Ok here's some evidence: fresh of the press: Nature Geoscience One of the co-authors (Dr. Bas van Geel) is actually very skeptical of AGW, because all of the GCM's underestimate the effect of the sun on climate. I tend to agree with his ideas, based on measurements, seems to me more evidence based than the output of computer models.
Your style of posting is of a denier, one dissenting scientist does not make an argument, in fact his case of the sun's influence being large was as far as I know based on local studies, then from that he thinks global climate change depends largely on the sun. This is already moronic but then he says that some solar amplification effects must exist which can't be modelled. That's just ludicrous.
However, it's long been known from lots of modelling that the sun's influences are minute. So what has he offered to counter that? Nothing? Indeed. And when you say that you agree with van Geel, what does that mean? Surely you mean 'He says something I want to believe', as you are not up to a scientific analysis of this stuff yourself...
But slashbart can at least read that. I already knew from slashbart's username and his style of writing before looking at his 'Homepage' that he is Dutch.
You're probably a believer of the insane 'groenerekenkamer' liars aren't you? And it wouldn't surprise me either if you are a VVD voter (= antisocal a-hole party of the Netherlands).
A new government put in place by a revolution will be stacked to the limit with bizarre extremists and arseholes who could never make it to power under democracy. The most likely outcome is that you'll get some unstable maniac in charge, with no limits on his power.
People in the USA have had bizarre extremists and arseholes in government for a long time. See George Wanker Bush and his fellow sociopaths like Condeleeza Rice, Rumsfeld, etc.
It can't get any worse than what those a-holes did which helped destabilize the economy and with the war they started, the world around Iraq.
If you don't like the warm light of an incandescent, you won't like these. It's very, very close in character. There's no reason they couldn't make cool white LED "bulbs" at 6000K. They would in fact be significantly more efficient, but would have a markedly poorer CRI.
No they wouldn't have a markedly poorer CRI. These Philips EnduraLEDs have a CRI of at least 80, but that's not very high. 75-80 is standard among all high power LEDs (Cree XRE, XPE, XPG, Philips Rebel, etc.)
All LEDs have the problem of a large spike in the blue wavelengths, a drop off, then a lower hill again. It's much less of a spike in warm white. Note that esp. cool-white (5000K and higher) is not very good to differentiate various colours. For use outside all greens become one green blob, yellow/brown disappear and this results in a loss of depth perception.
Within the house you encounter other colours and neutral white is also far better than cool white. I modified LED torches/flashlights which are normally cool white with neutral white LEDs and it was a huge improvement.
Another issue is that lower colour temperatures (esp. more red) are easier on the eyes. This is also a reason why people actually like warm white.
Cool white is harsher, gives more eye strain therefore not a good idea for environments you spend a lot of time in.
Someone said about 5000-5500K CFLs:
Cold and uninviting? That's not a very nice thing to say about the midday sun.
Except that it's not. It's a lower temp. but due to the blue spike it's not the same as what you experience in sunlight, see above about disappearing colours and the blue spike...
I would be grateful if *any* scientist show *any* prof "that global warming is real and man-made". I haven't seen any the latest 30 years I have been interested in - and followed - climate science. (BTW, correlation is not causation. Or You maybe beleive mens toilets causes prostate cancer.)
Science is not mathematics. Insisting on 'proof', however you want to define that in physics, for an extremely complex system like the climate is moronic and shows you don't know how science works, how scientific concensus is reached, and what it means for a theory to accepted as being confirmed.
Furthermore, as I've said here long ago and on my website sind ca. 2005 when I saw the inane arguments from nutjobs here in NL (e.g. a group called Groene rekenkamer, T. Richel, Simon Rozendaal who spouts his moronic garbage in the magazine Elsevier (from a-hole publisher Elsevier), even if not the scientific branch, they're related)), that considering it not-happening even if there is a small chance is so stupid, that it's beyond belief. Such people who don't care think like this: "Sure life might become extint in lots of places, but that's not my problem, I want to drive a city-tractor! (aka SUV)"
And that is psychological analysis using facial expressions and language used.
See the TV series 'Lie to me' which is based on an actual psychologist Ekman.
It's known from analysis of police interrogations here in NL that being friendly in interrrogating gives most results. Even if they are totally oncooperative you can talk in such a way that people want to tell you something, because they want to brag or show how clever they are.
But I guess the FBI hasn't learned that lesson yet...
Btw., I think such analysis should also be applied to all politicians. It would prevent getting sociopaths like George Wanker Bush becoming presidents, but in lower positions too, such a-holes do enormous damage to society.
CEOs/managers always get bonusses when the company makes lots of profits (most likely not because of the those managers but because of the general economy).
So now I wonder if through his obvious bad leadership (general economy is never the main influence otherwise there would be no bonusses, therefore it can't be used as a cause of bad performance either!;-) ), he is charged $5 million, or more,,for his obvious incompetence?
"Microsoft has confirmed that users of its instant messaging app will not be able to send each other links to popular torrent site The Pirate Bay, citing malware fears. 'We block instant messages if they contain malicious or spam URLs based on intelligence algorithms, third-party sources, and/or user complaints. Pirate Bay URLs were flagged by one or more of these and were consequently blocked,' Redmond told The Register in an emailed statement."
The worst malware I ever encountered is from microsoft (specifically windoze 95 and 98), I can remember the days, it took hours to get rid of all the problems and stuff it installed that I didn't want. I suppose they are also blocking all mentions of windoze 95/98?
So your solution is to never punish businesses instead?
Money punishments are pointless most of the time. The bosses should get punishment. A substantial decrease in pay, and if things are bad enough throw them them in jail, forbid them to be part of boards of any companies etc. That's punishment that will work!
Limited liability the way it works now gives 2 kinds of sociopaths a chance to wreak havoc: The actual sociopaths, and companies consisting of a-holes and sociopaths in the board and as directors who make the company act as a sociopath.
What's being done is as the OP said and which I said e.g. in a posting some time ago here about punishing a company (I think it was a story about Kodak), not useful.
3) Then the shipbuilding industry was in trouble. The Government told them to f#@k off.
4) Then the mining industry was in trouble. The Government told them to f#@k off.
I used these as as examples against the similar whining of airport Schiphol. I believe the whining (I mean the way it's being done and who is being blamed) about declining profits shows the attitude in a company. In Schiphol as wist most businesses related to airtravel industry they have some sort of superiority complex and believe it their God-given right to annoy people with noise, not to have to pay taxes, not to have to pay sound insulation etc.
With the sound recordings there is something similar going on, they have a 'we are fantastic' attitude which is just ludicrous.
The decline of sales was already moaned about long before napster, as they have an attitude of 'enough is never enough'.
In NL, prices of CDs were high (much higher than records) when first introduced, it was said prices would go down when the cost came down. That never happened. Of course not. People like me remember that and buy little.
The music industry also reached a boom, from people who replaced their record/tape collections with CDs and the young generation with lots of money in the 1990s.
Both these sources dried up: The first had almost all what they wanted, the latter went for other stuff: Games, mobile phones, whatever.
For myself: I haven't bought music in a decade or so, I download some music, but very little. Most of what I liked, I already had (bought, loaned), so why buy anything? And yes, then sales will drop, not because of piracy but because of natural market development.
Google's proposed brief appears to be part of a systematic effort by Google, itself a defendant in ongoing copyright infringement cases, to influence the development of the law to Google's own advantage
Pointing out the facts is not a 'systematic effort to influence the development of the law'. In fact it's been the MPAA and similar organisations that have been doing that, and the only ones who have been doing that, not by pointing out facts, but by describing their own fantasies (about how much they could earn, of course without thinking that if more money is spent on MPAA stuff, less is spent on other sectors in society) , and nightmares (about how much they're getting ripped off), and with their bribes (a.k.a. lobbying).
And of course these people don't even understand their clients: The obnoxious 'don't copy' ads at the start of DVDs is almost enough to make me want to 'pirate' stuff.
Accusing others of what they do themselves is something I found to be a typical trait of sociopaths in humans, and corporations are designed and geared to be exactly that, which shows the problems involved with corporations. Reduce liability: If a corporations spout such nonsense as this, they should be held in contempt of court, i.e. everyone responsible: The lawyers, and the entire board of directors etc.
I'm sorry... but these greedy fucking cunts need to be taken out back and horse-whipped!!!
This shows the moderation system on slashdot just doesn't work in some cases. This is not flamebait, this is a realistic depiction of what justice is supposed to be in cases like this!
Language might be a little unappropriate, but that's nothing when compared to the action of these sabam a-holes!
Slashdot is just as likely to make good posting invisible at -1 or 0 as happened to a very good reply of mine to a dimwit, but that dimwit was one that spouted pro-GPL nonsense claiming that people who want the BSD licence want to take advantage of others etc. Complete BS! But as there is a pro-Linux/GPL attitude here, those who are pro-GPL come in and downmod anything they don't like. Whether it's true or insightful doesn't matter. This is bullying, not really different than making nasty comments and chasing people away from newsgroups.
And for more about the problems on forums and newsgroups (which are autists, bullshit artists, zealots, people who feel the need to defend and expensive purchase and do so in a stupid way, ditto for viewpoints, and more), see this page:
I find most postings to be really poor on slashdot, very little information content and the nutters who come up with silly stuff that it essentially made up (be it about global warming or about BSD people wanting to take advantage of other people's work), keep posting the same shit over and over again.
This guy 'causality' also mentions the LGPL as if that solves it completely.
His whole response was a typical response of someone who doesn't understand the issues. Linking may still be a derivative work despite what the intention of the licence is. The FSF has been unwilling to clarify that this does not make a derivative work, and that it will take no legal action in such cases, last I heard. So this means that, no, the LGPL is not enough, if you want to absolutely sure. There's also the issue of bits of compilers and parts of headers getting compiled into the program.
The sad part is that the reply, while snarky, was correct. You seem to be stuck in "victim-mode" where you can't do what you want to do and refuse to look at alternatives.
Seriously, whining because you can't have your cake and eat it too is tiring.
It's really tiring those GPL advocates whining about supposed whining from others who just ask a question or don't think their preferred way of doing business can be done via GPL, no then they get accused of wanting to take other software for free and profiting from it, or that they are whining.
The rest of your comment was ok, but of course it has to be whiny and accusing again, as all GPL advocates seem to like doing.
A few months ago I made a good reply to a particularly inane posting by someone who didn't understand, but even worse, lied about various businesses don't use/don't want to use GPL software.
It's http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2618678&cid=38680252) where I replied to a nonsensical posting by 'causality (777677' which is full of disinformation and the response to my posting shows nothing but ignorance and distortion of the facts. That he gets modded to +5 twice shows the fanboys are at work.
So I will explain here in more detail, as this is the crap that GPL lovers do all the time. It explains also why my original response talked about enforcability of the GPL licence, but also to see how such a zealot distorts and/or just makes things up. Of course, not all of them are like that, but a lot of them...
It annoys the minority of businesses who feel entitled to the free labor of strangers and don't want to give anything back.
A lie, it's about using your software without having to give it all up for free and/or about not getting sued...
You see, some people are childish and the most visible mark of childishness is a sense of entitlement. This causes them to feel somehow cheated if you place a few conditions on code that is otherwise free, that no one is forcing them to use if the conditions don't suit them.
They are not complaining about free code, but that their code that cannot be used freely (on a given system) without having to rewrite more... This is why I gave my argument of the GPL becoming unenforcable once it gets over a certain threshold. But that obviously flies high above his head!
I think phrases like "you mean I have to actually HIRE my OWN PROGRAMMERS if I really must insist that everything be done exactly the way I want?!" are often uttered with outrage during their corporate meetings.
This is just childish nonsense, made up by him.
I mean hey, launching a commercial product with most of the work already done for you, for free, is a nice racket if you can get it.
That's not it and either he knows it, in which case he's a liar, or he hasn't even bothered to look up the reason why GPL software is not acceptable in various cases, in which case he is again making things up.
But if the developers intend to allow this, they wouldn't use GPL, they would use a BSD-type license.
By virtue of the previous sentence he implies the view that BSD licence is good to make a product ' with most of the work already done for you, for free' and ready to be exploited. This proves he is a Linux/GPL zealot.
For reasonable people, this is not a problem. Reasonable people think either "hey, this code is available for free and we have no problem complying with the license, so we can enjoy all the effort that has already been done for us and build on that", or they think "the terms of that license aren't compatible with our business model, or we're afraid of how a court may in
Who gives a shit if it uses a little bit more memory. I just bought 16GB of RAM for $75. It isn't 1991 anymore.
I don't like the bullshit upgrade schedule where they make a few minor improvements and call it a major new release. That's why I'll probably stay with 9 for a while. But there is no reason to stay with 3.6.
You have a very poor memory as in 1991 memory usage was not 300-500 MB just for a silly webbrowser.
And your argument that memory is cheap is true for DDR3, but if you've got a bit older machine like I have that's perefctly fine for everything I use it, using DDR2, it's a lot more expensive.
Memory use of applications and Xorg too is just insane these days. Even Xemacs that I often use, I've got one editing a html file and it uses 32 MB (and that's a low value, it's often 100MB). Why? What the hell does it all load and do compared to the mid-late 1990s where you could use it without hogging all RAM on a 32MB machine?
Always the arguments by people like you is 'memory is cheap', but it's not really. Not needing new memory is cheaper than new memory. Not needing to waste time on 'why the hell is my memory not enough any more' is better than wasting time on it. Sometimes you even need to upgrade your PC to get affordable new memory. That's the case esp. for a slightly older PC of my niece. Your argument is also the reason why developers don't seem to give a shit about memory footprint, whatever they claim. 300MB for browsing some webpages? Absolutely ludicrous. Thunderbird seems to have a complete built in webbrowser in it to display HTML stuff. Nuke all that crap and let it do emails! Then it wouldn't need 200-300MB.
It's a vicious circle of upgrades that are not really necessary as quickly as they would be if applications didn't load so much useless crap and do so much useless crap.
Those of you wondering, this article offers some answers to the question of why so many of these scams originate from this area."
No actually, it doesn't. Poverty is not a reason for scamming. It might be a reason for stealing food or other things. Scams show a particular mindset, and that the most common type of Nigerian scam has originated elsewhere is irrelevant. What matters is how many people do it, and the information I have is that scamming is commonplace in Nigerian culture, so they do it to themselves, not just to others with a 'lot' of money outside Nigeria. This means poverty has nothing to do with why they all seem to be Nigerians. Though I suppose, being a Nigerian, seeing some scammer from your country make a lot of money, might influence you to do the same thus giving a flood of such people, but as I said, it seems to be commonplace behaviour in Nigeria itself.
Just as with Richard Dawkins and the evolution vs creationism debate, there is no debate allowed. Either you accept the truths from the Scientific gods (Gleick and Dawkins) or you are exiled.
Somewhat agree with this.
Half the English academics involved in global warming have been found to be fudging the facts,
Bullshit. But you know what is a fact: All the global warming deniers are people who cannot reason, give bogus arguments and are usually paid for by groups who have an interest in keeping going on polluting.
We have a group here in the Netherlands called 'Groene rekenkamer' for example who provide a bunch of bullshit material so moronic, that the inhabitants of a mental asylum could not compete against them!
Slashdot is getting more and more such that the postings resemble those of a bunch of demented 5 year olds...
With the deniers here like Jane Q Public repeating their moronic crap over an over again, and learning nothing, it seems it's time for meta meta moderation: Keep repeating the same crap argument and your initial posts are valued at -1 lower each time. No lower limit!
One of 'Jane Q Public's latest pieces of 'insight':
Nobody on the "skeptical" side has been doing any "suppressing". I repeat: it has been the skeptics who have kept calling for open debate. It is the AGW proponents who claim "consensus" and that "the science is settled."
His so called skeptics aren't skeptics but deniers. They aren't interested in science and never give real arguments. They are the ones not interested in debate, or if they do debate give moronic arguments that no scientist is interested in. Debating with a moron isn't helping science therefore scientists are not interested in most of these 'skeptics'. The fact that the real scientists have a concensus doesn't mean there is no interest in discussions or new ideas or new viewpoints or new interpretations, not at all, it just means there is a concensus, and you better have damn good arguments if you are to convince them. Not the garbage quality arguments of 'skeptics'/deniers.
Because only one document is scanned. And the one document that's scanned is scanned almost a month after everything else. And the one document that's scanned a month after everything else is the only one that uses inflammatory language like preventing people from "teaching science". It looks fake to me. There's plenty of stuff in the documents that are basically acknowledged as real to let people know how they work, and who they support, and where their money comes from... but the hot, sexy stuff just isn't there. Does your organization work like this? Unsigned, undated memos to people who aren't listed are scanned in from printouts to be put in the corporate file even though everything else you generate goes direct to PDF?
If I were an dishonest organisation out to influence an manipulate then yes of course, all the saucy stuff would never be kept as PDFs only as hardcopy/eyes only.
So these arguments that it's a PDF from scans in my view make it not less real. Specific type of language is also meaningless because esp. in such documents which are 'inflammatory', people (the one/ones writing it) tend to write in their own style, not a 'house style'. Therefore the argument that this Megan McArdle gave is not an argument at all.
Unless you count a 90% reduction in trading costs as âoenothingâ.
Back in the day Market Makers would take $.125 to $.25 for every share traded. And woe to you if you were trying to sell more than 10k because then you would really be scalped. And then you had to add broker commissions on top of that.
I would rather pay high frequency traders $.01 a share and have a deep liquid market then go back to the good old days
(- infinite, moronic)
Who gives a damn what percentage some trader wanted? For one it's all mostly automated so fees should be very low now, and for another, if you don't need to/want to buy/sell frequently then the small charges are a non issue. They are only an issue if you want to trade a lot because you want to gamble on changes in values of stock. So the original poster was right, high freqeuncy trading is valueless and should be disallowed. It's gambling, and not just simple gambling, but gambling that destabilizes economies.
They are just getting their comeuppance and they rightfully deserve it.
'They' (Kodak) are not getting their comeuppance.
What's important is whether the Kodak lawsuit was justified or not, and this one as well, although it seems Apple just acts more like its name was Wankle (pronounced by someone from China).
When a company goes bankrupt the money goes to creditors and this lawsuit will eat into that money, effectively fooking everyone over, who may depend on that (I don't know the situation precisely).
If you are talking about comeuppance, then you should talk about the people going for frivolous lawsuits and the direction companies take. This is always the board of directors etc. Perhaps the people in the legal department too. Have you ever seen such people getting thrown in jail and taken all their stuff away to (partly) pay for damage they did by wasting money (their company, the other and more) or even destroying the economy (esp. banks). No? I haven't either.
The US military are scum and soldiers are criminals.
There was no reason for this war and yet the US won't take responsibility for the consequences. Fuck the US military and those who support it. Scumbags.
And that's all very true - but it still has jack shit to do with Iraqi's looting their own universities,
Of course it does. Take away the system that keeps the a-holes doing what they would really want to do, i.e. they don't give a damn about others, take want to take what they want but normally can't because they'd get caught quickly by the police.
Looting is what will happen, everywhere, in the USA. or Europe, or wherever. Just look at what happens with floods for example.
So the USA destroyed the infrastructure of power, thereby they enabled the looting. The USA is responsible.
Btw. this reminded me of something I wanted to say about a story, not long ago on slashdot, about being able to recognize serial killers. I didn't get round to writing it down then, so I will do it now: When I read that, I thought how pathetic this research was, because there are so much bigger problems that these people don't analyse at all. Esp. that a sociopath like George Wanker Bush, who was unbelievably actually elected to power by people in the USA (really? Why did anyone vote for this a-hole? I knew he was scum the first time I saw him talk on TV), and did thousands of times more damage and caused thousands of times more deaths (together with his sociapath cronies, but as the president has so much power in the US, he is responsible).
Why don't psychologists go analysing people in politics and say 'he is a sociopath and should be barred from being in any position in power'?
Slashdot Mirror
That is a moronic comment. It's just like saying "Only idiots trust their doctors for medical advice".
Your style of posting is of a denier, one dissenting scientist does not make an argument, in fact his case of the sun's influence being large was as far as I know based on local studies, then from that he thinks global climate change depends largely on the sun. This is already moronic but then he says that some solar amplification effects must exist which can't be modelled. That's just ludicrous.
However, it's long been known from lots of modelling that the sun's influences are minute. So what has he offered to counter that? Nothing? Indeed. And when you say that you agree with van Geel, what does that mean? Surely you mean 'He says something I want to believe', as you are not up to a scientific analysis of this stuff yourself...
See also: http://klimaatverandering.wordpress.com/category/bas-van-geel/ (Dutch).
But slashbart can at least read that. I already knew from slashbart's username and his style of writing before looking at his 'Homepage' that he is Dutch.
You're probably a believer of the insane 'groenerekenkamer' liars aren't you? And it wouldn't surprise me either if you are a VVD voter (= antisocal a-hole party of the Netherlands).
Actually, I heard he wanted to do participate via online conferencing, but his computer suffered from RAMpack wobble...
People in the USA have had bizarre extremists and arseholes in government for a long time. See George Wanker Bush and his fellow sociopaths like Condeleeza Rice, Rumsfeld, etc.
It can't get any worse than what those a-holes did which helped destabilize the economy and with the war they started, the world around Iraq.
No they wouldn't have a markedly poorer CRI. These Philips EnduraLEDs have a CRI of at least 80, but that's not very high. 75-80 is standard among all high power LEDs (Cree XRE, XPE, XPG, Philips Rebel, etc.)
All LEDs have the problem of a large spike in the blue wavelengths, a drop off, then a lower hill again. It's much less of a spike in warm white. Note that esp. cool-white (5000K and higher) is not very good to differentiate various colours. For use outside all greens become one green blob, yellow/brown disappear and this results in a loss of depth perception.
I tested these issues for bicycle use and found neutral white of ca. 4000-4500K to be the best. See: http://swhs.home.xs4all.nl/fiets/tests/verlichting/experimenten/index_nl.html
Within the house you encounter other colours and neutral white is also far better than cool white. I modified LED torches/flashlights which are normally cool white with neutral white LEDs and it was a huge improvement.
Another issue is that lower colour temperatures (esp. more red) are easier on the eyes. This is also a reason why people actually like warm white.
Cool white is harsher, gives more eye strain therefore not a good idea for environments you spend a lot of time in.
Someone said about 5000-5500K CFLs:
Except that it's not. It's a lower temp. but due to the blue spike it's not the same as what you experience in sunlight, see above about disappearing colours and the blue spike...
Science is not mathematics. Insisting on 'proof', however you want to define that in physics, for an extremely complex system like the climate is moronic and shows you don't know how science works, how scientific concensus is reached, and what it means for a theory to accepted as being confirmed.
Furthermore, as I've said here long ago and on my website sind ca. 2005 when I saw the inane arguments from nutjobs here in NL (e.g. a group called Groene rekenkamer, T. Richel, Simon Rozendaal who spouts his moronic garbage in the magazine Elsevier (from a-hole publisher Elsevier), even if not the scientific branch, they're related)), that considering it not-happening even if there is a small chance is so stupid, that it's beyond belief. Such people who don't care think like this: "Sure life might become extint in lots of places, but that's not my problem, I want to drive a city-tractor! (aka SUV)"
And that is psychological analysis using facial expressions and language used.
See the TV series 'Lie to me' which is based on an actual psychologist Ekman.
It's known from analysis of police interrogations here in NL that being friendly in interrrogating gives most results. Even if they are totally oncooperative you can talk in such a way that people want to tell you something, because they want to brag or show how clever they are.
But I guess the FBI hasn't learned that lesson yet...
Btw., I think such analysis should also be applied to all politicians. It would prevent getting sociopaths like George Wanker Bush becoming presidents, but in lower positions too, such a-holes do enormous damage to society.
CEOs/managers always get bonusses when the company makes lots of profits (most likely not because of the those managers but because of the general economy).
;-) ), he is charged $5 million, or more,,for his obvious incompetence?
So now I wonder if through his obvious bad leadership (general economy is never the main influence otherwise there would be no bonusses, therefore it can't be used as a cause of bad performance either!
and thanks for all the 100%-CPU-use times?
Compensation, ok, but $170,000 is ridiculous. For getting arrested? And who's going to pay for that? Citizens, through council tax or whatever.
The worst malware I ever encountered is from microsoft (specifically windoze 95 and 98), I can remember the days, it took hours to get rid of all the problems and stuff it installed that I didn't want. I suppose they are also blocking all mentions of windoze 95/98?
Money punishments are pointless most of the time. The bosses should get punishment. A substantial decrease in pay, and if things are bad enough throw them them in jail, forbid them to be part of boards of any companies etc. That's punishment that will work!
Limited liability the way it works now gives 2 kinds of sociopaths a chance to wreak havoc: The actual sociopaths, and companies consisting of a-holes and sociopaths in the board and as directors who make the company act as a sociopath.
What's being done is as the OP said and which I said e.g. in a posting some time ago here about punishing a company (I think it was a story about Kodak), not useful.
I used these as as examples against the similar whining of airport Schiphol. I believe the whining (I mean the way it's being done and who is being blamed) about declining profits shows the attitude in a company. In Schiphol as wist most businesses related to airtravel industry they have some sort of superiority complex and believe it their God-given right to annoy people with noise, not to have to pay taxes, not to have to pay sound insulation etc.
With the sound recordings there is something similar going on, they have a 'we are fantastic' attitude which is just ludicrous.
The decline of sales was already moaned about long before napster, as they have an attitude of 'enough is never enough'.
In NL, prices of CDs were high (much higher than records) when first introduced, it was said prices would go down when the cost came down. That never happened. Of course not. People like me remember that and buy little.
The music industry also reached a boom, from people who replaced their record/tape collections with CDs and the young generation with lots of money in the 1990s.
Both these sources dried up: The first had almost all what they wanted, the latter went for other stuff: Games, mobile phones, whatever.
For myself: I haven't bought music in a decade or so, I download some music, but very little. Most of what I liked, I already had (bought, loaned), so why buy anything? And yes, then sales will drop, not because of piracy but because of natural market development.
Pointing out the facts is not a 'systematic effort to influence the development of the law'. In fact it's been the MPAA and similar organisations that have been doing that, and the only ones who have been doing that, not by pointing out facts, but by describing their own fantasies (about how much they could earn, of course without thinking that if more money is spent on MPAA stuff, less is spent on other sectors in society) , and nightmares (about how much they're getting ripped off), and with their bribes (a.k.a. lobbying).
And of course these people don't even understand their clients: The obnoxious 'don't copy' ads at the start of DVDs is almost enough to make me want to 'pirate' stuff.
Accusing others of what they do themselves is something I found to be a typical trait of sociopaths in humans, and corporations are designed and geared to be exactly that, which shows the problems involved with corporations. Reduce liability: If a corporations spout such nonsense as this, they should be held in contempt of court, i.e. everyone responsible: The lawyers, and the entire board of directors etc.
This shows the moderation system on slashdot just doesn't work in some cases. This is not flamebait, this is a realistic depiction of what justice is supposed to be in cases like this!
Language might be a little unappropriate, but that's nothing when compared to the action of these sabam a-holes!
Slashdot is just as likely to make good posting invisible at -1 or 0 as happened to a very good reply of mine to a dimwit, but that dimwit was one that spouted pro-GPL nonsense claiming that people who want the BSD licence want to take advantage of others etc. Complete BS! But as there is a pro-Linux/GPL attitude here, those who are pro-GPL come in and downmod anything they don't like. Whether it's true or insightful doesn't matter. This is bullying, not really different than making nasty comments and chasing people away from newsgroups.
You might want to read this about this problem:
http://swhs.home.xs4all.nl/kritiek/linux/
And for more about the problems on forums and newsgroups (which are autists, bullshit artists, zealots, people who feel the need to defend and expensive purchase and do so in a stupid way, ditto for viewpoints, and more), see this page:
http://swhs.home.xs4all.nl/kritiek/discussies/index.html
I find most postings to be really poor on slashdot, very little information content and the nutters who come up with silly stuff that it essentially made up (be it about global warming or about BSD people wanting to take advantage of other people's work), keep posting the same shit over and over again.
His whole response was a typical response of someone who doesn't understand the issues. Linking may still be a derivative work despite what the intention of the licence is. The FSF has been unwilling to clarify that this does not make a derivative work, and that it will take no legal action in such cases, last I heard. So this means that, no, the LGPL is not enough, if you want to absolutely sure. There's also the issue of bits of compilers and parts of headers getting compiled into the program.
It's really tiring those GPL advocates whining about supposed whining from others who just ask a question or don't think their preferred way of doing business can be done via GPL, no then they get accused of wanting to take other software for free and profiting from it, or that they are whining.
The rest of your comment was ok, but of course it has to be whiny and accusing again, as all GPL advocates seem to like doing.
A few months ago I made a good reply to a particularly inane posting by someone who didn't understand, but even worse, lied about various businesses don't use/don't want to use GPL software.
It's http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2618678&cid=38680252) where I replied to a nonsensical posting by 'causality (777677' which is full of disinformation and the response to my posting shows nothing but ignorance and distortion of the facts. That he gets modded to +5 twice shows the fanboys are at work.
So I will explain here in more detail, as this is the crap that GPL lovers do all the time. It explains also why my original response talked about enforcability of the GPL licence, but also to see how such a zealot distorts and/or just makes things up. Of course, not all of them are like that, but a lot of them...
A lie, it's about using your software without having to give it all up for free and/or about not getting sued...
They are not complaining about free code, but that their code that cannot be used freely (on a given system) without having to rewrite more... This is why I gave my argument of the GPL becoming unenforcable once it gets over a certain threshold. But that obviously flies high above his head!
This is just childish nonsense, made up by him.
That's not it and either he knows it, in which case he's a liar, or he hasn't even bothered to look up the reason why GPL software is not acceptable in various cases, in which case he is again making things up.
By virtue of the previous sentence he implies the view that BSD licence is good to make a product ' with most of the work already done for you, for free' and ready to be exploited. This proves he is a Linux/GPL zealot.
You have a very poor memory as in 1991 memory usage was not 300-500 MB just for a silly webbrowser.
And your argument that memory is cheap is true for DDR3, but if you've got a bit older machine like I have that's perefctly fine for everything I use it, using DDR2, it's a lot more expensive.
Memory use of applications and Xorg too is just insane these days. Even Xemacs that I often use, I've got one editing a html file and it uses 32 MB (and that's a low value, it's often 100MB). Why? What the hell does it all load and do compared to the mid-late 1990s where you could use it without hogging all RAM on a 32MB machine?
Always the arguments by people like you is 'memory is cheap', but it's not really. Not needing new memory is cheaper than new memory. Not needing to waste time on 'why the hell is my memory not enough any more' is better than wasting time on it. Sometimes you even need to upgrade your PC to get affordable new memory. That's the case esp. for a slightly older PC of my niece. Your argument is also the reason why developers don't seem to give a shit about memory footprint, whatever they claim. 300MB for browsing some webpages? Absolutely ludicrous. Thunderbird seems to have a complete built in webbrowser in it to display HTML stuff. Nuke all that crap and let it do emails! Then it wouldn't need 200-300MB.
It's a vicious circle of upgrades that are not really necessary as quickly as they would be if applications didn't load so much useless crap and do so much useless crap.
No actually, it doesn't. Poverty is not a reason for scamming. It might be a reason for stealing food or other things. Scams show a particular mindset, and that the most common type of Nigerian scam has originated elsewhere is irrelevant. What matters is how many people do it, and the information I have is that scamming is commonplace in Nigerian culture, so they do it to themselves, not just to others with a 'lot' of money outside Nigeria. This means poverty has nothing to do with why they all seem to be Nigerians. Though I suppose, being a Nigerian, seeing some scammer from your country make a lot of money, might influence you to do the same thus giving a flood of such people, but as I said, it seems to be commonplace behaviour in Nigeria itself.
Somewhat agree with this.
Bullshit. But you know what is a fact: All the global warming deniers are people who cannot reason, give bogus arguments and are usually paid for by groups who have an interest in keeping going on polluting.
We have a group here in the Netherlands called 'Groene rekenkamer' for example who provide a bunch of bullshit material so moronic, that the inhabitants of a mental asylum could not compete against them!
Slashdot is getting more and more such that the postings resemble those of a bunch of demented 5 year olds...
With the deniers here like Jane Q Public repeating their moronic crap over an over again, and learning nothing, it seems it's time for meta meta moderation: Keep repeating the same crap argument and your initial posts are valued at -1 lower each time. No lower limit! One of 'Jane Q Public's latest pieces of 'insight':
His so called skeptics aren't skeptics but deniers. They aren't interested in science and never give real arguments. They are the ones not interested in debate, or if they do debate give moronic arguments that no scientist is interested in. Debating with a moron isn't helping science therefore scientists are not interested in most of these 'skeptics'. The fact that the real scientists have a concensus doesn't mean there is no interest in discussions or new ideas or new viewpoints or new interpretations, not at all, it just means there is a concensus, and you better have damn good arguments if you are to convince them. Not the garbage quality arguments of 'skeptics'/deniers.
If I were an dishonest organisation out to influence an manipulate then yes of course, all the saucy stuff would never be kept as PDFs only as hardcopy/eyes only.
So these arguments that it's a PDF from scans in my view make it not less real. Specific type of language is also meaningless because esp. in such documents which are 'inflammatory', people (the one/ones writing it) tend to write in their own style, not a 'house style'. Therefore the argument that this Megan McArdle gave is not an argument at all.
(- infinite, moronic)
Who gives a damn what percentage some trader wanted? For one it's all mostly automated so fees should be very low now, and for another, if you don't need to/want to buy/sell frequently then the small charges are a non issue. They are only an issue if you want to trade a lot because you want to gamble on changes in values of stock. So the original poster was right, high freqeuncy trading is valueless and should be disallowed. It's gambling, and not just simple gambling, but gambling that destabilizes economies.
'They' (Kodak) are not getting their comeuppance.
What's important is whether the Kodak lawsuit was justified or not, and this one as well, although it seems Apple just acts more like its name was Wankle (pronounced by someone from China).
When a company goes bankrupt the money goes to creditors and this lawsuit will eat into that money, effectively fooking everyone over, who may depend on that (I don't know the situation precisely).
If you are talking about comeuppance, then you should talk about the people going for frivolous lawsuits and the direction companies take. This is always the board of directors etc. Perhaps the people in the legal department too. Have you ever seen such people getting thrown in jail and taken all their stuff away to (partly) pay for damage they did by wasting money (their company, the other and more) or even destroying the economy (esp. banks). No? I haven't either.
Of course it does. Take away the system that keeps the a-holes doing what they would really want to do, i.e. they don't give a damn about others, take want to take what they want but normally can't because they'd get caught quickly by the police.
Looting is what will happen, everywhere, in the USA. or Europe, or wherever. Just look at what happens with floods for example.
So the USA destroyed the infrastructure of power, thereby they enabled the looting. The USA is responsible.
Btw. this reminded me of something I wanted to say about a story, not long ago on slashdot, about being able to recognize serial killers. I didn't get round to writing it down then, so I will do it now: When I read that, I thought how pathetic this research was, because there are so much bigger problems that these people don't analyse at all. Esp. that a sociopath like George Wanker Bush, who was unbelievably actually elected to power by people in the USA (really? Why did anyone vote for this a-hole? I knew he was scum the first time I saw him talk on TV), and did thousands of times more damage and caused thousands of times more deaths (together with his sociapath cronies, but as the president has so much power in the US, he is responsible).
Why don't psychologists go analysing people in politics and say 'he is a sociopath and should be barred from being in any position in power'?