Slashdot Mirror

Okay, with regard to the rest above, I agree that I'm probably conflating a lot of concepts.

But I think even if the "Book is thrown at you" that these fines are completely out of line and only illustrate how corrupt the process is and how our "justice" system has been captured by corporate interests.

I can't support it. As I posted elsewhere, the irony is that I could legally get these 24 songs for free within 3 hours (and many others). So essentially, she is being fined a huge amount for failing to pay per song licensing fees for broadcasting.

From this site,
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080221121424AAe9Y18
Copyright Royalty Board runs things in US, pays about .20cents per track.

And other sites it looked like ASCAP 4000 "credits" (based on play time, popularity, rotation, market size) results in about $7000 owed (maybe $1.75 per song? Seems high compared to the above number). For this they can "distribute" the song to hordes of people with various recording devices.

This really is a "travesty of justice". It's absurd.

The reason the studios are pushing so hard on 3D is because there is a lot of money in it. They can charge a lot more for a 3D ticket. And once the overhead on the equipment is paid (the projector for the theater, the cameras for the production, the trivial costs of some cheap plastic glasses), all that extra money is almost pure profit. The reason that Nolan is able to resist their push is because he's already established himself with the franchise. If they were appointing a newbie to do it, you can bet they would be TELLING him to do Batman in 3D.

3D has always a been dubious contribution to the art. For every James Cameron who likes to see what he can do with it, there are dozens of filmmakers who have it foisted on them by the studio (many of them after-the-fact). And while the big boys can resist, I doubt the pressure will let up anytime soon. As long as there is money to be made, the studios will ride this train. The only thing that will stop it would be if audiences starting to forgo the overpriced 3D versions for the 2D versions in droves, or if some kind of studio/theater price war started on 3D tickets (making it difficult for the studios to rape us so easily).

Is this a fad that probably SHOULD pass? Maybe. Is it being overused now? Definitely. Is it going anywhere, as long as the studios can reap big money off of it? Almost certainly not.

I was referring to this as an example of US political correctness. The US have always been the champions of political correctness with asinine phrases like "I'm not $ETHNICITY, I'm an $ETHNICITY-american" and "I'm $ABILITY challenged."

We haven't had a major terrorist incident in the US for a while. Why?

A: There hasn't been any credible ability to do so by the bad guys
B: Nobody wants to harm the US any more
C: The counterterrorism efforts have prevented such an attack
For ANY of the above choices, how do you know? I mean, REALLY know, not just guessing or trying to shout louder than the guy next to you whose opinion is different than yours?

Survey says....C!

Al Qaeda Video Asks Detroit-Area Muslims to Act
US warned of mail bomb terror tactic last month
Explosive found in Dubai, part of US terror probe
'US terrorist tried to bring slaughter to subway in Washington'
US man pleads guilty in 'South Park' terror threat
'US thrice shared non-specific inputs on Mumbai attack'
Terrorist in failed LAX attack violated prison release with gun purchase
14 Charged with Aiding Terror Group Al-Shabab
Former Staten Island Resident Nabbed in Attempt to Join Taliban
Feds: NYC Subway Plotters Targeted London, Too (From July)

And in other news....

Osama bin Laden threatens French troops, criticizes France burqa ban
Canadian sentenced for leading terrorism plot
Hotels need EU help to defend against attack
MI6 chief Sir John Sawers says secrecy is vital to keep UK safe
Eight Britons 'trained in Pakistan for European terror strikes'
New security threat at Commonwealth Games, police, army seize explosives
British bobbies get SAS training, new weapons in wake of Mumbai-style terror threats
Gunmen storm Parliament in Chechnya, 6 dead
Bomb on bus in Philippines kills 10, wounds 9
Saudis warn Europe of terr

We haven't had a major terrorist incident in the US for a while. Why?

A: There hasn't been any credible ability to do so by the bad guys
B: Nobody wants to harm the US any more
C: The counterterrorism efforts have prevented such an attack
For ANY of the above choices, how do you know? I mean, REALLY know, not just guessing or trying to shout louder than the guy next to you whose opinion is different than yours?

Survey says....C!

Al Qaeda Video Asks Detroit-Area Muslims to Act
US warned of mail bomb terror tactic last month
Explosive found in Dubai, part of US terror probe
'US terrorist tried to bring slaughter to subway in Washington'
US man pleads guilty in 'South Park' terror threat
'US thrice shared non-specific inputs on Mumbai attack'
Terrorist in failed LAX attack violated prison release with gun purchase
14 Charged with Aiding Terror Group Al-Shabab
Former Staten Island Resident Nabbed in Attempt to Join Taliban
Feds: NYC Subway Plotters Targeted London, Too (From July)

And in other news....

Osama bin Laden threatens French troops, criticizes France burqa ban
Canadian sentenced for leading terrorism plot
Hotels need EU help to defend against attack
MI6 chief Sir John Sawers says secrecy is vital to keep UK safe
Eight Britons 'trained in Pakistan for European terror strikes'
New security threat at Commonwealth Games, police, army seize explosives
British bobbies get SAS training, new weapons in wake of Mumbai-style terror threats
Gunmen storm Parliament in Chechnya, 6 dead
Bomb on bus in Philippines kills 10, wounds 9
Saudis warn Europe of terr

We haven't had a major terrorist incident in the US for a while. Why?

A: There hasn't been any credible ability to do so by the bad guys
B: Nobody wants to harm the US any more
C: The counterterrorism efforts have prevented such an attack
For ANY of the above choices, how do you know? I mean, REALLY know, not just guessing or trying to shout louder than the guy next to you whose opinion is different than yours?

Survey says....C!

Al Qaeda Video Asks Detroit-Area Muslims to Act
US warned of mail bomb terror tactic last month
Explosive found in Dubai, part of US terror probe
'US terrorist tried to bring slaughter to subway in Washington'
US man pleads guilty in 'South Park' terror threat
'US thrice shared non-specific inputs on Mumbai attack'
Terrorist in failed LAX attack violated prison release with gun purchase
14 Charged with Aiding Terror Group Al-Shabab
Former Staten Island Resident Nabbed in Attempt to Join Taliban
Feds: NYC Subway Plotters Targeted London, Too (From July)

And in other news....

Osama bin Laden threatens French troops, criticizes France burqa ban
Canadian sentenced for leading terrorism plot
Hotels need EU help to defend against attack
MI6 chief Sir John Sawers says secrecy is vital to keep UK safe
Eight Britons 'trained in Pakistan for European terror strikes'
New security threat at Commonwealth Games, police, army seize explosives
British bobbies get SAS training, new weapons in wake of Mumbai-style terror threats
Gunmen storm Parliament in Chechnya, 6 dead
Bomb on bus in Philippines kills 10, wounds 9
Saudis warn Europe of terr

We haven't had a major terrorist incident in the US for a while. Why?

A: There hasn't been any credible ability to do so by the bad guys
B: Nobody wants to harm the US any more
C: The counterterrorism efforts have prevented such an attack
For ANY of the above choices, how do you know? I mean, REALLY know, not just guessing or trying to shout louder than the guy next to you whose opinion is different than yours?

Survey says....C!

Al Qaeda Video Asks Detroit-Area Muslims to Act
US warned of mail bomb terror tactic last month
Explosive found in Dubai, part of US terror probe
'US terrorist tried to bring slaughter to subway in Washington'
US man pleads guilty in 'South Park' terror threat
'US thrice shared non-specific inputs on Mumbai attack'
Terrorist in failed LAX attack violated prison release with gun purchase
14 Charged with Aiding Terror Group Al-Shabab
Former Staten Island Resident Nabbed in Attempt to Join Taliban
Feds: NYC Subway Plotters Targeted London, Too (From July)

And in other news....

Osama bin Laden threatens French troops, criticizes France burqa ban
Canadian sentenced for leading terrorism plot
Hotels need EU help to defend against attack
MI6 chief Sir John Sawers says secrecy is vital to keep UK safe
Eight Britons 'trained in Pakistan for European terror strikes'
New security threat at Commonwealth Games, police, army seize explosives
British bobbies get SAS training, new weapons in wake of Mumbai-style terror threats
Gunmen storm Parliament in Chechnya, 6 dead
Bomb on bus in Philippines kills 10, wounds 9
Saudis warn Europe of terr

We haven't had a major terrorist incident in the US for a while. Why?

A: There hasn't been any credible ability to do so by the bad guys
B: Nobody wants to harm the US any more
C: The counterterrorism efforts have prevented such an attack
For ANY of the above choices, how do you know? I mean, REALLY know, not just guessing or trying to shout louder than the guy next to you whose opinion is different than yours?

Survey says....C!

Al Qaeda Video Asks Detroit-Area Muslims to Act
US warned of mail bomb terror tactic last month
Explosive found in Dubai, part of US terror probe
'US terrorist tried to bring slaughter to subway in Washington'
US man pleads guilty in 'South Park' terror threat
'US thrice shared non-specific inputs on Mumbai attack'
Terrorist in failed LAX attack violated prison release with gun purchase
14 Charged with Aiding Terror Group Al-Shabab
Former Staten Island Resident Nabbed in Attempt to Join Taliban
Feds: NYC Subway Plotters Targeted London, Too (From July)

And in other news....

Osama bin Laden threatens French troops, criticizes France burqa ban
Canadian sentenced for leading terrorism plot
Hotels need EU help to defend against attack
MI6 chief Sir John Sawers says secrecy is vital to keep UK safe
Eight Britons 'trained in Pakistan for European terror strikes'
New security threat at Commonwealth Games, police, army seize explosives
British bobbies get SAS training, new weapons in wake of Mumbai-style terror threats
Gunmen storm Parliament in Chechnya, 6 dead
Bomb on bus in Philippines kills 10, wounds 9
Saudis warn Europe of terr

We haven't had a major terrorist incident in the US for a while. Why?

A: There hasn't been any credible ability to do so by the bad guys
B: Nobody wants to harm the US any more
C: The counterterrorism efforts have prevented such an attack
For ANY of the above choices, how do you know? I mean, REALLY know, not just guessing or trying to shout louder than the guy next to you whose opinion is different than yours?

Survey says....C!

Al Qaeda Video Asks Detroit-Area Muslims to Act
US warned of mail bomb terror tactic last month
Explosive found in Dubai, part of US terror probe
'US terrorist tried to bring slaughter to subway in Washington'
US man pleads guilty in 'South Park' terror threat
'US thrice shared non-specific inputs on Mumbai attack'
Terrorist in failed LAX attack violated prison release with gun purchase
14 Charged with Aiding Terror Group Al-Shabab
Former Staten Island Resident Nabbed in Attempt to Join Taliban
Feds: NYC Subway Plotters Targeted London, Too (From July)

And in other news....

Osama bin Laden threatens French troops, criticizes France burqa ban
Canadian sentenced for leading terrorism plot
Hotels need EU help to defend against attack
MI6 chief Sir John Sawers says secrecy is vital to keep UK safe
Eight Britons 'trained in Pakistan for European terror strikes'
New security threat at Commonwealth Games, police, army seize explosives
British bobbies get SAS training, new weapons in wake of Mumbai-style terror threats
Gunmen storm Parliament in Chechnya, 6 dead
Bomb on bus in Philippines kills 10, wounds 9
Saudis warn Europe of terr

We haven't had a major terrorist incident in the US for a while. Why?

A: There hasn't been any credible ability to do so by the bad guys
B: Nobody wants to harm the US any more
C: The counterterrorism efforts have prevented such an attack
For ANY of the above choices, how do you know? I mean, REALLY know, not just guessing or trying to shout louder than the guy next to you whose opinion is different than yours?

Survey says....C!

Al Qaeda Video Asks Detroit-Area Muslims to Act
US warned of mail bomb terror tactic last month
Explosive found in Dubai, part of US terror probe
'US terrorist tried to bring slaughter to subway in Washington'
US man pleads guilty in 'South Park' terror threat
'US thrice shared non-specific inputs on Mumbai attack'
Terrorist in failed LAX attack violated prison release with gun purchase
14 Charged with Aiding Terror Group Al-Shabab
Former Staten Island Resident Nabbed in Attempt to Join Taliban
Feds: NYC Subway Plotters Targeted London, Too (From July)

And in other news....

Osama bin Laden threatens French troops, criticizes France burqa ban
Canadian sentenced for leading terrorism plot
Hotels need EU help to defend against attack
MI6 chief Sir John Sawers says secrecy is vital to keep UK safe
Eight Britons 'trained in Pakistan for European terror strikes'
New security threat at Commonwealth Games, police, army seize explosives
British bobbies get SAS training, new weapons in wake of Mumbai-style terror threats
Gunmen storm Parliament in Chechnya, 6 dead
Bomb on bus in Philippines kills 10, wounds 9
Saudis warn Europe of terr

If this topic has gotten you concerned about your personal stuff getting fried (if not by a CME, then by a nuclear EMP), you may want to look into constructing a Faraday cage. Here's a couple helpful links:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100211130814AAGmUNZ
http://forums.makezine.com/comments.php?DiscussionID=752

1954 football world cup done with meth.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/27102010/2/germany-54-world-cup-win-drug-tainted-study.html

anyways, prior to ww2 they weren't labelled as "drugs", but rather "medicine" in most of the world, in early 1900's everything you had managed to buy was basically up for using as you wished.

in finnish there's distinct words for medical use and then for the bad kind of for fun drugs - even though they overlap quite a bit(70 years ago being in flu apparently wasn't so bad.. heroin was used commonly to fight the symptoms).

> I wouldn't want to put my money into buying an applications from the Ovi store if I knew that the phone's OS could be dead by the time the next handset came out.

Well, Nokia just announced that they're focusing exclusively on Qt as the preferred app environment going forward, and that Qt apps will run on both Symbian and Meego phones.

So, I think the answer would be to buy/use Qt apps.

I hope the prior-artiness of this is obvious even to the Patent Office, but in case not...
All the claims I read include the qualifier "where the virtual currency is not redeemable for real currency", probably to exclude LindenBucks as prior art. Worst case, you could get around this the same way purveyors of offline virtual currency (coupons, etc.) do to comply/avoid various laws. On each virtual token: "Cash value 1/zillionth cent"

Poor people currently pay either no taxes at all or very low taxes as proportion of their income. Bottom half pays no income tax at all: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0 [yahoo.com] How does calling for less taxes overall in your opinion translate to "wanting to keep poor people as the only ones who pay taxes"? It doesn't make any sense at all.

This is bullshit. Tell that to the person who pays FICA off his first dollar, 7.5%. Or if you're self-employed, 15%.

Yeah, it nets them Social Security 20, 30, 40 years down the road but little use now. And then add in state and local taxes.

Poor people currently pay either no taxes at all or very low taxes as proportion of their income. Bottom half pays no income tax at all: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0 How does calling for less taxes overall in your opinion translate to "wanting to keep poor people as the only ones who pay taxes"? It doesn't make any sense at all.

I think you are confusing different forms of taxation.

If you are talking about income taxes, then yes, on average, the poor may pay little, however that can also be debated. There are also consumption taxes. Sales tax, or value added are examples. Poor have no choice but to pay them, and for rich they are peanuts (example of regressive taxation).

Suppose there are 2 people with incomes 100 (poor), rich (10000). poor man buys essentials and assuming sales tax is 15%, he can buy 85$ worth (for argument's sake as actual amount is slightly higher). rich man, buys the same essentials, and pays 15$ in taxes and has disposable income of 9900.

for the rich man, he pay 0.15% based on his income, while poor man pays 15%.

Poor man probably works for someone, hence pays income taxes too. Suppose on average 20%. Hence his real disposable income is 65$ not 85.

Rich man, probably has smart dudes working for him to minimize taxes. His corporations probably give him dividends (15%) or tax havens or double irish dutch sandwich (2-3%).

The way i see it, poor man does get screwed.

Poor may pay little in absolute terms, but compared to what they earn and need to stay alive, it is a significantly higher percentage.

Also, poor probably have to go about things more inefficiently than the rich. Poor have to deal with pay day loans (hefty %), transport (spend 2-3 hours on the bus to commute/shop) whereby a car would be faster. ... and so on.

Poor people currently pay either no taxes at all or very low taxes as proportion of their income. Bottom half pays no income tax at all: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0 How does calling for less taxes overall in your opinion translate to "wanting to keep poor people as the only ones who pay taxes"? It doesn't make any sense at all.

To power the iPod iNvisa.

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/4656101/12447278

And people say thats to be expected

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/cody/2010/10/19/how-to-trade-apple-from-now-that-its-reported/

"And guess what, the stock, after being hit hard, is finding its legs and remains 5% above where it was just last Thursday when it remarkably passed $300 a share for the first time. A little perspective on today’s sell off, anyone?"

And they expect APPL to hit 350 a share by the end of the calendar year. It's much more important to look at 1-5 year performance than daily.

Ahem. - http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AAPL+Basic+Chart&t=5y

Depends on what you call small.

There's a mailing list, Minor Planet Mailing List, where amateur and professional asteroid hunters congregate and their equipment covers the gamut from 8" up meters wide scopes.

Regardless of scope size, they are all limited by the fact that it's hard to look towards the sun to spot asteroids whose orbits are primarily sunward of us. A well shaded scope parked at a Lagrange point could go a long ways towards addressing that threat.

The good news is, the patent is so broad, and it is now expired, and it is prior art to prevent similar lawsuits, so put in those rollover images. :-) Of course, that doesn't do any good for anyone who is sued under the statute of limitations for an overly broad patent that probably should never have been granted.

You would think all the overly broad zany patents should each be a defense in the future, right? So, will a lot of the software patent nonsense resolve itself in a decade or two regardless?

As Douglas Crockford said to a programming audience (and I pretty much agree with :-):
    http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/theater/video.php?v=crockford-yuiconf2009-state
"So one of the lessons is that patents and open systems are not compatible. I think the solution to that incompatibility is to close the Patent Office. [applause]"

Disclaimer: my name is on a software patent related to work I did as a contractor at IBM Research. :-(

By the way, a common way to get a patent invalidated is to find someone who should have been on the patent but was not (which invalidates the patent).

... the study takes into account a rebounding of the Earth's crust called glacial isostatic adjustment, a continuing rise of the crust after being smashed under the weight of the Ice Age. [Slashdot summary]

Here the summary implies that previously published GRACE ice mass balance estimates didn't take GIA into account. At first I assumed this ridiculous implication must have been a mistake on Slashdot's part. Then I read the article:

... according to the new study, published in the September issue of the journal Nature Geoscience, the ice estimates fail to correct for a phenomenon known as glacial isostatic adjustment. ... Often ignored or considered a minor factor in previous research, post-glacial rebound turns out to be important, says the paper. [AFP, Sep 8]

No, previous research didn't ignore (see section 2.2.4) GIA/PGR. These news stories are reporting on a paper by Xiaoping Wu et al. (free PDF). In table 2, Dr. Wu shows that his estimates are half as big as those in papers published separately by Velicogna, Chen et al. and Luthcke et al.

Luthcke et al. corrects for GIA using the ICE-5G model which combines many proxies and other empirical evidence regarding ice history since the Last Glacial Maximum, mantle viscosity and the Earth's various Love numbers. Chen et al. used the similar IJ05 model. Velicogna used multiple independent models to estimate uncertainty in the GIA signal. After reading Dr. Wu's paper, it's clear he never claimed that previous research had ignored or failed to correct for GIA.

That would have been a real surprise, because he wouldn't make a claim that can be disproven simply by skimming the papers he referenced. Nor is he rude enough (or at all, for that matter) to imply that the rest of the GRACE community ignored this important issue. Coincidentally, Dr. Wu worked for my advisor as a postdoc in the 1990s, in the same office that I'm currently using. I met him several months ago at the WP-AGU conference in Taiwan, and as far as I can tell he's overwhelmed by the bizarre attention his paper has gotten from the general public:

RUSH: There's a global warming story out. Guess what? Greenland and some of the ice floes, they're only going to melt half as much as originally forecast. So the polar bears are still going to have a place to live. I don't think they're going to melt, period. All of this is a sham.

"Estimates of the rate of ice loss from Greenland and West Antarctica, one of the most worrying questions in the global warming [hoax], should be halved, according to Dutch and US scie

Here is the text from when it was active as the best I can do:

The Government's New Right to Track Your Every Move With GPS Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway - and no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements. That is the bizarre - and scary - rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants - with no need for a search warrant. (See a TIME photoessay on Cannabis Culture.) It is a dangerous decision - one that, as the dissenting judges warned, could turn America into the sort of totalitarian state imagined by George Orwell. It is particularly offensive because the judges added insult to injury with some shocking class bias: the little personal privacy that still exists, the court suggested, should belong mainly to the rich. This case began in 2007, when Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents decided to monitor Juan Pineda-Moreno, an Oregon resident who they suspected was growing marijuana. They snuck onto his property in the middle of the night and found his Jeep in his driveway, a few feet from his trailer home. Then they attached a GPS tracking device to the vehicle's underside. After Pineda-Moreno challenged the DEA's actions, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled in January that it was all perfectly legal. More disturbingly, a larger group of judges on the circuit, who were subsequently asked to reconsider the ruling, decided this month to let it stand. (Pineda-Moreno has pleaded guilty conditionally to conspiracy to manufacture marijuana and manufacturing marijuana while appealing the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained with the help of GPS.) In fact, the government violated Pineda-Moreno's privacy rights in two different ways. For starters, the invasion of his driveway was wrong. The courts have long held that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes and in the "curtilage," a fancy legal term for the area around the home. The government's intrusion on property just a few feet away was clearly in this zone of privacy. The judges veered into offensiveness when they explained why Pineda-Moreno's driveway was not private. It was open to strangers, they said, such as delivery people and neighborhood children, who could wander across it uninvited. (See the misadventures of the CIA.) Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented from this month's decision refusing to reconsider the case, pointed out whose homes are not open to strangers: rich people's. The court's ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes. People who cannot afford such barriers have to put up with the government sneaking around at night. Judge Kozinski is a leading conservative, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, but in his dissent he came across as a raging liberal. "There's been much talk about diversity on the bench, but there's one kind of diversity that doesn't exist," he wrote. "No truly poor people are appointed as federal judges, or as state judges for that matter." The judges in the majority, he charged, were guilty of "cultural elitism."

I don't know how well this stands, but hey, it's something!

It could be worse. If my name was Poo holes or Dikshit I'd change it in a heartbeat.

I wonder why /. does not have a section on economics...

We could point out stories that appear on front pages of various portals and news sites and discuss what really is going on behind the title on them, just like the title I linked to:

Stocks Rise on Renewed Hope for Fed Action

- which sounds as if it is a positive for the economy that stocks rise on 'Hope for Fed Action', when in reality, those who understand can tell you that "Fed Action" means more money printing/borrowing, which implies more inflation and debt, so rising stocks (and rising gold) in this situation means that there is an expectation of yet more inflation, so stocks will go up in nominal terms, but all US holdings will lose more purchasing power.

Isn't /. 'news for nerds' and isn't economy yet another 'nerdy' subject?

And of course, people that know things could point out that since we're falling into a deflationary spiral, money printing is actually an attempt to stabilize inflation at its historic 2%, permitting job growth and preventing a Japan-like lost decade (currently 10-year expectations are down to 1%, which increases the expected real burden of pre-crash debts and in turn creates a money shortage and severe job losses). I could provide links but you could also just go find a macroeconomics textbook and look up 'disinflation' and 'great depression'.

I really don't need to hear the misinformed opinions of slashdotters that think they know things about economics, thx.

I wonder why /. does not have a section on economics...

We could point out stories that appear on front pages of various portals and news sites and discuss what really is going on behind the title on them, just like the title I linked to:

Stocks Rise on Renewed Hope for Fed Action

- which sounds as if it is a positive for the economy that stocks rise on 'Hope for Fed Action', when in reality, those who understand can tell you that "Fed Action" means more money printing/borrowing, which implies more inflation and debt, so rising stocks (and rising gold) in this situation means that there is an expectation of yet more inflation, so stocks will go up in nominal terms, but all US holdings will lose more purchasing power.

Isn't /. 'news for nerds' and isn't economy yet another 'nerdy' subject?

And of course, people that know things could point out that since we're falling into a deflationary spiral, money printing is actually an attempt to stabilize inflation at its historic 2%, permitting job growth and preventing a Japan-like lost decade (currently 10-year expectations are down to 1%, which increases the expected real burden of pre-crash debts and in turn creates a money shortage and severe job losses). I could provide links but you could also just go find a macroeconomics textbook and look up 'disinflation' and 'great depression'.

I really don't need to hear the misinformed opinions of slashdotters that think they know things about economics, thx.

I wonder why /. does not have a section on economics. Isn't it long overdue to have one?

So many stories really belong in economics.

We could discuss what things are worth.

We could point out stories that appear on front pages of various portals and news sites and discuss what really is going on behind the title on them, just like the title I linked to:

Stocks Rise on Renewed Hope for Fed Action

- which sounds as if it is a positive for the economy that stocks rise on 'Hope for Fed Action', when in reality, those who understand can tell you that "Fed Action" means more money printing/borrowing, which implies more inflation and debt, so rising stocks (and rising gold) in this situation means that there is an expectation of yet more inflation, so stocks will go up in nominal terms, but all US holdings will lose more purchasing power.

Isn't /. 'news for nerds' and isn't economy yet another 'nerdy' subject?

I wonder why /. does not have a section on economics. Isn't it long overdue to have one?

So many stories really belong in economics.

We could discuss what things are worth.

We could point out stories that appear on front pages of various portals and news sites and discuss what really is going on behind the title on them, just like the title I linked to:

Stocks Rise on Renewed Hope for Fed Action

- which sounds as if it is a positive for the economy that stocks rise on 'Hope for Fed Action', when in reality, those who understand can tell you that "Fed Action" means more money printing/borrowing, which implies more inflation and debt, so rising stocks (and rising gold) in this situation means that there is an expectation of yet more inflation, so stocks will go up in nominal terms, but all US holdings will lose more purchasing power.

Isn't /. 'news for nerds' and isn't economy yet another 'nerdy' subject?

Microsoft and Apple have market caps something like 220 and 260 Billion respectively, and apple looks to have made profits in excess of 15 billion in just the last 2 years, http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/07/20results.html. This could just be Adobe trying to spark an interest in Apple to look into buying them. I think that it would have some potentially positive effects, mostly that there would be the king of creative production suites. However, flash would most certainly be killed off which can be taken different ways depending on you camp. If MS acquired Adobe there is again potential for a comprehensive software suite, gosh I wish you could merge acrobat and word.

MSFT made 18 billion in profit in the last ONE year: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=msft. Sometimes I still shake my head in amazement when I see MSFT declining in value in the same period it set a new record for quarterly and annual profit.

That article makes it sound like Google TV doesn't have Netflix etc. However it's been announced that it will indeed have that stuff.

Is there *any* javascript UI library that you would be in favor of rather than jquery ? (I really want to know... not to be confrontational).

The Yahoo! User Interface (YUI) is a programmer's dream come true.

I think this will change in a near future, like what happened with CPUs, years ago we have Hz race and now we have the n-cores race, what changed? cost and profit. the R&D and manufacturing cost in Hz race has become a problem, the solution? change the direction to another, less costly race, the n-cores race. Years ago the monitor resolutions are scaling well (H 480 -> 600 -> 768 -> 800 -> 900 -> 1024 -> 1200 ->...) and then this stoped, what happen? again cost and profit.

Why have the cost of having multiple plants (CRT, LCD, Plasma, TV, Monitors, ...) and multiple options? this become a problem to industry, so the solution? concentrate in one tech and multiply the functions (one tech to rule all), how many computer monitors today have build-in speakers and tv reception? and how many tv's today have computer inputs? so the tech are the same, the guts are the same, whats the diference? only size.

Now we have a 20'' computer monitor with 1080p and and 40'' tv with 1080p, they are almost the same ( http://xkcd.com/732/ ), and this will change? i hope yes (as i hope that this 3D wave in industry disapear), but not because our opinion matter, but simple because our cellphones are catching up with our monitors and it will surpas our current resolutions in the next years, like: "look, this photo/video is beautiful in my Retina v2 cellphone display, but is +- on my 20'' computer monitor and is a crap in my 50'' tv, why?", its all about dpi.

The profits are droping in LCD ( http://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/Samsung-Elec-profits-seen-rsg-1592719785.html?x=0 ), so the industry have few options, try to stick with the 3D wave (God no!) or go in another direction (more dpi please!), i hope it choses the right direction: stop making monitors that are tvs, they are a nich not the norm, we need more horizontal AND vertical resolution, we need 20''-24'' monitors with resolutions higher than 2500px (H) and 1600px (V) and we dont need 3D ("hey look i'm writing in MS Word with 3D enabled in my monitor!").

One day, hopefully, we will be trying to extend our society beyond the life of the Sun.

While the sun is thought to have billions of years before it burns out, men as in the male sex may only have on the order of a few hundred thousand years before they become extinct. A debate is going on as to whether man can continue without intervention, as in genetic engineering.

we as a species are trying to maintain our style/standard of living out as far as possible

I'm no Malthusian but I don't think the whole world can live as people in the US do today.

Falcon

+1 for the Collins Road Theaters! http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes-tickets/theaters/1385-collins-road-theatres/
Love that popcorn! Now if Hollywood would actually make something worth watching.

I also wonder how they can do this without laughing at themselves.

"the worm was not targeted at us, or our nuclear facilities, it had no effect"

and now ...

"we arrest spies due to the worm"

Ok the, so, which is it ?

Of course we shouldn't expect much from muslims that claim "there are no gays in Iran, I don't know where you got that idea". Surely this "allah" guy I keep hearing about can protect one measly "power station" ?

Yes, it seems the manned mission is 2020. Articles refer to China state media.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/195665/china-to-launch-next-lunar-space-mission
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/3747/moist-moon-hinders-chinas-lunar-telescope
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100910/sc_afp/chinaspacemoon

It's questionable whether that is a landing mission or whether the landing missing is 2025.

From the AP (via Yahoo) (emphasis mine): "House Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., abandoned the effort late Wednesday in the face of Republican opposition to his proposed "network neutrality" rules. Those rules were intended to prevent broadband providers from becoming online gatekeepers by playing favorites with traffic."

I'm going to piss some people off by saying this, but the Democrats are pussies. Goddamned balless wimps. For Christ's sake, they have a majority in both houses, yet they're so pussified that the minority Republicans can block them. WTF???

But the phone and cable companies insist they need flexibility to manage network traffic so that high-bandwidth applications don't hog capacity and slow down their systems. They say this is particularly true for wireless networks, which have more bandwidth constraints than wired systems. The communications companies also argue that after spending billions to upgrade their networks for broadband, they need to be able earn a healthy return by offering premium services. Burdensome net neutrality rules, they say, would discourage future investments.

First they say they don't have the bandwidth, then they say they need a "healthy" (read: windfall) profit from their investments in bandwidth. Which is it? Speak of talking out of both sides of your mouth! Is there anybody less honest than a corporate mouthpiece? I have more respect for a crackhead than these evil assholes. At least you know the crackhead is lying when he says he wants twenty bucks "for a prescription".

And the thing is, from the AP story, it's more about Net Neutrality for wireless customers than wired customers. This makes no sense whatever. I have a plethora of wireless choices; competetion makes Net Neutrality Regs completely unnecessary for wireless providers. On the other hand, I and most other people have only one "choice" for wired broadband -- in my case, Comcast. Others have other monopoly providers, but almost all of them are monopolies.

ALL MONOPOLIES NEED HEAVY REGULATION! Where there is a lot of competetion, the free market keeps things in check in most cases. But when there is little or no competetion, the government needs to step in.

Waxman's proposal, in part, fell victim to today's political climate, with Republicans hoping to rack up gains in the upcoming midterm elections apparently unwilling to help Democrats make progress on such a contentious issue. With an anti-government, anti-regulation sentiment sweeping the nation -- and boosting Tea Party candidates -- Republicans also were reluctant to support a proposal that opponents equate to regulating the Internet.

Contentious? Huh? The only contention is between giants like Google and Time Warner. Net neutrality is a boon for anyone wanting to USE the internet.

The anti-government sentiment comes from the fact that government (neither major party) has done Jack Schitt for the average working stiff while bending over backwards for sociopaths like Charles and David Koch, who are according to the Jim Hightower article linked, behind the tea party astroturfing movement.

"Opponents who equate" net neutrality "to regulating the Internet" are disingenuous at best. This doesn't "regulate the internet", it regulates the monopolies who deliver the unregulated internet to your computer.

If it comes between the goverment regulating the providers and the providers regulating the internet, I'll take government regulation any day.
--------
Mods, please read the guidelines.

Geez, the next thing you know they want to test the cups children drink out of, like our children are too stupid to know how to use a glass properly!

Oh wait... You mean there are reasons to test product safety OTHER than the possibility of simple misuse?

Wrong. 350 km/h was the estimated regular max speed for the AVE in Spain, but it seems that it is slower due to problems with the track ballast, so now it's going to max speed of "only" 300km/h to avoid damaging the trains.

news in spanish, yahoo translation

Annaly Capital Management, a real estate investment trust, is paying dividends at 14.8% per year:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=nly

Full disclosure: I own quite a bit of NLY. I am not your broker, and this is not investment advice.

I'm just saying that good returns are available if you look around.

I'd say these articles at least demonstrate a history that indicates this product is in true development and why the company might have shifted direction so dramatically.

Apple Peel 520 Ready for Retailers

Massive iPod Touch Sales Figures Prompted Apple Peel Deal (It was actually Chinese firm Yosion that developed the device)

Huge iPad Sales Figures Prompted New Deal with PREE Corp. (It's not just the Touch market they're looking to capitalize on)

GoSolarUSA Appoints New President and CEO (All the iPod/iPad stuff weeks after Rohde is on board. This might explain the dramatic shift in the company's direction)

And while Wikipedia is certainly an indicator that a company is known, its absence doens't necessarily mean a company isn't valid (or even successful).

You seem to be implying a lot of things without actually saying them. GoSolarUSA hasn't made a product yet? Well they're only two years old. No big surprise there. This is their first product--sounds like a good one too.

Biotricity hasn't done anything? "Biotricity has developed a new combustion technology for the burning of woody biomass to generate electricity to address America's growing demand for green power." Sounds like they've done something to me.

Brewer Capital Group doesn't have a website? Well they're a financial advisor for the Houston area. Perhaps they aren't focused on their company's web site. They're still a company.

Goldbridge Energy Partners? Probably an even smaller company (also local to the Houston area), even less likely to appear on the Internet.

Or is this, "I'm not saying. I'm just saying."

I'd say these articles at least demonstrate a history that indicates this product is in true development and why the company might have shifted direction so dramatically.

Apple Peel 520 Ready for Retailers

Massive iPod Touch Sales Figures Prompted Apple Peel Deal (It was actually Chinese firm Yosion that developed the device)

Huge iPad Sales Figures Prompted New Deal with PREE Corp. (It's not just the Touch market they're looking to capitalize on)

GoSolarUSA Appoints New President and CEO (All the iPod/iPad stuff weeks after Rohde is on board. This might explain the dramatic shift in the company's direction)

And while Wikipedia is certainly an indicator that a company is known, its absence doens't necessarily mean a company isn't valid (or even successful).

You seem to be implying a lot of things without actually saying them. GoSolarUSA hasn't made a product yet? Well they're only two years old. No big surprise there. This is their first product--sounds like a good one too.

Biotricity hasn't done anything? "Biotricity has developed a new combustion technology for the burning of woody biomass to generate electricity to address America's growing demand for green power." Sounds like they've done something to me.

Brewer Capital Group doesn't have a website? Well they're a financial advisor for the Houston area. Perhaps they aren't focused on their company's web site. They're still a company.

Goldbridge Energy Partners? Probably an even smaller company (also local to the Houston area), even less likely to appear on the Internet.

Or is this, "I'm not saying. I'm just saying."

I'd say these articles at least demonstrate a history that indicates this product is in true development and why the company might have shifted direction so dramatically.

Apple Peel 520 Ready for Retailers

Massive iPod Touch Sales Figures Prompted Apple Peel Deal (It was actually Chinese firm Yosion that developed the device)

Huge iPad Sales Figures Prompted New Deal with PREE Corp. (It's not just the Touch market they're looking to capitalize on)

GoSolarUSA Appoints New President and CEO (All the iPod/iPad stuff weeks after Rohde is on board. This might explain the dramatic shift in the company's direction)

And while Wikipedia is certainly an indicator that a company is known, its absence doens't necessarily mean a company isn't valid (or even successful).

You seem to be implying a lot of things without actually saying them. GoSolarUSA hasn't made a product yet? Well they're only two years old. No big surprise there. This is their first product--sounds like a good one too.

Biotricity hasn't done anything? "Biotricity has developed a new combustion technology for the burning of woody biomass to generate electricity to address America's growing demand for green power." Sounds like they've done something to me.

Brewer Capital Group doesn't have a website? Well they're a financial advisor for the Houston area. Perhaps they aren't focused on their company's web site. They're still a company.

Goldbridge Energy Partners? Probably an even smaller company (also local to the Houston area), even less likely to appear on the Internet.

Or is this, "I'm not saying. I'm just saying."

I'd say these articles at least demonstrate a history that indicates this product is in true development and why the company might have shifted direction so dramatically.

Apple Peel 520 Ready for Retailers

Massive iPod Touch Sales Figures Prompted Apple Peel Deal (It was actually Chinese firm Yosion that developed the device)

Huge iPad Sales Figures Prompted New Deal with PREE Corp. (It's not just the Touch market they're looking to capitalize on)

GoSolarUSA Appoints New President and CEO (All the iPod/iPad stuff weeks after Rohde is on board. This might explain the dramatic shift in the company's direction)

And while Wikipedia is certainly an indicator that a company is known, its absence doens't necessarily mean a company isn't valid (or even successful).

You seem to be implying a lot of things without actually saying them. GoSolarUSA hasn't made a product yet? Well they're only two years old. No big surprise there. This is their first product--sounds like a good one too.

Biotricity hasn't done anything? "Biotricity has developed a new combustion technology for the burning of woody biomass to generate electricity to address America's growing demand for green power." Sounds like they've done something to me.

Brewer Capital Group doesn't have a website? Well they're a financial advisor for the Houston area. Perhaps they aren't focused on their company's web site. They're still a company.

Goldbridge Energy Partners? Probably an even smaller company (also local to the Houston area), even less likely to appear on the Internet.

Or is this, "I'm not saying. I'm just saying."

it's still a lot of mercury in the landfills.

I don't have a source here, but i thought i read somewhere that the average can of tuna has more mercury than what's in a modern CFL. Hmm. or was it here: http://green.yahoo.com/blog/the_conscious_consumer/70/three-cfl-myths-busted.html

From the article I read on yahoo I would not be surprised if they tried to force this on the FOSS community. This is what worries me most about this issue. Sure my freedom is at stake but if this goes off without a hitch then any private action no matter how few people it involves even if it is one could be concidered "commerce" for the purposes of determining governmental power. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100927/ap_on_hi_te/us_internet_wiretaps_5 "-Any service that provides encrypted messages must be capable of unscrambling them. -Any foreign communications providers that do business in the U.S. would have to have an office in the United States that's capable of providing intercepts. -Software developers of peer-to-peer communications services would be required to redesign their products to allow interception."

I actually used to like the guy, and was planning to vote for him when I first heard he was going to run for president.

Ironically funny actually (or perhaps tragic?). I actually used to like Obama until I realized he wanted to spend money like a drunken sailor on shore leave. Plenty of wild promises, little implementation details, and little way of paying for it short of diverting war funds or repealing tax cuts. And people wonder why the Tea Party is so up in arms -- I'm willing to bet a good chunk of them voted for Obama expecting something other than the status quo -- like maybe some fiscal accountability (ala transparency).

So either I don't vote and feel dirty, or I vote Democrat and still feel dirty. I can't win.

Well I voted Ron Paul. And personally, I feel that as long as people continue to have the partisan voting attitude, we'll never make any progress. No vote is a thrown away vote. Tea partiers are proof of that. I'm actually surprised more Dems didn't get behind Ron Paul actually -- he's so anti-war, he's practically an isolationist. And his voting track record matches what he preaches, unlike so many politicians (Obama included).

But he does often make some good points and bring some issues to light in the midst of all his over-the-top, self-righteous crap.

But he "brings things to light" in ways that actually harm the country -- he doesn't use facts -- he uses half-truths and sensationalist crap to mislead people into thinking what he wants them to think. Ultimately, he's a prey on the stupid and weakminded -- he's no different than Fox News or Rush/Coulter/O'Reilly/Hannity. If his facts stood up for themselves, he could present them in fair debate with all sides of an argument laid to bare. He's the intellectual equivalent of a blog linked to a blog linked to a twitter stream that claims it was eventually linked to a reputable news source. _All_ of these biased, spun sources (liberal and conservative alike) should be treated as the lies that they truly are.

That said, when was the last time anything from Al Franken or Arianna Huffington or any of the others made the mainstream news?

Well I get all my news online (don't watch the sensationalist TV news), and I just saw her today on the front page of Yahoo Finance: http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/535439/Obama-Should-Have-Focused-on-Jobs,-Not-Health-Care,-Says-Arianna-Huffington I was actually particularly amazed at how hypocritical those words were coming out of her mouth considering how just a year ago (http://bigthink.com/ideas/15725), she was saying "The most important thing for Obama is to get healthcare right." In fact, I'm pretty sure the _only_ people talking about the Economy during the 2008 presidential run-up were the "crazy lunatic Paultards", as people like to call us Ron Paul supporters. They're now using that same "crazy lunatic" tag against the Tea Party -- decrying an entire movement by the claimed actions of a few loons.

His agenda is to highlight the bullshit that we're being fed by the mainstream news media, the politicians on both sides, and the crazies on the national stage trying to control the direction of things.

I don't know. That's a tall order to believe. He certain isn't giving any third parties that have upset incumbents any support, relegating them to the lunatic fringe just like big media is. I would imagine that if he wants to end partisanship, that he would be all about third parties. At any rate, on this particular issue I don't agree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler.

While the reason PRC's claim is over the island, her claim over the island is completely insincere (The government must allow people free to express or not express the claim, when it make a claim). The government (even Hong Kong government) do not allow any ship (even fishery ship) to go to the water nearby the island.

It is simply a matter that PRC wanted to show her muscle.

Any people who can read Chinese can verify this link:
http://www.sinchew.com.my/node/176611?tid=2
http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/100922/3/kcyi.html

Perhaps it isn't such a leap of faith after all...

Russia is involved with their nuclear program. I also seriously doubt the UAE, Saudis (it was Saudis on the planes 9/11) or Qatar oppose it either.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100813/ap_on_hi_te/iran_nuclear