Slashdot Mirror

Welcome to the new phenomenon of the Twenty-First Century: Accountability Light!

Confederation: While distinct from a unitary state, a federation is also to be distinguished from a confederation. By connotation, a confederation is similar in structure to a federation but with a weaker central government. A confederation may also consist of states that, while temporarily pooling sovereignty in certain areas, are considered entirely sovereign and retain the right of secession. -Federalism as a Political Philosophy

See also: Confederation vs Federation

The US Federal Government became an increasingly centralized concentration of power - a very choice plum, ripe for the picking by the neo-con ["fascist": I.E. "National Socialist"] regime that seized power in 2000 and instituted what has since become the Dubya Regime.

Did anyone expect that the so-called USA PATRIOT Act would not be abused by the FBI? If so, who? And when? The reason the Act itself is an abuse is very simply that it was designed and implemented specifically so it could be abused - the fairy tales told on Faux News notwithstanding. Does anyone not see that?

The real question is (imo): What about all those agencies that haven't been auditted yet? Remember, this obscenity of an Act of Congress (the USA PATRIOT Act) was mandated for use across the spectrum - from Federal to state and local levels.

I heard he died of breast cancer.

What it boils down to is that instruct can mean either 'inform' or 'direct', and in this case, it means 'inform'.

http://www.answers.com/instruct

Actually, I think you will find that children who are brought up in atheist homes are brainwashed into giving up their belief in the supernatural that everyone is born with.

I remember well what it was like when I was a child. I wasn't brainwashed into not believing in a "god", god and religion weren't talk about or discussed much if at all. The definition of brainwash is "To teach to accept a system of thought uncritically". You can't brainwash by not talking about something, conversely the standard "preaching" from church and religious people fit the definition perfectly.

I still maintain that you'd see sparking if you were firing at a Man of Steel.

Heck I did not know either: excupate

Can someone explain what "democrat" means when used as an adjective? I've heard a similar term "democratic" used as an adjective. Maybe the adjective "democrat" means "the person saying this should get their head out of the punch bowl and stop drinking the kool aid."

The verb is whacked.

So that's why it's not there!

Take a closer look at the case law. Firstly, it's not companies that are supposedly regarded as people. It's corporations that we're talking about here, and this is a much broader set of entities with a specific definition, i.e. they have been chartered by the state (in this case, a U.S. State). Now the argument is not as to whether corporations are flesh and blood "people", nor can one deny that many of these entities are subject to regulations that an actual person is subject to. However, many of these regulations are imposed for reasons unrelated to their corporate status. For instance, the requirement to publish financial reports is imposed on companies that are publicly traded - it is by virtue of this status that the extra requirement is imposed. Conversely, most privately held corporations have no requirement to publish financial statements to the public. Instead, they do their taxes as an individual must, though they must do their taxes differently by virtue of their corporate nature.

What many people have an issue with (and I get the sense you wish to tar these with you broad brush) is that a corporation are guaranteed the natural rights of a person, most especially those guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment when it says,

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That a corporation is eligible for these protections is not immediately obvious; after all, you say that they are obviously not people. However, a little decision by the name of Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad included a "statement of fact" to the effect that a corporation was entitled to fourteenth amendment protections. This has extended to corporate entities those rights that are guaranteed an actual person. That this was the case was not "obvious" at the time, and many people continue to question this now.

By the way, you should realize when you say "[Corporations] are not regarded as people" that the ability of an entity which is not in fact a human being to enter into contracts and act as a party before the law is granted by way of the legal fiction that these entities may in fact be regarded as people for these purposes. The doctrine of artificial personhood is well documented in common law, as well as the recognition that this personhood is artificial. So, I must reply to your assertion by reminding you that whether or not a corporation is regarded as a person is a question of context - a context you failed to establish. That is to say, there are no separate laws for corporations - only circumstances under which a corporation is or is not a person.

That an entity that represents a set of indemnified stakeholders should be entitled to federal protections of speech, of property, or of civil rights (as they are now) is not so obvious to me. Especially considering that it cannot be thrown in prison or otherwise punished in the ways a corporeal person can. Nor is it obvious that the fourteenth amendment should protect corporate charters from amendment or revocation by the very states that chartered them in the first place. It is especially vexing to think of a moral reason for an entity which is effectively immortal, vastly more resourceful than an individual, not subject to the privations of an individual, and that lacks the mortal conscience of an individual to be granted a full set of rights with which to contest those of actual individuals.

As for what is "right"

All they have to do is wire up the sphincter and they can play Potty Pigeon for real. Infect the birds with something and it doesn't even have to be a joke.

Depreciation has nothing to do with blue book value. Furthermore, depreciation recapture is generally ordinary income, not capital gains. So, no, he's not at all right, though the details of exactly how he's wrong vary with the details of the situation (which is the main reason I haven't gotten into the details).

Tor find this NOT FUNNY!!!

You are so wrong it is amazing.

A homeowner is limited in what he can do to protect his family and property from trespassers. The homeowner cannot shoot children who keep cutting across the lawn or set traps or deadly spring-operated guns to kill anyone who trespasses on the property. Deadly force in any manner is generally not justifiable except in self-defense while preventing a violent felony. Mere trespass is not a felony.

http://www.answers.com/topic/trespass

Booby traps are illegal because they can interfere with emergency workers (EMTs, police, firemen).

A homeowner is limited in what he can do to protect his family and property from trespassers. The homeowner cannot shoot children who keep cutting across the lawn or set traps or deadly spring-operated guns to kill anyone who trespasses on the property. Deadly force in any manner is generally not justifiable except in self-defense while preventing a violent felony. Mere trespass is not a felony.

The article actually links to answers.com's mirrored copy of the libel, which makes for interesting reading. Without wishing to repeat the libelous allegation itself, it essentially comprises of Zoeller supposedly confessing to a large number of relatively unpleasant personality flaws and associated actions.

Given the way its presented, I can understand someone wanting compensation after reading that about themselves.

I think the words you're looking for are per se.

the statement of "medically unnecessary genital mutilation of infants." is just simply wrong

Ah slashdot, were owning a ditionary makes one a lawyer.

Well here's my definition.

"theft

In law, the crime of taking the property or services of another without consent. Under most statutes, theft encompasses the crimes of larceny, robbery, and burglary. Larceny is the crime of taking and carrying away the goods of another with intent to steal. Grand larceny, or larceny of property of substantial value, is a felony, whereas petty larceny, or larceny of less valuable property, is a misdemeanour. The same principle applies to grand theft and petty theft, which need not necessarily involve the "carrying away" of property and may include the theft of services. Robbery is an aggravated form of larceny involving violence or the threat of violence directed against the victim in his presence. Burglary is defined as the breaking and entering of the premises of another with an intent to commit a felony within. Two offenses usually distinguished from theft are embezzlement and fraud."

BTW this exercise in definition is both a "feel good" exercise, and a red herring. It makes you all "feel good" to believe that it's a lesser crime, because the artist "has the original". Much like beating someone senseless, and then saying "I could have killed you instead. Bitch!". Like you're doing them a favour by not being as evil as you could. It's also a red herring because the implicit statement is false. That someone who has the ethics to not compensate an artist, and is an oathbreaker, would also have the fortitude to honor agreements if it ment depriving the artist of his original.

Just give me the wearable version.

Only if it looks like a banana clip!

I submit wikipedia is doing just fine. After six years why would you expect more? 65,000 Britannica Micropeadia articles of size ca. 700 words, compare quite well to over a million wikipedia articles. Also look at how long the Britannica took: First edition of ca. 2400 pages after 3 years in 1771.

If anything, the wikipedia community should take a break and relax for a while.

Stephan

References

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Bri tannica

http://www.answers.com/topic/encyclop-dia-britanni ca

> That's because Christians don't blow things up when you disagree with them

Your facts suffer from selection bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Rudolph

http://www.answers.com/topic/james-charles-kopp

The KKK

The IRA

et. alia. usw. et cetera et cetera et cetera

'I am saying in a more basic sense that she is not, she is a person.'

Okay, I understand that [whcih iswhy I didn't dispute it, but said she is both]. In a basic sense we're all people, but the person bit isn't the bit that is marketed in Madonnas case. It's her image etc [basically a brand] that is marketed. Many a real person is very different than their 'brand'. So, the record buying public really doesn't know Madonna at all, not as a person, only as her 'public personnae'/'brand'. They may think they know her as a person, but they don't. That's all i was trying to point out [which, as you said, you undestand, so hopefully we're on the same page]. :-)

'I seriously don't see how it could have been a copyright case. Can you check into it some?'

I looked it up, and it wasn't a Trade Mark case. The Band Popular Mechanics had the rights to the name (as they were using it first and had aquired a considerable reputation under that name in the State of New South Wales). It wasn't a trade mark case as trade marks need to be registered as trade marks in order to be effective as trade marks. The name wasn't registered as a Trade Mark, so it became a 'Protection of business name'.

This talks briefly about it, but my legal book [which I have as I use to be a musician], does explain that it wasn't a trade mark case.

I was thinking when I wrote the comment that it might have been a copyright case as I was pretty sure I remembered it wasn't a trade mark dispute [my memory was at least correct in that small part]. But, you can't copyright a name, so it wasn't copyright either, it was a 'Protection of Business name' case. [Which I would assume is similar to a Trade Mark protection case.] It's basically to stop the buying public from being defrauded into buying something they think is from another band / company etc.

'But if there were no copyrights, I think she should not be able to stop people selling copies of her songs from saying they are copies of her songs.'

Copyright covers the right to copy songs etc. So, anyone selling her music isn't stopped from saying they are her songs. They just get in trouble for selling copies they're not allowed to make. No one disputes they are her songs, and in fact, if that was in dispute then it wouldn't be a copyright case, it'd be a fraud case. There are some places that used to sell copies of concerts by artists [basically recordings that were NOT created by the bands record label, nor the artists]. As they were selling them in Seven Elevens and Petrol Stations [one of my old flatmates owned several of these CDs], I assume they were legal. In order for the company manufacturing them, it would have required them getting permission to make the recordings. It was probably a tricky mine field for the company to have got around, as they would have required permission to copy the songs from whoever owned the copyright [most likely the band], but it got around the record company, as the record company only has copyright on the recording on the album the band recorded for them NOT on the copy of the songs in the concert.

Turns out companies like BayTSP (which the media companies employ) will send shutdown notices to ISPs without any evidence of copyright infringment; all they feel they need is an indication that you are reported by the tracker to be in the swarm.

It is quite obvious that the RIAA lawyers and BayTSP understand neither the term "good faith belief" nor the the term "reasonable doubt".

haven't been around very long I see. It's called the "tying arrangement" and if you were REALLY interested, it's just a google search away. But I'll help you a bit.

http://www.answers.com/topic/sherman-antitrust-act
NOTE: look for the part called "tying arrangement".

LoB LOL

It doesn't meet the definition of obsolete, "No longer in use," but may be better described using the word obsolescence, "Decreasing value of functional and physical assets or value of a product or facility from technological changes rather than deterioration."

I know it's /. and spelling & grammar errors are to be expected, but imprecise language is misleading and often downright wrong. This is a criticism of the editor, Taco in this case. And you know what, this sort of flippant, imprecise language is a big reason why blogs & news sites like Slashdot don't have the same credibility as newspapers when it comes to reporting facts & providing insight into stories.

Now, where did I put my pilotless drone?

It doesn't meet the definition of obsolete, "No longer in use," but may be better described using the word obsolescence, "Decreasing value of functional and physical assets or value of a product or facility from technological changes rather than deterioration."

I know it's /. and spelling & grammar errors are to be expected, but imprecise language is misleading and often downright wrong. This is a criticism of the editor, Taco in this case. And you know what, this sort of flippant, imprecise language is a big reason why blogs & news sites like Slashdot don't have the same credibility as newspapers when it comes to reporting facts & providing insight into stories.

Now, where did I put my pilotless drone?

Actually, the wording in the Bible is that you shall not bear false witness. It has the same meaning, but is not ambiguous, like the word lie is. I'm sure you're aware that I meant lie, as the first meaning in the dictionary here. On a side note, which is likely to incite another flamewar, when I looked up lie, the one and only sponsored link was President Bush, with a link to the Daily Show on the Comedy Central Website.

This is the first resident

I'm talking about their content; entire shows, movies, etc. being out there for free. No advertising revenue! "Hey, we were number one on YouTube! Yeah, well your commercials were cut out of the show/movie...but, we were number one!"

And i'm talking about blip-verts, short 3min segments, like the "Colbert Report" from the daily show. I'm sure there are whole shows available on youtube, not that i've seen any. I have seen short segments which from time to time resulted me taking the time to watch a show, rent/buy a vid.

There might be a slight market because of product placement in the content but that won't cut it with the companies they rely on for advertising revenue. Where is the revenue for Viacom and their sponsors? Free publicity does not cut it for a company that has already made their place in the world.

If your logic was true, then Coca-Cola and Pepsi wouldn't need to advertise. Oscar Meyer wouldn't need the weiner-mobile, and Hormel Foods wouldn't need a spam-mobile. But they still do. Why? Keeps demand up... otherwise a competitor's advertising might might make something think "perhaps i'll give this drink a shot" or "this tastes good, I think I might buy some"

If your logic was also true, then Viacom already has achieved the maximium market share, meaning no room for growth, and only a fool would invest in them. But in terms of cable stations, I believe the "USA network" (NBC/universal) is #1 in terms of viewers. And it just so happens I got into Monk by watching short clips on Youtube.

http://www.answers.com/topic/viacom
http://www.answers.com/topic/nbc-universal-inc
http://www.answers.com/topic/fox-entertainment-gro up-inc
http://www.answers.com/topic/time-warner-inc

Viacom has their place in the world, but they are no Time/Warner, closer to NBC-Universal which just so happens to have a deal with Youtube If they hope to reach the level of NBC-universal, it might be wise to consider youtube as a vehicel for promoting their media.

To put into perspective, google's net income is about 1/10th that of viacom.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-google1feb01 ,1,1371599.story?coll=la-headlines-business

We are not talking about Viacom it self, but rather the content they provide. Everyone for example knows "Kraft" or "safeway", but you do not know every product they sell. Your average American, for example, doesn't know what Vegemite(tm) is though it is a Kraft product. Viacom does spend much airtime and advertising dollars to promote programing. Something like the Dailyshow isn't watched by everyone, pretty popular for a cable show, about 1.5 million viewers nightly. How many more people do you think would watch it if they caught brief blip-verts sent to them in their inbox by friends. How much more likely would it be for something to enter into foreign markets based on this free advertising. Your clearly a hard sell on this idea, I can only speak from experence.

If I was a shareholder of any media company, I would be concerned if Viacom didn't offer blip-verts like NBC does, and hell i'd drop them like a rock if they didn't adapt. Just like the VCR served to increase popularity of cable by providing a signal good enough to tape.

1) Person with VCR tapes HBO
2) Person shares tape
3) Person gets HBO, watches and tapes.
The effect is virual and was vital to the groth of the cable industry.

Viacom needs to be reminded that their present growth was due in part to viral pirate marketing.

They don't n

I'm talking about their content; entire shows, movies, etc. being out there for free. No advertising revenue! "Hey, we were number one on YouTube! Yeah, well your commercials were cut out of the show/movie...but, we were number one!"

And i'm talking about blip-verts, short 3min segments, like the "Colbert Report" from the daily show. I'm sure there are whole shows available on youtube, not that i've seen any. I have seen short segments which from time to time resulted me taking the time to watch a show, rent/buy a vid.

There might be a slight market because of product placement in the content but that won't cut it with the companies they rely on for advertising revenue. Where is the revenue for Viacom and their sponsors? Free publicity does not cut it for a company that has already made their place in the world.

If your logic was true, then Coca-Cola and Pepsi wouldn't need to advertise. Oscar Meyer wouldn't need the weiner-mobile, and Hormel Foods wouldn't need a spam-mobile. But they still do. Why? Keeps demand up... otherwise a competitor's advertising might might make something think "perhaps i'll give this drink a shot" or "this tastes good, I think I might buy some"

If your logic was also true, then Viacom already has achieved the maximium market share, meaning no room for growth, and only a fool would invest in them. But in terms of cable stations, I believe the "USA network" (NBC/universal) is #1 in terms of viewers. And it just so happens I got into Monk by watching short clips on Youtube.

http://www.answers.com/topic/viacom
http://www.answers.com/topic/nbc-universal-inc
http://www.answers.com/topic/fox-entertainment-gro up-inc
http://www.answers.com/topic/time-warner-inc

Viacom has their place in the world, but they are no Time/Warner, closer to NBC-Universal which just so happens to have a deal with Youtube If they hope to reach the level of NBC-universal, it might be wise to consider youtube as a vehicel for promoting their media.

To put into perspective, google's net income is about 1/10th that of viacom.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-google1feb01 ,1,1371599.story?coll=la-headlines-business

We are not talking about Viacom it self, but rather the content they provide. Everyone for example knows "Kraft" or "safeway", but you do not know every product they sell. Your average American, for example, doesn't know what Vegemite(tm) is though it is a Kraft product. Viacom does spend much airtime and advertising dollars to promote programing. Something like the Dailyshow isn't watched by everyone, pretty popular for a cable show, about 1.5 million viewers nightly. How many more people do you think would watch it if they caught brief blip-verts sent to them in their inbox by friends. How much more likely would it be for something to enter into foreign markets based on this free advertising. Your clearly a hard sell on this idea, I can only speak from experence.

If I was a shareholder of any media company, I would be concerned if Viacom didn't offer blip-verts like NBC does, and hell i'd drop them like a rock if they didn't adapt. Just like the VCR served to increase popularity of cable by providing a signal good enough to tape.

1) Person with VCR tapes HBO
2) Person shares tape
3) Person gets HBO, watches and tapes.
The effect is virual and was vital to the groth of the cable industry.

Viacom needs to be reminded that their present growth was due in part to viral pirate marketing.

They don't n

I'm talking about their content; entire shows, movies, etc. being out there for free. No advertising revenue! "Hey, we were number one on YouTube! Yeah, well your commercials were cut out of the show/movie...but, we were number one!"

And i'm talking about blip-verts, short 3min segments, like the "Colbert Report" from the daily show. I'm sure there are whole shows available on youtube, not that i've seen any. I have seen short segments which from time to time resulted me taking the time to watch a show, rent/buy a vid.

There might be a slight market because of product placement in the content but that won't cut it with the companies they rely on for advertising revenue. Where is the revenue for Viacom and their sponsors? Free publicity does not cut it for a company that has already made their place in the world.

If your logic was true, then Coca-Cola and Pepsi wouldn't need to advertise. Oscar Meyer wouldn't need the weiner-mobile, and Hormel Foods wouldn't need a spam-mobile. But they still do. Why? Keeps demand up... otherwise a competitor's advertising might might make something think "perhaps i'll give this drink a shot" or "this tastes good, I think I might buy some"

If your logic was also true, then Viacom already has achieved the maximium market share, meaning no room for growth, and only a fool would invest in them. But in terms of cable stations, I believe the "USA network" (NBC/universal) is #1 in terms of viewers. And it just so happens I got into Monk by watching short clips on Youtube.

http://www.answers.com/topic/viacom
http://www.answers.com/topic/nbc-universal-inc
http://www.answers.com/topic/fox-entertainment-gro up-inc
http://www.answers.com/topic/time-warner-inc

Viacom has their place in the world, but they are no Time/Warner, closer to NBC-Universal which just so happens to have a deal with Youtube If they hope to reach the level of NBC-universal, it might be wise to consider youtube as a vehicel for promoting their media.

To put into perspective, google's net income is about 1/10th that of viacom.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-google1feb01 ,1,1371599.story?coll=la-headlines-business

We are not talking about Viacom it self, but rather the content they provide. Everyone for example knows "Kraft" or "safeway", but you do not know every product they sell. Your average American, for example, doesn't know what Vegemite(tm) is though it is a Kraft product. Viacom does spend much airtime and advertising dollars to promote programing. Something like the Dailyshow isn't watched by everyone, pretty popular for a cable show, about 1.5 million viewers nightly. How many more people do you think would watch it if they caught brief blip-verts sent to them in their inbox by friends. How much more likely would it be for something to enter into foreign markets based on this free advertising. Your clearly a hard sell on this idea, I can only speak from experence.

If I was a shareholder of any media company, I would be concerned if Viacom didn't offer blip-verts like NBC does, and hell i'd drop them like a rock if they didn't adapt. Just like the VCR served to increase popularity of cable by providing a signal good enough to tape.

1) Person with VCR tapes HBO
2) Person shares tape
3) Person gets HBO, watches and tapes.
The effect is virual and was vital to the groth of the cable industry.

Viacom needs to be reminded that their present growth was due in part to viral pirate marketing.

They don't n

I'm talking about their content; entire shows, movies, etc. being out there for free. No advertising revenue! "Hey, we were number one on YouTube! Yeah, well your commercials were cut out of the show/movie...but, we were number one!"

And i'm talking about blip-verts, short 3min segments, like the "Colbert Report" from the daily show. I'm sure there are whole shows available on youtube, not that i've seen any. I have seen short segments which from time to time resulted me taking the time to watch a show, rent/buy a vid.

There might be a slight market because of product placement in the content but that won't cut it with the companies they rely on for advertising revenue. Where is the revenue for Viacom and their sponsors? Free publicity does not cut it for a company that has already made their place in the world.

If your logic was true, then Coca-Cola and Pepsi wouldn't need to advertise. Oscar Meyer wouldn't need the weiner-mobile, and Hormel Foods wouldn't need a spam-mobile. But they still do. Why? Keeps demand up... otherwise a competitor's advertising might might make something think "perhaps i'll give this drink a shot" or "this tastes good, I think I might buy some"

If your logic was also true, then Viacom already has achieved the maximium market share, meaning no room for growth, and only a fool would invest in them. But in terms of cable stations, I believe the "USA network" (NBC/universal) is #1 in terms of viewers. And it just so happens I got into Monk by watching short clips on Youtube.

http://www.answers.com/topic/viacom
http://www.answers.com/topic/nbc-universal-inc
http://www.answers.com/topic/fox-entertainment-gro up-inc
http://www.answers.com/topic/time-warner-inc

Viacom has their place in the world, but they are no Time/Warner, closer to NBC-Universal which just so happens to have a deal with Youtube If they hope to reach the level of NBC-universal, it might be wise to consider youtube as a vehicel for promoting their media.

To put into perspective, google's net income is about 1/10th that of viacom.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-google1feb01 ,1,1371599.story?coll=la-headlines-business

We are not talking about Viacom it self, but rather the content they provide. Everyone for example knows "Kraft" or "safeway", but you do not know every product they sell. Your average American, for example, doesn't know what Vegemite(tm) is though it is a Kraft product. Viacom does spend much airtime and advertising dollars to promote programing. Something like the Dailyshow isn't watched by everyone, pretty popular for a cable show, about 1.5 million viewers nightly. How many more people do you think would watch it if they caught brief blip-verts sent to them in their inbox by friends. How much more likely would it be for something to enter into foreign markets based on this free advertising. Your clearly a hard sell on this idea, I can only speak from experence.

If I was a shareholder of any media company, I would be concerned if Viacom didn't offer blip-verts like NBC does, and hell i'd drop them like a rock if they didn't adapt. Just like the VCR served to increase popularity of cable by providing a signal good enough to tape.

1) Person with VCR tapes HBO
2) Person shares tape
3) Person gets HBO, watches and tapes.
The effect is virual and was vital to the groth of the cable industry.

Viacom needs to be reminded that their present growth was due in part to viral pirate marketing.

They don't n

Any of the first, second, or fourth are appropriate interpretations. Of course, the three are very closely related. See this analysis, based on the American Heritage dictionary, as used by Answers.com for an explanation.

...to be outed after stupid behavior:

Laura K Pahl is a plagiarist!
Subway pervert Dan Hoyt was arrested by police and charged with public lewdness
The Ultimate Best Buy Extended Warranty Nightmare outs by name a couple of store managers...
And many, many more.

In these cases, there seems to be acceptance of truth by the accusers; how many others are fabrications? If Jandreau's accuser were a jilted ex-girlfriend with a creative, convincing lie, how would he undo the damage?

Will the continued slashdot-front-paging and diggability of these stories dwindle as we become numb with their commonness?

You are living in a fairy land. When you can design a truck than can carry goods cross country that can plug into the grid or a ship that can carry goods across the oceans that you can plug into the grid I might start to agree with you.

Uh, we've had the first since 1912 and the second since 1920, the problem comes in with energy storage- and we're working on that one. If you don't mind driving only an hour or two in between plugging into the grid, the first two are fine. Heck, with the new wave generation bouy, all you need is a submerged towfish and an anchor line to continually supply your ship with wave energy.

:) Very nice... Quasimode

Anyone who convinces the stupid to sterilize themselves or remove themselves from the gene pool through other means certainly deserves our hearty congratulations.

It's worrying that people don't know how microwaves work.

But it's even more worrying that people here on Slashdot are seriously promoting eugenics.

You'd think that the Nazis would have made it unfashionable.

...nevermind the fact that vistas are not at all synonymous with cliffs.

Oh, and also that cliffs are all steep by definition.

Other than that, good analogy.

The word "prove" has more than one meaning. There is no reason whatsoever to insist that the article summary use it in the scientific sense. It is perfectly reasonable to use it in the common, everyday sense of "To determine the quality of by testing; try out." In that sense it is perfectly valid to say that this experimentation could prove string theory.

Never done anything with AC electricity, have you...try reading a little about residential house wiring.

http://www.answers.com/topic/three-phase-electric- power

http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/tech/threeph.htm

It's not spelled (or pronounced) Cingulair; it's Cingular, as in singular with a c, to be "hip" and "edgy." Click the speaker icon to learn how to pronounce this apparently baffling word correctly.

You know, this really needs to be addressed. It's been bothering me just how many people on /. are so misinformed about optical drive speeds. Comparing a "12x" DVD drive to a "2x" Blu-Ray drive is misleading as the uninformed will assume that the former is much faster than the latter. Let's put this into perspective:

A single speed (1x) DVD drive is rated at approximately 1.35 MB/second. That means that a 12x drive will theoretically reach approximately 16.2 MB/second maximum transfer rates.

A single speed Blu-Ray drive is rated at approximately 4.5 MB/second. That means a 2x drive will theoretically reach approximately 9 MB/second sustained transfer rates.

This means that a 2x Blu-Ray drive is equivalent in speed to an 8x DVD-ROM drive. Hardly a performance slouch, and if you also factor in the difference between maximum and sustained transfer rates, the performance is really on par with a 12x DVD drive.

For reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc
http://kb.iu.edu/data/adme.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/dvd-drives (keep in mind, they list drives faster than 12x for DVD, which currently is not possible)

The burns are cue marks. The timing is different because the reels are either manually switched or are spliced from multiple reels into a large reel.
http://www.answers.com/topic/cue-mark

As a side, when the incredibles played in the theaters, the burn was a tiny 'i' logo.

neo-Luddites.

However, if the DPP government stops meddling with cross-strait economy links, it will be Taiwan, not China, who enjoy most of the benefit. Various reports from international research institutes attribute Taiwan's declining economy to DPP's reluctance to embrace the booming Chinese market.

So I'm afraid you've asked the wrong government. It's not the question whether PRC should let go Taiwan, but whether DPP should let go its anti-China stance.

As for the second one, yes, albeit large scale conflict not be very likely soon. But bad things happened in the past. For recent ones, see

The Yinhe Incident, http://www.answers.com/topic/yinhe-incident

The Chinese Embassy Bombing, http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws002/afm151.htm

Given the US administration's record, Chinese can never trust those neoconservative politicians in Washington. I mean, did Iraq ever threaten any attack to the US in 2003? Has any WMD been found in Iraq at all? Do the Iraqis deserve suffering the consequence of dubya's decision?

The difference is that these are not passive countermeasures, but instead are active.

Active Chaff

Right, because the current system of 9+ hours of conservative talking heads all in a row on radio and tv is a perfect system.

Interesting how conservatives see the media as the bastion of socialists, while liberals see it as a capitalist mouthpiece. How can this be? How can either side explain why the Denver stations carrying Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh have the same owner? Could they just be in the radio business for the money?

This is not some mysterious malady. The radio station is off the scale negligent for putting contestants in the position of potential serious harm:

• Wiki
• another
• another
• answers.com

I'd had this argument many times with a friend about my water intake. I've always known my intake was fine (hint: coffee counts...), but in the course of that discussion I found many articles on the problems one could encounter by drinking too much water.

I won't claim any person on the street should know the dangers of drinking too much water, but the people putting on this contest (sorry, stunt) could have recognized they were in deep waters with a modicum of research.

I'm not much for lawsuits, but I hope the radio station that put on this stunt makes significant remedy to the lady's family.

A learning curve is a plot of how long it takes you to do something against how many times you've done it. A steep curve means you get quickly get back to doing things fast - that's good. A "gentle" curve means you're less productive for longer - that's bad.

http://www.answers.com/topic/experience-curve-effe cts