Slashdot Mirror

This may be a reference to Texas legislators pushing for more Texas NASA dollars. They don't directly oppose privatization, but they do talk about it dismissively in their quest for pork.

Obama’s “reliance on a promising, yet still fledgling commercial space industry” combined with retiring the space shuttle and canceling the back-to-the-moon Constellation “will severely diminish the manned space flight program and provide the JSC with no true mission objective,” the lawmakers cautioned.

I've now observed the computer industry for some decades, and I think this move by HP is a loser. Two wrongs don't make a right. If the PC division was not profitable on its own, combining it will only make it less efficient.

HP's PC business is in trouble because the Windows ecosystem is broken. The last HP PC I saw had 2 hrs worth of spyware removal, old drivers, no customization to make it easy for the user, 200 programs in the start menu, and annoying registration pop-ups. Although I will never trust Cupertino, if you buy a Mac you have none of this. Users want stuff to just work. HP's business model is based on selling cheaply made PCs to idiots and profiting from the advertising. That's not a real business model. They need to find a way to make fewer types of machines, and make more of them, so that they can use economies of scale to make good profit. They also need to cut out the spyware/spamware and configure these machines for your grandmother to use them to web-surf, email and word process. And for the love of whatever absent gods you believe in, install Chrome or Firefox but not IE!

HP's printer business is in trouble for the same reason. About 15 years ago they realized that the product was the ink, not the printers, and started selling really expensive ink in cheapie printers because they realized most people don't print much and don't think about it until they have to. The problem is that now the old rule, "You can trust any printer you buy from HP," is no longer true. Their brand is worth a lot less as a result and the new printer manufacturers are eating them alive. Again, they got fat and lazy on the easy money from the oblivious cows of the mid-American middle class consumer.

Someone else here on Slashdot said something that I've known to be true from my own experience:

I'm convinced that any project, no matter how big can be done by 6 people.

HP suffers from too many cooks in the kitchen. As soon as the easy money rolled in, they got greedy and hired a lot of idiots to cover their tracks. Now they can't manufacture a PC at low cost, or act quickly, or do anything without 10,000 committee meetings. The human disease has taken over. It takes very little brainpower to make a great PC for $600 with $50 in profit to the maker. If you had the bulk purchasing power that HP does, you could make that same PC for $50. It's a mystery how they're losing money in this market, until you look at how big and bloated HP has become over the past 15 years.

The state of Texas tried to do something like this away back. They were going to pass a law that made it a crime to do patdowns that involved touching sensitive areas of people. The TSA threatened to shut down all air traffic in and out of Texas airports if the law was passed. The guy who introduced the bill backed down from the TSA.

http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/2011/05/patricks-intrusive-touching-bill-junked/

So then don't call it unlimited? it's not that hard -_-

The bandwidth is not capped though, it's THROTTLED.

I agree that this is the definition AT&T wants to use, but it's not advertised as "uncapped," it's advertised as "unlimited." Throttling is limiting. I'm sure there are many synonymous ways you could define "bandwidth throttling" which doesn't include the word "limit," but by reducing the available bandwith, you are limiting. Something which is limited cannot be called unlimited.

When AT&T first started throttling, it was supposed to be the top 5% of users, who apparently consumed something like 90% of the overall data. Now this seems to have come to serve another purpose.

So, sue them.

Texas, home state of NASA's Johnson Space Center, much of NASA's manned space program, and about 12,000 NASA jobs. A state that, unlike its counterpart in Florida, is solidly red and at open war with the President. So surprise, surprise most of the NASA stuff the President wants to cut is in Texas, and the Texas Senators are fighting him on it. Relevant article on the subject.

Just thought I would point that out in case any of you are actually still naive enough to think this debate is about science, exploration, and all that shit.

In other news, Texas and Alaskan Senators say oil industry is "over-regulated," midwestern Senators defend corn subsidies, and Michigan Senators defend auto bailout.

True. Texas police already have them.

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/316-20/8187-new-texas-police-drone-could-carry-weapons

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Texas-civil-libertarians-have-eye-on-police-drones-2245644.php

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/16/drone-gives-texas-law-enforcement-birds-eye-view-on-crime/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kS5vm149vGc

And I thought solar was declining? There's all sorts of excitement on the sceptic sites about the solar minimum we're heading into which will finally prove that solar forcings > emissions forcings. Which will be interesting to see.

Yes and no. It's an 11.5 year cycle. Each cycle has been lower than the previous for the last few decades, and this coming cycle looks to be lower still, but we are headed into another maximum. This graph illustrates: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:12/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:138/plot/gistemp/mean:12/scale:100/offset:70

I added global mean temp in blue to illustrate the increasing disparity since the 80's. Skeptics don't need to wait for another impotent cycle to determine whether solar activity is the driving factor.

But if you take some of the nuts predictions from the political AGW movement they're no saner than some of the nuts predictions in the sceptic movement. And to be honest, some of the predictions in the IPCC publications are verging on nuts, but then a lot of that body is increasingly political rather than scientific.

The skeptic predictions are not at all crazy assuming they genuinely don't believe that CO2 is a major driver of climate - and I believe that many of them are genuine. Global cooling is really the only sane position to take once you remove CO2. There are certainly nutters in Greenpeace/etc, but don't try to determine the scientific consensus by splitting the difference between Greenpeace and the Heartland institute. The IPCC really is a very good representation of the consensus as of 2007. I'm looking forward to the next report in 2013. One scientist with very moderate views that you may appreciate is John Neilson-Gammon. He has published with Watts and Pielk. His web page can be found here: http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/

Except the article you point to says he wants to privatize it:

Except that I didn't point to an articles specifically, but rather Google search results. If you want an actual article regarding Paul's platform regarding the TSA... I was going to provide a link, but then I noticed the last part of your post is pulled from that very reference:

The congressman from Lake Jackson said the TSA should be abolished and airport security should be privatized.

“Well, it shouldn’t be government,” he said. “You know, the people who protect very dangerous chemical plants, they’re private sources, you know. They have their police guards. They have their fences. And they have their security. And they do a very good job.

Just what is so far fetched about the concept of a private companies paying for and running their own security operations, anyway? How is it more rational that I, as a taxpayer who has never and, God willing, will never take a commercial flight, be forced to pay for the 'security' (and subsequent 4th Amendment violations) of those who do?

You have to rely on forensics not doing things that would put them into jail for many years if found out. First, because they would go to jail, second because they are decent people.

Yes, the same way you have to rely on police labs not to make things up.

No, wait...

There was proposal in Austin, Texas to require that computer technicians apply for a private investigator license due to the possibility that they work with personal data.

Computer tech fight state law

To get a private investigator's license in Texas, an individual has to have a criminal justice degree or serve a three-year apprenticeship under a licensed private investigator. In-house technology operations are exempt, Miller said, and large computer companies can hire one investigator who oversees technicians designated as apprentices.
Failure to obtain a license can result in up to a year in jail and a $4,000 fine, plus $10,000 in civil penalties. Driver said the Private Security Board is not enforcing the law the way the computer companies fear.

Some would say the movie "The Social Network" helped

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/technology/11computing.html?pagewanted=all
http://jezebel.com/5667829/why-programming-is-hip-again-hint-its-not-the-bong-hits
http://www.chron.com/business/technology/article/That-Hollywood-touch-gilds-computer-science-1691321.php

Ask the folks in Oakland. Starting a bonfire in the middle of a street is not exactly brilliant, and neither was the vandalism.

Good job completely avoiding the topic at hand. How does your favorite candidate's plan to bring home the troops make any difference for emergency responders?

- National Guard would come home AND money would be available in case of real emergencies.

Oh, how cute. Most conservative idiots just try to link Obama to the middle east or Islam. Instead you want people to think he is a Star Wars Wookie from Kazakhstan? Yeah, that makes perfect sense if you're on heavy drugs.

- no, I just like the SOUND of it:

Just say it outloud: BORAT CHUBAKA.

It really sounds better than his name.

By the way, it's on the record in this site (I can find the links), I don't believe in any of the nonsense about Obama, he is whatever, it doesn't matter to me one bit. His mother is a US citizens, so is he. He says he is Christian, good for him. I am an ATHEIST. I don't care.

As opposed to what other president that we've had in the US in the past several decades?

- PRECISELY.

--

Now, tell me this: are you sympathetic to the OWS demand that the banks stop having special privileges with the government? Are you against special privileges that the banks have, with all that money?

If you say 'YES', then you are a hypocrite. You are against some special privileges but you are for other special privileges.

FEMA is no better than the banks, it's all moral hazard, it's all fake insurance and it's all financed by theft (either via taxes or via inflation - printing or via future taxes - borrowing).

To me the banks getting bail outs or the victims of natural disasters getting bail outs - SAME DEAL. They all have moral hazard provided by government and they all get bailed out with theft. They all should go out of business and they all should have private insurance and be regulated by market regulations, not gov't bullshit.

if you say 'NO' - then I can understand your position. You like big gov't, you are with all this spending, you are fine with borrowing, taxing income, printing and inflating money, then your position is NOT hypocritical, but it is the WRONG position.

--

As to whether Ron Paul has no chance. Whatever. Let us look at the facts.

Ron Paul is pulling in millions from tiny donations, he pulled in 8 million in the third quarter of 2011. He is steady at 11-15% support.

He just won another straw poll in Iowa with 82% out of 430 voters.

In the Iowa voters result, Paul took 82%. Following him were Herman Cain with 14.7%, Rick Santorum with 1%, Newt Gingrich with 0.9%, Michele Bachmann with 0.5%, Rick Perry with 0.5%, Gary Johnson with 0.2%, with Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman 0%.

for non-Iowans who voted he ALSO won:

In the tally of non-Iowans who voted, Paul won 26% followed by Cain at 25%, Perry and Santorum tied at 16%, Gingrich at 11%, Bachmann at 6%, Romney at 1%, and Huntsman and Johnson with 0%.

See, that's called COMMITMENT. You think it takes a majority to win? It takes a group of dedicated people acting as one and not sitting on their asses.

Licensure in the US is handled by the individual states, and the rules and enforcement can be murky and inconsistent. I have a degree in the one of the traditional areas of engineering, but I am not licensed. I was told in college that in my state, my employer is allowed to refer to me internally as an engineer, but I can't represent myself that way to others (e.g. on my business cards) as an engineer unless I'm a for-real P.E. I'm honestly not sure where the line is, though. It could be a matter of fact that my job title is "Engineer II". If I put that on my resume, am I breaking the law, or is it fine so long as it's sufficiently clear that I'm not claiming to be licensed? Here's an old article from 2003 specifically about this issue in Texas. I'm not sure how it turned out, but it looks like a mess.

Doesn't take much effort

Funny, Texas never had droughts before we started releasing CO2...

Not like this. Check out the second graph after this link to see just how far outside the bounds of normal this current drought is. It's off the chart. http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/08/texas-drought-spot-the-outlier/

Actually, as the earth heats, we can expect to find more arable land.

Yup. Great news for those parts of Canada that are currently uninhabited. Bad for the USA and South America. See figure 3 in the following link for a projection of where we can expect increased drought this century: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110928_Butterfly.pdf

Here is a wry post on the current drought conditions in Texas. This may be a hint of what is to come: http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/09/texas-drought-good-news-and-bad-news/

First the really good news: according to the latest US Drought Monitor, only 0.83% of Texas is in moderate drought.

Next the moderately good news: only 2.42% of Texas is in severe drought.

Not so good news: 8.88% of Texas is in extreme drought.

Bad news: that leaves fully 87.83% of Texas in exceptional drought, the worst drought category.

Right here, dog crap for brains.

You're a fucking liar.

Said niggers and spics will never be smart, no matter how much money is spent on them. You can't see that because you are young and brainwashed, but every white person like you comes to this conclusion eventually, even if they refused to acknowledge.

Thank you for being the perfect example of the racist retardican fringe that I've been speaking of.

No, it isn't causing a drought in Texas. There were droughts in Texas at least this bad, long before the argument started.

Not so. The following graph clearly shows that this year is an extreme outlier: http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/08/texas-drought-spot-the-outlier/

Here, re-read this:

"Basically there is a very specific range of wavelengths that will interact with Carbon and other greenhouse gasses. So basically anything other than exactly what we are seeing would be consistent with Tyndall gas not being a forcing."

You made the statement that the specific range of wavelengths that will interact with greenhouse gases is sufficient observation to say Tyndall gases are always forcings, never feedbacks. As I stated, this may be *necessary* for your hypothesis to be true, but it is not *sufficient*.

Maybe you're just not qualified to understand what you quoted from John Nielsen-Gammon? You could always try reading the comments on his post more carefully, especially the ones from Roger Pielke Jr.:

http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/08/roger-pielke-jr-s-inkblot/

At any given moment it is a pie though

That's pretty short-sighted, isn't it? What about the next one?

For production and wealth, any time that a company goes to use cheap labor at local rates to obtain or build a product that they then sell at first-world prices for orders-of-magnitude profit is exploitation

Because you say so? Doesn't sound like anyone being "exploited" has a gun to their head. They can choose not to participate. But if they are getting "local rates" (in fact in most cases they get much better than that), then why wouldn't they? Besides, as I mentioned, many of the companies that move operations to low-rate labor areas would find it much less profitable if not for the tax considerations, protection, and unfair trade agreements that they buy from their congresscritters.

As for illegal immigration...

Yep, illegal immigrants are the new slave labor. That's what I consider real exploitation, and the fact that the "wink and nudge" comes from the institution that's supposed to exist to protect the rights of people makes it unconscionably criminal.

I don't believe that the Obama Administration wants to happily grant an amnesty to everyone undocumented in the US who have committed no other real crimes.

Then you need to dig a little deeper. This is probably a good place to start.

Either way, ceasing to prosecute deportations on these people and instead focusing on criminals that actually generate real victims is probably a better approach anyway.

Agreed. Too bad that's not happening either.

For sake of playing the science game, though, could you concisely state your understanding of a falsifiable hypothesis of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming?

John Nielsen-Gammon has a characteristically wry response to this classic canard:

Observation: analyses of global surface temperatures indicate a long-term warming trend.

Hypothesis: the surface of the Earth is warmer than in the past.

Testable prediction: phenomena sensitive to Earth’s surface temperature will reflect that increase.

Results: satellite temperature measurements show similar warming; most glaciers are shrinking; lakes and rivers are freezing later and thawing sooner; oceans are expanding; plant and animal communities are mostly moving poleward.

Conclusion: the Earth’s surface has been warming.

So why do many people not believe the Earth’s surface has been warming, and what further evidence or predictions would convince them?

Observation: Tyndall gas concentrations are increasing in the atmosphere.

Hypothesis: The rate of increase of such gases is sufficient to cause global temperatures to rise by a couple of degrees by the middle of the next 21st century.

Testable prediction: A substantial portion of temperature changes so far should be quantitatively attributable to Tyndall gases.

Results: Spectral radiance emitted to space consistent with Tyndall gas concentrations (confirms ability to calculate radiative forcing); magnitude of Tyndall gas radiative forcing larger than that of all other known forcing agents; observed temperature changes similar in magnitude to those estimated from forcings (confirms ballpark estimates of climate sensitivity); observed pattern of temperature changes match Tyndall gas pattern better than that of all other known forcing agents.

Conclusion: Anthropogenic global warming is real and significant.

Based on these scientific predictions that have come true, even the most skeptical scientifically-literate individual ought to be able to conclude that the balance of evidence favors the reality of anthropogenic global warming. So why do many people not believe that anthropogenic global warming is real, and what further evidence or correct predictions would convince them?

Spencer is understandably agitated and overwrought. His blog is not currently the best place to find level headed discussion. In the interest of restoring your faith in humanity I recommend heading over to Texas climatologist John Neilson-Gammon's blog where there is a more level headed discussion of the review process for this paper.

Resign vs. retract. Was the resignation due to a 'lazy' selection of reviewers on a politically hot (no pun intended) topic?

Wagner says no in his resignation, but the typically level headed John Neilson Gammon (who has published with sceptics such as Watts and Peilk) says yes: http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/09/spencer-braswell-and-the-review-process/

Are Spencer's results based on an allegedly "overly simplistic model"?

Allegedly.

RTFP! He already mentioned that he came to a complete stop -prior- to making a right turn on red. The fucking camera and the POS software coding decides to state otherwise however.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Houston-red-light-cameras-All-over-but-the-2139922.php

Well, he isn't being too much of a hypocrite. Rick Perry earlier said he was against embryonic stem cell research http://www.chron.com/news/article/Perry-speaks-out-against-abortion-stem-cell-1498123.php So instead he's using his own stem cells in a poorly studied and as yet not very well understood process. He could have been a real hypocrite and done something with embryonic stem cells. But nope, he's pushed for the screwing over of science and medicine and he's going to stick with it. Of course, there's the secondary problem that even reliable, well-studied adult stem cell research is based to a large extent on information we got from studying embryonic stem cells. So even if this does work he will be benefiting from the research he despises. So I guess there is a small bit of hypocrisy but it isn't nearly as bad as it could have been.

Texas on Tuesday became the first state to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's finding that gases blamed for global warming threaten public health.

Gov. Rick Perry and other Texas officials said the federal finding is based on flawed science and would harm the state's economy.
The EPA issued the finding two months ago in an attempt to regulate carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

Such rules would have a profound impact on Texas, which pumps more carbon dioxide into the air than any other state because of its scores of coal-fired power plants, refineries and other industrial facilities.

Read more: article source

Meanwhile, floods and fires continue. I have always thought that the first major impact on society will be on food supplies, with a concomitant increase in food prices. This will at first bring civil unrest in poorer countries, as food takes up an increasingly large proportion of their livelihood. Eventually these high food prices will have a severe economic impact on wealthy nations as well.

Hey, I heard they found 30 dead bodies at a farm in Texas. (Newspaper One: "According to Radio1 police have found 30 dead bodies..." Radio1: "According to TV2 police have found 30 bodies..." TV2: "According to Newspaper One, police have found 30 bodies..." Police: "Some nutbar who says she's a 'prophetess' says she 'saw' 30 bodies at a farm, but nobody asked us what we thought or found... go figure!"

Do you see a pattern? Who the hell trusts reporters and news organisations who won't bother to fact check themselves (and no, the other news channels don't count as sources). How about these local 'news organisations' actually find some news to report instead of going after the low hanging fruit.

Do you have any evidence showing that all contractors make less than fully employed equivalent employees? I'd be surprised if that was the case with more skilled IT folks.

No, but that's not what I'm claiming either. I'm sure there are some folks with specialized skills that get brought in for a specific project for a limited amount of time. I bet they make great money too. But I also don't believe that those folks make up more than a rather small percentage of contract workers in the US.

Contractors don't necessarily cost the company less. I worked as an on-site contract employee at a local government site. The county director wanted to pull a few of the contractors in to work as government employees (we were working on the 911 system conversion). When I compared my pay and benefits from being a contractor to what the government offered, I was better staying where I was employed. Add the overhead of the company i worked for and I'm sure the cost for me as a contractor was significantly better than a direct employee.

It seems to be pretty much common knowledge that contractors are generally cheaper than full-time employees. I've read several estimates of the costs, but most put the savings at around 20-30% over a full-time employee. This, of course, isn't for people with rare skills or knowledge. I know quite a few people that work as contract employees on annually-renewed contracts. I definitely wouldn't want to be in that position.

and by massive I mean requiring them to pay millions of dollars.

Oh, you can bet they're already spending millions of dollars. They spent that from the day their service went offline and have continued to spend it each day it's unavailable to users.

The infrastructure costs of a firedrill like this are enormous. Consider that the State of Texas Comptroller's Office has already spent more than $1.8 million just to hire consultants to come in and figure out how their own staff screwed up and left 3.5 million people's SSN's, DOB's, names, and addresses on a publicly-available server for over a year. In the case of the Comptroller's Office, it appears that two of the consultants were campaign contributors, so it's not like the Comptroller's Office is wasting money on strangers.

I agree with you that millions should be spent to compensate the victims, though, if that's what you meant.

Seth

Last summer, when the oil geyser had been flowing uninhibited for over two months, I posted here about my idea for using the US Navy's portable nuclear reactors to power air pumps that would oxygenate ocean waters affected by the spill. The oxygen would feed the bacteria already present in the water that happily consume seeped oil.

The slick on the surface isn't "the tragedy" of these oil spills. Most of the tragedy is below the surface, where TV cameras and congressmembers won't see it.

One of the visitors said that it'd be difficult to pump air to the depths of the ocean, and suggested pumping oxygenated surface water instead. I took that and other feedback to write a short followup piece on Cleaning up the Gulf of Mexico.

I welcome anything good at cleaning up our messes. Especially a device this open and energy efficient. But let's not pretend that cleaning up the surface could possibly "prevent the tragedy". By the time this thing is out there cleaning up, most of the tragedy has already gone down.

While this thing might be okay for little oil spills, like the one from a few weeks ago, effectively responding to future underwater blowouts will require massive infrastructure and power. Like what could be stored on, delivered and powered by a retired nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.

I just want the politicians to order the Navy to get some guys thinking about the idea: When Disaster Strikes, Send the Enterprise. Or maybe I'll write the Japanese embassy to suggest that they offer to buy the Enterprise, thereby saving the US Navy $millions in decommissioning costs. They have the infrastructure to refuel it, if required, and the motivation to dedicate it to disaster response.

GMAFB.

Is it good data? Maybe not.

Meaning I'm implying it's data, but probably only that. I said no such thing as MACS ARE SECURE HURR.

I actually don't care about this topic, AC asked for data.

And if I really want to, I can spin it the other way with Windows XP:

http://blogs.chron.com/techblog/archives/2008/07/average_time_to_infection_4_minutes_1.html

Which means that there are viruses that scan the internet for open security holes regularly at random IP addresses to infect other machines.

OH NO XP IS INSECURE, WE SHOULD ABANDON IT!

No, not really, it just means you should keep it patched, and not used EOLed OSes. If you are unlucky to have an XP without any SP for whatever reason, you should not connect it to the internet, and patch it offline.

So what is my point? The internet is dangerous where known and unknown threats can be found, but there are simple steps for each OS (car analogy: wear seatbelts) to help keep you safe, such as regular patching.

is "would this happen without patents".

I can agree on that. And science studies have shown that progress would "happen" without patents; Promoting Intellectual Discovery: Patents Versus Markets.

Drugs simply won't happen without patents

But, besides the above science link, I totally disagree with this. There are alternatives to pharmaceutical patents. Governments fund drug reseach too. The US's National Institutes of Health's National Cancer Institute spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars developing and testing Taxol, a drug used to treat breast and other cancers. The NCI then sold all the exclusive rights to the use of the research for FDA approval to Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS). How much did BMS pay? A fraction of NCI's costs. Add how much money did BMS make? In 2000, BMS bought the rights in 1988-9, BMS made almost $1 Billion. Besides that, answering the question Do drug companies do more marketing or research? is answered as thus: Drug industry spends nearly twice as much on marketing than on research and development. Beyond that, Economists say copyright and patent laws are killing innovation; hurting economy. Thomas Jefferson once said "inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."

Falcon

Of course abuse is, in principle, no more or less horrific than stabbing or shooting. While the later is unlikely to walk the street again, I suspect the former will be out in 10 years, free to attempt to murder another child.

1. Regulators Failed to Address Risks in Oil Rig Fail-Safe Device
   http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/us/21blowout.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
2. Spill report: It could happen again
   'Failure of management' and regulators given blame for disaster
   http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/7367856.html
3. Slick Operator
   How British oil giant BP used all the political muscle money can buy to fend off regulators and influence investigations into corporate neglect.
   http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/07/slick-operator.html

This wasn't a technical failure - it was a failure brought out by greed and corruption. The blow-out was only the symptom, and addressing the symptom isn't going to prevent similar incidents from happening again.

We've seen this before - the mortgage disaster and bank bailouts, the savings and loan disaster, etc.

Start by fixing campaign financing - private donations only, strict annual limit per capita, no 3rd party involvement, etc.

-- Barbara

most people don't want to run ethanol.

Really? I don't recall seeing any surveys asking everybody if they want to use ethanol.

It is but one path to a greener source of energy. It's not the best option by a long shot

Now this I agree on. A big problem I see too many people having is looking for the "fuel" or "energy source" for everyone. Use what is available and makes sense in each location.

I'll keep my corn on the cob

A problem here is that corn is used as a feedstock for cows, poultry, and pigs. More corn is grown as a feedstock for cows than to feed humans and to make high fructose corn syrup which has little nutritional value.

By switching to a vegetarian diet there would be plenty of food to feed the world's population with no one starving or going hungry.

Falcon

Oh, btw the last sentence above make give readers the impression I am a vegetarian, but I'm not. Not only am I not a vegetarian but I love to hunt. I especially loving hunting for and eating gator tail, venison, wild boar, and frog legs. An occasional turtle soup is good too.

Falcon

For example, there are several people serving serious time for reselling prepaid phones.

So the argument that "you bought it, you own it" that several here seem to be making (and that I personally believe is the way the world should work) is not the way the world always works.

It would be funny if it werent at least somewhat true

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/6557567.html

What is funny, is that 2500 scientists attended that convention but only 400 voted on that measure.

with the eyedrops that I have to deal with my cataracts then they won't be going outside

Just wait until this lady travels there!

Doesn't the development antibiotic resistant bacteria involve evolution? Something that doesn't even exist and is just a Jewish conspiracy.

What kind of rank idiot fucks up something like that?!?!

Are you supposing that Obama made the rug himself?

There are plenty of substantive issues you could have criticized him for.

Given that The Annointed One of Hopenchange was attributing Parker's quote to King, and was notified of it back in 2008 by a Unitarian minister, and then changed his speeches:

Fast forward to April 2008, when I heard Barack Obama attribute the quote to Dr. King...I immediately emailed the Obama Campaign the actual citation in the interest of accuracy. Just a point of information.

I have no way of knowing if the Obama Campaign ever attended to my email. I'd like to think so. What I do know is that I cannot find an instance of Barack Obama using "the arc of the moral universe" after April 2008....until the evening of November 4th in his victory speech at Grant Park in Chicago, when he said (referring to the historic election):

        Its the answer that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful of what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.

Maybe the Obama Campaign did get that email! They changed the arc of the moral universe to the arc of history and bent it toward hope instead of justice.

But then again, the Obamatuer struck again. In June of 2009, right-wing site Hotair noted Obama's misrepresentation of Parker's words as King's.

So, really, what kind of rank idiot fucks that shit up? And keeps fucking it up. For years. Over and over.

The warrant has already been withdrawn by Swedish prosecutors. Updating the Slashdot story might be a really good idea.

Swedish prosecutors have withdrawn an arrest warrant for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, saying the rape suspicions against him are unfounded.

In a brief statement Saturday, chief prosecutor Eva Finne says: "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape."

You are not eligible for unemployment if you were fired for cause

If your employer can't locate the written policy stating that tendering a two week notice is cause for firing, then it can spend the money on lawyers trying to convince the court it was "for cause".

Some places are up front about the fact that if you turn in a notice of resignation, you're done on the spot. The rest should probably check with their lawyers first.

Of course like all other state law issues, this depends on your state, so there's plenty of misinformation to go around.

Of course none of us want to be the innocent guy in jail for a murder he didn't commit, but also of course, none of us want to be the victim of the thousand serial murderers you let free.

You'd rather be the victim of the one serial murderer you let free when you imprisoned the innocent guy for his crimes?

The concept is about more than just the one innocent person. That innocent person usually (except in the case of corrupt cops making up false charges) represents a guilty person getting away with it. These days it takes some serious fighting to reopen a case where someone was wrongly convicted. How many other boys suffered because this guy looked scary? (Answer: "at least three" according to the sidebar here.)

The sad fact is that while we pretend to claim "innocent until proven guilty", it remains the defense's job to prove the defendant innocent. The prosecutor can cherry pick whatever evidence he pleases to present to the court, and until recently didn't even have to reveal to the defense that they have evidence showing that the defendant is innocent (and now that they are supposed to, how do you enforce that?)

but that the example which ye have unwisely set, of mingling religion with politics, may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of America.

Well shit, first was Thomas Jefferson, now the Republicans are going to have to erase Thomas Paine from our history books? What do you want to bet that Texans accidentally remove the Thomas Aquinas references they just added while they're on a roll (it wouldn't be the first time a bunch of Republicans got together and proved that "all of us are more stupid than some of us" [see last paragraph of this article])?

But hey, once the Republicans gave up on America The Greatest, why should they bother with the great minds of America when they can teach kids about the great minds of France like Calvin?

Ani DeFranco recently said The business is distilling in a way to where those who can make it by performing can make a living. As records become less a way of making money, the real performers will make it. We're all gonna be folk singers by the time this is over.

You could always make money in the music business if you were into the business side like Madonna and DeFranco, but we're not really sure there are enough organizations like Righteous Babe or Magnatune for ordinary people to also make a living.

They can be washed...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/bizarre/7095561.html

"Low-denomination U.S bank notes change hands until they fall apart here in Africa, and the bills are routinely carried in underwear and shoes through crime-ridden slums. Some have become almost too smelly to handle, so Zimbabweans have taken to putting their $1 bills through the spin cycle and hanging them up to dry with clothes pins alongside their sheets and clothes."

Find and punish the malefactors to deter future screwups

That's never going to happen even if anyone were serious about it. Making BP's investors pay is a whole lot easier than getting those responsible to pay.

In Texas, you can carry rifles while you protest outside a Republican state convention where Laura Bush is speaking and no one questions you.

Interesting contrast.

Here are a couple of links.