Just because it gets you high doesn't make it "intellectual" property.
Now lots of online businesses peddling second hand goods will spring up in no time.
You're right, it's happening already! Look at these evil merchants of second hand books I found just searching online:
If somebody doesn't do something soon, we'll be seeing merchants of second-hand records and CDs and videos as well!! I've even hear rumors that there are some brick-and-mortar institutions springing up and collecting second hand materials and LOANING THEM OUT FREELY TO ANYONE WHO ENTERS! Have we reached such a nadir of respect for commerce and capitalism that we're going to allow every moocher and freeloader in the 47% to simply BORROW someone's intellectual property without paying for it?! I'm shocked the Supreme Court would hand such a victory to the Marxists and Linuxists.
That depends on the state; it's certainly not the case in California. Where, by the way, state university instructors haven't seen a raise since 2007. (And the state supposedly has some of the strongest teachers' unions in the country).
I was excited to get my surface on Friday.
I was wondering who accounted for their one sale.
I was really looking forward to hearing "One World" in Chinese http://www.discogs.com/Rare-Earth-One-World/master/142807
No, those people work at Foxconn, not Foxcomm.
First Duke Nukem Forever in 2011, and now this in 2012? What's up for 2013, Hurd??
I'm not sure if you're being deliberately confusing or if I'm being dense, but my point had nothing to do with land surface data or the problems of the IPCC. It's that the coauthor never "slammed" the author, and never "accused him of hiding data." The Daily Mail reached those conclusions on its own, and the coauthor came back and slammed the Daily Mail for sensationalizing this. Cheers.
Please provide a link to whoever else brought up the holocaust first? Pretty sure it was you. Characterize it how you want to, but it seems there was a meaningful (or at least non-WWII-related) discussion going on here until you came along.
Did you even read what you quoted?? Yeesh. She mostly agrees with Muller. So your interpretation (based on the title of the daily mail nonsense) that the coauthor slammed Muller is completely wrong (or, as you say, completely full of shit). The only thing she disagreed with him on is something about hurricanes, which she says is "not something to bother with."
Hope this helps.
No, Miller has not been accused of anything by his co-author. Read her blog and get the facts straight; hopefully the Daily Mail will come around to publishing a correction soon (though it's doubtful given the "journalistic" standard they set).
Judith Curry, the co-author in question, is not disputing his comments; the Daily Mail took her statements out of context. You can read her blog for the real story from her perspective here http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/discussion-with-rich-muller and the previous post; in short she says the only thing they disagreed about was the relatively minor one of interpreting hurricane data. Otherwise, she writes, "I have to say that there isn’t much that we disagree on."
The media don't always play a positive role in conversations among scientists - they tend to look for the controversial and sensational and that plays into the hands of people who wish to deny the growing scientific consensus around climate change.
Actually the headline doesn't match what the co-author said at all. Read her blog; she says the Mail took her statements out of context and that she and Muller basically agree on most of the conclusions.
Talk about deceptive titles. The Daily Mail gets it wrong; read the other scientist's own blog here http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/discussion-with-rich-muller/ and here http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best
Or if that's too much information for you, here's the money quote: "I have to say that there isn’t much that we disagree on."
You're the first poster in this discussion to bring up the holocaust.