Not really. It is illegal to circumvent copy protection, which not all DVD's have, and which you aren't doing if you do a bit for bit copy.
Also, you aren't hosting screenings, you are renting rooms. A private party is watching a movie in there, just like they might do if they had their own home theater.
I actually did think about legalities, which is why I didn't suggest ripping them all and starting a streaming service, something which you would have to get rights for.
There is pretty well nothing you can do save radically change your business model. Get some rooms set up with very nice projectors, seating, sound systems, etc and let people rent them to have a private screening of some movie, for example (remember to have concessions). That, or find some other way to capitalize on your library of DVDs to make money. Make copies of DVDs for people who can show that they owned said DVD, maybe.
Don't worry. The people that I vote for can never win. Too many idiot "lesser of two evil"ers in this country. This is also why this country will collapse economically and politically within the next ten years. But then, I'm sure people like you on both sides of the aisle will blame the long absent "free market" for that.
If you do that, then you also need to include a number of large players who consolidate power by implementing reduction strategies, but who have to hear complaints about it all the time when their boneheaded schemes destroy their economies.
You are assuming the wealth is being concentrated in the hands of the top 1% rather than in the hands of Federal employees and others who benefit from government wealth redistribution, who are mostly multiplying in number rather than becoming wealthy enough to afford such things. The INCOME of the top 1% may be up, but it is being confiscated through numerous means.
Thanks for that, though this reactor didn't breed its own Uranium from Thorium. Even this is more than enough reason to push for implementation of such a design.
Not really. GW is caused by conversion of high energy photons (light) into low energy photons (heat). If CO2 increases this conversion rate, then the result should be increased warmth at all levels of the atmosphere where increased concentrations of CO2 are present. This observation throws the fundamental axion of AGW into doubt--something I have been talking about for some time, as the heat capacity of CO2 is slightly below the average of other atmospheric gases, meaning that an increased fraction of CO2 should cause very minor cooling rather than warming. This article (or summary) seems to imply that this is the case. If there is global warming going on, it is likely to be from a different source than CO2 (I propose water vapor as the primary driver, as it's continuous output rise matches the slow rise in CO2 over relevant time scales, but I am open to alternative hypotheses). If that is the case, then REJOICE, because if we can find it, we can fix it. CO2 is the only one that we can't fix without a radical overhaul of worldwide energy infrastructure (which we would still benefit from, but which should be motivated by economic concerns rather than the threat of impending doom).
"World-raping, destructive assholes" that provide you with everything you eat, drink, wear, and use in your entire life, from the cradle to the grave. If "they" are evil, it is because YOU are evil, and produce demand for what "they" are selling.
How about you stop framing things in terms of "good" and "evil"? No human sees himself as a villain in his own life story. Those people who burn fossil fuels don't do them so they can audition for a spot in the new Captain Planet movie. They do it to produce the goods and services that people need to live. If you increase their costs to stop global warming, you WILL make those goods and services more expensive. This WILL result in additional starvation among marginal populations, like, say, all of Africa.
If you want to stop CO2 emission WITHOUT causing mass starvation, you need to start advocating for non-CO2 emitting technologies, namely LFTRs, or whatever other promising technology tickles your fancy. Just don't demand that "they" simply stop. People will die if they do.
In my experience, no-one wants to take corrective measures to reduce global temperatures because "that would be the easy way out" or some such nonsense. They instead want to shut down industry and starve Africa.
I don't think that CO2 causes global warming (from my own calculations, for which I have been repeatedly ridiculed by simpletons who don't even know what IR and Raman spectra represent, but which seem to match what is happening in the upper atmosphere), but I wouldn't be opposed to a little geoengineering to reduce global temps by a half a degree. Much better than trying to artificially limit CO2 emissions.
If you REALLY want to get rid of CO2 emissions, you have to find a CHEAPER source of energy. Doing anything else will simply drive industry to non-compliant countries, or, lacking those, will shut it down, or make all goods more expensive, especially food commodities, which means Africa starves.
Not really, they didn't build a full scale working reactor, just a small scale one that was intended to be used in an aircraft (ack!). More research is needed, but the principles are the soundest I have seen.
So the less regulated whorehouses in rural Nevada are dens of violence and destruction?
Get real. If something isn't violently opposed by the government, it won't produce violence on its own. This isn't rocket science. Just because you think that some extra-legal dealing may be going on in the back rooms doesn't mean anything. The important part is that SWAT teams aren't breaking down the doors to the houses of ill repute in those places, and as a result, there is little to no violence or exploitation going on.
Right, so where would you prefer to live, Guilded Age America, where everyone was motivated by profit, or a Medieval papal state, where those who rules loved you so much they wold set you on fire to save you from eternal damnation?
I like how you value sentiment over results. What was the road to hell paved in again?
Slashdot Mirror
That is your choice. Why not let those willing to take such risks take them?
Not really. It is illegal to circumvent copy protection, which not all DVD's have, and which you aren't doing if you do a bit for bit copy.
Also, you aren't hosting screenings, you are renting rooms. A private party is watching a movie in there, just like they might do if they had their own home theater.
I actually did think about legalities, which is why I didn't suggest ripping them all and starting a streaming service, something which you would have to get rights for.
There is pretty well nothing you can do save radically change your business model. Get some rooms set up with very nice projectors, seating, sound systems, etc and let people rent them to have a private screening of some movie, for example (remember to have concessions). That, or find some other way to capitalize on your library of DVDs to make money. Make copies of DVDs for people who can show that they owned said DVD, maybe.
Not if they go there and go number two.
Ok, fine, they're America's Mexico.
Good luck feeding Africa without American grain grown by "evil" farmers who use "evil" fossil fuels.
WTF are you talking about? The source for the data is right there in the charts.
Only on Slashdot can utter lies from a pot (calling the kettle black) be called "informative".
Don't worry. The people that I vote for can never win. Too many idiot "lesser of two evil"ers in this country. This is also why this country will collapse economically and politically within the next ten years. But then, I'm sure people like you on both sides of the aisle will blame the long absent "free market" for that.
And as for federal employees, why are they paid so much more than private sector employees who do the same thing? It hasn't always been this way. It's outrageous that such a trend exists, given our ever rising deficits and debt. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/07/inflated-federal-pay-how-americans-are-overtaxed-to-overpay-the-civil-service
But then, I'm sure you would rather argue with a Republocrat about abortion and prayer in schools.
This comment is deliciously ironic, considering the discussion topic.
If you do that, then you also need to include a number of large players who consolidate power by implementing reduction strategies, but who have to hear complaints about it all the time when their boneheaded schemes destroy their economies.
You are assuming the wealth is being concentrated in the hands of the top 1% rather than in the hands of Federal employees and others who benefit from government wealth redistribution, who are mostly multiplying in number rather than becoming wealthy enough to afford such things. The INCOME of the top 1% may be up, but it is being confiscated through numerous means.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-29/guest-post-wealth-inequality-america
Christ, you are incredibly fucking stupid. Stop making up lies. There is more than one whorehouse in Nevada. A LOT more.
Yes, kill all humans. I'm with you brother. Do your part by ending your own life immediately, you greedy, self-obsessed, nasty primate.
Jesus Christ dude. I don't think I have ever seen a bigger hypocrite than you outside of politics.
Thanks for that, though this reactor didn't breed its own Uranium from Thorium. Even this is more than enough reason to push for implementation of such a design.
Waving away criticism by saying "it's complicated" is not rational. This is a curiosity stopper, and should be avoided.
Link please. Typing in MSRE takes me to an article about real estate or something.
Your ability to explain any phenomena with the same cause is a strong indication that you are not a rationalist.
Not really. GW is caused by conversion of high energy photons (light) into low energy photons (heat). If CO2 increases this conversion rate, then the result should be increased warmth at all levels of the atmosphere where increased concentrations of CO2 are present. This observation throws the fundamental axion of AGW into doubt--something I have been talking about for some time, as the heat capacity of CO2 is slightly below the average of other atmospheric gases, meaning that an increased fraction of CO2 should cause very minor cooling rather than warming. This article (or summary) seems to imply that this is the case. If there is global warming going on, it is likely to be from a different source than CO2 (I propose water vapor as the primary driver, as it's continuous output rise matches the slow rise in CO2 over relevant time scales, but I am open to alternative hypotheses). If that is the case, then REJOICE, because if we can find it, we can fix it. CO2 is the only one that we can't fix without a radical overhaul of worldwide energy infrastructure (which we would still benefit from, but which should be motivated by economic concerns rather than the threat of impending doom).
"World-raping, destructive assholes" that provide you with everything you eat, drink, wear, and use in your entire life, from the cradle to the grave. If "they" are evil, it is because YOU are evil, and produce demand for what "they" are selling.
How about you stop framing things in terms of "good" and "evil"? No human sees himself as a villain in his own life story. Those people who burn fossil fuels don't do them so they can audition for a spot in the new Captain Planet movie. They do it to produce the goods and services that people need to live. If you increase their costs to stop global warming, you WILL make those goods and services more expensive. This WILL result in additional starvation among marginal populations, like, say, all of Africa.
If you want to stop CO2 emission WITHOUT causing mass starvation, you need to start advocating for non-CO2 emitting technologies, namely LFTRs, or whatever other promising technology tickles your fancy. Just don't demand that "they" simply stop. People will die if they do.
In my experience, no-one wants to take corrective measures to reduce global temperatures because "that would be the easy way out" or some such nonsense. They instead want to shut down industry and starve Africa.
I don't think that CO2 causes global warming (from my own calculations, for which I have been repeatedly ridiculed by simpletons who don't even know what IR and Raman spectra represent, but which seem to match what is happening in the upper atmosphere), but I wouldn't be opposed to a little geoengineering to reduce global temps by a half a degree. Much better than trying to artificially limit CO2 emissions.
If you REALLY want to get rid of CO2 emissions, you have to find a CHEAPER source of energy. Doing anything else will simply drive industry to non-compliant countries, or, lacking those, will shut it down, or make all goods more expensive, especially food commodities, which means Africa starves.
Not really, they didn't build a full scale working reactor, just a small scale one that was intended to be used in an aircraft (ack!). More research is needed, but the principles are the soundest I have seen.
So the less regulated whorehouses in rural Nevada are dens of violence and destruction?
Get real. If something isn't violently opposed by the government, it won't produce violence on its own. This isn't rocket science. Just because you think that some extra-legal dealing may be going on in the back rooms doesn't mean anything. The important part is that SWAT teams aren't breaking down the doors to the houses of ill repute in those places, and as a result, there is little to no violence or exploitation going on.
Funny how your version of the "rest of the world" refers to political ideology based on how the parties were seated in the US congress in the 1800's.
Right, so where would you prefer to live, Guilded Age America, where everyone was motivated by profit, or a Medieval papal state, where those who rules loved you so much they wold set you on fire to save you from eternal damnation?
I like how you value sentiment over results. What was the road to hell paved in again?