Slashdot Mirror

Tesla wanted an all wireless electricity transfer system from generator to device, but couldn't get the transfer to go more than about a couple of metres, so the idea got dropped, even after the idea of having a generator every couple of blocks was suggested.

The resonator you mentioned was far too effective - it ended up destroying his building - so maybe resonating wasn't the way to go either.

I don't remember the original sources for these, but here is a film about him and his work - sounds like parts of his life were pretty good.

"I have a feeling that the opinion of Vista will stay largely static forever; it may have introduced new features, but it still wasn't that good. This is already how the public feels about WinME -- it added useful features like System Restore, but it wasn't until XP that those features were incorporated in a good OS."

I couldn't say it better myself. Going XP to Vista feels like 98 to ME. ME was absolutely AWFUL. It took Windows 2000 and finally XP before M$ finally got it right (w2k was good but didn't play the games XP could).

I have a feeling Windows 7 won't be there either, I think it'll be Windows 2000 all over again, a big improvement but not XP. But I really think this might be Microsoft's last chance, I think if anyone could topple M$ it'd be Google's Chrome OS. I know you guys are all linux lovers, but I've tried redhat and ubuntu and it's just not there, not enough to switch. If anyone could convince me to switch it'd be Google. Reviews of Android software have been positive, some calling it the open source iPhone so that shows Google knows what they're doing.

I'll have to get Windows 7 for the laptop because it already has Vista but I'll dual boot into Chrome OS when it's released.

Just use Google:

http://www.dailyillini.com/news/campus/2009/06/02/bars-pay-price-for-underage-drinking

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20282532,00.html

http://hawkonomics.blogspot.com/2009/05/iowa-city-bar-restrictions.html

And that was just the beginning. Bars get shut down for serving underage people. It doesn't matter if they check the IDs or not - if they are fooled by a fake ID they can be shut down. It is almost never the underage person's fault, and even when they are charged, it is a fine and little else.

For the bar owner, it can result in the loss of the business.

Whenever a stock is in the soft parts of the price elasticity curve, sensitivity to fundamentals is low and the trading can be manipulated by applying the correct trades at the correct technical points. The method involves representing all traders and trading accounts as one aggregate trader with an average propensity to respond to technical signals and then using this theoretical trader as a model to predict which trading contention points will be most influential on the developing technical pattern. If a stock is trading well within its plausible valuation range, this technical response sensitivity is the dominant mechanism driving new trades. You can draw the stock market as a control function and solve for the type of feedback necessary to induce the desired trading pattern. Engineers who do analysis of oscillations of mechanical or electrical systems will understand this readily.

Whenever a stock is deep on either side of the price elasticity curve, the influence of fundamental traders will present too much of a "noise" signal for technical manipulation to be effective. I'm writing up a on this subject here.

The location of their server no longer matters as GS was allowed to put a peeker in line between everyone else (on the planet) and the publicly traded ETNS. They get an opportunity to front run every transaction. Every single one. Zerohedge is a financial blog that has been keeping up with this story. Their coverage is good if a little breathless.

Link is to their "high frequency trading" tag:

http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/search/label/High%20Frequency%20Trading

I agree that you need to take that "risk" and share your idea with others. Just like you I also had the same dilema about my ideas. At one point I realized that having them stored in my brain or somewhere on a piece of a napkin will not do any good to anyone. I decided to air them out on a blog, still have a bunch to add but here is a sneak preview to show you what I mean: http://innovationsforgrabs.blogspot.com/ The google ads made me 84 cents so far so it's a bonus too :) On the other hand, I decided to devote my efforts on starting my own company. I'm developing a software application that already exists in many shapes and forms. However, I found room for improvements and I believe that with effort and persistance I will succeed.

In the united states, there is a grace period, "one year from the date of first public use, sale, offer for sale, or publication". And if you get it notarized, you can prove that you had the idea first. Finding a notary shouldn't be a problem, because, AFAIK, most banks offer a notary for free to customers. http://robertplattbell.blogspot.com/2007/10/i-cant-afford-patent-now-what.html

• Myth #1: A brilliant idea will make you rich.
• Myth #3: Someone will steal your idea if you don't protect it.
• Myth #4: What you think matters.
• Myth #6: What you know matters more than who you know.
• Myth #9: The idea is the most important part of my business plan.

I recommend reading all of them; they are well-written and insightful.

So, if you're worried about someone 'stealing' your idea, making a bunch of money, and not sharing anything with you, Rondam says it won't happen. Nobody will ever steal your idea.

Are you worried more about your idea being stolen, or someone making money off of 'your' idea? Because making money is more about doing boring, stupid business stuff than having the Next Killer App. Remember Segway? Went nowhere, really. Want to really make money? Buy a dry cleaning establishment. One of the best, most guaranteed business investments out there. Except, it's all boring business stuff, like hiring and firing employees, working every day, having an accountant, paying taxes, etc. Buy an established one, with an existing clientele, rather than take the pains of starting up a business on your own. Saves a lot of the boring small-business start up crap.

Yes, they do everything different. And it is still very questionable if it is OK, because they do something very similar to Symbian's story about memory management and C++ major changes. Yet no one knows if Symbian's way is better or not. It is just as same (at final result to end user) so far. Besides, you can use Java ME on Android with no problems: http://microemu.blogspot.com/2008/11/running-java-me-applications-on-android.html ...which is still better choice then HTML based apps.

Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats."
Howard Aiken

Aiken was right. I know. I've been traveling that lonely road for a long time. Good luck.

If you read the story, it looks like they released the binaries to people, thus they distributed it, which means they broke the GPL.

"I was going to pay for the candy bars I was hiding in my jacket" is not a valid defense when caught shoplifting, this is the same thing.

The minute they linked in GPL only libraries, they needed to go GPL. Not later when they got caught.

We don't have any WIPO obligations. Canada has signed the WIPO treaty but we have not ratified it. See Howard Knopf's discussion of this issue. As he puts it, signing is to dating as ratification is to marriage.

Uh? How about you think before you type. Oh, whoops huh? I bet you meant to do that anonymous coward, but same diff. I hope someone karma's you out of oblivion.

the linux community at large can't even use *ANYTHING* they put out there. Not legally, and the source code doesn't help anyone. You do realize they can sue people for using a reference implementation brought in by MS, right?

Lots of MS source has been available forever. Thanks to the DMCA and other things, it's not been legal to use. Plenty of people know how to get around MS issues if they didn't have to deal with patents and DMCA in seconds. Ask a real software engineer. Thanks to GPLv2 and it not covering MS's patent covenant, it's still not legal to use. That may not be MS's fault or decision, but they deserve no praise for this. This posting of GNU code that they have done is forced because they were already violating the GPL.

Congrats for ousting yourself as either a shill or obtuse.

Pennsylvania. Say no more.

Remember the recent scandal involving judges taking more than 2.6 million in payments from owner and builder of a juvenile detention center.

And don't forget Pennsylvania's judge Sabo, who unofficially handed out more death sentences than any judge in US history! Of course it's unofficial because such dubious records aren't kept in record-books... which seems bogus to me, since if we're going to support the death-sentence, then we need to do it with transparency and conviction, damnit.

Oh yeah, and how about the Move 9; nine black men who have spent nearly 30 years in prison for the same crime - allegedly killing a police officer who was shot with 1 bullet. Conveniently these men were all active members of a political family that openly complained about government corruption.

Ask Google. They've only got 20,000 employees but estimates put the number of servers well into the 6 figure range.

It really depends on the business model, specifically if you're offering services on the Internet, you've probably got a small administrative staff managing a huge number of servers. Or what about companies with big render farms?

Here we have about 80 servers (~60 physical, the rest virtualized) and about 600-700 workstations. We also have over 6,000 employees.

Indeed. And given that Windows Update already exists, and given that Microsoft is antitrust-law bound to allow everyone equal access to Windows, why not open up Windows Update to allow it to update all your apps? Microsoft Update (an extension to Windows Update) already updates things like Office, .net, silverlight, etc. So why not publish a white paper on how to get your app included in Windows Update in a fair, non-discriminatory manner?

(Alternatively, folk could band around the open-source GoogleUpdate backend. These days it doesn't even run all the time.)

I for one would love to see the end of lots of different *update.exe apps running on the average user's computer.

From the blog on this at:
http://freebeattychadwick.blogspot.com/

A. Leo Sereni, a former president judge in Pennsylvania, was appointed to track Chadwick's money. Eighteen months and two accounting firms later, Sereni reported no trace beyond what had been discovered a decade before. Money had been transferred to Europe and a small fraction had reappeared in U.S. accounts. Sereni concluded, 'most of it...nowhere.'
"He recommended Chadwick's release, stating, 'My God -- if he had stolen $2 million, he would have been out a couple of years ago.'"

So, it appears that the courts have made some efforts to trace the money, and have been unable to locate it.

-Doc

``In other words (as far as I understand it) "God condemns homosexuality", or even "I hate queers" likely won't get you prosecuted'' -- apparently, less than that can get you prosecuted.

Stephen Boisson sent a letter in 2002 to the Red Deer Advocate where he attacks, not gays in general, but activists of a homosexual agenda. He was prosecuted for this letter reproduced here:

http://rootleweb.blogspot.com/2008/06/boissons-letter-to-red-deer-advocate.html

He was ordered to pay a $5000 fine, and his own legal fees, and was ordered by the court not to make further "disparaging comments against homosexuality".

In 2008, Fr. Alphonse deValk published a defense of the Catholic position on homosexuality and same sex marriage in a Catholic publication, Catholic Insight. He quotes the Bible, the Catechism, papal encyclicals, etc. He is facing thousands in legal fees and fines. As I understand it, even if he wins, he pays for his own fees, and gets nothing for the trouble.

Admittedly, the Irish definition of blasphemous libel can be abused too. Just as in the Canadian case, where the question of whether or not a publication or public act "incites hatred" can be stretched to cover many things.

But I am starting to think that this is indeed just a political maneuver to cover a gap in the constitution while not really intended for enforcing the law, as some have opined above.

It is also unlikely, from a Catholic perspective, that grave abuse in a publication concerning sacred Catholic matters will ever be acted upon. We've been insulted on Jesus, his mother, the Eucharist, the popes, the Bible, etc., for a pretty long time now, with not a lawsuit lodged against anyone.

But.. I just thought I'd point out that the Canadian situation is not as far-fetched nor as harmless as one might think.

I'm a tool and forgot the linky.

1. Don't reference Other Countries nuclear programs. This is the United States,

My $4/W figure was the estimate for new United States reactors, according to the interdisciplinary MIT study The Future of Nuclear Power (the 2009 update).

Referring again to the MIT study, they explain in detail what goes into their cost models (the 2003 full report, appendix 5). It encompasses EVERYTHING - the entire plant (steam turbines and all), the operating costs over 40 years of operation, 40 years' worth of fuel, the decomissioning costs after those 40 years, the waste disposal cost under the current 0.1 c/kWh DoE fee, etc. The TOTAL cash flow is estimated at $4.5 billion (nominal) during the construction phase - see the supplemental paper Update on the Cost of Nuclear Power, table 6A (this doesn't include the financing costs - go down to 6C).

Of course, what's really interesting is the levelized lifetime cost, per kWh. The MIT study estimates this at 8.4 c/kWhe; I've surveyed a dozen other such levelized cost studies on my blog. Feel free to follow the links and read up on them.

By the way, the NRC fees a very tiny part of costs - currently $4.6 M/year, out of of the MIT estimate of $56 M/year of fixed O&M costs (for a 1 GW plant).

6. Definitely not an engineer. Megawatts are always comparable, they are absolute quantities. A MW produced by a wind farm is the same MW produced by a nuke.

Nameplate capacities are incomparable. They represent peak power generation; but some power plants always operate at full power, and others operate intermittently, hence the energy yields (integral of power * dt) are completely different.

Yes, while wind provides a smaller percentage of it's capacity factor when compared to nuclear, that can be (supposedly) be defeated with large numbers of geographically dispersed wind farms.

No, that's a fallacy. 1 MWe of wind (nameplate capacity), at 30% capacity factor, averages 300 kWe (averaged over long time periods), with an instantaneous range of 0-1000 kWe. Adding together a thousand such (identical, independent) turbines gives you an average of 300 MWe, albeit with lower statistical variance - smaller fluctuations.

You are conflating two separate issues. One, is that the average output of a windfarm is a fraction of its nameplate capacity. Two, is that the output over time has very large variations. See? They are separate problems.

It seems that a week does not go by unless somebody, somewhere, claims yet another major advance in quantum computing. But has anybody noticed that this has been going on for at least a decade and we still don't have a quantum computer that we can put our hands on? It's obvious that some people need a constant flow of money to keep themselves employed. I just wish it weren't the public's money.

Quantum Computing Crackpottery

You may mod me down as a troll but I'm right, goddamnit! Quantum computing is both fraud and crackpottery.

Nuclear power plants in the 1500 Megawatt range cost 30-40 Billion dollars just to build.

Nonsense. The new French reactor, 1650 MWe, has a pricetag of $4.8 billion. Recent Japanese and Korean reactors were in the same range - $2-3/W (PPP), as surveyed by MIT CEEPR (under "update on the cost of nuclear power"). The accompanying study (2009) predicts costs for new US reactors to be $4/W. In short, the numbers are consistent. You can look up cost figures, levelized cost studies (here's a start) up and down, and you will find this is true.

Wind Farms in the 1500 Megawatt range cost 300-400 million dollars to build.

Also nonsense. Just take one recent UK wind farm, which came in at £111 M for 60 MWe - $2.07/W, or extrapolating, over $3 billion for 1500 MW. You can survey costs all over the web, and this is typical. Whitelee, Europe's largest onshore farm, cost £300M ($496M) for 322 MWe, $1.54/W. Lynn and Inner Dowsing - UK's largest offshore farm - came in at £300 M ($496 M) for 194 MWe, $2.56/MW. The famous London Array is now at £3B ($4.96 billion) for 1,000 MWe: $4.96/W. (To be fair though, this represents a 200% cost overrun over the original estimates.) (Sorry about the angstrom signs: they are supposed to be British "pound" symbols)

Also, besides the fact that your bogus figures for wind are 10 times cheaper than reality (and for nuclear, 10 times more expensive than reality), your comparison is bogus in yet another away. You comparable incomparable quantities: a megawatt of baseload yields far more energy than a megawatt of wind power - because it yields power continuously, whereas the wind turbines are very frequently down, or generating at fractional capacity. This is represented by the "capacity factor", which is the fraction of the nameplate capacity actually achieved by a power plant - ratio of [average power output]/[power capacity]. And while nuclear power plants, as generally reliable baseload plants, run at 90%+ capacity factor - that is, average 0.90 MWe of generation for each 1 MWe of nameplate capacity - wind farms, becuase of the obvious intermittency of wind, average only 20-30% capacity factors, with some exceptional offshore locations yielding 40%. Those megawatts are completely incomparable: 1 MWe of nuclear yields 2-4 times more energy than 1 MWe of wind power.

May I direct you to http://postsecret.blogspot.com/

I can't? Why not - since it's the truth?

1) GISTEMP is closed source, closed algorithm. If you don't agree, you haven't looked at it, or you didn't follow the debacle that caused corrections and finally the release of code in 2007. Code that wouldn't be considered functional by open source standards.

http://cdquarles.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/fun-with-gistemp/

Now, that might change due to efforts like http://clearclimatecode.org/ - but we're not there yet.

2) CRN123 stations do look different than all put together. I know which study you're going to cite, and you might want to read up on how that was done. In short, watch out for "corrections" to the data - i.e, what are they really comparing?

3) GISTEMP and UAH are "all that different" ;) One is used to prove a political agenda, one measures variable climate fluctuations. You're interested in African UHI, amongs other things.

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/part-1-of-comparison-of-gistemp-and-uah.html

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/part-2-of-comparison-of-gistemp-and-uah.html

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/07/part-3-of-comparison-of-gistemp-and-uah.html

Bascially, GISTEMP is worthless - as my first reply pointed out. When debating climate variability, we should at least try to use data we can believe in.

I can't? Why not - since it's the truth?

1) GISTEMP is closed source, closed algorithm. If you don't agree, you haven't looked at it, or you didn't follow the debacle that caused corrections and finally the release of code in 2007. Code that wouldn't be considered functional by open source standards.

http://cdquarles.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/fun-with-gistemp/

Now, that might change due to efforts like http://clearclimatecode.org/ - but we're not there yet.

2) CRN123 stations do look different than all put together. I know which study you're going to cite, and you might want to read up on how that was done. In short, watch out for "corrections" to the data - i.e, what are they really comparing?

3) GISTEMP and UAH are "all that different" ;) One is used to prove a political agenda, one measures variable climate fluctuations. You're interested in African UHI, amongs other things.

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/part-1-of-comparison-of-gistemp-and-uah.html

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/part-2-of-comparison-of-gistemp-and-uah.html

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/07/part-3-of-comparison-of-gistemp-and-uah.html

Bascially, GISTEMP is worthless - as my first reply pointed out. When debating climate variability, we should at least try to use data we can believe in.

I can't? Why not - since it's the truth?

1) GISTEMP is closed source, closed algorithm. If you don't agree, you haven't looked at it, or you didn't follow the debacle that caused corrections and finally the release of code in 2007. Code that wouldn't be considered functional by open source standards.

http://cdquarles.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/fun-with-gistemp/

Now, that might change due to efforts like http://clearclimatecode.org/ - but we're not there yet.

2) CRN123 stations do look different than all put together. I know which study you're going to cite, and you might want to read up on how that was done. In short, watch out for "corrections" to the data - i.e, what are they really comparing?

3) GISTEMP and UAH are "all that different" ;) One is used to prove a political agenda, one measures variable climate fluctuations. You're interested in African UHI, amongs other things.

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/part-1-of-comparison-of-gistemp-and-uah.html

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/part-2-of-comparison-of-gistemp-and-uah.html

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/07/part-3-of-comparison-of-gistemp-and-uah.html

Bascially, GISTEMP is worthless - as my first reply pointed out. When debating climate variability, we should at least try to use data we can believe in.

At one point, the photo on Larry Ellison's page showed him taking a bite of a hotdog at a football match. That one matched your criteria perfectly :).

this one, possible (I don't remember well enough), though it isn't at Wikipedia any more.

Turn off Flash and see if it doesn't get a lot faster.

As for your claim, I'm going to shrug and say both that they're fast enough, and that we're talking about a fairly small piece of chrome. I don't know that anyone suggested building the entire UI that way -- although when it's happened, you end up with something that runs on netbooks.

I take it you've never seen this.

http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/2006/12/verizon-doesnt-know-dollars-from-cents.html

Apparently many people are used to only seeing whole numbers of monetary values and get very confused when confronted with partial numbers expressed in decimal notation (i.e. they're used to fractions).

Zelaya, you bastaheywaitasecond. Didn't the authorities have access to the machines, too?

The new government already has problems with bad press. The army killed a pro-Zelaya protestor: http://observers.france24.com/en/content/20090709-honduran-daily-photoshop-blood-crackdown-victim-murillo-coup-zelaya. And the police arrested his dad for some reason. Also, a union leader was killed (not clear who did it).

So they could have done the manipulation to distract from the bad news about them. They lied previously about Zelaya's resignation letter: http://incakolanews.blogspot.com/2009/06/honduras-coup-check-out-false.html

Or was it Zelaya? We don't know and we probably never will. What I know is: Voting machines suck.

As such, a virus scanner running in the OS is perfectly capable of dealing with them.
Antivirus works after code has been sent to the computer or while it's sent using a limited set of known methods. For many exploits, code runs before antivirus gets a crack at stopping it. That's why Symantec's David Hall said "If you are relying solely on antivirus ... you are not getting the protection you need.". The issue is that antivirus gives a user a very false sense of security because it works good enough most of the time.

A virus scanner in the OS can stop that. It can scan the program coming in, before it has a chance to run, and block it.
Not so much. Sure, if it's a file download that the virus scanner knows about (that's an issue right there). Not at all if it's a browser, OS or network stack exploit. And that is how many modern threats are moving - and increasingly so - and it's probably because antivirus works good enough to require a little more unconventional attack.

Regardless, I've got to agree that for non security experts, virus scanners are something you should have. For security experts, I'm not sure they provide all that much value.

What's worse, how long will this exploit live in the wild?

Not long. People running cutting-edge kernels tend to update their kernels rather frequently.

You'll all foam at the mouth how quickly it will be patch. OK. That's nice and all,

Yes, it is.

but how long until it's disseminated on say 90% of Linux machines exhibiting the flaw?

Seeing as how most desktop Linux users run the "stable" versions of big-name distros, all of which currently ship with kernel 2.6.29 or older, and the server distros like RHEL and SLES use kernels even older than that, I'd say that the flawed kernel will never be disseminated to 90% of Linux machines.

And I'm sure, being Linux, this won't take a reboot right? (I'm joking on that last one - of course it will).

I don't know how well this works, but this is supposed to to let you update your kernel without rebooting.

Double standard indeed.

Yeah, but Windows earned that double standard.

i agree with you saglik,autocad

i agree with you saglik,autocad

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28690179

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28674253

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28688937

You said what you said, quoted point by point there, and I am just watching you run like the troll you are. Hilarious... disprove what's in those 3 urls, vs. what you stated originally in your "+5 INFORMATIVE post" (lol, torn apart by what's in those 3 url's above from myself).

----

"You know what's funny about this, apk? You're responding to the wrong guy." - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18, @03:30PM (#28742811)

Well, be a man, for once, & tell us who you are then? Of course, I expect too much from "the likes of you" (troll, lmao)... still, let's say you aren't the same AC trolling me (b.s., you are)? I would like YOU to disprove the points there in the 3 url's above, ok?

----

"All I'm doing is exposing you for the sock-puppet trolling egotist that you accuse others of being." - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18, @03:30PM (#28742811)

I think MEK_LoveBug & kings jowker have been disagreeing with you thusfar on that statement, & though this is asking too much from you (like usual)? Got proofs of your accusations?

If so, please - prove it. Not your b.s. speculations, & "theories" (from you, the "scientist" or "psychic" (not)).

(This I have to see)

APK

P.S.=>

"As you like to say all the time - it's too easy." - by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18, @03:30PM (#28742811)

LOL, it IS "too easy", & that little statement? Just proof, via your OWN WORDS NOW, no less, that you DO indeed "stalk me" online... boy, you really lack intelligence, don't you? Thanks for proving THAT much for everyone @ least (gee, aren't I special? I have my own "fanclub" of psycho internet stalkers... just like Mr. Dancho Danchev does here -> http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2009/06/from-ukrainian-blackhat-seo-gang-with_09.html )... apk

Except that you are totally and completely wrong.
Citation Here

Divxcim Atatürk

I was too lazy to add links but these guys do this

http://www.alwaysinnovating.com/touchbook/

esentially an Arm based netbook tablet with the guts behind the screen and a plug in keyboard which sort of turns it back into a netbook again.
It looks like the keyboard is weighted down with a battery to make a stable netbook.

Pricing appears to be $300 for the tablet or $400 for the tablet + keyboard battery combo. I think they have used something like a wireless keyboard to get a unit which can work detached from the screen.

I'd like to introduce them to these guys

http://pixelqi.com/

who make these screens

http://jkkmobile.blogspot.com/2009/06/hands-on-with-pixel-qis-new-epaper.html

Essentially its an LCD Screen which can turn off the backlight and run in a black and white mode at quite a low power.

PixelQI used one of the first screens to mod an aspire one.

speaking of mods heres a nice diy version of an aspire one tablet.
http://www.liliputing.com/2008/10/acer-aspire-one-retooled-as-a-tablet-style-umpc.html

"Additionally, because criminal behavior on the part of the Plaintiffs may have occurred, I require assistance for qualified counsel appointed by the Courts."

In the UK they are free. In France the Louvre was something like 5EU and others were at similar prices. Here in Vienna many places are free while most are cheaper than a movie ticket. And no digital copy's will not affect museum patronage any more that photos of mountains stop people climbing them.

The Mona Lisa is available online, yet guess what the busiest room in the Louvre is?

Oracle has been trying to acquire MySql to years. It seems to me that they want to get it for a reason and that reason most likely isn't just to keep it safe from Sun's influence.

Tell that to the freemarket CATO Institute and "Forbes". CATO republished "Forbes'" article "Hooked On Subsidies". Are you going to tell them there's a difference as well?

Especially read where it says "How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."

Solar panels need subsidies so that people can pretend that they're economical.
Nuclear plants need loans because they are economical,

Nuclear power gets more than loan guarantees. They also get other subsidies. This includes limited liability. The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act limits the amount the industry has to pay in the case of an accident, taxpayers pay anything over $10 billion. Do you really think AIG would insure nuclear power with a big premium? Do you think the industry has paid the Navajo when they were harmed by spills? Or any other indigenous groups?

it's just that the chances of some politicians bowing to the pressure from idiot NIMBY's

Oh so now you want to say CATO, Forbes, as well as other business, capitalist, or freemarket groups are idiot NIMBYs?

killing the construction or making expensive changes to the requirements half way through are so high and the amounts of money so large it's more practical to get the loans from the government.

Reread the part above copied from the CATO and Forbes article about how China, France, India, and Russia do not have profitable nuclear power, and they don't have the requirements the US does. Those governments say what gets built not businesses or the market. Oh, but I've already ascertained you think they are idiot NIMBYs.

Falcon

I knew you would correctly point out the context is war. This war is against unbelievers, infidels, us specificly.

They mention specifically slaying people who attack their mosques, and how they're only hostile to oppressors.

That's all the context there is.

That's all the context a Westerner like you or I see. I bet there's more to it, if we had proper knowledge of their culture.

Then what is the context? Don't say there is more context if you do not know. Say, "I don't know."

He says the same thing as the British Mullah "I will never have conflict with my brother."

That is not what was said. The context of the question involved the brother's secular lifestyle - you know, his brother is an unbeliever. His response was, and I quote, "Whoever truly understands Islam will never wage war against you for not believing."

The full quote is: "Whoever truly understands Islam will never wage war against you for not believing. This is why I will never have a conflict with my brother."

Sorry but the phrase was so similar to the British Mullah's I ignored the context, my mistake.

You know, rather than just focusing on the excerpt I decided to read the whole thing carefully, should have done that before, sorry again. Hasan [name altered to keep him alive] seems to be a bit off his rocker. Apparently, everything that happens in Iran is due to outsiders.

RIZVI: What about the reported bombing of Ayatollah Khomeini's tomb? Do you think that this was also carried out by people planted from outside Iran? Could Mousavi's supporters have done this?

HASAN: See, this is what I'm telling you. This is not the kind of thing that Mousavi's supporters could have done. They may have had minor grievances with the other side, like the disagreements between Ahmadinejad and Rafsanjani, but these incidents of bombings and destruction are all being done by people outside Iran that have been planted by foreign powers. They were showing on TV here that these are people who were given training in Iraq and then were sent over here to do these things. These people have been hired and paid.

RIZVI: Well, over here, because of the ban on foreign journalists covering the events in Tehran, a lot of the major media outlets have started to broadcast web-based images and videos that are being sent in by people on the ground in Iran. There are literally hundreds of videos and pictures that have come in this way showing large numbers of people protesting, and many of them show brutal violence, home invasions, and so on. There is one particularly gruesome video of a woman named Neda who was shot and killed on camera by paramilitary forces, and it has evoked widespread reaction. Are you familiar with these kinds of events?

HASAN: Look, in Iran, we have a few sources. We have two TV channels, radio, and then we have the newspapers, which are particularly popular among Iranians. Now, we also have the internet, and yes, we are familiar with these videos showing the murders of these people and the violence against them. I can tell you the impression of the people here... they believe that it is the people who are damaging and vandalizing, these planted forces from outside, that are committing these murders. This is what people believe in Iran.

Who are these "outsiders"? Where did they come from? Surely some must have been rounded up. Isn't it much more likely that the Iranians were unhappy that their votes were not counted at all? Four hours to count 39 million paper votes. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that I'm not that gullible. Of course there's the math to prove it is possible...

HASAN: Now, if you divide 39 million votes by 47,000 stations, it comes to 893 votes per station on average. This is a very sma

What on earth are they poaching the tigers for?

Probably weirdo magic medicine and other stuff like this.

175,000+ lines of codes. Conservatively, there is 10 bugs per 1000 lines of code.[ref] Thus, there are at least 175 bugs in the game.

Electricity or at least energy consumption will increase

Energy consumption will not increase so much renewable sources can't cover it even if the population grows. Here's a link to photos somewhere in Sudan that's no where near an electrical grid, yet some owners were able to open a net cafe powered by solar panels. All together the net cafe, a vocational school, and the micro loan office is powered by PVs. I couldn't find a link to it online but the print edition of IEEE's magazine "Spectrum" had an article about how a business was started in Southeast Asia, I don't recall the country, that employed people to assemble small portable solar PV systems. With loans from a micro loan bank they were sold to villagers who were then able to improve their own lives.

Falcon

You're absolutely right, and that's why we need either nuclear power or a large power transmission grid to lower CO2 emissions.

Wrong. Two billion people in the world don't have electricity. Carbon-based sources produce the most, and cheapest energy. Carbon-based sources are responsible for the doubling of human life expectancy.

Wrong. As you say many of those who's life spans have increased have no access to electricity, carbon based or not. What did increase most people's lifespan was the Green Revolution which was based on mechanization and petroleum, fossil fuels. However petroleum is not going to last forever, we have anywhere between 15 and 40 years before peak oil. Meanwhile solar panels and micro loans allow poor people who live no where near an electrical grid to start businesses such as a net cafe.

That also discounts the effects of high carbon in the atmosphere, such as poison ivy which grows faster and is more toxic with higher carbon levels. Or disease carrying mosquitoes gaining higher altitudes and latitudes infecting more people if the world warms.

It's time to forget about environmental propaganda and start being concerned with the lives of individuals who need abundant, cheap energy to survive, and to thrive.

Fossil fuel is only cheap to those who produce and consume it because they get to pass on the external costs to others. If users had to pay the costs of pollution they'd be paying much more. They'd also be paying more if fossil fuels were not subsidized by the government. Yes, subsidized. The coal, natural gas, nuclear power, and petroleum industries receive billions of dollars in government subsidies. In the video My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!'" on YouTube rep Markey details some of the government subsidies all these industries get. In another video "Chevron agrees to lobby with Sierra Club to end coal subsidies".

Quite simply many people like you believe energy from fossil fuel is cheap, but if they had to pay the full price they'd know the truth, it is not. In markets where fossil fuels and nuclear power did not get subsidies and had to pay for the pollution created alternative and renewable energy sources could compeat.

Falcon

...how did you come up with all this conclusions?

I was merely repeating the details from last week when this was announced on Google's blog. I've never known them to lie about what they discuss on that blog so I take it on good faith that they plan on releasing a new GUI ontop of Linux with all of it being open source. They also put up a FAQ about it. The fact that they are planning to release it for ARM also indicates it will be aimed at netbooks. They flat out say that Android was never supposed to be for netbooks.

Because from what I imagine to be most likely, you know close to nothing about Bill Gates's thoughts, Microsoft internals, Google internals, etc. So I can only guess you have no idea what you are talking about and in typical pundit fashion, pull things out of your ass, that support your p.o.v.

No one but Bill Gates knows what Bill Gates is thinking. No one but employees of Microsoft know their internals. No one but employees of Google know their internals. So judging by your assumptions, no one could possibly fill those conditions to make a statement about Chrome OS or say what a business man must be thinking. Thanks for calling me a "typical pundit." I thought my statements were well informed and informed readers. Nice to know that I "have no idea what I am talking about" and am "pulling things out of my ass." I note that you provided no specific details of anything nor do you provide anything worth reading about the discussion at hand. If these are guesses, prove me wrong with facts.

I really hope I am totally wrong with my guesses,

You also save yourself from being a complete troll by offering me this trivial gem of "hope." How this was moderated insightful is beyond me.

and that you have some special insight. But if, then why did you not base your arguments on it by stating it? So correct me if I'm wrong, and I will thank you for having learned something.

But if I am right, please just shut up. :)

Please, Hurricane78, do me a favor--go here and mark me as a Foe. Then go here and find the section called "People Modifier" and set Foes to be -6 so you never have to read my uninformed guesses. Really, it would be a huge favor to me not to have to read your responses to my comments.

...how did you come up with all this conclusions?

I was merely repeating the details from last week when this was announced on Google's blog. I've never known them to lie about what they discuss on that blog so I take it on good faith that they plan on releasing a new GUI ontop of Linux with all of it being open source. They also put up a FAQ about it. The fact that they are planning to release it for ARM also indicates it will be aimed at netbooks. They flat out say that Android was never supposed to be for netbooks.

Because from what I imagine to be most likely, you know close to nothing about Bill Gates's thoughts, Microsoft internals, Google internals, etc. So I can only guess you have no idea what you are talking about and in typical pundit fashion, pull things out of your ass, that support your p.o.v.

No one but Bill Gates knows what Bill Gates is thinking. No one but employees of Microsoft know their internals. No one but employees of Google know their internals. So judging by your assumptions, no one could possibly fill those conditions to make a statement about Chrome OS or say what a business man must be thinking. Thanks for calling me a "typical pundit." I thought my statements were well informed and informed readers. Nice to know that I "have no idea what I am talking about" and am "pulling things out of my ass." I note that you provided no specific details of anything nor do you provide anything worth reading about the discussion at hand. If these are guesses, prove me wrong with facts.

I really hope I am totally wrong with my guesses,

You also save yourself from being a complete troll by offering me this trivial gem of "hope." How this was moderated insightful is beyond me.

and that you have some special insight. But if, then why did you not base your arguments on it by stating it? So correct me if I'm wrong, and I will thank you for having learned something.

But if I am right, please just shut up. :)

Please, Hurricane78, do me a favor--go here and mark me as a Foe. Then go here and find the section called "People Modifier" and set Foes to be -6 so you never have to read my uninformed guesses. Really, it would be a huge favor to me not to have to read your responses to my comments.

I actually work in the nuclear power industry...

So did my grandfather, who was a nuclear chemist at ORNL for several decades.

I encourage you to read the energy from thorium blog and nuclear green. I think you'll find it interesting I too don't think nuclear should replace everything, and that energy diversity is good. I just think that nuclear constantly gets short shrift even though it's a viable option, and has been for several decades.