What universe are you from? I've never talked to anyone from that universe.
I have a counter suggestion: make the bastards pay reasonable taxes, and then the state will be able to afford to put up a nice shiny new building. Instead of having to say, beg $70 million in the first place.
2. ???
3. Profit!
Node.js Is Bad Ass Rock Star Tech
For Node.js substitute any "Rock Start" buzzword.
Because Profit!
This is why these kinds of thing never go to trial, and why the company always makes sure they never admit guilt. When they settle to "put it behind" themselves, it's like a cat burying it's shit. They can pretend that it never happened in the first place.
As for making things better in the long run, forget it. Lenovo will do what all other large companies do, which is settle and offer discounts to people who bought the offending systems. This costs them nothing. In fact, they may make more money on the deal because they move more product, and very few consumers take advantage of these offers. As other people have already said, the only ones who make out are the lawyers.
What's actually needed is consumer protection that means something and has teeth. However, in the current political climate, hell will freeze over before that happens. Big business can commit any crime and get away with it, and even make money as a result. Just search for "HSBC tax evasion" if you want to see a breaking scandal like this.
He's a petty thief The police are violating the constitution, and completely ignoring the rule of law. For all intents and purposes the cops are the judge, jury and executioner, with a badge and gun.
The police were able to avoid a trial, which is one of the major ways that the legal system has been subverted. The penalties are so draconian that even innocent people plead guilty, because if they don't they will be held forever.
Here's a current example from Montana.
If you want to show your fake nipple in Montana, do it before HB 365 gets passed, or you could face a $500 fine and 6 months in the county jail. It could have been worse. The original bill called for "life imprisonment" for a third offense.
That's right. Life in jail for showing fake nipples three times. Of course they backed off on it, but the fact that this was even considered shows how corrupt the law has become.
By their percentage contribution to the greenhouse effect on Earth the four major gases are:
- water vapor, 36–70%
- carbon dioxide, 9–26%
- methane, 4–9%
- ozone, 3–7%
The major non-gas contributor to the Earth's greenhouse effect, clouds, also absorb and emit infrared radiation and thus have an effect on radiative properties of the atmosphere.
Frankly, I'm not completely sure what you are saying because you are incoherent: "the effect of CO2 is problematic, because it is mixing with other gasses and that makes a difference". Mixing how? Chemically? Via radiation? Interacting with clouds?
"... if we only were going to get warming from the CO2, then there would be little to worry about." Could you quote a source on that? Did you make it up? How about "There was a study in 2006 that further refined the effect that CO2 had on the atmosphere (narrowed the error bars)."? Any references for that one either? Did you mean to imply that reduced error bars mean that the effects of global climate change are not important? What are you talking about?
Now let's examine "We are still improving the computer models. If the science were settled, they would be much, much better at predicting." This is just flat out wrong. The quality of a simulation is not solely determined by knowledge of the basic science. For huge chaotic systems like global climate, the vast computational resources required limit predictive results. Furthermore, there is still a lot we don't understand, for example the effect of clouds, or the interaction between ocean circulation and climate. Note that these have nothing to do with the physics of greenhouse gasses, which is the nominal point under consideration.
Both climate modeling and computational resources are getting better on a yearly basis, as you pointed out. That doesn't mean the current state of the art is useless.
To conclude, you called me "kind of ignorant". I take personal offense to that. I just went to some effort to demonstrate that your are a thoughtless fool who seems incapable of logical argument and plays fast and loose with facts. Before you insult your betters you should examine your own mental resources. At this point all you have shown is that you are an intellectual failure.
By the way, even if your are right, this is nit picking. It has no significant baring on when the phenomenon was proposed. Bell is just a well known figure, and he was not the first or last to bring up this possibility.
The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859, and more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote “[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect”, and “The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house.” Bell went on to also advocate for the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar energy.
The basic mechanism is straightforward, even thought the physical system has many interacting processes.
The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form UV, visible, and near IR radiation, most of which passes through the atmosphere without being absorbed. Of the total amount of energy available at the top of the atmosphere (TOA), about 50% is absorbed at the Earth's surface. Because it is warm, the surface radiates far IR thermal radiation that consists of wavelengths that are predominantly much longer than the wavelengths that were absorbed (the overlap between the incident solar spectrum and the terrestrial thermal spectrum is small enough to be neglected for most purposes). Most of this thermal radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and re-radiated both upwards and downwards; that radiated downwards is absorbed by the Earth's surface. This trapping of long-wavelength thermal radiation leads to a higher equilibrium temperature than if the atmosphere were absent.
The key observation is that human activity has changed the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and this has changed the equilibrium temperature of the system.
Strengthening of the greenhouse effect through human activities is known as the enhanced (or anthropogenic) greenhouse effect. This increase in radiative forcing from human activity is attributable mainly to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. According to the latest Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".
CO2 is produced by fossil fuel burning and other activities such as cement production and tropical deforestation. Measurements of CO2 from the Mauna Loa observatory show that concentrations have increased from about 313 ppm in 1960 to about 389 ppm in 2010. It reached the 400ppm milestone on May 9, 2013. The current observed amount of CO2 exceeds the geological record maxima (~300 ppm) from ice core data. The effect of combustion-produced carbon dioxide on the global climate, a special case of the greenhouse effect first described in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius, has also been called the Callendar effect.
Al Gore, although not a scientist by training, is smart enough to understand this. You, on the other hand, are too biased and stupid to accept facts that have been well known for a long time.
Just to make sure that your are up to speed on basic facts, the world is not flat, the earth revolves around the sun, and the universe is more then 5000 years old. Glad that I could clear these things up for you.
Why not software? When you buy a computer, smart phone, cable or fiber box, or other internet connected gadget, you have no idea what you are getting. The vendor can put in anything they want, as Samsung demonstrated by shipping a smart TV sets that can send out audio and video without any indication to the user.
If consumers were informed what kind of crap was being shipped with their gear, it would go a long way towards cubing this kind of intrusive behavior. Nobody wants a device filled up with junk when they get it, but it's hard, even for Slashdot types, to find out what's in the box before it shows up. A list of add on software that you could see before you buy would make all the difference.
You just described Slashdot
You forgot Elbonia.
Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time. -- George Carlin
