Sigh. Learn to use actual logic instead of mindlessly quoting logical fallacies. The GP was mentioning a bunch of things, which are well known, that give a preponderance of evidence for global warming. Add to that the fact that the mechanism causing the problems are well known.
To give you an example. Someone starts screaming in public that they are going to kill you. They show up at your house with a large handgun and force the door. A couple minutes later, several shots are heard. The man runs out of your house without the handgun. You are found dead and the coroner determines the hour of your death to be around the time the man with the handgun showed up at your door. Noone else has shown up that day other than the man with the handgun. The bullets which have blasted what little brains you have out the back of your head are determined to come from the gun lying on the floor, which is the same one brought in by the man who forced his way into your house.
Now, given all this, you would apparently parrot the rule saying "Correlation is not causation".
My point was that there is no situation where sharing infringing files can be legal
Ah, but how do you know they are infringing? I could be an Old Time Radio buff and be using my shared directory to swap shows with other OTR buffs. This is perfectly legal since the content is in the public domain. And then there are copyrighted lower-res movie files that the content owners specifically allow to be distributed, like "Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning".
To give you a brief introduction: here and
here. To corporations, the system laws and punishments is simply another cost-benefit analysis to be factored in.
You're an idiot. Art is not R&D. High record sales does not equate with being a better artist. It simply means that you can get a lot of people to listen to it. And how has Madonna "improved"? It's the same kind of drivel she has been putting out from the beginning. And record companies pick what sells, not what is good. Do you really think the latest incarnation of New Kids on the Block/Backstreet Boys or Early Madonna/Brittney Spears/Whoever-that-airhead-who-replaced-her's-nam e-is are picked because of *talent*!. I guess next you'll be claiming that the Power Rangers and Barney the Purple Dinosaur are the pinacle of theater because of their high level of sales.
If the algorithms are publicly available, they can be reviewed
Indeed they can, and they should. I was simply stating that this will not in any way stop people who will deny basic science and try to have their fundamentalism forced on other people.
Excuse me, but what part of this exchange did you not understand?
GP:Given the current tendency towards knee jerk FUD in some quarters, the only way we're ever going to be able to settle debates like this one is if the data can be subjected to widespread peer review.
Me: I wish I could share your optimism, but widespread peer review won't change anything.
If you knew how to read, you would see that I am not suggesting that scientific data be hidden. I am merely saying that GP's optimism is unfounded.
You're advocating "security through obscurity" for scientific data?
I was not at all advocating that, which would be obvious if you read both mine and the GP's comments. I was simply saying that I don't share his optimism and commenting on the resultant effects of releasing the raw data. I think it should be released, but it sure as hell won't solve anything, which is what the GP seemed to be suggesting.
Now, go take your meds and learn a little reading comprehension.
I certainly wouldn't have a problem with a neighbor having a rocket launcher in his back yard, but I wouldn't screw around with his wife behind his back either.
Why wouldn't you screw around with his wife? After all, you could have a rocket launcher as well. You could even set the aim and a launching mechanism such that, when you come in his wife, you could press a button to fire the rocket, thus blowing his house to smithereens.
So, I would call anyone who says they believe OR dis-believe in evolution - a [snipped for brevity]
This is more a problem with the media and the way the debate has been framed. Not only does the mainstream American media try to present "both sides of the debate" (when there isn't really a debate anymore than there is a debate between flat-earthers and sane people), but they consistently ask the question using the phrase "Do you believe in Evolution?" I wish I could get asked that sort of question on television or radio. I would simply respond with "Do you believe in gravity?" As many others have pointed out, it is not a question of belief. But, when it comes to evolution, that is how it is always presented.
ID as stated does NOT require a supernatural being
Perhaps, but ID as actually practiced, and as its proponents try to force into schools, requires some big guy with a gray beard creating the universe roughly 6000 years ago. They aren't even remotely interested in any other possible conjectures.
Given the current tendency towards knee jerk FUD in some quarters, the only way we're ever going to be able to settle debates like this one is if the data can be subjected to widespread peer review.
I wish I could share your optimism, but widespread peer review won't change anything. The problem is due to people who know nothing or very little (which is often worse than nothing) about the sciences. If the raw data is publicly available, it will give the people who want to deny basic science more ammunition for their inane babblings. They won't in reality know the first thing they are talking about, but it will impress the people who want to believe the world is only 6000 years old, or we never went to the moon, or their is no global warming, and so on.
Those older than me might be able to trace this trend back further.
Yeah, I'm still pissed off about that fucker Millard Fillmore! "God knows that I detest slavery, but it is an existing evil... and we must endure it and give it such protection as is guaranteed by the Constitution," he said. Pansy-assed little bastard!
but it's only lovely if it's done in the context of something that at least remotely resembles a balanced budget and reasonable spending
Exactly. It's easy to give the appearance of wealth when you are in the process of maxing out your credit cards and borrowing every cent the bank will give you.
Now, cue the slashbots, all of whom will be saying "Haw! Haw! They patented oil and water???!!! So now they are going to sue every city that has oil slicks after a light rain? Patents suck! Information wants to be free! Buy a beowulf cluster of Macs that run Linux that only old people in Korea will use! In Soviet Russia, oil and water patents YOU! Profit! I for one, welcome our new oil and water overlords. Profit!"
Absolutley, and as a major importer of cattle trucks into the US I'm happy to report that with the large new orders in the pipeline I'll soon be able to retire and live a life of luxury. It's not all doom and gloom you know.
And as a major supplier of handbaskets, I'm making a killing as Americans get all their accessories ready for our next trip.
[Pantomime Steve Jobs appers]
Pantomime Steve Jobs: iHello, everyone!
Bigels: Back in the closet, you pantomime CEO person!
[Pantomime Steve Jobs, still waving, walks backwards back into closet]
[Real Zonk appears]
Bigels: Begone, you pantomime editor person!
[Bigels thwacks Zonk with big foam cluebat]
[Zonk runs off in tears, with kdawson close behind, licking Zonk's posterior]
What if I become a person of interest to my spouse during divorce proceedings? Then the database potentially becomes a tool to punish me, not for something illegal I may have done, but for something immoral. Great, so giving right of review of our morality to the police is good why?
You don't even have to do something immoral in a divorce proceeding. Innuendo is enough. Let's say, for example, a camera catches me walking down the sidewalk with a woman who is not my wife, and I even put my hand on her back a few times as we walk. Then, we both go up to her apartment. A couple hours later, I leave. An attorney would be all over this, even though the only thing that happened was conversation between me and an old friend. And this doesn't even get into the selective use of data and times when cameras "malfunction" as people in London are aware of happening whenever the police get out of hand.
does having an encrypted file system mean we have something to hide?
Of course you have something to hide. You have your tax returns, financial statements, personal journals, and other private files to hide from malicious hackers and people who might run off with your laptop. If you are in the financial industry, you have other people's private information to hide (or, at least, that's what you should do). The problem is the absurd assumption that, since we are using encryption, we have something illegal to hide.
It can be arranged. however, in return, like most musicians you will have to work the first dozen or so years of your life for virtually nothing, with no guarantee whatsoever of ever making a penny from any of it
I've done that. It's called "getting a graduate/professional degree". Most people have to work their asses off for next to nothing for years before they break into a lucrative career. Note that I wrote "lucrative". I'm not talking about being something like a truck driver (nothing against the field, it just doesn't pay very well, but is fairly easy to get into). After working my ass off for years while being dirt poor to get a degree and then get into my field, I'm doing quite well. So now, should I get perpetual royalties on all the work that I do? I didn't think so.
Copyright protects artists so that they have the ability to be able to make money by granting them a temporary monopoly on their work. The purpose and reason behind the government being so generous is to promote the creation of artistic work. Continuing copyrights long after the fact (let alone long after the artist is dead) does not help promote the creation of artistic work. The current copyright scheme is simply a way for corporations to make money for doing nothing. The big media corporations would absolutely love it if they could have perpetual copyright on incredibly small pieces of written/musical/theatrical/etc material. That way, they can get paid when anyone anywhere expresses any thought in any way. You will have to pay the big media corporations exhorbitant fees to say anything at all.
Take your woman outside and beat her because she is showing more skin than just around her eyes. Then report back your findings, please.
You would appear to be a very confused individual. The reason things like this do not happen is that we have not *yet* reached the stage where the American version of the Taliban is truly running and dictating everything. In other words, there is still a modicum of freedom left. But, if we allow the Taliban-wanna-be's to fully enact what they want, then we would have a fundie Evangelic Christian version of Sharia Law.
While they still would not have women taken out and beaten for showing more skin than just around their eyes, that would only be because the lunatics are not Wahibi Muslims. There would be many laws that are equally vile. You see, people like W, Pat Robertson, and the rest of that lot subscribe to Dominionism . Not only will all Non-Christian religions be banned, but so will Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Mormonism, and all the "wrong types" of Protestant denominations.
Are you married to someone who is not of the same race ("race" as defined by them as well)? Your marriage will be outlawed. Are you dating anyone and pre-nuptually enjoying amorous frivolities? Death by stoning. Are you gay? Death by stoning. Do you do any work on Sunday? Death by stoning. Alcoholic prohibition will be back with a vengence.
I could go on, but I hope you get the idea. Just because it is not bad now, doesn't mean that it can't get that way. And the sort of people who support W really want it to be that way.
Slashdot Mirror
All these mash-ups of Heston quotes. I swear "it's a madhouse! a madhouse!"
To give you an example. Someone starts screaming in public that they are going to kill you. They show up at your house with a large handgun and force the door. A couple minutes later, several shots are heard. The man runs out of your house without the handgun. You are found dead and the coroner determines the hour of your death to be around the time the man with the handgun showed up at your door. Noone else has shown up that day other than the man with the handgun. The bullets which have blasted what little brains you have out the back of your head are determined to come from the gun lying on the floor, which is the same one brought in by the man who forced his way into your house.
Now, given all this, you would apparently parrot the rule saying "Correlation is not causation".
To give you a brief introduction: here and here. To corporations, the system laws and punishments is simply another cost-benefit analysis to be factored in.
GP:Given the current tendency towards knee jerk FUD in some quarters, the only way we're ever going to be able to settle debates like this one is if the data can be subjected to widespread peer review.
Me: I wish I could share your optimism, but widespread peer review won't change anything.
If you knew how to read, you would see that I am not suggesting that scientific data be hidden. I am merely saying that GP's optimism is unfounded.
Now, go take your meds and learn a little reading comprehension.
Now, cue the slashbots, all of whom will be saying "Haw! Haw! They patented oil and water???!!! So now they are going to sue every city that has oil slicks after a light rain? Patents suck! Information wants to be free! Buy a beowulf cluster of Macs that run Linux that only old people in Korea will use! In Soviet Russia, oil and water patents YOU! Profit! I for one, welcome our new oil and water overlords. Profit!"
[Pantomime Steve Jobs appers]
Pantomime Steve Jobs: iHello, everyone!
Bigels: Back in the closet, you pantomime CEO person!
[Pantomime Steve Jobs, still waving, walks backwards back into closet]
[Real Zonk appears]
Bigels: Begone, you pantomime editor person!
[Bigels thwacks Zonk with big foam cluebat]
[Zonk runs off in tears, with kdawson close behind, licking Zonk's posterior]
Copyright protects artists so that they have the ability to be able to make money by granting them a temporary monopoly on their work. The purpose and reason behind the government being so generous is to promote the creation of artistic work. Continuing copyrights long after the fact (let alone long after the artist is dead) does not help promote the creation of artistic work. The current copyright scheme is simply a way for corporations to make money for doing nothing. The big media corporations would absolutely love it if they could have perpetual copyright on incredibly small pieces of written/musical/theatrical/etc material. That way, they can get paid when anyone anywhere expresses any thought in any way. You will have to pay the big media corporations exhorbitant fees to say anything at all.
While they still would not have women taken out and beaten for showing more skin than just around their eyes, that would only be because the lunatics are not Wahibi Muslims. There would be many laws that are equally vile. You see, people like W, Pat Robertson, and the rest of that lot subscribe to Dominionism . Not only will all Non-Christian religions be banned, but so will Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Mormonism, and all the "wrong types" of Protestant denominations.
Are you married to someone who is not of the same race ("race" as defined by them as well)? Your marriage will be outlawed. Are you dating anyone and pre-nuptually enjoying amorous frivolities? Death by stoning. Are you gay? Death by stoning. Do you do any work on Sunday? Death by stoning. Alcoholic prohibition will be back with a vengence.
I could go on, but I hope you get the idea. Just because it is not bad now, doesn't mean that it can't get that way. And the sort of people who support W really want it to be that way.