1. Excitedly rush to iTunes to buy Game of Thrones Season 2 - I didn't know I could buy it!
2. Discover AC is a lying, prick.
3. Return to paying criminals who actually know how to provide a service
I would love to be able to vote with my wallet. I see that's not possible through legal means, at least where I live. I hereby declare my downloads to represent a lost sale caused entirely by being unable to give money for the product I want.
And before anyone jumps up to defend the free market here, you may want to keep in mind that a level playing field (with no protectionism) is great if you're a Chinese worker making $1 an hour--not so fucking great if you're an American or European worker getting paid many times that. You go ahead and compete in the "free market" with people willing to work for a fraction of your salary and just see what happens to your beloved first-world living standard.
The US never used to have this problem. Something like a $50/hour technician would maintain a machine doing the work of 100 Chinese workers that the company had invested time and money into developing.
The reason American/European/whoever were paid more per hour is that they were more productive per hour. Basically the GDP/capita thing. But there has always been cheaper labor in other countries that the US traded with and it was not a problem.
There are many reasons the why the US is destroying its competitiveness that can be argued at length. A lot of it boils down to loosing to countries like China or Brazil that are investing in their own country and people. Consider a few things like how class mobility in China has drastically increased, while in the US this is decreasing. If there is a huge financial barrier to get a University education, will you get the best and brightest or stupid rich kids with degrees? Is the US more or less of a place that rewards talent? If there are higher environmental standards to manufacture in the US, do you A) allow companies to move manufacturing out of the country, pollute more and sell the product back to you or B) only freely trade with those meeting your standards.
The biggest greenhouse gas, by orders-of-magnitude, is water vapor...not the condensed vapor we see as clouds but the vaporized water that we experience as humidity and which your list does not even include.
Except warmer air holds more humidity. Increasing average temperature slightly with CO2 then increases humidity, which amplifies the warming effect and this is one of the lines of reasoning that leads to run away effects and tipping points. The entire 'water vapor' fact argues very strongly in favor of limiting global warming, the anti-global warming crowd is just so willfully ignorant of the subject that they think this argues in their favor.
To help you out some, you can safely ignore anyone claiming AGW doesn't exist or is doubtful. It's been over 15 since there's been what a lay person would call 'reasonable doubt' about that. There is, however, very large uncertainties about just how large an effect humans are having and, therefore, just how effective global warming reduction methods would be. Anyone legitimate on the 'anti-global warming' side is making these types of very real arguments, not obvious nonsense like 'CO2 promotes plant growth' which would stop atmospheric CO2 from rising so cannot be happening.
However, what to do about about global warming is at least as much an economic question (probably much more so) as a climate science question. So far, on the whole, it appears that money spent reducing global warming is among the least cost-effective environmental spending there is.
A carbon tax would promote nuclear energy because nuclear power doesn't produce carbon dioxide. The same is true of many other methods of generating power. Why wouldn't they promote an effective, market driven approach to accounting for the cost?
AGW hasn't been in any real dispute for a long time. In The Skeptical Environmentalist it was pointed out that back then there was no real dispute among anyone who knew about climate science. Of course it also pointed out that environmentally the 'bang for buck' on global warming spending was worse than about anything else and economically didn't look sensible. There is dispute over how big the effect is, which is being lost because these people are getting lumped in with the 'it is not happening' denialists who seem immune to evidence or facts.
You can check for yourself, during the 70s and 80s "the next ice age" was mentioned quite a bit. try news.google.com/archivesearch and look for yourself.
"global warming" popped up in 1985.
althoiugh it was first mentioned in the popular press in 1953
The news was fond of the next ice age thing. People studying climate were never very convinced and as more and more data came in global warming kept looking more and more probable.
Don't confuse media hype with the state of research or an informed opinion.
> 'Zhang then tested his theory in living cells, and the results exceeded his expectations.'
That is real research, real testing and discovery that the combination works better than expected. No one else published that yet.
It's obvious the US does not intend to stop illegal immigrants form Mexico, it's just a show to buy votes and hand juicy gobs of taxpayer money to friends. It would be profitable and easy to just fine companies employing illegal immigrants until it was cheaper to hire Americans. It seems this isn't acceptable because some of those companies would just move to Mexico/India/China. Any other method that might actually work has similar problems.
But the "I'll spend massive amounts of tax payer dollars on obviously ineffective solutions" seems to work really, really well on America voter if you phrase it right.
No, the increased solar activity was part of the warming, just a smaller part. Roughly 20% if I remember right, but that still left the majority of global warming not coming from solar activity.
The easy answer to the problem: don't redistribute whatever it is you make.
It sounds easy, but it is actually very difficult to keep from distributing. You see, a distribution is a transfer between any two legal entities. So, for example, you hire a consultant and give him a copy of the software. Then you decide not to use the consultant any longer. He's annoyed, and he asserts his GPL rights on your entire product, and distributes it. You go to sue, and the copyright holder of the GPL piece gets involved and makes a case that you don't have the rights you think you did. Your NDA does not apply to GPL software because GPL prohibits you from adding incompatible terms.
In some cases, transfer between divisions, especially partnerships with one or more additional firms, are distribution. So, in practice, I think that purposefully not distributing is too difficult to do reliably.
It also does not work against Affero GPL3. If you perform that as a service, you have to give up the source code.
So, it is much easier to keep your software separate as I advise.
Thanks
Bruce
That was the reasoning used in my current company to never, ever risk integrating GPL software into our code, despite the fact that we never sell or release software. (We use the custom software internally to help build a physical product.)
Does the GPL allow me to develop a modified version under a nondisclosure agreement?
Yes. For instance, you can accept a contract to develop changes and agree not to release your changes until the client says ok. This is permitted because in this case no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA.
You can also release your changes to the client under the GPL, but agree not to release them to anyone else unless the client says ok. In this case, too, no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA, or under any additional restrictions.
The GPL would give the client the right to redistribute your version. In this scenario, the client will probably choose not to exercise that right, but does have the right.
Is there something I'm missing? Are there specific provisions that should be included in NDAs and employee contracts to do this safely?
Why doesn't this bother you more? A great many of you even seem to think this is right. Why is punishing technical disobedience of the law to do the right thing so important?
Is it because he is a minor and attends the school, so is almost effectively helpless? Obedience to law must trump benefiting the public, nip it in the bud? Is it criminal and cocky to out smart people society has designated your superior?
Is there no principal, law or philosophy of what once made the USA a respected country that you will not tear down and piss on? Does it hurt to be reminded?
Solid evidence backs global warming and man made global warming. The idea of 'repression' of countering science is a lie, straight out.
If you want to claim man made global warming doesn't exist you need evidence, and it has to be at least as solid as the other evidence to be take seriously. Sure making a claim against the popular wisdom is somewhat harder because people go through your data and methods more carefully, but if the rigor is there it will get through.
Being a very unpopular theory never stopped quantum mechanics.
The 'global warming is not man-made' crowd were the 'global warming does not exist' crowd 10+ years ago. They are in trouble their predictions and methods have failed so far and they have not come up with solid research or data compared to others in the field.
You don't need to claim global warming exists to get published/tenure, you need solid research. Reality has been know to have a severe biasing effect on competing theories, however;)
And stay away from the global cooling theory BS. A single paper, whose conclusions were later contradicted by its own author (because his calculations underestimated the warming effects of CO2), is not 'comparable' to the current theories. Scientists did not react to it in the same way the media does.
The point is the price will drop and stay down because the market will KNOW that oil supply is rising.
No the price will stay high because the market will also know that the supply is still rising more slowly than demand, and also knows that there just is not much oil there.
There is no debate and never was, only propaganda. Your comment and moderation shows the incredibly frightening state of ignorance about science and logic in America.
I don't see how. All I said (which is mathematically correct) is that "something not being supported by evidence doesn't necessarily make it invalid."
I never said anything about said "thing" (which I never specified) being a science or not. You're reading into it.
But your post was in response to a post about intelligent design being treated as a valid scientific theory by the media. So while you technically did not make the statement, your implication was very different and, given your response, apparently intentionally deceptive or off-topic. Actually, you illustrate the problem of "Balanced reporting" quite well.
I also never said Intelligent design was necessarily false, but that it cannot be a scientific theory, by definition, so the entire debate is deceptive. That is the entire purpose of the 'ID vs evolution' debate, to imply something which is completely untrue.
Intelligent design make no predictions and is not testable, so it is not even a scientific hypothesis, let alone a scientific theory. By definition. Period.
It doesn't matter if evolution is actually false and intelligent design is actually true. One makes testable and useful predictions, the other does not without knowing the mind of God, which is impossible. Intelligent design is philosophy, not science and anyone claiming otherwise is ignorant or lying.
There is no debate and never was, only propaganda. Your comment and moderation shows the incredibly frightening state of ignorance about science and logic in America.
'no concrete proof the shots caused any of those reactions' - from your link. I think you left out a rather important detail.
Now, why was it so important not to get a vaccine that definitely prevents some cancers and all genital warts which cause them?
I think you have the goal wrong. The entire purpose is to take dropping distribution costs and turn them into increased profits rather than lower the price of the product. They just want to use ligation to milk this as long as possible.
Mp3s are obviously inferior to cds. A cd contains artwork, lyrics an uncompressed version of the music that can easily be made into mp3s of any quality desired. Besides that, an mp3 is obviously much cheaper to distribute. Expecting consumers to pay a similar price is obviously a flawed business model, even to a record executive.
Cultural and economic differences have been included, as well. This argument really holds no weight anymore. Why do East Asian immigrants from impoverished backgrounds do so well in such a short period of time? Explain that one away.
Cultural differences are not genetic, by definition. So without controlling for them, you naturally get a skewed measurement on the effects of genetics. Other factors, such as childhood nutrition, have influence on the same level as genetics. For example, this is the dominant factor in why Europeans today are taller than their ancestors.
Its analogous to the idea of weightlifting to build muscle mass - you can lift weights to improve your muscle mass, but there will always be people who have the capability to build bigger muscles than you, no matter how hard you work. The same applies to intelligence.
And someone who lifts weights regularly is almost always stronger than a couch potato regardless of genetics. Comparing weightlifters to non-weightlifters is not likely to give a useful, unbiased measure of the effect of genetics on strength. For example, African Americans as a race are much less accomplished academically, but if you look for genetic markers of mixed race with whites (not just skin pigmentation but a full comparison), you see no influence of race.
I don't understand this statement. Mixed race people include traits from both genetic lines. The traits do not disappear. The mixed race people offer a continuum to test the race intelligence theory against. If whites are genetically more intelligent, mixed races of more white origin should be smarter than those of predominately black, etc. This was never observed. This experiment controls for cultural effects very nicely because skin pigmentation and family background does not perfectly match true genetic makeup.
Other studies do find different results, but often these result from some sort of failure to control for sample bias. Overall, in any case, it appears genetic difference in intelligence between races are so small they are hard to measure. Influences such as nutrition are, again, quite large and easily observed.
The sad thing is that the black schools probably get more attention as far as grants and dispensations than the rural white schools do.
You realize that there being no genetic difference implies there should not be a difference in treatment for that reason? While if they really are at a disadvantage....
Strange, all the racial science I knew of never found a link between race and intelligence. Unless, of course, you mean studies that ignored cultural and economic differences, etc. For example, African Americans as a race are much less accomplished academically, but if you look for genetic markers of mixed race with whites (not just skin pigmentation but a full comparison), you see no influence of race. Or if you control for wealth, education of parents, etc. the differences disappear also. African-Americans do about as well as white trash, who have similar problems of poverty.
There are signs of differences between races, especially on things that have actually been selected for recently. That would mostly be resistance to epidemic diseases.
Disease made all the difference. Europeans had gunpowder, gun, steel armor and horses over the Africans too, but Africa had it's own terrible diseases. The dominant population in Africa is still black. It's estimated that 80-95% of North American natives died from disease. For comparison, the black plague killed 30-50% of the population of Europe.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Excitedly rush to iTunes to buy Game of Thrones Season 2 - I didn't know I could buy it!
2. Discover AC is a lying, prick.
3. Return to paying criminals who actually know how to provide a service
I would love to be able to vote with my wallet. I see that's not possible through legal means, at least where I live. I hereby declare my downloads to represent a lost sale caused entirely by being unable to give money for the product I want.
And before anyone jumps up to defend the free market here, you may want to keep in mind that a level playing field (with no protectionism) is great if you're a Chinese worker making $1 an hour--not so fucking great if you're an American or European worker getting paid many times that. You go ahead and compete in the "free market" with people willing to work for a fraction of your salary and just see what happens to your beloved first-world living standard.
The US never used to have this problem. Something like a $50/hour technician would maintain a machine doing the work of 100 Chinese workers that the company had invested time and money into developing.
The reason American/European/whoever were paid more per hour is that they were more productive per hour. Basically the GDP/capita thing. But there has always been cheaper labor in other countries that the US traded with and it was not a problem.
There are many reasons the why the US is destroying its competitiveness that can be argued at length. A lot of it boils down to loosing to countries like China or Brazil that are investing in their own country and people. Consider a few things like how class mobility in China has drastically increased, while in the US this is decreasing. If there is a huge financial barrier to get a University education, will you get the best and brightest or stupid rich kids with degrees? Is the US more or less of a place that rewards talent? If there are higher environmental standards to manufacture in the US, do you A) allow companies to move manufacturing out of the country, pollute more and sell the product back to you or B) only freely trade with those meeting your standards.
The biggest greenhouse gas, by orders-of-magnitude, is water vapor...not the condensed vapor we see as clouds but the vaporized water that we experience as humidity and which your list does not even include.
Except warmer air holds more humidity. Increasing average temperature slightly with CO2 then increases humidity, which amplifies the warming effect and this is one of the lines of reasoning that leads to run away effects and tipping points. The entire 'water vapor' fact argues very strongly in favor of limiting global warming, the anti-global warming crowd is just so willfully ignorant of the subject that they think this argues in their favor.
To help you out some, you can safely ignore anyone claiming AGW doesn't exist or is doubtful. It's been over 15 since there's been what a lay person would call 'reasonable doubt' about that. There is, however, very large uncertainties about just how large an effect humans are having and, therefore, just how effective global warming reduction methods would be. Anyone legitimate on the 'anti-global warming' side is making these types of very real arguments, not obvious nonsense like 'CO2 promotes plant growth' which would stop atmospheric CO2 from rising so cannot be happening. However, what to do about about global warming is at least as much an economic question (probably much more so) as a climate science question. So far, on the whole, it appears that money spent reducing global warming is among the least cost-effective environmental spending there is.
A carbon tax would promote nuclear energy because nuclear power doesn't produce carbon dioxide. The same is true of many other methods of generating power. Why wouldn't they promote an effective, market driven approach to accounting for the cost?
AGW hasn't been in any real dispute for a long time. In The Skeptical Environmentalist it was pointed out that back then there was no real dispute among anyone who knew about climate science. Of course it also pointed out that environmentally the 'bang for buck' on global warming spending was worse than about anything else and economically didn't look sensible. There is dispute over how big the effect is, which is being lost because these people are getting lumped in with the 'it is not happening' denialists who seem immune to evidence or facts.
You can check for yourself, during the 70s and 80s "the next ice age" was mentioned quite a bit. try news.google.com/archivesearch and look for yourself.
"global warming" popped up in 1985.
althoiugh it was first mentioned in the popular press in 1953
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/med_greenhouse_effect.jpg
The news was fond of the next ice age thing. People studying climate were never very convinced and as more and more data came in global warming kept looking more and more probable. Don't confuse media hype with the state of research or an informed opinion.
> 'Zhang then tested his theory in living cells, and the results exceeded his expectations.' That is real research, real testing and discovery that the combination works better than expected. No one else published that yet.
It's obvious the US does not intend to stop illegal immigrants form Mexico, it's just a show to buy votes and hand juicy gobs of taxpayer money to friends. It would be profitable and easy to just fine companies employing illegal immigrants until it was cheaper to hire Americans. It seems this isn't acceptable because some of those companies would just move to Mexico/India/China. Any other method that might actually work has similar problems. But the "I'll spend massive amounts of tax payer dollars on obviously ineffective solutions" seems to work really, really well on America voter if you phrase it right.
No, the increased solar activity was part of the warming, just a smaller part. Roughly 20% if I remember right, but that still left the majority of global warming not coming from solar activity.
Train the most able not stupid rich kids if you want to remain competitive. Degrees are less value if they are not indicators of talent or ability.
It sounds easy, but it is actually very difficult to keep from distributing. You see, a distribution is a transfer between any two legal entities. So, for example, you hire a consultant and give him a copy of the software. Then you decide not to use the consultant any longer. He's annoyed, and he asserts his GPL rights on your entire product, and distributes it. You go to sue, and the copyright holder of the GPL piece gets involved and makes a case that you don't have the rights you think you did. Your NDA does not apply to GPL software because GPL prohibits you from adding incompatible terms.
In some cases, transfer between divisions, especially partnerships with one or more additional firms, are distribution. So, in practice, I think that purposefully not distributing is too difficult to do reliably. It also does not work against Affero GPL3. If you perform that as a service, you have to give up the source code.
So, it is much easier to keep your software separate as I advise.
Thanks
Bruce
That was the reasoning used in my current company to never, ever risk integrating GPL software into our code, despite the fact that we never sell or release software. (We use the custom software internally to help build a physical product.)
This seems at odds with the GPL FAQ:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DevelopChangesUnderNDA
Does the GPL allow me to develop a modified version under a nondisclosure agreement?
Yes. For instance, you can accept a contract to develop changes and agree not to release your changes until the client says ok. This is permitted because in this case no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA.
You can also release your changes to the client under the GPL, but agree not to release them to anyone else unless the client says ok. In this case, too, no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA, or under any additional restrictions.
The GPL would give the client the right to redistribute your version. In this scenario, the client will probably choose not to exercise that right, but does have the right.
Is there something I'm missing? Are there specific provisions that should be included in NDAs and employee contracts to do this safely?
Why doesn't this bother you more? A great many of you even seem to think this is right. Why is punishing technical disobedience of the law to do the right thing so important?
Is it because he is a minor and attends the school, so is almost effectively helpless? Obedience to law must trump benefiting the public, nip it in the bud? Is it criminal and cocky to out smart people society has designated your superior?
Is there no principal, law or philosophy of what once made the USA a respected country that you will not tear down and piss on? Does it hurt to be reminded?
No, really. Its not funny anymore.
Two words (or one name, if you will): Kitty Genovese. The bystander syndrome is maladaptive.
Not in the new USA, apparently.
Solid evidence backs global warming and man made global warming. The idea of 'repression' of countering science is a lie, straight out.
;)
If you want to claim man made global warming doesn't exist you need evidence, and it has to be at least as solid as the other evidence to be take seriously. Sure making a claim against the popular wisdom is somewhat harder because people go through your data and methods more carefully, but if the rigor is there it will get through.
Being a very unpopular theory never stopped quantum mechanics.
The 'global warming is not man-made' crowd were the 'global warming does not exist' crowd 10+ years ago. They are in trouble their predictions and methods have failed so far and they have not come up with solid research or data compared to others in the field.
You don't need to claim global warming exists to get published/tenure, you need solid research. Reality has been know to have a severe biasing effect on competing theories, however
And stay away from the global cooling theory BS. A single paper, whose conclusions were later contradicted by its own author (because his calculations underestimated the warming effects of CO2), is not 'comparable' to the current theories. Scientists did not react to it in the same way the media does.
undo mod
The point is the price will drop and stay down because the market will KNOW that oil supply is rising.
No the price will stay high because the market will also know that the supply is still rising more slowly than demand, and also knows that there just is not much oil there.
There is no debate and never was, only propaganda. Your comment and moderation shows the incredibly frightening state of ignorance about science and logic in America.
I don't see how. All I said (which is mathematically correct) is that "something not being supported by evidence doesn't necessarily make it invalid."
I never said anything about said "thing" (which I never specified) being a science or not. You're reading into it.
But your post was in response to a post about intelligent design being treated as a valid scientific theory by the media. So while you technically did not make the statement, your implication was very different and, given your response, apparently intentionally deceptive or off-topic. Actually, you illustrate the problem of "Balanced reporting" quite well.
I also never said Intelligent design was necessarily false, but that it cannot be a scientific theory, by definition, so the entire debate is deceptive. That is the entire purpose of the 'ID vs evolution' debate, to imply something which is completely untrue.
Intelligent design make no predictions and is not testable, so it is not even a scientific hypothesis, let alone a scientific theory. By definition. Period.
It doesn't matter if evolution is actually false and intelligent design is actually true. One makes testable and useful predictions, the other does not without knowing the mind of God, which is impossible. Intelligent design is philosophy, not science and anyone claiming otherwise is ignorant or lying.
There is no debate and never was, only propaganda. Your comment and moderation shows the incredibly frightening state of ignorance about science and logic in America.
'no concrete proof the shots caused any of those reactions' - from your link. I think you left out a rather important detail. Now, why was it so important not to get a vaccine that definitely prevents some cancers and all genital warts which cause them?
So Arctic Monkeys would never work? Or do you mean for bands without any good songs?
Back in my day, they took away your license if you couldn't see the damn road or drive.
I think you have the goal wrong. The entire purpose is to take dropping distribution costs and turn them into increased profits rather than lower the price of the product. They just want to use ligation to milk this as long as possible.
Mp3s are obviously inferior to cds. A cd contains artwork, lyrics an uncompressed version of the music that can easily be made into mp3s of any quality desired. Besides that, an mp3 is obviously much cheaper to distribute. Expecting consumers to pay a similar price is obviously a flawed business model, even to a record executive.
Clicking those links is now a felony in the UK! And you aided that activity, you sick bastard...
Cultural differences are not genetic, by definition. So without controlling for them, you naturally get a skewed measurement on the effects of genetics.
Other factors, such as childhood nutrition, have influence on the same level as genetics. For example, this is the dominant factor in why Europeans today are taller than their ancestors.
Its analogous to the idea of weightlifting to build muscle mass - you can lift weights to improve your muscle mass, but there will always be people who have the capability to build bigger muscles than you, no matter how hard you work. The same applies to intelligence.
And someone who lifts weights regularly is almost always stronger than a couch potato regardless of genetics. Comparing weightlifters to non-weightlifters is not likely to give a useful, unbiased measure of the effect of genetics on strength.
For example, African Americans as a race are much less accomplished academically, but if you look for genetic markers of mixed race with whites (not just skin pigmentation but a full comparison), you see no influence of race.
I don't understand this statement. Mixed race people include traits from both genetic lines. The traits do not disappear. The mixed race people offer a continuum to test the race intelligence theory against. If whites are genetically more intelligent, mixed races of more white origin should be smarter than those of predominately black, etc. This was never observed. This experiment controls for cultural effects very nicely because skin pigmentation and family background does not perfectly match true genetic makeup.
Other studies do find different results, but often these result from some sort of failure to control for sample bias. Overall, in any case, it appears genetic difference in intelligence between races are so small they are hard to measure. Influences such as nutrition are, again, quite large and easily observed. The sad thing is that the black schools probably get more attention as far as grants and dispensations than the rural white schools do.
You realize that there being no genetic difference implies there should not be a difference in treatment for that reason? While if they really are at a disadvantage
Strange, all the racial science I knew of never found a link between race and intelligence. Unless, of course, you mean studies that ignored cultural and economic differences, etc. For example, African Americans as a race are much less accomplished academically, but if you look for genetic markers of mixed race with whites (not just skin pigmentation but a full comparison), you see no influence of race. Or if you control for wealth, education of parents, etc. the differences disappear also. African-Americans do about as well as white trash, who have similar problems of poverty.
There are signs of differences between races, especially on things that have actually been selected for recently. That would mostly be resistance to epidemic diseases.
Disease made all the difference. Europeans had gunpowder, gun, steel armor and horses over the Africans too, but Africa had it's own terrible diseases. The dominant population in Africa is still black. It's estimated that 80-95% of North American natives died from disease. For comparison, the black plague killed 30-50% of the population of Europe.