Slashdot Mirror

No, the monopolies in this case come from the physical reality that lines have to be run into your home for broadband. The only way to encourage enough alternatives to get away from the need for government-enforced net neutrality would be to let any Tom, Dick, or Harry bury lines or string lines on any pole of their choosing. And even that wouldn't work very well for most neighborhoods (since only a few providers would be able to afford to run lines, even with the right-of-way). Either your choices would still be severely limited or your neighborhood lines would end up looking like a Baghdad power pole.

I'd just like to point out that in 2003 an ENTIRE U.S. rare earth production facility was packed up and reassembled in China. Who allowed this to happen? G. W. Bush. The bottom line is that far, far too many people in the U.S. have been bamboozled by cheap chinese goods. The bottom line is that any government who whole-sale ignores human rights such as the Chinese one does is also a country that will engage in other unethical practices. In the case of China it's manipulating their currency and now this.

This really causes me to question our Afghanistan policy even more. We, the US Geo Survey(?), found these mass deposits of rare earth metals/minerals and, at last read I believe, the Chinese are getting the rights to actually mine and produce the metals/minerals (cit: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all ) and (for those that like more of a "story" with your "news" cit: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06/14/discovers-t-minerals-afghanistan/ ).

Am I way off here or should we not be keeping these rights? Not being a geologist, "IANAG", maybe these are completely different metals/minerals. If they are the same I believe we have every right to mine them ourselves. We have invested more than enough into Afghanistan to justify producing these reserves.

However it now becomes very interesting with China. I think most Americans forget how close to China our military is in Afghanistan.

Can anyone enlighten me if I am missing something since IANAG.

And in the USA, too. Check out the story of a college defensive back at Pace University who was recently killed by police after a misunderstanding outside a night club. Aside, I hope, from terrible guilt, the officers in that case, and many others, wont suffer much for their deadly mistake. Officer Bubbles was wearing body armor. I imagine he carried a firearm and is empowered to use it. That, and protection from even deadly misconduct, give him and many like him power of life and death. And don't think that the fact that a public protest in view of cameras in broad daylight will necessarily make them hold back.

But this applies to power in general, not just government authority. You'll find people who abuse power in the workplace, in crime, among religious leaders, and anywhere else you care to look.

Looks like solar is cheaper than coal now: http://cleantechnica.com/2010/10/17/silicon-solar-thin-film-manufactured-for-under-0-70-cents-a-watt-by-swiss-co/ also more conventionally: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/a-cheaper-route-to-solar-cells/ Compared to 4 or more times more expensive that coal for new nuclear power, that is vastly superior. Wind is much cheaper than nuclear power as well.

The University of Phoenix is currently being raked over the coals for not graduating a sufficient fraction of students (16% by federal standards) (from the NYT). Also, it is a for profit university, I'd just as soon volunteer at a local manufacturing plant as at a for profit university.

You really believe that, eh? You believe that so much that you're unwilling to log in to present the argument (which is demonstrably false). Try again next time....

I agree that people put way too much blame and credit on the president for how things go, and by extension not enough on congress. However, saying there isn't much he can do is a bit misleading. For one thing he could order the various executive departments to stop doing everything they could to ignore basic rights.

Justices to Hear Appeal by Ashcroft Over Detention Suit
US justice department argues former detainees have no constitutional rights
Obama adopts Bush view on the powers of the presidency.
Ruling Against Bush Wiretaps Also Slaps Down Obama's Executive Overreach

More info here. Taco should just hire me.

At breaking laws and acting without morality or conscience against the interests of the nation and humanity?

To most people, "peak oil" is the point at which production is at a peak. After this point, a country (or the world) is _producing_ less then they used to.

I was always under the impression that peak oil was when demand outstripped supply regardless of the amount actually being pulled out of the ground. If they keep shutting down refineries in the US you might get to see it first.

IPCC: Criticism of the IPCC

In 2010, an independent investigation into the IPCC recommended that the body focus more on explaining the science behind any changes in global temperature, and less on lobbying activities.source

IPCC chair says we need quicker intervention on Climate Change
Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chair, admitted at the launch of this report that since the IPCC began work on it, scientists have recorded "much stronger trends in climate change", like the unforeseen dramatic melting of polar ice in the summer of 2007,source and added, "that means you better start with intervention much earlier".source

And numerous other examples on the Wikipedia page complete with sources.

If your 'science' organization is being told it should really stop doing lobbying work and concentrate more on science...well that sorta speaks for itself.

The irony is that, at the same time as huge amounts of money are wasted in the American military industry complex, the basic needs (like producing a decent infantry rifle and round, for Christ's sake) are being neglected under the excuse of "it would be too expensive to change", or, alternatively, simply "lalala I can't hear you, everything is fine".

basement too long? There are minerals! in Afghanistan.

With the oil transit fees Afghanistan will be earning from transporting all that Iraqi oil, the military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex will soon be able to get any rare earth element it needs.

Yours In Samarkand,
Kilgore Trout.

Over the past few decades, governments have become entwined in a series of arrangements that drain money from productive uses and direct it toward unproductive ones.

New Jersey can't afford to build its tunnel, but benefits packages for the state's employees are 41 percent more expensive than those offered by the average Fortune 500 company.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/opinion/12brooks.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

Most stock traders aren't targeting one other stock trader with a series of transactions

Yes, the high frequency traders target more than one stock trader, after all they can make more money that way:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/business/24trading.html

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/07/24/business/0724-webBIZ-trading.ready.html

"High-frequency traders often confound other investors by issuing and then canceling orders almost simultaneously. Loopholes in market rules give high-speed investors an early glance at how others are trading. And their computers can essentially bully slower investors into giving up profits -- and then disappear before anyone even knows they were there. "

"And when a former Goldman Sachs programmer was accused this month of stealing secret computer codes -- software that a federal prosecutor said could "manipulate markets in unfair ways" -- it only added to the mystery. Goldman acknowledges that it profits from high-frequency trading, but disputes that it has an unfair advantage."

In the recent US stock market crash fiasco, it seems that if their "fancy" computer programs screw up, the stock exchange rolls back the transactions. They don't do that for small investors.

Now when small time investors (relatively anyway) beat some computer program at its game, they get convicted.

Disgusting.

Most stock traders aren't targeting one other stock trader with a series of transactions

Yes, the high frequency traders target more than one stock trader, after all they can make more money that way:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/business/24trading.html

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/07/24/business/0724-webBIZ-trading.ready.html

"High-frequency traders often confound other investors by issuing and then canceling orders almost simultaneously. Loopholes in market rules give high-speed investors an early glance at how others are trading. And their computers can essentially bully slower investors into giving up profits -- and then disappear before anyone even knows they were there. "

"And when a former Goldman Sachs programmer was accused this month of stealing secret computer codes -- software that a federal prosecutor said could "manipulate markets in unfair ways" -- it only added to the mystery. Goldman acknowledges that it profits from high-frequency trading, but disputes that it has an unfair advantage."

In the recent US stock market crash fiasco, it seems that if their "fancy" computer programs screw up, the stock exchange rolls back the transactions. They don't do that for small investors.

Now when small time investors (relatively anyway) beat some computer program at its game, they get convicted.

Disgusting.

"A small business is the way to go if you love being a programmer. I say this from personal experience"

Sounds like good advice. :-) Or have your own small business helping clients through the internet. Still, I've found that the challenges are different in different organizations, so there is good and bad in all of them -- it's a question of what matches your personality and interests.

There's also a lot to be said for programming FOSS as a hobby and, say, working with your hands. :-)
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/magazine/24labor-t.html?_r=1

There are other little tricks that they use to screw you, too. They don't have to add up to big money lost on an individual basis, but they basically steal a couple cents from us every time we check/leave a voicemail.

Licensing costs are too expensive to justify anything but the 1600 MWe behemoths using standard fuel cycles with proven technology.

Citation needed.

Here's my own, The average non-fuel O&M cost for a nuclear power plant in 2009 was 1.46 cents / kWh. That includes licensing. Or this:

Issue #1: The New Licensing Process [ppt]

• The Mythology: The old licensing process was a major factor in the collapse of nuclear power in the U.S.
• It has now been repaired by changes in law and regulatory policy, paving the way for the renaissance.

As if that's not enough here are some more links:

1. Hooked on Subsidies...
   "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."
2. Is it time to press reset on nuclear?
   "Cost overruns, delays in building reactors are sapping a nuclear revival"
3. Study warns of cost overruns at proposed reactors - MarketWatch
4. Cost Overruns at Finland Reactor Hold Lessons
5. Boiling The Frog: Nuclear Optimism Hides True Costs Till It's Too Late
   "The Frog Jumps: The Ontario Story. Last week the Ontario government put plans to build 2 new next-generation reactors on hold, after it received bids "more than three times higher than what the Province expected to pay", according to a story in the Toronto Star. The only "compliant" bid -- one where the supplier would be sufficiently at risk if costs exceeded the amount quoted -- was reportedly a $26 billion quote from Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd, equal to roughly $10,800 per kW."
6. Nuclear construction delays in Finland's Olkiluoto 3
7. Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant

Yeah--That was what the FBI claimed during the PATRIOT Act reauthorization hearings, at the same time the Connecticut librarians were in court fighting the NSLs they had been given by the FBI. Oddly enough, the FBI lifted the gag order on the librarians only after the Act had been reauthorized. - https://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/31/nyregion/31library.html

There are stories, generally op-eds, "think pieces," and commissioned pieces with original research that appear on the NY Times and no where else.

As an example, I submitted a story yesterday about Isaac Newton on new historical research that explains why he spent thirty years of his life working on alchemy.

That story is only on the Times and no where else.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/science/12newton.html

Take a look at my submission. I think it's a good story and based on my experience, one that slashdot normally would have accepted.

http://slashdot.org/submission/1354636/Isaac-Newton-Alchemist

Show me where you can find that story anyplace else on the web.

Unfortunately, while he was probably just trolling, a lot of people genuinely believe that the TEAbaggers are either small-l or big-L libertarians. It's hard to say who has the worst marketing department between the Libertarian Party, the North Koreans, and NAMBLA.

For the record, here's how you tell the difference: the L/libertarians were the ones bitching about government overreach during the last administration. The Tea Partiers are the ones who were perfectly content until a President of the Wrong Color was elected.

The former head of the Libertarian party is behind the Tea Party.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/reinventing-the-revolution/?pagemode=print

It isn't bad marketing. It's brilliant marketing. There are people who think the Libertarian movement actually means freedom when in fact it's simply another word to refer to the Tea Party. You know, the same people who love religious censorship and control over what you can and can't do in your personal life.

It's pretty hard to keep the graph up-to-date.

The Laffer curve is a complete farce. As in, it doesn't work, period, zip, zilch, nadda. In the link is a graph to U.S. federal government revenue just before and just after the Bush tax cut. As you can see, there is a tremendous dent in revenue as a percent of GDP in 2001 continuing to 2003. These are the Bush Tax Cuts. On that chart, revenue never recovered to its pre-tax cut level. One often hears the argument that these tax cuts pay for themselves after longer amount of time, but what happened after 2007? The economy collapsed. One sees the same thing under the Reagan tax cuts, revenue does eventually recover from a tax cut, but never surpasses the pre-tax cut trend. So, Laffer was full of it. Maybe it would work if the income tax rate was 90%, but probably only then by coincidence because people would just find ways to avoid paying taxes more often rather than having a disincentive to make more money.

I don't mean to be a Luddite, but if this works out, do you know what it will do to the economy? Tens of millions of jobs are based almost exclusively on driving. Truckers, cab drivers, even pizza delivery.

On the other hand, think of the lives which could be saved:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/the-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america/

In 2009 alone, "driver/sales workers and truck drivers" had 586 fatal on-the-job injuries, making it the job category with the single-highest fatality rate. This of course only includes driver fatalities, and doesn't include fatalities in cars their trucks might hit. For comparison, about 100 or so police officers are killed each year in confrontations with suspects.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/10/10/us/10google3.html

1) http://www.applanix.com/products.html
2) http://www.velodyne.com/lidar/lidar.aspx
4) http://www.topconpositioning.com/
7) http://www.netgear.com/

"The subject 'acted suspiciously' is not probable cause for a warrantless search....." - US Supreme Court

Yes, they call it Reasonable Suspicion, but suspicious behavior is unrelated to suspicion, right? A police officer can't satisfy Reasonable Suspicion by saying "he was suspicious" with nothing else. However, when the officer breaks down the suspicion to a number of discrete suspicions, it is allowable. "He acted suspiciously by asking for directions to a well known street, speaking with an accent, acting nervously, etc." is acceptable for Reasonable Suspicion. Additionally, you are referring specifically to a warrantless search. Requesting ID as directed by state law is not a warrantless search, so even if you were correct in the spirit of what was said, it is still 100% not applicable to this situation. But I guess making up things that aren't applicable is the best you can do.

Can't you at least READ the law before you opine? Or a summary thereof?

Sure. Here are the first three links from a search on that law:

It requires police officers, "when practicable," to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment.

The law requires police to query the immigration status of people stopped for a legitimate reason whom they suspect are in the US illegally.

What does the Arizona law do? Arizona's law orders immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there's reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally.

Those were the first three, picked because they are obviously popular, and they agree 100% with my statements. Perhaps I'm wrong, but you are wrong about me not reading about it and being an ass about it by accusing me of things I obviously am not guilty of. Perhaps you should read what's being written before claiming it would all agree with you. I picked those as the first three, not because they are better or worse than any others, but because they were the top three. Anyone else doing the same search would read those and get the impression I have. But regardless, that just proves you 100% wrong about me not reading about it. You are wrong much more than you are right, but you still feel the moral imperative to speak and demonstrate your idiocy. The only problem is that you speak so authoritatively when wrong that people mistakenly believe you.

The Arizona law also includes a Signing Statement

I'd like you to point out where in the Arizona Constitution where the power to make a signing statement is enumerated. Do so for the US Constitution as well, just for a comparison. I don't know the AZ Constitution as well, but I know that signing statements aren't in the US Constitution, and it's liberal activist revisionists like you that pervert the Constitution by adding in powers like "signing statements" whenever you find it convenient.

Wasn't there just something in the news about Obama pressing for similar access? I wonder if the mighty US gov't will fair any better...

I think Michael Dell already knows what to do, he's commented on situations like this in the past:

"In 1997, shortly after Mr. Jobs returned to Apple, the company he helped start in 1976, Dell's founder and chairman, Michael S. Dell, was asked at a technology conference what might be done to fix Apple, then deeply troubled financially. "What would I do?" Mr. Dell said to an audience of several thousand information technology managers. "I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders."" http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/16/technology/16apple.html

yeah but it literally took more energy to *take them down* than it took to leave them there.

Not when they had to take them down anyways for roof repairs anyways.

I thought I could edit my previous comment after I found this article, but it seems I could only post another one.

Read "Double Fold" by Nicholson Baker: http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/b/baker-fold.html Digitization need not be destructive, but often has been. Digital records fill a different need than physical records and the quixotic pursuit of permanency benefits from retaining both in diverse formats and at numerous locations.

Check out this New York Times article:
  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/world/asia/07fraud.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th

Which COULD be argued to be saying that the patent applications are most likely based on stolen ideas and other stolen IP. Is this possible? Yes, quite possible. The article describes my experince here attempting to mitigate student cheating and plagiarism, even for things that don't matter a rats's ass they cheat.

Don't you feel stupid for posting that blindly partisan crap just a few seconds after this:

He removed solar thermal panels, probably much less efficient than the evacuated tubes used today, when the roof was being repaired in 1986:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE2DF113BF937A1575BC0A960948260 [nytimes.com]

I call BS on that. Those panels were removed to make a point, and a partisan point at that - killing alternative energy was one of Reagan's campaign points in 1980. He mentioned it in his frakking debate with Carter. Reagan described the entire alternative energy R&D program as a waste of money, killed it deader than a doornail, and this was part of that campaign. And, by the way, they were only
"donated" to a college because an admin at the college campaigned to get them from whatever GSA warehouse they were stuck in.

Yeah, which is why Reagan the consummate politician TOOK SIX YEARS to make what you think was a "partisan point".

Reaching a bit in your hate, are you?

Don't you feel stupid for posting that blindly partisan crap just a few seconds after this:

He removed solar thermal panels, probably much less efficient than the evacuated tubes used today, when the roof was being repaired in 1986:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE2DF113BF937A1575BC0A960948260 [nytimes.com]

I call BS on that. Those panels were removed to make a point, and a partisan point at that - killing alternative energy was one of Reagan's campaign points in 1980. He mentioned it in his frakking debate with Carter. Reagan described the entire alternative energy R&D program as a waste of money, killed it deader than a doornail, and this was part of that campaign. And, by the way, they were only
"donated" to a college because an admin at the college campaigned to get them from whatever GSA warehouse they were stuck in.

Didn't Jimmy Carter install solar panels on the Whitehouse roof, only to have Reagan remove them for ideological reasons immediately after his inauguration? (Or was that Clinton and Bush II?)

Don't you feel stupid for posting that blindly partisan crap just a few seconds after this:

He removed solar thermal panels, probably much less efficient than the evacuated tubes used today, when the roof was being repaired in 1986:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE2DF113BF937A1575BC0A960948260

They were not reinstalled because of cost effectiveness issue. I also heard maintenance was a pain. They were donated to a university, IIRC.

Bush also had solar panels installed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/27/technology/how-it-works-from-a-white-house-roof-solar-power-proclaims-gains.html

Many places are spinning this story politically no doubt.

BTW, I think solar thermal and more insulation is a great, cost effective thing. PV, otoh, not so much yet.

Funny how you didn't seem to know that George W. Bush actually installed solar panels.

But that would fuck up the "Obama is the GREATEST" narrative, now wouldn't it. As if endemic 10% unemployment isn't enough - I guess we have to dig deep for Obama's positives, eh? Like tout the Obamessiah for doing the same thing that was ignored when George W. Bush did it.

Didn't Jimmy Carter install solar panels on the Whitehouse roof, only to have Reagan remove them for ideological reasons immediately after his inauguration? (Or was that Clinton and Bush II?)

Don't you feel stupid for posting that blindly partisan crap just a few seconds after this:

He removed solar thermal panels, probably much less efficient than the evacuated tubes used today, when the roof was being repaired in 1986:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE2DF113BF937A1575BC0A960948260

They were not reinstalled because of cost effectiveness issue. I also heard maintenance was a pain. They were donated to a university, IIRC.

Bush also had solar panels installed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/27/technology/how-it-works-from-a-white-house-roof-solar-power-proclaims-gains.html

Many places are spinning this story politically no doubt.

BTW, I think solar thermal and more insulation is a great, cost effective thing. PV, otoh, not so much yet.

Funny how you didn't seem to know that George W. Bush actually installed solar panels.

But that would fuck up the "Obama is the GREATEST" narrative, now wouldn't it. As if endemic 10% unemployment isn't enough - I guess we have to dig deep for Obama's positives, eh? Like tout the Obamessiah for doing the same thing that was ignored when George W. Bush did it.

He removed solar thermal panels, probably much less efficient than the evacuated tubes used today, when the roof was being repaired in 1986:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE2DF113BF937A1575BC0A960948260

They were not reinstalled because of cost effectiveness issue. I also heard maintenance was a pain. They were donated to a university, IIRC.

Bush also had solar panels installed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/27/technology/how-it-works-from-a-white-house-roof-solar-power-proclaims-gains.html

Many places are spinning this story politically no doubt.

BTW, I think solar thermal and more insulation is a great, cost effective thing. PV, otoh, not so much yet.

He removed solar thermal panels, probably much less efficient than the evacuated tubes used today, when the roof was being repaired in 1986:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE2DF113BF937A1575BC0A960948260

They were not reinstalled because of cost effectiveness issue. I also heard maintenance was a pain. They were donated to a university, IIRC.

Bush also had solar panels installed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/27/technology/how-it-works-from-a-white-house-roof-solar-power-proclaims-gains.html

Many places are spinning this story politically no doubt.

BTW, I think solar thermal and more insulation is a great, cost effective thing. PV, otoh, not so much yet.

This is small government, letting your house burn down:
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/tennessee-firefighters-watch-home-burn/

Just scale it up, and imagine what a small USA government can't do. Welcome back to third-world agricultural, Dickens, industrialization-level America.

You gotta pay to be in first-class.

How many of those patents are legitimate, and not fraudulent of plagiarizing?

"Rampant Fraud Threatens China's Brisk Ascent"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/world/asia/07fraud.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all

One of the points the article highlights is that in Chinese culture, blatant cheating and shameless plagiarism is fine. It's just being "smart" to get ahead. Nice culture to force your hard-working population to compete with.

Why don't we start with just raising the basics first?

Uh, people have been trying that for a few thousand years, and look how far it got us? In much of the world where the OLPC is being delivered, working on "just the basics first" means knowingly condemning them to the same economic backwater status that they've always had.

Maybe the OLPC won't fix all the world's educational problems. This is almost certain, if fact, because it's going against the local power structure that has kept the population uneducated all along. But at least they're trying something that has a chance of making a change. It's interesting to watch how it's working out. Or not, in some areas.

(For those without nytimes accounts, the article describes the recent impounding at the port of entry of a shipment of "laptop computers" to a school district in Iraq. After sitting in the warehouse a while, the shipment was declared non-deliverable and auctioned off for a few dollars per computer to an unnamed "businessman" who since seems to have disappeared. Typical for some parts of the world.)

Bad news: the scotus has already ruled that police can, in fact, legally stand by as you are raped. Even if they know about it. Even if you call for help.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

Also:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

Transmission losses ARE a big deal NOW since most lines are made of aluminium and consumers may be 1000km from a power source.

Electrical transmission losses over long distances is only a problem if the electricity is AC. Over long distances the losses from transmission is much lower using High Voltage Direct Current, HVDC. Now there are losses for conversion from AC to DC but those losses are less than the losses from transmitting via AC. And conversion is getting more efficient. But using the right stuff what is converted can be reduced. That computer you're using, it's power supply converts the AC power from the wall socket to DC. Radios and TVs do the same. Those who build Off the Grid take all that into consideration when designing their system.

Heck, Thomas Edison's Con Edison power company transmitted DC. It was only after Nicoli Tesla came along when AC was used. In an attempt to discredit AC Edison went so far as to electrocute an elephant, Topsy. Because Topsy had killed 3 men she was sentenced to death and Edison saw that as a good way to show how dangerous AC was. However he was not successful right away, Topsy had to be executed a few tymes before she died, in agony.

Falcon

French trader Kerviel was sentenced to $6.7 billion. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/business/global/06bank.html

Yeah, because something like that could never happen in the U.S. I mean, it's not like the U.S. government wants even more wiretap powers.

Probably because we've seen something similar to it before. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/an-explosion-of-mobile-patent-lawsuits/

[SARCASM]
Apparently the obama administration thinks it has more supporters in northern california than west virginia... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/12/science/earth/12quake.html
[/SARCASM]

Geothermal Project in California Is Shut Down

The company in charge of a California project to extract vast amounts of renewable energy from deep, hot bedrock has removed its drill rig and informed federal officials that the government project will be abandoned.

The project by the company, AltaRock Energy, was the Obama administration's first major test of geothermal energy as a significant alternative to fossil fuels and the project was being financed with federal Department of Energy money at a site about 100 miles north of San Francisco called the Geysers.

...

The project's apparent collapse comes a day after Swiss government officials permanently shut down a similar project in Basel, because of the damaging earthquakes it produced in 2006 and 2007. Taken together, the two setbacks could change the direction of the Obama administration's geothermal program, which had raised hopes that the earth's bedrock could be quickly tapped as a clean and almost limitless energy source.

Apparently I've taken a more radical approach than anyone else. I have stopped sitting upright at a desk to type on a computer. Nearly all of my time using my laptop is done in a fully-reclined chair. I am nearly supine as I type this. The built-in head & neck rest on the back of the chair fully supports my shoulders, neck & head. My upper arms, elbows & forearms arm supported by the backrest & padded arm rest. The laptop itself is supported by a cheap plastic laptray. The laptray has pockets on either side that serve as legs. The laptop is separated from my lap by an air space of about 2". The tray pockets hold pens, small pads, TV remotes, occasionally a can of Dew or a bottle of beer (if either tips, the liquid goes into the tray pocket & nowhere near the laptop.)

If I gaze straight ahead from this relaxed position, my line of sight is about 2" above the top of the screen. I wear bifocals. The screen is about 30" away from my eyes. I had my ophthalmologist adjust the prescription for my lower lenses to allow me to read materials from 30", not from 20" as is typically prescribed for reading glasses. The bifocals are the lined type, so the entire plane of the laptop's screen is viewed through the same lens prescription. I once tried using lineless bifocals & found with them I could only see a small fraction of the screen clearly. I had to continually move my head to focus clearly on the screen. The projected line between the upper & lower eyeglass lenses lines up very closely with the top of the laptop's screen. So I can see distant objects past the screen clearly without moving my head.

When I use a desktop scanner, I have to sit or stand bent over at the desk as most anyone would do. My land line phone is on the floor below the right arm rest.

I am retired, so I have to justify my arrangement to no boss who might perhaps believe I am too comfortable to be really working. If I stay up too late at my laptop, I tend to fall asleep in my computer position, it is that comfortable.

A couple of my hobbies are genealogy & local history. I travel around the US to do this & sometimes find I need to work my laptop for several hours at a time to catch up on email and type up my discoveries while they are still fresh in memory. I bought a folding recliner chair, similar to what is sold for use on patios, where a mesh fabric supports the body. I use a small pillow to provide more support for my head & neck, but otherwise it's very similar to my home recliner. This works almost as well as my home recliner.

I think the foundation of RSI for computer users is attempting to sit upright and pound on a keyboard, with minimal support for the arms & wrists. It's an unnatural and pain-provoking position, dictated by the all-too-human thinking of "We've always done it this way."

I don't know the specifics of the deal but I understand Jackson did not agree to percentage of profits. He agreed to percentage of gross revenue. My understanding was of the disagreement had to deal with licensing rights. Jackson was to get revenue based on the licensing. NewLine Cinema is part of Time Warner. Jackson is alleging that NewLine sold the rights to other Time Warner subsidiaries in a closed system for far less than what they should have gotten. This way on paper NewLine gets less revenue for the rights, but overall, Time-Waner wins because they don't have to pay people like Peter Jackson (and the Tolkien estate) as much money.

For example if NewLine were to bid out the TV rights of the films, they might be worth $10 million (I made up these numbers). However, in a closed system, NewLine just sells it to TNT (a Time-Warner subsidiary) for a mere $2 million, then Peter Jackson makes less money. However TNT (and thus Time-Warner) saves money. Another aspect of the suit is that Jackson doesn't believe the numbers that the studio gave him (It was $2 million but TNT gave a $3 million kickback to NewLine). So he asked for an audit. That is what made the Jackson suit dangerous to the studios. The studios would not like others looking into their accounting at all.