the problem of including this statement in your little rant? Are you just trolling? Who in their right mind modded you insightful? I'm surprised you forgot to 'throw acid rain melting the Eastern seaboard off the map' in there as well.
-Mercury poison will kill all the fish (Fictional movie about it) By your own admission, your source is Hollywood. but seriously, Have you no concept of the EPA and the pollution reforms; the banning of dumping toxic substances when we figured out what they were doing to marine life; How they just didn't disappear into the blackness of the sea but actually found their way into the food chain?
How is it you find yourself cynical??? When a problem was identified, action was taken. Simple logic dictates that if the action taken was correct then the effects of the problem should be mediated. This is exactly what has happened. The only way you're cynicism could be justified is if NO action was taken and the predicted outcome still failed to materialize.
Google made its mark by good search results WITH a CLEAN Interface Design. I hear ya brother, on/. you're preaching to the choir. I have a Yahoo account I use for when I visit a site that I'm sure will sell my email and I can barely force myself to load the page, virtually unusable in my opinion. Of course, I believe that if I want news I go to a news website, and if I want stock quotes or celebrity gossip I would have a bookmark and so on. Unfortunately, the masses don't see it that way. I believe that I saw an article on/. about this a few weeks ago. I'm too lazy to look it up so you'll have to either take my word for it, or look it up yourself. Basically Google is losing marks in perceived innovation as compared to Yahoo and others. To sum it up, the authors stated that whatever the others do gets thrown up on the front page so that everyone user sees something new every day. Google has kept the same clean and usable interface interface constant throughout its history. Apparently this has become a double edged sword, with the casual user feeling that Google is the same as it was when they first started using it. Throw in keeping the advertisers happy and I predict Google will gradually bend on what it shows.
I work for an organization that has a deal with Dell, they supply all our computing needs. We had a laptop go 'missing' and shortly thereafter the tracing program suddenly stopped functioning. Now, I don't work in IT, but the guys assured me that the tracing software was extremely difficult to remove. I know the individual in question, and let me assure you he's not the brightest bulb, so-to-speak, so obviously there are people out there who are fully capable and aware when dealing in this kind of merchandise.
No, lethal force could not have been justified; neither the officers nor the public were in any physical danger. What he failed to do was comply with the directions of an officer. When an officer tells you that you have to do something, you must do it. If you feel that the officer was in error then you argue your case in front of a judge. Today officers carry tasers. 20 years ago they would have clubbed him.
Great post! Very well thought out! I especially like the idea of a printable receipt with a bar-code to that individuals can confirm after-the-fact that their votes counted properly. Crypto-verified is nice as well because the biggest problem I have with machine counted votes is that I simply don't trust those who are making the machines. You've obviously put a lot of thought into this and the fact that Diebold and others, who supposedly specialize in this stuff, haven't been able to come up with such an eloquent solution is further evidence to me that my suspicions were justified.
Obviously, this won't solve all the shenanigans surrounding voting, just the actual recording process. Here in Canada most of the shady business occurs around voting lists, who is allowed to vote the day of the election, where they are allowed to vote, etc. Basically, the human part of the equation.
I'm no expert on agriculture, but I doubt the hurdles are as you describe them... Farmers either buy the seeds, or keep some from previous year. Either way people, one can opt in and out of using Monsanto's quite easily. I am from an agricultural background and the hurdles are exactly as I describe them. Yes, you can save seed and re-plant it. What happens if you get drift from a neighbors field? You now have Monsanto IP in your crop. What level is acceptable before a lawsuit is filed? If the seed that blows over or your crop that gets cross-pollinated contains the terminator gene then you face the prospect of a significant portion of the crop you saved NOT GERMINATING. If you know anything about agriculture you will understand that this is potentially devastating. In the end you must either pay Monsanto for their seed or you must pay someone else for certified seed, guaranteed not to germinate and not to contain Monsanto IP. The idea of opt-in or out is simplistic at best and displays an alarming naiveté about agriculture in the 21st century.
If I'm feeding the trolls, let me apologize to all the readers out there in advance.
And what would be wrong with either of those two steps? Nobody is forced to use Monsanto's products, right?.. In the narrowest sense you may be technically correct, yet your comment still rings naive. The ultimate goal of Monsanto, and others like Monsanto will be to insert itself inextricably into the food (energy) chain. No, I'm not being paranoid or citing conspiracy theories. Anything less would be violating their duty to their shareholders. Everyone needs to eat and if everyone has to pay your price before growing food there is a tremendous profit waiting to be extracted.
BTW, the "terminator" gene may, actually, be viewed as an assurance against the modified plants "escaping" into the wild -- a concern commonly voiced by the opponents of the (modern) genetic modifications. I agree, a terminator gene will likely prevent much of the GM plants from escaping into the wild, however, this argument is largely a red herring.
First, let us put aside any moral or philosophical or religious objections to creating an organism that sterilizes itself. The biggest problem with the gene is what it means for the consumers and the farmers. Neither of those two groups have demanded such a gene, nor does the inclusion of such technology benefit them in any way, in fact, it's just the opposite. Many countries around the world refuse to accept GM products because they have yet to be tested in any meaningful scientific way. In order to retain those markets, farmers and grain companies must keep the two products separate, as there is no economically viable way to sort GM seeds from non-GM seeds. This means an entirely separate handling system infrastructure. This means an additional cost that is passed onto the consumer and back onto the farmer. For countries that don't choose to go that route, and choose instead to give up certain markets, their populations ARE now forced to consume Monsanto products because they are now mixed in with the rest of the food supply. This also means that farmers must now pay Monsanto every year if they wish to use their product, and it means that farmers must now pay SOMEONE ELSE if they wish NOT to use Monsanto product. Why? Because they must now purchase seed that is certified (guaranteed) not to contain Monsanto IP. If they don't they face Monsanto lawsuits, or face the possibility that half their crop fails to germinate. Obviously this additional cost is harmful to third world farmers but that's a further conversation.
So if the farmers don't want 'terminator genes' and the consumers don't want 'terminator genes' why is Monsanto so keen to include them? Simple, Monsanto needs a way to ensure that farmers don't use any of their IP without paying. 'Terminator genes' really had nothing to do with the problem of cross-contamination. The fact that they may prevent cross-contamination has become a surreptitious PR argument/marketing point, and a way to distract from the problems associated with letting Monsanto and others get their hands on the food supply.
Only if they install a terminator gene so seeds cannot be used year after year without paying a licensing fee to Monsanto; Or if they engineer it to only grow with the aid of Monsanto brand fertilizer or herbicide.
I admire your commitment to the principal of justice, but don't worry, SCO's highly paid and talented team of lawyers will see to it that every legal avenue available will be exploited.
True, True, but they should start, a lot of little people suffer much more relative damage to small time scams, and these people seem to operate with impunity. A lot of scammers try to take legitimate sellers as well. My Girlfriend likes to buy and sell online a lot and I can't tell you the number of scams and insincere people out there. Don't forget these scams are not limited to the big sites like Ebay, in fact they thrive on the small locals. The current most popular scam I'm seeing out there seems to be:
1. A potential buyer contacts a seller.
2. Potential buyer expresses interest in the item to be purchased but can only do an email money transfer.
3. Seller agrees but buyer then inexplicably decided to transfer a much larger sum than the item being purchased is worth and requests that the overage be given to a local 'associate'.
The way it works: The email transfer is actually from a dummy or illegitimate bank, or flawed in some way. Your bank receives the 'transfer' and dutifully displays the money in your account, however, in the banking world everything takes time and that money has not actually been verified as transfered from one bank to the other yet. If you carry out your end of the arrangement, you pass on the difference between the selling price and the overage you got to the 'associate', and that's the money you lose. In a week or so when your bank realizes that no money has actually arrived, they simply erase the transaction, wiping the entire deposit out of your account, (like a bad cheque!). However, any money you've given to the 'associate' was a legitimate transaction and it's gone to the scammers!
No, I haven't gotten taken by this, or any other scam, but I think it shows a level of ingenuity that could easily take someone a little more trusting. I had no idea how this could go bad until I looked it up, but I knew it smelled fishy at the time. As I'm sure everyone here knows, when something a little funny happens, even if you can't figure out right away what's going on, it's a scam! Wherever possible, meet the seller or buyer face to face, and pay CASH!
It's not really enough to "offer" a service. It's all about supply and demand: Whoever does the best job in satisfying a demand will win out. As the studios are coming to realize there is a huge demand for alternate delivery of their current and back content, and they have no choice but to fill that demand, because others have already stepped in. They know that the television medium is no longer the only game in town, and they know they have to expand online eventually. What's happening right now is that the groundwork of how it's going to work and the rules about who and how the players are going to be paid is being negotiated. Both the delivery and production side are trying to grab the biggest piece of the pie while they can. Once itunes or whatever system is entrenched it will be extremely difficult for the content producers to go elsewhere; besides they're not use to people telling them what to do with their 'product'. Adds are important as well, who is going to get to insert advertising into the content? How much do they figure they can get away with before the customers revolt? How can they make sure that people actually watch the adds? How can they make sure that people don't use 'their' content in unapproved ways like YouTube mashups and so on?
Of course, the big difference this time around is that everyone is playing with fire, because bittorrent has been quietly and efficiently operating in the background supplying high quality, add-free, DRM-free offerings. It is the default standard because it's the easiest, best, and highest quality way to obtain your digital media. Like it or not, legal or not, ethical or not, itunes and all the studios are in direct competition with 'unauthorized' bittorrent delivery. Customers see what is possible and will be less and less willing to accept whatever scraps are tossed their way. Especially after they just got sold that new $5,000 hi-def system.
I, for one, am enjoying watching everyone squirm. I, for one, am enjoying watching the consumers exercise real power and forcing the studio's hand.
Nothing is free in this world. If a solid majority of people feel that a service should be universal then it should be provided in a universal manner. People must then pay for it, either through a special levy or through their taxes or though an additional fee on their regular bill. If a service is to be provided in a universal manner and it's cost is now shared by all people, it is incumbent on government to ensure that it's delivery is carried out in the most timely, reliable, and efficient manner possible; in order to maximize the benefit derived from the service and minimize the cost to each individual, and thereby minimizing the negative effect on the economy.
In my short experience, a properly run government enterprise is best able to accomplish this. I won't say that private enterprise cannot accomplish this, however, I have yet to experience it. Logically, it would seem that the above goals are largely antithetical to a properly run corporation, as they have legal duty to maximize profit for their shareholders.
Do you read the URL's you link to? The Wiki article you linked to clearly states that the 'period of global cooling' was largely a result of aerosols and sulfates and other air pollution particulate in the atmosphere, which over-road the effects of GHG's. This pollution was subsequently dealt with as a matter of public health. In any case your own article states that this period is well represented in global climate models.
If you're trying to make an argument that the temperature on the Earth hasn't been following a perfectly linear warming trend for the past century, well that's true, but it's also totally irrelevant. Nobody, including the parent, is claiming that it was.
I'm sure it would be, but that would defeat the purpose of about 90% of todays web, which seems to be about using whatever lame content they can dream up to get you to see the adds, or better yet, click on those adds. It goes without saying that if the adds load first you have nothing better to do than look at them.
In order for theft to occur, you have to take something belonging to somebody away from them so they don't have it anymore. As a extension of the anti-ABP argument: If I choose not to look at billboards as I drive down the highway is that stealing too?
(I need to shut-up soon because I find myself beginning to rant) How many good free websites are out there that actually preform a real purpose other than trying to sell me a product that I have no interest in? If you looking for information, Wikipedia or similar sites are really the only way to go. I've NEVER found a random web page on a topic I needed that actually contained anything useful, beyond the most basic information that I already knew anyway. (some online forums should be exempted from the previous blanket statement) In terms of my news-gathering, I read CBC which my tax dollars pay for anyway. Besides, when I or some child mis-types a URL and get directed to a godforsaken banner-infested ad site, prominently featuring porn banners, I would rather they not have the adds. If that's stealing, then it's time legalize it!
Speaking of children, It's not your God-damn right to assault their eyeballs at every opportunity you can find, be it in schools, on TV or if they get on the internet. I don't care what you're selling, it's my job to keep you away from them.
Sorry, but there is no strawmen to be found. Slow down and re-read my posts and I hope you find that I provided a easy-to-understand caricature of one type of skeptic, the destructive skeptic. This is the individual who will argue for no good reason, and will simply deny any assertion made because they can. Yes, they're out there...
This is opposed to the more constructive kind of skepticism that fulfills the valuable role of ensuring that evidence for an assertion is reasonably there. When such a burden of proof is met, this skeptic allows him or herself to be convinced.
Wow, nice strawman of how skeptics are. Really easy to argue against that. I'm sure your favorite professor must be proud. I see you're a little skeptical of my characterization of destructive skepticism. Unfortunately you brought nothing constructive to the table so thank you for proving my point.
Nope, I don't think you missed anything. I come from a more philosophical background and the skeptics have had their day there too. At first they preformed a valuable function, they raised the burden of proof. But after a while they just ran amok and came darn close to destroying the whole philosophical movement. The problem with the skeptics was, as you so rightly suggest, that they generally brought nothing new to the table, instead they began insisting on a burden of proof so high that it literally became impossible satisfy them.
Take for example straight deductive logic:
PLATO:
All men are mortal.
Jim is a man.
Therefore, Jim is a mortal.
SKEPTIC:
Why should I believe that all men are mortal and why should I believe that Jim is really a man?
PLATO:
(Smacks head on table)
SKEPTIC:
(Basks in perceived self importance; allows ego to swell.)
As my favorite professor use to say: "If you have nothing relevant to contribute, become a skeptic."
I'm not sure where you come from but I'm from Canada and we have the maximum 25 year life sentence here as well.
Now, As you point out, there are people who are just plain crazy and should never be released because they pose an explicit danger to society. In this case Canada has the dangerous offender label that can be applied. Once an offender is labeled as a 'dangerous offender' they can be held in custody for an indeterminate length of time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_offender
On the whole you may be right. However, I do remember that one of the goals was to allow farmers and independent business people to access the internet to market their products worldwide and gather information regarding their occupation. Besides, with all the negative comments I've just read on/. regarding censorship, how would an isolated network of approved information be any different than applying filters? Add to that any complaints that poor countries are being held back from the internet and a separate network may not be worth the effort.
Just what the hell makes you think that pilots and air crew members aren't already picking their targets out on an LCD monitor and pushing a button to kill them? I'm sure they are, which makes it easy. Now imagine how easy it could be to do the same from the basement of the Pentagon, or maybe you could telecommute from your living room.
The problem is that they *will* get their hands on this technology. Whether the US is first or not. Not necessarily. Someone has to blaze the trail. It's a lot cheaper to steal the tech, or buy it from some former ally that has gone rogue, than develop it on your own. Not to mention the whole idea of an arms race. When one country builds a new weapon, everyone else is forced to keep up. Just because America likes to push the military envelope, don't assume that everyone else wants to.
I personally thank my maker that the US uses this before their enemies do. Use is a strong word. I'd rather the USA not use it, even if they feel they must develop it. Speaking of which, you'd think that with a mammoth deficit and massive social inequities, America could find better uses for it resources.
Why *wouldn't* you want pilots to be able to fly warplanes from a safe place? 1. Just wait till Al Qaeda/north Korea/Iran/Russia etc. gets their hands on this.
2. It's psychologically easier to kill people the farther removed from them you get.
It's a fucking remote control plane! ....with enough firepower to wipe a good size town off the map.
It's not "roboticized military that can be controlled from the Pentagon and White House", it's a remote control plane. My bad, I thought we were talking about a US military, pilot-less, remote controlled aircraft that can carry up to 14 Hellfire missiles.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely, This is a brilliant scheme by Google. All it takes is one change of copyright law and Google is sitting on a library of all the content that copyright holders have uploaded to it! Heck, they don't even have to digitize it, the copyright holder does it for them!
-Our forests would be gone by now(Remember those commercials - the one with the little girl walking with her grandfather that were wearing gas masks and they were in a dry river bed and she says "Grandaddy, what was it like to have trees?") Good thing we started re-forestation programs eh? Even then, we still have harvested most of the old growth forest around and are moving on to man made woods from former 'waste' species, like Aspen and Poplar. Still, I challenge you to fly from Alberta to BC over the Rocky Mountains and see the massive clear cutting for yourself.
-The ozone hole will get larger and eventually allow kill 80% of life on the planet Firm, direct action was taken on the issue of the Ozone. CFC's were banned outright in new products in most developed countries resulting in significant declines in their use. Seriously, do you not see the problem of including this statement in your little rant? Are you just trolling? Who in their right mind modded you insightful? I'm surprised you forgot to 'throw acid rain melting the Eastern seaboard off the map' in there as well.
-Mercury poison will kill all the fish (Fictional movie about it) By your own admission, your source is Hollywood. but seriously, Have you no concept of the EPA and the pollution reforms; the banning of dumping toxic substances when we figured out what they were doing to marine life; How they just didn't disappear into the blackness of the sea but actually found their way into the food chain?
How is it you find yourself cynical??? When a problem was identified, action was taken. Simple logic dictates that if the action taken was correct then the effects of the problem should be mediated. This is exactly what has happened. The only way you're cynicism could be justified is if NO action was taken and the predicted outcome still failed to materialize.
I work for an organization that has a deal with Dell, they supply all our computing needs. We had a laptop go 'missing' and shortly thereafter the tracing program suddenly stopped functioning. Now, I don't work in IT, but the guys assured me that the tracing software was extremely difficult to remove. I know the individual in question, and let me assure you he's not the brightest bulb, so-to-speak, so obviously there are people out there who are fully capable and aware when dealing in this kind of merchandise.
No, lethal force could not have been justified; neither the officers nor the public were in any physical danger. What he failed to do was comply with the directions of an officer. When an officer tells you that you have to do something, you must do it. If you feel that the officer was in error then you argue your case in front of a judge. Today officers carry tasers. 20 years ago they would have clubbed him.
Great post! Very well thought out! I especially like the idea of a printable receipt with a bar-code to that individuals can confirm after-the-fact that their votes counted properly. Crypto-verified is nice as well because the biggest problem I have with machine counted votes is that I simply don't trust those who are making the machines. You've obviously put a lot of thought into this and the fact that Diebold and others, who supposedly specialize in this stuff, haven't been able to come up with such an eloquent solution is further evidence to me that my suspicions were justified.
Obviously, this won't solve all the shenanigans surrounding voting, just the actual recording process. Here in Canada most of the shady business occurs around voting lists, who is allowed to vote the day of the election, where they are allowed to vote, etc. Basically, the human part of the equation.
First, let us put aside any moral or philosophical or religious objections to creating an organism that sterilizes itself. The biggest problem with the gene is what it means for the consumers and the farmers. Neither of those two groups have demanded such a gene, nor does the inclusion of such technology benefit them in any way, in fact, it's just the opposite. Many countries around the world refuse to accept GM products because they have yet to be tested in any meaningful scientific way. In order to retain those markets, farmers and grain companies must keep the two products separate, as there is no economically viable way to sort GM seeds from non-GM seeds. This means an entirely separate handling system infrastructure. This means an additional cost that is passed onto the consumer and back onto the farmer. For countries that don't choose to go that route, and choose instead to give up certain markets, their populations ARE now forced to consume Monsanto products because they are now mixed in with the rest of the food supply. This also means that farmers must now pay Monsanto every year if they wish to use their product, and it means that farmers must now pay SOMEONE ELSE if they wish NOT to use Monsanto product. Why? Because they must now purchase seed that is certified (guaranteed) not to contain Monsanto IP. If they don't they face Monsanto lawsuits, or face the possibility that half their crop fails to germinate. Obviously this additional cost is harmful to third world farmers but that's a further conversation.
So if the farmers don't want 'terminator genes' and the consumers don't want 'terminator genes' why is Monsanto so keen to include them? Simple, Monsanto needs a way to ensure that farmers don't use any of their IP without paying. 'Terminator genes' really had nothing to do with the problem of cross-contamination. The fact that they may prevent cross-contamination has become a surreptitious PR argument/marketing point, and a way to distract from the problems associated with letting Monsanto and others get their hands on the food supply.
Only if they install a terminator gene so seeds cannot be used year after year without paying a licensing fee to Monsanto; Or if they engineer it to only grow with the aid of Monsanto brand fertilizer or herbicide.
I admire your commitment to the principal of justice, but don't worry, SCO's highly paid and talented team of lawyers will see to it that every legal avenue available will be exploited.
True, True, but they should start, a lot of little people suffer much more relative damage to small time scams, and these people seem to operate with impunity. A lot of scammers try to take legitimate sellers as well. My Girlfriend likes to buy and sell online a lot and I can't tell you the number of scams and insincere people out there. Don't forget these scams are not limited to the big sites like Ebay, in fact they thrive on the small locals. The current most popular scam I'm seeing out there seems to be:
1. A potential buyer contacts a seller.
2. Potential buyer expresses interest in the item to be purchased but can only do an email money transfer.
3. Seller agrees but buyer then inexplicably decided to transfer a much larger sum than the item being purchased is worth and requests that the overage be given to a local 'associate'.
The way it works: The email transfer is actually from a dummy or illegitimate bank, or flawed in some way. Your bank receives the 'transfer' and dutifully displays the money in your account, however, in the banking world everything takes time and that money has not actually been verified as transfered from one bank to the other yet. If you carry out your end of the arrangement, you pass on the difference between the selling price and the overage you got to the 'associate', and that's the money you lose. In a week or so when your bank realizes that no money has actually arrived, they simply erase the transaction, wiping the entire deposit out of your account, (like a bad cheque!). However, any money you've given to the 'associate' was a legitimate transaction and it's gone to the scammers!
No, I haven't gotten taken by this, or any other scam, but I think it shows a level of ingenuity that could easily take someone a little more trusting. I had no idea how this could go bad until I looked it up, but I knew it smelled fishy at the time. As I'm sure everyone here knows, when something a little funny happens, even if you can't figure out right away what's going on, it's a scam! Wherever possible, meet the seller or buyer face to face, and pay CASH!
It's not really enough to "offer" a service. It's all about supply and demand: Whoever does the best job in satisfying a demand will win out. As the studios are coming to realize there is a huge demand for alternate delivery of their current and back content, and they have no choice but to fill that demand, because others have already stepped in. They know that the television medium is no longer the only game in town, and they know they have to expand online eventually. What's happening right now is that the groundwork of how it's going to work and the rules about who and how the players are going to be paid is being negotiated. Both the delivery and production side are trying to grab the biggest piece of the pie while they can. Once itunes or whatever system is entrenched it will be extremely difficult for the content producers to go elsewhere; besides they're not use to people telling them what to do with their 'product'. Adds are important as well, who is going to get to insert advertising into the content? How much do they figure they can get away with before the customers revolt? How can they make sure that people actually watch the adds? How can they make sure that people don't use 'their' content in unapproved ways like YouTube mashups and so on?
Of course, the big difference this time around is that everyone is playing with fire, because bittorrent has been quietly and efficiently operating in the background supplying high quality, add-free, DRM-free offerings. It is the default standard because it's the easiest, best, and highest quality way to obtain your digital media. Like it or not, legal or not, ethical or not, itunes and all the studios are in direct competition with 'unauthorized' bittorrent delivery. Customers see what is possible and will be less and less willing to accept whatever scraps are tossed their way. Especially after they just got sold that new $5,000 hi-def system.
I, for one, am enjoying watching everyone squirm. I, for one, am enjoying watching the consumers exercise real power and forcing the studio's hand.
Nothing is free in this world. If a solid majority of people feel that a service should be universal then it should be provided in a universal manner. People must then pay for it, either through a special levy or through their taxes or though an additional fee on their regular bill. If a service is to be provided in a universal manner and it's cost is now shared by all people, it is incumbent on government to ensure that it's delivery is carried out in the most timely, reliable, and efficient manner possible; in order to maximize the benefit derived from the service and minimize the cost to each individual, and thereby minimizing the negative effect on the economy.
In my short experience, a properly run government enterprise is best able to accomplish this. I won't say that private enterprise cannot accomplish this, however, I have yet to experience it. Logically, it would seem that the above goals are largely antithetical to a properly run corporation, as they have legal duty to maximize profit for their shareholders.
Do you read the URL's you link to? The Wiki article you linked to clearly states that the 'period of global cooling' was largely a result of aerosols and sulfates and other air pollution particulate in the atmosphere, which over-road the effects of GHG's. This pollution was subsequently dealt with as a matter of public health. In any case your own article states that this period is well represented in global climate models.
If you're trying to make an argument that the temperature on the Earth hasn't been following a perfectly linear warming trend for the past century, well that's true, but it's also totally irrelevant. Nobody, including the parent, is claiming that it was.
I'm sure it would be, but that would defeat the purpose of about 90% of todays web, which seems to be about using whatever lame content they can dream up to get you to see the adds, or better yet, click on those adds. It goes without saying that if the adds load first you have nothing better to do than look at them.
No kidding,
In order for theft to occur, you have to take something belonging to somebody away from them so they don't have it anymore. As a extension of the anti-ABP argument: If I choose not to look at billboards as I drive down the highway is that stealing too?
(I need to shut-up soon because I find myself beginning to rant) How many good free websites are out there that actually preform a real purpose other than trying to sell me a product that I have no interest in? If you looking for information, Wikipedia or similar sites are really the only way to go. I've NEVER found a random web page on a topic I needed that actually contained anything useful, beyond the most basic information that I already knew anyway. (some online forums should be exempted from the previous blanket statement) In terms of my news-gathering, I read CBC which my tax dollars pay for anyway. Besides, when I or some child mis-types a URL and get directed to a godforsaken banner-infested ad site, prominently featuring porn banners, I would rather they not have the adds. If that's stealing, then it's time legalize it!
Speaking of children, It's not your God-damn right to assault their eyeballs at every opportunity you can find, be it in schools, on TV or if they get on the internet. I don't care what you're selling, it's my job to keep you away from them.
S.
Sorry, but there is no strawmen to be found. Slow down and re-read my posts and I hope you find that I provided a easy-to-understand caricature of one type of skeptic, the destructive skeptic. This is the individual who will argue for no good reason, and will simply deny any assertion made because they can. Yes, they're out there...
This is opposed to the more constructive kind of skepticism that fulfills the valuable role of ensuring that evidence for an assertion is reasonably there. When such a burden of proof is met, this skeptic allows him or herself to be convinced.
Now for your homework: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
S.
S.
Nope, I don't think you missed anything. I come from a more philosophical background and the skeptics have had their day there too. At first they preformed a valuable function, they raised the burden of proof. But after a while they just ran amok and came darn close to destroying the whole philosophical movement. The problem with the skeptics was, as you so rightly suggest, that they generally brought nothing new to the table, instead they began insisting on a burden of proof so high that it literally became impossible satisfy them.
Take for example straight deductive logic:
PLATO:
All men are mortal.
Jim is a man.
Therefore, Jim is a mortal.
SKEPTIC:
Why should I believe that all men are mortal and why should I believe that Jim is really a man?
PLATO:
(Smacks head on table)
SKEPTIC:
(Basks in perceived self importance; allows ego to swell.)
As my favorite professor use to say: "If you have nothing relevant to contribute, become a skeptic."
S.
I'm not sure where you come from but I'm from Canada and we have the maximum 25 year life sentence here as well.
Now, As you point out, there are people who are just plain crazy and should never be released because they pose an explicit danger to society. In this case Canada has the dangerous offender label that can be applied. Once an offender is labeled as a 'dangerous offender' they can be held in custody for an indeterminate length of time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_offender
On the whole you may be right. However, I do remember that one of the goals was to allow farmers and independent business people to access the internet to market their products worldwide and gather information regarding their occupation. Besides, with all the negative comments I've just read on /. regarding censorship, how would an isolated network of approved information be any different than applying filters? Add to that any complaints that poor countries are being held back from the internet and a separate network may not be worth the effort.
2. It's psychologically easier to kill people the farther removed from them you get.
It's a fucking remote control plane! ....with enough firepower to wipe a good size town off the map. It's not "roboticized military that can be controlled from the Pentagon and White House", it's a remote control plane. My bad, I thought we were talking about a US military, pilot-less, remote controlled aircraft that can carry up to 14 Hellfire missiles.