the fact both comcast and AT&T are doing this and not getting punished by the market as it is says pretty clearly that one of two things are true: 1) there is little if any competition and/or 2) people really don't care enough to switch sadly both are probably true to some extent.. which explains a lot of why the US is near the bottom of industrialized nations in terms of the capabilities of our broadband/wireless networks...
Burning coal is far more hazardous to the local population than, say, burning natural gas.
that's true, but the question is whether or not it's worse than burning nearly twice as much fuel on the road and I think the answer to this is that it is in fact better than a gasoline powered vehicle system, probably not as good as natural gas but it is a step up from the current system of transport. newer clean coal tech is getting better, coal gasification especially [which is scrubbed of many of the nastier bits buring the actual process] you can even make methane [which natural gas is mostly composed] in the process. hydro is mainly tapped, solar is likely going to increase [still a minor player[ fusion is ~50 years down the road [maybe] and that leaves nuclear fission reactors- between fuel reprocessing and the newer generation 3 and 4 reactors, it's a hell of a lot safer than it was and doesn't contribute nearly as much waste as coal does [the type of waste however may be a problem] whether the few thousand tons of nuclear waste is worse than the hundreds of millions of tons of CO2, sulfur oxides and other nasties produced had it been coal used for producing the same power is debatable
you could apply the same reasoning to government owned stuff too and that.. that's a mistake. you could invision a scenario where the last mile was nationalized and this very excuse used to censor or otherwise violate free speech rights because after all it's going over their stuff.
Coal plant efficiency: 33% your oil powered car's efficiency: ~20% shifting the source of power from a less efficient source to one nearly twice as efficient? priceless. oh and not all electrical power is sourced from coal either, 10-20% is from either nuclear or alternative energy sources like hydro power meaning an electric vehicle will invariably produce about half what a petrol powered car would. is it perfect? hell no, is it a step up from what we have? yes...
no. CO2 can be removed from the atmosphere without "destroying" anything. plant a tree, that tree takes in CO2, water, nutrients and with light can synthesize organic compounds locked up in the tree its self. no magical violations of laws of physics required.
you can't make nearly as much money/trade with people in complete poverty, you can with people who get out of that kind of poverty so it isn't even a matter of ethics/morals/philanthopy, it's one of long term economics.
If people on dial-up want to stay that way, then leave them alone and let them stay on dial-up.
agreed but was it really neccessary to drag politics into this? but since we're on that topic, would you like to explain why "liberals" and nationalized healthcare are any worse than "cons" borrowing 2.5 trillion dollars against the social security trust(s) that isn't theirs? or that 10 trillion dollar debt that you guys "solved" by leveraging a 1.5 trillion dollar tax cut [which didn't work all that well now did it? economy is still fucked and no amount of tax curring is going to fix it, problem is elsewhere]
considering the kind of death that is in store for someone who is severely immuno-compromised, the adverse effects from this treatment would need to be pretty bad to be considered worse. that and there isn't any convincing evidence to my knowledge that this method is any worse than doing nothing to mitigate the effects of an HIV infection which doesn't mean that there can't be any that we don't know about, it means that we would need more testing- in any case, dismissing this out of hand before determining its effectiveness/safety relative to other treatments is foolish at best.
while you're dismantling the welfare state you might want to do away with patents, copyrights and other things enforced by the government. No? oh right I forgot, the government should only get involved when protecting business interests,Ayn Rand
a lot of it has to do with trying to prove who discovered what first, in the case of scientists working in the industry it can impact whether or not a patent is granted as it is fairly common for several different teams to be working toward the same goal even discovering the same thing separated by time. whoever can show that it was their team that discovered whatever it is first has a lot better chance of being granted the patent or whatever is at stake, research money etc.
there are legal consequences as it is, a scientist's lab notebook is considered a legal document, fudging/lying in this case is already something that has legal consequences. I would imagine that any break of such an oath as the one mentioned in the article would at the least result in it being exceedingly difficult to publish in any journal the least bit reputable and possibly legal action.
some of them yes, specifically those that adhere strongest to the idea of non-intervention in economic issues regardless of consequences [eg. environmental issues, anti-trust regulations] mostly because in my opinion, 1) a truly free market doesn't exist by definition with a monopoly in power 2) the definition of an action of force isn't consistent throughout the party, there are variations ranging from the moderates [partial legalization of drugs etc.] to the extreme [that legal punishment is an unacceptable action of force regardless of the offense]
I'm done with giving Obama money. I want a return to constitutional governance, and supported him because I thought that's what he stood for. Apparently not
same here, I used to be a strong supporter of Obama but as of late, that is no longer the case.
This is getting very ugly. At this point the only hope for citizens to return to constitutional governance nonviolently will be for mass general strikes throughout the United States.
indeed, however I do not believe that the general population cares enough to make any real change than voting that one time of the year... maybe... liberties that are supposed to be defended to the death now die with a wimper and little protest.
a hole is an area deficient of at least one electron, a positron O.T.O.H is a particle of antimatter that reacts with an electron to form gamma radiation at 1022 kev
The death of a democracy starts the moment its people no longer care enough to fight against the erosion of civil liberties. Looking back over the years, it's clear that the American people no longer have the will to defend any of the rights that are the cornerstone of this nation and that is really sad, watching an entire civilization slowly commit suicide like that...
google translate sweedish is *right there* http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dn.se%2FDNet%2Fjsp%2Fpolopoly.jsp%3Fd%3D2502%26a%3D794124&hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=sv&tl=en
Just as your right to swing your fist stops where it meets my nose, your right to free speech is not absolute.
indeed, the rights of human beings should only extend to the point where the exercise of that right does not infringe on anyone else's freedoms/rights. In this case, the point is simply this: the extent of the authority of law extends only to the point that it does not infringe on an individual's rights without due cause, eg. as you said, you have the right to freedom of speech but not the right to slander/deframe, if a body of law overextends its authority beyond that which it was given and decides to violate/infringe another's liberty without cause then it by definition and necessity has no authority in that regard.
It's obvious you don't respect the authority of the court.
A justice system that ignores basic inalienable rights by definition has no authority in that regard. Sadly we've allowed those in higher positions of power to abuse our liberties with little to no resistance.
communism is the ultimate form of governmental control, the ideology that spawned the phrase "from each according to ability to those according to need " is the same one that requires that same ever-present government that many slashdotters including myself do not turst all that much.
I know, that's generally why I am opposed to the Patriot act well acts really, the second draft was altered after all- and a host of other blatently unconstitutional bills that were passed anyway, it's just rather disturbing to see the collusion that was required for all of this to be passed in the first place.
The problem is that a lot of this nonsense was supported on both sides to some extent, the patriot act for example was voted for by both sides with only a few [you can count them on one hand] voting against it. Which is an important point to be made, it isn't just the administration alone that has condoned this, after all these could not have been passed without democrat support to some extent especially now with the democrat majority. it's a severe problem with our government that extends far beyond bush.
Slashdot Mirror
the fact both comcast and AT&T are doing this and not getting punished by the market as it is says pretty clearly that one of two things are true: 1) there is little if any competition and/or 2) people really don't care enough to switch sadly both are probably true to some extent.. which explains a lot of why the US is near the bottom of industrialized nations in terms of the capabilities of our broadband/wireless networks...
that's true, but the question is whether or not it's worse than burning nearly twice as much fuel on the road and I think the answer to this is that it is in fact better than a gasoline powered vehicle system, probably not as good as natural gas but it is a step up from the current system of transport. newer clean coal tech is getting better, coal gasification especially [which is scrubbed of many of the nastier bits buring the actual process] you can even make methane [which natural gas is mostly composed] in the process. hydro is mainly tapped, solar is likely going to increase [still a minor player[ fusion is ~50 years down the road [maybe] and that leaves nuclear fission reactors- between fuel reprocessing and the newer generation 3 and 4 reactors, it's a hell of a lot safer than it was and doesn't contribute nearly as much waste as coal does [the type of waste however may be a problem] whether the few thousand tons of nuclear waste is worse than the hundreds of millions of tons of CO2, sulfur oxides and other nasties produced had it been coal used for producing the same power is debatable
you could apply the same reasoning to government owned stuff too and that.. that's a mistake. you could invision a scenario where the last mile was nationalized and this very excuse used to censor or otherwise violate free speech rights because after all it's going over their stuff.
Coal plant efficiency: 33% your oil powered car's efficiency: ~20% shifting the source of power from a less efficient source to one nearly twice as efficient? priceless. oh and not all electrical power is sourced from coal either, 10-20% is from either nuclear or alternative energy sources like hydro power meaning an electric vehicle will invariably produce about half what a petrol powered car would. is it perfect? hell no, is it a step up from what we have? yes...
no. CO2 can be removed from the atmosphere without "destroying" anything. plant a tree, that tree takes in CO2, water, nutrients and with light can synthesize organic compounds locked up in the tree its self. no magical violations of laws of physics required.
you can't make nearly as much money/trade with people in complete poverty, you can with people who get out of that kind of poverty so it isn't even a matter of ethics/morals/philanthopy, it's one of long term economics.
agreed but was it really neccessary to drag politics into this? but since we're on that topic, would you like to explain why "liberals" and nationalized healthcare are any worse than "cons" borrowing 2.5 trillion dollars against the social security trust(s) that isn't theirs? or that 10 trillion dollar debt that you guys "solved" by leveraging a 1.5 trillion dollar tax cut [which didn't work all that well now did it? economy is still fucked and no amount of tax curring is going to fix it, problem is elsewhere]
considering the kind of death that is in store for someone who is severely immuno-compromised, the adverse effects from this treatment would need to be pretty bad to be considered worse. that and there isn't any convincing evidence to my knowledge that this method is any worse than doing nothing to mitigate the effects of an HIV infection which doesn't mean that there can't be any that we don't know about, it means that we would need more testing- in any case, dismissing this out of hand before determining its effectiveness/safety relative to other treatments is foolish at best.
whatever function they have, it's probably not as important as not dying of AIDS
the first of its kind that hasn't exploded yet
so that you can do the calulations
while you're dismantling the welfare state you might want to do away with patents, copyrights and other things enforced by the government. No? oh right I forgot, the government should only get involved when protecting business interests,Ayn Rand
a lot of it has to do with trying to prove who discovered what first, in the case of scientists working in the industry it can impact whether or not a patent is granted as it is fairly common for several different teams to be working toward the same goal even discovering the same thing separated by time. whoever can show that it was their team that discovered whatever it is first has a lot better chance of being granted the patent or whatever is at stake, research money etc.
there are legal consequences as it is, a scientist's lab notebook is considered a legal document, fudging/lying in this case is already something that has legal consequences. I would imagine that any break of such an oath as the one mentioned in the article would at the least result in it being exceedingly difficult to publish in any journal the least bit reputable and possibly legal action.
indeed, however I do not believe that the general population cares enough to make any real change than voting that one time of the year... maybe... liberties that are supposed to be defended to the death now die with a wimper and little protest.
a hole is an area deficient of at least one electron, a positron O.T.O.H is a particle of antimatter that reacts with an electron to form gamma radiation at 1022 kev
The death of a democracy starts the moment its people no longer care enough to fight against the erosion of civil liberties. Looking back over the years, it's clear that the American people no longer have the will to defend any of the rights that are the cornerstone of this nation and that is really sad, watching an entire civilization slowly commit suicide like that...
you mean you're not using the linkification extension or selecting the text and dragging it to open in a new tab?
google translate sweedish is *right there*
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dn.se%2FDNet%2Fjsp%2Fpolopoly.jsp%3Fd%3D2502%26a%3D794124&hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=sv&tl=en
communism is the ultimate form of governmental control, the ideology that spawned the phrase "from each according to ability to those according to need " is the same one that requires that same ever-present government that many slashdotters including myself do not turst all that much.
I know, that's generally why I am opposed to the Patriot act well acts really, the second draft was altered after all- and a host of other blatently unconstitutional bills that were passed anyway, it's just rather disturbing to see the collusion that was required for all of this to be passed in the first place.
The problem is that a lot of this nonsense was supported on both sides to some extent, the patriot act for example was voted for by both sides with only a few [you can count them on one hand] voting against it. Which is an important point to be made, it isn't just the administration alone that has condoned this, after all these could not have been passed without democrat support to some extent especially now with the democrat majority. it's a severe problem with our government that extends far beyond bush.