Category: Educational


EDIT: There are few who care about the environment, there also hopes to be few who profit from it. I was thinking about quoting the source of the article below but then I felt I would get immediately disqualified because of it. But there’s one thing that stands out in all of this for me. You can Google it if you want. Here’s my take: Oil is unpopular, it’s limited, it’s a pollutant; yet, it fuels commerce, produce, and transports medicines, workers, and supplies over large distances. No one wants to waste the time and energy (pun intended) to fund and research cheap alternative fuel sources. Why would big oil want that? It would put them out of business. Why are the environmentalist organizations not keen on suggesting cheap alternative energy? Because they don’t want fuels to go away just yet either! So let’s make up “carbon credits” and just let the rich countries get “taxed” so they can continue burning fuels and let the underdeveloped countries have a chance to use that money. Most importantly, let”s use the UN to rally these countries together and let us handle the cashflow! What a racket! But then again, it is our fault for not being responsible enough on our own to be better stewards of what’s been given to us. Instead, we’re gonna let man’s “worst enemy to the planet” be judge, jury, and sadly, the executioner.

The Multibillion Dollar Carbon Trading System The carbon trading system is a multibillion money-making bonanza for the financial establishment. The stakes are extremely high and the various lobby groups on behalf of Wall Street have already positioned themselves.

According to a recent report, “the carbon market could become double the size of the vast oil market, according to the new breed of City players who trade greenhouse gas emissions through the EU’s emissions trading scheme.

The speed of that growth will depend on whether the Copenhagen summit gives a go-ahead for a low-carbon economy, but Ager says whatever happens schemes such as the ETS will expand around the globe.” (Terry Macalister, Carbon trading could be worth twice that of oil in next decade, The Guardian, 28 November 2009)

The large financial conglomerates, involved in derivative trade, including JP Morgan Chase, Bank America Merrill Lynch, Barclay’s, Citi Bank, Nomura, Société Générale, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are actively involved in carbon trading.( FACTBOX: Investment banks in carbon trading | Reuters, 14 September 2009)

The legitimacy of the carbon trading system rests on the legitimacy of the Global Warming Consensus, which views CO2 emissions as the single threat to the environment. And for Wall Street the carbon trading system is a convenient and secure money-making safety-net, allowing for the transfer of billions of dollars into the pockets of a handful of conglomerates.

“Every major financial house in New York and London has set up carbon trading operations. Very big numbers are dancing in their heads, and they need them to replace the “wealth” that evaporated in the housing bust. Louis Redshaw, head of environmental markets at Barclays Capital, told the New York Times, “Carbon will be the world’s biggest market over all.” Barclays thinks the current $60 billion carbon market could grow to $1 trillion within a decade. Four years ago Redshaw, a former electricity trader, couldn’t get anyone to talk to him about carbon.” (Mark Braly, The Multibillion Dollar Carbon Trading, RenewableEnergyWorld.com, 5 March 2008)

Advertisements

Junk DNA Mechanism That Prevents Two Species From Reproducing Discovered

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091026220018.htm

ScienceDaily (2009-10-27) — Researchers have discovered a genetic mechanism in fruit flies that prevents two closely related species from reproducing, a finding that offers clues to how species evolve.

 

(Edit: Or how they stop evolving and thus create a new type of species altogether. Someone get me a copy of On The Origin of Species, please…) Have you ever seen a bully knock over some kids play blocks when you were young? Just when we believed that the bully had no equal, here comes someone bigger reminding them that they need to play fair with each other. Will this article ever make it to the mainstream. Sorry. Only those who evolved from the gooey mass (media) will come to this realization. Where’s my eraser?…

Keep in mind, folks, that there is purpose for everything. To believe that you were born to exist only reduces your talent by those who don’t want you to succeed. Do you allow that to be said of you or do you agree with that of others you feel are inferior to you? Are there ants in the colony that just stand around and do nothing? Do worms just live in the ground because they couldn’t grow wings? Show me something that has no purpose and I’ll show you an inability to look deeper into the mysteries of life.

“Well, the “Hope and Change” halloween did not go over as well as I hoped. As I would reach into the candy bags to take candy from the kids to give to other kids that did not have equal access to candy, the kids got upset! Over and over and over. I reassured them that I understood and gave them pocket Constitutions!”

Consider the opposing argument for An Inconvenient Truth, then decide intelligently.

Visually stunning. My son loved watching this!

10 million license plate reads a day!

Things that catch on across the pond tend to make their way over to the US. Fish & Chips, The British Invasion, Teletubbies, Dancing with the Stars, CCTV etc. Sometimes these “advancements” are not always welcomed with open arms but it appears that we’re not responsible enough to take care of ourselves. What is currently happening is yet another fine example of your liberties eroding away. BBC Special correspondent, Richard Bilton, writes about a new network of cameras and computers which will automatically log license plate numbers and be fully operational within months.

It is being hailed, by their own, as “the finest intelligence-led policing tool”. It is capable of reading over 10 million license plates a day. Information is then fed into the system where law enforcement can then determine the where-abouts of certain criminals on the loose. Some precincts that have implemented this system have reported an increase in arrests of 40%. The sword of justice, however, is double-edged. Read the BBC article further down and you will know about John Catt who should be entitled to his own opinions and be allowed to protest the war in a peaceful manner yet was wrongfully”marked” by this technology.

Right now, the technology and data that checks these license plates is unregulated. But as long as you’re not doing anything wrong, then you shouldn’t have to worry, right?

There will be a televised version of this story on BBC 2 on Monday. Hopefully, it will be made available on YouTube shortly thereafter.

Link to BBC Story.

This was pulled from Amanda L. French’s blog. Currently, the page won’t load and gets redirected before you get a chance to read it. Fortunately, I was able to copy her entry via Google cache. Please visit her blog at amandafrench.net when it becomes available. (Amanda, thanks!)

February 16, 2009 – 2:28 pm

With today’s outrage over Facebook’s newly altered Terms of Service at its peak, I figured I’d do a quick comparison of their terms of service as regards user-uploaded content to the terms specified by other social networking sites, just to see if said outrage is fully justified. It looks as though the finger-pointing at the Bush robots.txt file wasn’t justified, for instance, and I was guilty of spreading that story.

Conclusion? Go ahead and be outraged. Facebook’s claims to your content are extraordinarily grabby and arrogant. Here’s the rundown, which I go through in more detail below:

  1. Facebook apparently wants to keep all its rights to your stuff after you remove it from Facebook, and even after you delete your Facebook account; they just removed the lines that specified that their rights end when your content comes down. Nobody else (of those I looked at) would dream of that; mostly they specifically state that their rights to your content end when you remove the content from their site or delete your account.
  2. This one kills me: Facebook claims it can do whatever it wants with your content if you put a Share on Facebook link on your web page. Unbelievable–and unique, as far as I can tell. People can post links in Facebook to your content just by copying and pasting the URL, but if you want to save them a few keystrokes by putting a link or a widget on your site, Facebook claims that you’ve granted them a whole mess of rights. Count me out.
  3. Other sites point out in their terms of service that you still own your content: Facebook doesn’t mention that little fact. Facebook also neglects to remind you that you’re giving other Facebook users rights to your Facebook content, too — YouTube, for example, makes it clear that other people besides YouTube have a right to use and spread around the videos you upload. In general, other sites’ terms of service just have a more helpful tone.

So let’s look at what other popular user-generated content sites say about their rights to your stuff:

MySpace’s rights to your stuff:

6.1 MySpace does not claim any ownership rights in the text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, musical works, works of authorship, applications, or any other materials (collectively, “Content”) that you post on or through the MySpace Services. After posting your Content to the MySpace Services, you continue to retain any such rights that you may have in your Content, subject to the limited license herein. By displaying or publishing (”posting”) any Content on or through the MySpace Services, you hereby grant to MySpace a limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, and distribute such Content solely on or through the MySpace Services, including without limitation distributing part or all of the MySpace Website in any media formats and through any media channels, except Content marked “private” will not be distributed outside the MySpace Website. This limited license does not grant MySpace the right to sell or otherwise distribute your Content outside of the MySpace Services. After you remove your Content from the MySpace Website we will cease distribution as soon as practicable, and at such time when distribution ceases, the license will terminate. If after we have distributed your Content outside the MySpace Website you change the Content’s privacy setting to “private,” we will cease distribution of such “private” Content outside the MySpace Website as soon as practicable after you make the change.

6.2 The license you grant to MySpace is non-exclusive (meaning you are free to license your Content to anyone else in addition to MySpace), fully-paid and royalty-free (meaning that MySpace is not required to pay you for the use on the MySpace Services of the Content that you post), sublicensable (so that MySpace is able to use its affiliates, subcontractors and other partners such as Internet content delivery networks and wireless carriers to provide the MySpace Services), and worldwide (because the Internet and the MySpace Services are global in reach).

See? MySpace grants itself a “limited” license and carefully spells out what those limits are. MySpace does a terrific job in that second paragraph especially of explaining what’s going on, I think. Maybe your average thirteen-year-old would still need some help, but way to go with the “human-readable” language, MySpace. Getting an explanation about why they need to be able to sublicense the content is terrific, and I’m sure that if they then tried to sublicense it for other purposes, they’d be tripped up by their own TOS.

Yahoo!’s rights to your Flickr stuff:

Yahoo! does not claim ownership of Content you submit or make available for inclusion on the Yahoo! Services. However, with respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo! Services, you grant Yahoo! the following worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive license(s), as applicable […]:

With respect to photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo! Services other than Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Yahoo! Services solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Yahoo! Services and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo! removes such Content from the Yahoo! Services.

Yahoo! makes distinctions between its Groups and other services like Flickr, but that need not concern us here (Yahoo! reserves fewer rights to Groups stuff than to Flickr stuff). They start by reminding you that they don’t own your stuff, then go on to say that they have the right to copy your stuff “solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted.” In other words, they don’t grant themselves the right to use it in their advertising, as far as I can tell. And, sanely, the license ends when you (or they) take the content down. I checked out the Flickr Pro TOS, as well, and there’s nothing extra in there, whew. I also love that Flickr makes it very easy to stick a Creative Commons license on your photos, although to be honest I’m not sure if I’ve done that with mine. Must check.

Google’s rights to your Picasa stuff:

Google claims no ownership or control over any Content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through Picasa Web Albums. You or a third party licensor, as appropriate, retain all patent, trademark and copyright to any Content you submit, post or display on or through Picasa Web Albums and you are responsible for protecting those rights, as appropriate. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through Picasa Web Albums, you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, adapt, distribute and publish such Content through Picasa Web Albums, including RSS or other content feeds offered through Picasa Web Albums, and other Google services. In addition, by submitting, posting or displaying Content which is intended to be available to the general public, you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, adapt, distribute and publish such Content for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting Google services. Google will discontinue this licensed use within a commercially reasonable period after such Content is removed from Picasa Web Albums.

Sounds reasonable. I don’t really mind their using my stuff in their advertising, though “other Google services” may soon encompass every single conceivable service on the planet. They, too, stop the license when you take the content down.

YouTube’s rights to your stuff:

For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions. However, by submitting User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube’s (and its successors’ and affiliates’) business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service. The above licenses granted by you in User Videos terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your User Videos from the YouTube Website. You understand and agree, however, that YouTube may retain, but not display, distribute, or perform, server copies of User Submissions that have been removed or deleted. The above licenses granted by you in User Comments are perpetual and irrevocable.

I really like it when these paragraphs start with the helpful information that “you retain all ownership rights.” Also note that YouTube points out that “You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website” some rights. Way to look out for the community. Good job. Now add the ability for us to put Creative Commons licenses on our videos somewhere other than in the description, okay? Thanks.

LinkedIn’s rights to your stuff:

License and warrant your submissions: You do not have to submit anything to us, but if you choose to submit something (including any User generated content, ideas, concepts, techniques and data), you must grant, and you actually grant by concluding this Agreement, a nonexclusive, irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual, unlimited, assignable, sublicenseable, fully paid up and royaltyfree right to us to copy, prepare derivative works of, improve, distribute, publish, remove, retain, add, and use and commercialize, in any way now known or in the future discovered, anything that you submit to us, without any further consent, notice and/or compensation to you or to any third parties.

LinkedIn is the one exception to the general conclusion I state above: its language about its rights to your content is at least as strong as Facebook’s, if not more so. The thing is that people don’t upload pictures and videos to LinkedIn; the main user-contributed content is the facts in a profile (where I worked, where I went to school). People usually don’t mind having that information spread around. Also, you can tell that LinkedIn is thinking mainly about the suggestions for improvement that people submit (”ideas, concepts, techniques”) — but still, LinkedIn would be well-advised to revise.

Twitter’s rights to your stuff:

1. We claim no intellectual property rights over the material you provide to the Twitter service. Your profile and materials uploaded remain yours. You can remove your profile at any time by deleting your account. This will also remove any text and images you have stored in the system.

2. We encourage users to contribute their creations to the public domain or consider progressive licensing terms.

Isn’t that sweet? Granted, the only stuff people contribute to Twitter are their little 140-character tweets, plus a profile pic or two — these terms don’t cover what you post to TwitPic, for instance. But Twitter wants you to know that your stuff is yours, and it wants you to share your stuff with others. Twitter doesn’t reserve to itself the right to use your tweets in its promotional campaigns — does Twitter even do any self-promotion? They hardly need to; the New York Times has certainly been giving them enough press lately.

Facebook’s rights to your stuff:

You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.

Yeah, so I took the Facebook icon out of my Sociable WordPress widget. All my stuff here has a Creative Commons license, so I’ve already allowed everyone including Facebook to use my stuff for “non-commercial” purposes anyway; it’s not quite clear what counts as a “commercial” purpose in a Creative Commons license, granted (though they’re working on clarifying the term), but any use that Facebook would make would probably be commercial. I don’t even mind all commercial uses: I don’t really care if they want to use my profile picture to show that the people who use Facebook are really sexy and good-looking. But the stuff on my blog does not become Facebook “User Content” if I put a link that allows people to share it on Facebook. Come off it.

Celebrities are now pledging to be Americans and be more responsible?! Weren’t you a part of the problem before anyway?! You’re pledging now to be a “servant” to the president of the United States?! What about when the former president was being ridiculed by the rest of the planet? Oh, but we only hang out with the cool kids on the block. Forget being American, I don’t know that guy. Let me kiss my arms in the name of Barack (smack) Obama (smack) and pledge servitude because I cannot take care of this country and make a difference as an individual. Isn’t that what made this country great long ago?

Personally, I find this video awkward. I was taught to never serve mankind. We’re idiots, untrustworthy and self-serving fools. To believe that we can actually serve man for man’s sake is skewed. I serve a much higher authority that asks me to be selfless and seek out a purpose for my life that far exceeds anything great that I can attain here – even during those moments when I start to believe that the universe should revolve around me!

Are these celebrities for real? Well as more and more try to join us, we’ll see how hard it is to hold them accountable to a pledge as much as non-believers and believers try to hold me to higher standards.

But even as I walk away (not step down) from my soapbox. I know that you don’t have to pledge your servitude to any person. Serve your country because it’s what made this nation great! Serve your fellow man because it is what we’re commanded to do. But above all else, serve Him!

I know there was the question of a few items that remained “up in the air” regarding things we want to know more of Obama but apparently, someone’s compiled a list. I honestly do not recall any other president have this many holes in their past. Why is this the case?

Admittedly, this first video just shows what a jet engine blow out look like. So I had to search for another video that shows the infamous chicken gun. In the best case scenario, the blades should “ginsu” the bird into thinly sliced fillets but as you can see, the fan blades still cause havoc if they’re not balanced in spin.

Wonder what Sully had to deal with after he took off from LaGuardia? Where is this man’s Congressional Medal of Honor? Here’s a video news clip that speaks well about him.