indeed. Other than that, to anyone [including myself] who knows about the case and either sympathises with the defendant or opposes the RIAA, the idea of actually giving the RIAA/Sony thieves anything is an appalling thought.
tech evolves over time; it may very well be that future advances will drive the cost down, iron out a few of the bugs and possibly change your mind. these OLEDs are incredibly efficient and can be used to make thin flexible displays.
You know this may be one of those cases where incomplete AI could have use. This system alloys the blind to do most of the hard computation and the AI simply analyzes the situation and only acts to prevent certain disaster. It assists the driver instead of taking over the driving.
I think the real gripe with MS bundling IE was that 1) upgrades often force it to be the default overriding the user 2) it can not be completely removed 3) windows update and IE [the reason for windizupdate's existence] I'm pretty sure most of the problem could be dealt with if MS 1) allowed the complete removal of varying kinds of bundled software 2) offer the user to download alternatives before anything else
perhaps MS should create a system GUI similar to synaptic that doesn't need a browser to download software like pretty much every GNU/Linux distro in use does. That way they can claim one more feature and be able to comply with the EU without bundling software. Each browser that wants to have a shot at it only needs to supply MS with a repo address and maybe a way of verifying software integrity [md5 at the least]
Precisely. I think the pirate party is making a bargain here as to not look like info-anarchists. 5 years is only a compromise between the ideal and what exists today.
I'm pretty sure Stallman's GPL'ed software isn't forced on the user of virtually all new computers like Gates. The comparison seems to be quite a bit inaccurate. He is perfectly correct about copyright law- the same laws that are ever so widely abused for Gates' benefit are also required in order for FOSS to exist.
it's complex for sure but also *understandable*. The same mechanisms are responsible for our development as a species as before just now we understand more about the system than we did previously.
quite. coal reserves are estimated to be 300 years at current rates of consumption [us reserves/consumption] the problem though is that china and india are very rapidly industrializing with china surpassing the us in consumption just recently. world consumption will likely increase quite a bit as has been the case for decades. there is also the problem with extraction and conversion of coal into other useful materials, it isn't 100% efficient, it's energy intensive.. but yes I agree with you completely that doing nothing is probably not the best way to deal with decreasing resources. the problem however, is that governments are moving toward heavy regulation rather than making use of market forces such as tax reform, R&D incentives and the like. Most economies are run under the false assumption that stimulating spending is the way to improve the economy when it is not only not true but hazardous to the environment to boot.
CO2 levels can and do rise as a result of temperature however, that doesn't have anything at all to do with whether or not CO2 acts on its own to raise temperature. The fact is that CO2 can and does raise temperature, not debatable. You can argue to the extent but not as to whether or not it does. Too much science supports the conclusion that CO2 insulates and raises temperature of an atmosphere to ignore.
No, the fact is that the link between CO2 and global temp is a theory.
so is relativity, gravitational theory, evolutionary theory etc. A theory in science does not constitute a wild guess.
Does CO2 (absent human activity) rise with temp or does it work the other way around.
From the data I've seen, the answer appears to be both. CO2 levels can rise as the result of higher metabolic activity spurred on by higher temperatures and CO2 can also force higher temperatures.
Can a conclusion be drawn from those three facts? No. But it certainly doesn't make the arguments for AGW stronger.
indeed, there's more to the theory of AGW than these facts, that's why people spend years of work doing research on the matter. National policy should be done in such a way as to both limit government involvement and follow the science; not one or the other. Unfortunately, the two sides have become so polarized and fervently supportive of an either or approach that it's unlikely to end well and both ends are outside the realm of sane policy.
If you've ever taken a look at the estimates for fossil fuel reserves and economic growth of said countries, the falling production combined with increased demand for fuel may solve the problem anyway. From the estimates I've seen, we're at least 80% of peak production and we're due to hit the max in a decade or so. Production falls off in a bel-curve fashion forcing the utilization of alternatives or economic decline.
Since the tax is in addition to other taxation I'd agree; a better alternative would be to *replace* the current disgustingly complicated loopole riddled mess of a tax system with one that is simpler; property taxes, flat income tax or some sort of "fair tax" like alternative. The current system is supportive of spending and acts in effect to favor some individuals over others arbitrarily.
true, although progressive taxation isn't harmless either. THe money has to come from somewhere whether it be from raising prices, firing workers or reducing investment it will indirecty affect others who don't actually pay the tax directly.
everything is safe in certain quantities, everything is dangerous in excessive quantities. The fact that a small level of CO2 is not only safe but neccessary has no bearing on whether or not higher levels are harmful to the climate. In fact, most of the science points to a rapid change in CO2 being the causal agent for climate change. It's effects are not uniform but to say that it hasn't harmed anyone is most certainly not a truthful statement.
if you want social freedom, countries in soe parts of europe are better; sweden, denmark, new zealand if outside of europe is ok.. overall between the two, switzerland is high on my own personal list.
gold doesn't rot so i'm sure you could find a few people who thought this would be a deal worth having at some point.. it would be different if it were some perishable item that is time critical, with something like this it's just a matter of waiting for the right peopel to come along.
Slashdot Mirror
indeed. Other than that, to anyone [including myself] who knows about the case and either sympathises with the defendant or opposes the RIAA, the idea of actually giving the RIAA/Sony thieves anything is an appalling thought.
Here's the very first result of a google search for flexible OLED.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcAm3KihFho
tech evolves over time; it may very well be that future advances will drive the cost down, iron out a few of the bugs and possibly change your mind. these OLEDs are incredibly efficient and can be used to make thin flexible displays.
that this will be just about the equivalent of the virtual boy for TV sets in more ways than one.
You know this may be one of those cases where incomplete AI could have use. This system alloys the blind to do most of the hard computation and the AI simply analyzes the situation and only acts to prevent certain disaster. It assists the driver instead of taking over the driving.
Correct. The XO's problem isn't sugar or as far as I can see really anything to do with its specifications but rather how it was sold and marketed.
I think the real gripe with MS bundling IE was that 1) upgrades often force it to be the default overriding the user 2) it can not be completely removed 3) windows update and IE [the reason for windizupdate's existence] I'm pretty sure most of the problem could be dealt with if MS 1) allowed the complete removal of varying kinds of bundled software 2) offer the user to download alternatives before anything else
I figured someone would say as much. the idea is to have *something* to verify the software as other programs do.
perhaps MS should create a system GUI similar to synaptic that doesn't need a browser to download software like pretty much every GNU/Linux distro in use does. That way they can claim one more feature and be able to comply with the EU without bundling software. Each browser that wants to have a shot at it only needs to supply MS with a repo address and maybe a way of verifying software integrity [md5 at the least]
Precisely. I think the pirate party is making a bargain here as to not look like info-anarchists. 5 years is only a compromise between the ideal and what exists today.
I'm pretty sure Stallman's GPL'ed software isn't forced on the user of virtually all new computers like Gates. The comparison seems to be quite a bit inaccurate. He is perfectly correct about copyright law- the same laws that are ever so widely abused for Gates' benefit are also required in order for FOSS to exist.
it's complex for sure but also *understandable*. The same mechanisms are responsible for our development as a species as before just now we understand more about the system than we did previously.
How is this a worthless article if it points out the stupidity of certain laws?
where did it say that testing meant controlled conditions? wouldn't it have made more sense for them to have done precisely what you are suggesting?
quite. coal reserves are estimated to be 300 years at current rates of consumption [us reserves/consumption] the problem though is that china and india are very rapidly industrializing with china surpassing the us in consumption just recently. world consumption will likely increase quite a bit as has been the case for decades. there is also the problem with extraction and conversion of coal into other useful materials, it isn't 100% efficient, it's energy intensive.. but yes I agree with you completely that doing nothing is probably not the best way to deal with decreasing resources. the problem however, is that governments are moving toward heavy regulation rather than making use of market forces such as tax reform, R&D incentives and the like. Most economies are run under the false assumption that stimulating spending is the way to improve the economy when it is not only not true but hazardous to the environment to boot.
CO2 levels can and do rise as a result of temperature however, that doesn't have anything at all to do with whether or not CO2 acts on its own to raise temperature. The fact is that CO2 can and does raise temperature, not debatable. You can argue to the extent but not as to whether or not it does. Too much science supports the conclusion that CO2 insulates and raises temperature of an atmosphere to ignore.
No, the fact is that the link between CO2 and global temp is a theory.
so is relativity, gravitational theory, evolutionary theory etc. A theory in science does not constitute a wild guess.
From the data I've seen, the answer appears to be both. CO2 levels can rise as the result of higher metabolic activity spurred on by higher temperatures and CO2 can also force higher temperatures.
indeed, there's more to the theory of AGW than these facts, that's why people spend years of work doing research on the matter. National policy should be done in such a way as to both limit government involvement and follow the science; not one or the other. Unfortunately, the two sides have become so polarized and fervently supportive of an either or approach that it's unlikely to end well and both ends are outside the realm of sane policy.
If you've ever taken a look at the estimates for fossil fuel reserves and economic growth of said countries, the falling production combined with increased demand for fuel may solve the problem anyway. From the estimates I've seen, we're at least 80% of peak production and we're due to hit the max in a decade or so. Production falls off in a bel-curve fashion forcing the utilization of alternatives or economic decline.
Since the tax is in addition to other taxation I'd agree; a better alternative would be to *replace* the current disgustingly complicated loopole riddled mess of a tax system with one that is simpler; property taxes, flat income tax or some sort of "fair tax" like alternative. The current system is supportive of spending and acts in effect to favor some individuals over others arbitrarily.
true, although progressive taxation isn't harmless either. THe money has to come from somewhere whether it be from raising prices, firing workers or reducing investment it will indirecty affect others who don't actually pay the tax directly.
everything is safe in certain quantities, everything is dangerous in excessive quantities. The fact that a small level of CO2 is not only safe but neccessary has no bearing on whether or not higher levels are harmful to the climate. In fact, most of the science points to a rapid change in CO2 being the causal agent for climate change. It's effects are not uniform but to say that it hasn't harmed anyone is most certainly not a truthful statement.
some countries have better economic freedom while less social freedom, which country you wish to move to depends on which of these are more important. if it's econ then pick one of the top countries listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom_historical_rankings
if you want social freedom, countries in soe parts of europe are better; sweden, denmark, new zealand if outside of europe is ok.. overall between the two, switzerland is high on my own personal list.
You might try joining a club of some variety. they are depending on the subject a great place to meet people just as geeky as yourself and frankly they will probably be in a similar social boat too. I met my fiancée at the local anime club and several geeky friends as well.
indeed, taking a look at the price of gold lately and it is quite clear that it is way over-valued compared to its history...
gold doesn't rot so i'm sure you could find a few people who thought this would be a deal worth having at some point.. it would be different if it were some perishable item that is time critical, with something like this it's just a matter of waiting for the right peopel to come along.