Evidence points to the fact that species are being forced to migrate north (in the Northern Hemisphere) at the rate of 8" a day. Work the math out. The problem is, when a species has to migrate, say 50 miles north, they run into barriers - i.e. no more swamp, or urban developments, etc. There habitat disappears, and they die. Extinctions happen at a rate far greater than new species replace them. Do not confuse normal extinction and new species occurrences with rapid extinction events.

Now, when lots of species go extinct rapidly, the rest of the ecosystem gets disrupted too fast for it to adapt, and that results in further degradation of a balanced system. A cascading effect occurs all the way up to predators and all the way down to bacteria, which are responsible for cleaning up waste and revitalizing the soil, etc.

Basically, it has been demonstrated that the productivity of an ecosystem is proportionate to the diversity (i.e. more species) within a region. Productivity means how much can be grown and how fast, or how much can be reconstituted, recycled, etc.

We are observing drastic effects, as described above. Also, there is the ice albedo feedback loop. Ice reflects heat. Liquid water absorbs heat. As the are of land ice melts, a feedback loop occurs in which less heat is reflected into space, which in turn causes further heating, which in turn melts more ice, etc.

Furthermore, as the oceans absorb more heat, more evaporation occurs, which can result in more severe storms, but within an on average hotter climate. Severe weather results, which makes life difficult and more dangerous.

There is a tipping point, and it's happening.

Another interesting point to consider: the last Ice Age had sea levels hundreds of feet lower than now. Imagine the opposite of an ice age.

So? You're failing to grasp why and instead jumping on the above as evidence of no AGW. Let's examine the likely reason for why. Massive PR campaigns funded by big money to engage in deception have created a very frustrating environment for Global Warming science. As an example, witness the relentless bullshit posted by the likes of you from ridiculous sources. Given that, some scientists feel obliged to fight back with deceptive practices themselves just to level the playing field - if they also engaged in deceptive practices, does that logically follow that AGW is not real? No.

Tell me, are you so gullible that you fell for Oregon Institute Petition?

I'm still trying to understand where various entities have placed MoonShadow into indentured servitude or are going to place him into indentured servitude because the other entities have been granted intellectual property rights to the numerical data which represents some particular film.

All of his arguments of indentured servitude are either nonexistent, or require a leap of faith and long chain of actions in which MoonShadow himself would have to knowingly commit acts that he knows would be to his detriment, and would not even be acts that he could commit had it not been for the production of the film.

Let me understand this:

1. The Coen Brothers make a film.
2. MoonShadow knowingly copies it.
3. MoonShadow is arrested.
4. MoonShadow pays a fine.
5. MoonShadow must now work to pay the fine and/or is incarcerated.

Or:

1. Consider if the Coen Brothers did not make the film.
2. MoonShadow cannot copy it because it does not exist.
3. MoonSahdow is never arrested.

Now, how is the third alternative below different from the second?

1. The Coen Brothers make a film.
2. MoonShadow does not copy it.
3. MoonShadow is never arrested.

Now, consider the virtually infinite number of films which are never made:

1. An infinite number of films are not made.
2. MoonShadow is not copying all of those infinite quantity of films.
3. MoonShadow is never arrested for copying those infinite quantity of films never made (because MoonShadow didn't copy them).
4. He is no wiser or less wiser for not having had the opportunity to see them.

Consider this:

1. I make a spaceship which can take MoonShadow to the nearest star.
2. MoonShadow knowingly uses it to go where no man has gone before.
3. He arrives, and aliens enslave him.

In the last example, I have empowered MoonShadow to do something which nobody could do before. The wise person will tread carefully, glad for the empowerment.

The Coen brothers have, in a sense, empowered people the opportunity to see something which nobody has seen before, nor will see otherwise. The wise person will enjoy the benefits of that empowerment without demanding a free ride.

I didn't watch the video, but people no doubt are driving around in their convoys honking and probably shooting guns in the air precisely because that's the culture there - and all of whatever you're seeing is because Gaddafi created an environment for that kind of stuff.

Go mourn someone who matters, like a 20 year old girl walking down the sidewalk in the U.S. who got run down by some irresponsible 18 year old hot rodding his souped up car. Honestly, if you've only known about Gaddafi for a year, then you're the one who's pontificating about morality when you shouldn't be. I personally have been aware of Gaddafi for probably at least 25 years. Nobody liked him then either.

Unless they own all the theaters somehow and do searches of everyone entering the theater and exert tight control over the editing team during production and the theater workers.

It doesn't matter that you do it or many others. You and many others may in fact be two percent of what sales might be.

Why would most people pay for a game when it's available for free legally? I think you're sadly mistaken if you think most people who do pay right now the retail price for a game would actually pay anything if it was legally available for free.

I made some posts. They went unanswered. Rather than make new posts, I pointed to them, indicating that they could be addressed. You then did make some posts addressing my posts. Then you demanded I answer them. I opted to answer them in a way I saw fit given my current level of mental energy, time and desire.

Take it as you will.

No, you infringed upon the intellectual property of Porsche. Tell me, how many times can you do that without it costing you a huge amount of time and effort?

I will be happy to address your points if you'd take care to first edit them into points that matter. For example, I don't wish to debate the nuances of how plagiarism is a subset of copying. Nor am I interested in engaging in an endless debate about your comparisons to slavery. It's obvious that there are extreme disparities that render the comparison weak at best, and more generally, just absurd. I don't care to do your work for you, so if you'd like to strengthen your point of view by trimming the weak parts from it, then I can engage in the real work of debating you.

Just wrong. And it's not childish. For everyday numbers, yes. But not for numbers with a hundred thousand plus digits, which when interpreted a certain way, represent something meaningful.

Are you speaking to me? I won't change my position with regard to works represented by numbers so large that they would never be available to anyone other than the fact that some entity went to the effort to create it.

MoonShadow,

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. 70 years, five notes, etc. We're in agreement.

But somewhere in there is a line that is defensible. It's not 70 years, and it's not five notes.

Welcome to the real world. As for arbitrariness, it is unavoidable. You no doubt agree that granting ownership of the number 1 is absurd? And you contend that perhaps granting IP rights to a film which contains tens of billions of pixels is perhaps not unreasonable? Somewhere in there an arbitrary line needs to be drawn based on possibly many factors.

Are you against arbitrariness in all its forms? Because that's ridiculous.

But so? It's still not an argument against the validity of IP laws. And besides, it isn't necessarily an argument demonstrating that IP laws are not the best. Maybe IP laws are the best, maybe they're not.

So now you're saying that you do want IP laws, but in greater force than already exist?

Or are you saying that if IP laws exist for movies, then they should exist for recipes? That might indeed be a valid question, but it certainly is not an argument against IP laws for movies.

None of the above is an argument against the value and utliity of protecting the hard work of others.

You have it wrong. If my book is protected, so is yours. Same for movies. It is not the case that my movie will be protected and yours will not.

Despite your intense desire for this argument to be related to cotton farming slaves, it is not. I in fact addressed this in the third and fourth paragraph of my second to last post.