The Marvin Gaye estate successfully sued Robin Thicke and Pharrell for "Blurred Lines" for copyright infringement winning over $7 million in damages. The Marvin Gaye *estate* did that. The purpose of copyright is to let the creator profit from their work so they will continue creating works of art, but Marvin Gaye died 31 years ago! It doesn't matter if Blurred Lines is a ferociously terrible song that probably ruins people's appreciation of "Got to Give It Up." It makes absolutely no sense to claim that copyright is protecting the artist's livelihood.
so the crime he was committing was making money for himself instead of for Goldman Sachs.
No, the crime was that he was exploiting a weakness in the system. This is equivalent to the closed door; even if a door is locked with a flimsy lock or perhaps not locked at all - if you know that you are not allowed to go in there, you will be committing a criminal act if you enter uninvited. Or if you find a bag of cash by the road-side, or if you discover that you can get unlimited cash out of a cash-machine; if you take the money, you commit a crime. This guy knew what he was doing and that he shouldn't.
I don't read anything about accessing protected systems or stealing, so I don't think those are valid metaphors. As far as I can tell (from a few minutes googling and wikipediaing), you don't even need them because this is pretty straightforward fraud. I found the terms "market manipulation" (banned since 1934!), "pump and dump," and "short and distort" pretty quickly, and they all seem to apply.
So much to learn--but you control what is taught, respond to learning situations, and limit exposure of 'questionable' teachings (which are dependent upon the parents).
That's my problem with the whole scenario. Homeschooling your children is, essentially, making your children exactly like you. I mean, sure, I think I'm awesome, but I've done quite a bit of introspection and thinking to get to this point. I don't want a parrot, indoctrinated into my way of thinking without any of the reasoning or life experience behind it. I know there are homeschooling groups that get their children together for the socialization component, but chances are very good that parents will find other parents just like them. In fact, there is a very large homeschooling community in my current city, which is in one of the most conservative and religious states in the country.
My philosophy is: I'm not raising children, I'm raising adults who happen to be children. I want them taught in different ways by different teachers. I want them to at least be exposed to, if not socialize with kids who celebrate different holidays, believe in different things, and have different levels of prosperity. So yeah, homeschooling was never even a consideration for us. At most, I'd consider a magnet school for high school, depending on my kids' interests, but that's a big maybe.
like perhaps feeding the starving billions.
I'll just repeat the usual refrain: starvation is just a distribution problem, at least for now. In the US, we throw away 30-50% of our food, and 60% of us admit we overeat. In comparison, 15% of us struggle to put food on the table occasionally, including 5% who struggle often. So right now, we have enough to feed ourselves and hundreds of millions of other people. Maybe you mean taxpayers should pay farmers to grow food specifically for those food insecure people, both here and abroad? We'd also have to pay for distribution, of course, and we'd still probably miss a good chunk of them.
Sorry, I know your main point was showing the disgusting irony of using biofuels to buy the worst kind of food. Totally in agreement there.
Timothy D. Searchinger says recent science has challenged some of the assumptions underpinning many of the pro-biofuel policies that have often failed to consider the opportunity cost of using land to produce plants for biofuel. According to Searchinger, if forests or grasses were grown instead of biofuels, that would pull carbon dioxide out of the air, storing it in tree trunks and soils and offsetting emissions more effectively than biofuels would do. What is more, as costs for wind and solar power have plummeted over the past decade, and the new report points out that for a given amount of land, solar panels are at least 50 times more efficient than biofuels at capturing the energy of sunlight in a useful form. "It's true that our first-generation biofuels have not lived up to their promise," says Jason Hill said. "We've found they do not offer the environmental benefits they were purported to have, and they have a substantial negative impact on the food system."
The problem is that it's being presented under the "appeal to authority" fallacy, but the "facts" that have been released supporting "anthropogenic climate change" have turned out to be, at best, carefully-selected statistics.
Wow, AC, you warn us about carefully selected statistics, and yet you carefully choose the most anomalously high year (1998) as your start point, then claim there is a hiatus. If you want to look at it in chunks, there was also a "hiatus" from 1950 to 1975 or so, followed by fast warming up through the early 2000's.
I'm genuinely curious, though. What do you believe we should do, or not do? Not invest in alternative energy? Solyndra was a big fat failure, but since then (as of Nov 2014), the US DOE clean energy loan program has been turning a profit. Not limit emissions for cars or businesses or power plants? Generally, limiting those things translates to increased energy efficiency, which reduces our need for energy, which saves us money in the long run.
Personally, I want energy independence, and developing clean, alternative energy (nuclear AND wind AND solar) is a too-good-to-pass-up way of accomplishing that. Reducing our impact on the climate is pretty much just a bonus.
Exactly, dont like the political/religious message so flag it false and less people will see it.
Odds are all political/religious messages are false.
And no, your mileage will NOT vary.
And even if they're not totally false, they are all designed to make people angry, which we already get enough of otherwise. A recent, mostly harmless story was one about EPA's "ban on wood-burning stoves" about to take effect, which, if you take two seconds to read through the vitriol, you'd find that they are regulating newly manufactured stoves, not making existing stoves illegal. But all the article's author had to do was carefully choose his words: "80% of you have stoves that would be illegal to purchase after this rule goes into effect."
This is what the most effective (these days) political messages do: make one large group of people angry and demand change, and make another large group angry because of the half-truths involved.
In their defense, I want them to do their due diligence whenever they get a report. A lot of people would be pissed at the police and at CPS if they got called in and missed neglect or abuse. But it's quite obvious in this case that they went way overboard, and they still are.
I haven't seen it discussed in this thread, but in brief, Maryland state law says that any child under 8 must be supervised by a child 13 or older while in a dwelling or a vehicle. It says nothing about being outside, but they are considering stretching the interpretation and charging the parents.
"If a large enough group of someone is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent have veto power over liberal civilization."
Definitely worth repeating, as is this later quote: "But when offenses are policed by murder, that’s when we need more of them, not less, because the murderers cannot be allowed for a single moment to think that their strategy can succeed."
That single point of failure isn't as bad as you might think, because the pressure could be the same on the inside and outside. Cloud-top Venusians wouldn't even need pressurized suits, just breathable air...and protection from the sulfuric acid. And some way to deal with the 200+ mile per hour winds, perhaps by sort of riding them around the planet. I imagine many unmanned missions would precede a manned one, to set up some infrastructure (power generation, oxygen extraction, food crops, etc.) and provide some back up systems.
I'm not sure how they would be able to leave, though. Rocket launches are difficult enough with solid ground and a non-corrosive atmosphere.
From what I've researched, taking undergraduate research classes and doing internships will dramatically increase your starting salary.
I'm not sure this is true. What internships do is allow you to make decent money while going to school. I know several former interns that made a good enough impression on their employer that they continued to work part time during school, if the work location was close enough to school. That's the biggest benefit: avoiding more debt.
Energy companies - privatized. Prices have gone up, service is still good mostly because of government regulations, the market is now largely dominated by less than 5 big energy companies. Only recently thanks to renewable energy have smaller, local players re-emerged.
Freaking out over Fukushima couldn't have helped with your energy prices, I imagine. I (also) very highly doubt that privatization is beneficial to energy/utilities and telecom, but I admit there are always other factors to consider. For example, in the Greater Phoenix area in Arizona, my water, sewer, trash, and electricity were served by private companies, and bills were sky high and rising. In Alabama, despite being an equally conservative state, I have public utilities and pay way less, despite having a larger house and two more members in my family. However, the former is desert, and in the latter I live a stone's throw away from a big river. Anyway, great post!
Thus proving that the dinosaurs had an advanced technological civilization based on deuterium fusion.
Historical documents show that tyrannosaurs used their relatively small arms to operate the controls of fighter jets, so it stands to reason that dinosaurs figured out economical fusion power. I wouldn't be surprised if all the fossils we've found are just the dinosaur lawyers and telephone sanitizers.