Before speaking of others FUD, you should fact check your own beliefs. The whole thrust of your post is about reducing our "addiction to oil" by building nuclear plants. And in one of your followup posts, you said:
Personally, the lower gas prices and less vulnerability to foreign energy suppliers are the two best reasons to switch to nuclear. If you're a peace activist, who doesn't like "Blood for Oil", again you should be giving your wholehearted support to nuclear energy.
Please explain how this is the case, considering that we get around 3% of our electricity from oil?
We get 94% of our power generation from coal (50%), natural gas (19%), nuclear (19%) and hydroelectric (7%). Simply put, very little of our power generation fuel comes from foreign sources.
I'm sure you already know about our copious coal reserves. We are the world's second largest natural gas producer, closely behind Russia. We import a little from Canada, Trinidad and a tiny amount from other countries.
You, my friend, are working from a bad set of facts. Nuclear power has nothing to do with oil use in the US. Oil use in the US is mostly for transportation. To address that, you need to push for higher fuel efficiency and invest in alternative forms of fuel which cut out oil (ethanol, be it from corn, switchgrass, some weird brazillian weed, etc.).
As for your comments on "greens" protesting hydroelectric, wind power and geothermal - you yourself have shown exactly what the problem is. Some small minority of people don't think things through and get all the facts, yet they feel they should be vocal about expressing this ignorant opinion.
Well, speaking for myself, I flipped the telcos the bird (as hard as I could) and gave my dollars to Vonage instead for the past 3 years. Multiply that by however many other people who did the same, and it adds up to something.
I hope they don't pay the $69.5 million to Sprint Nextel and $58 million to Verizon from your bird flipping dollars. That would be sad.
It's long seemed to me that the best option would be to nuke.com/.org/.net (and double-nuke.biz,.info, etc.) and have ONLY country code TLDs. Then the UN could be involved, but only in decided country codes for new countries. Everything under that country code TLD would be completely up to that country - who runs it, what subdomains it has, who you buy domains from, what is legal and illegal in it, how copyrights are respected, etc. The TLDs we have now try to pretend that geography and nationality don't exist. But they do and it comes up all the time in court.
While the ATS was started in the 90s, reading between the lines it appears it was originally much smaller in scope and has been expanded a lot since then, especially once DHS was created. I also don't think it ever specifically came up in any bills when it was established. The only references I can find in THOMAS are from 2002 and 2005. Much like Total Information Awareness, I don't think this is something that's usually put in a bill but is rather the prerogative of the administration to create programs in various bureaucracies.
I do not believe that the Chinese government fears the internet. I think that it is concerned for its citizens and wants to exercise the controls that it feels are appropriate.
Do you even bother to keep up with the news? There are so many instances of Chinese censorship both on the Internet (when they can control it) and in the media in China that it boggles my mind you could actually type that with a straight face. And to claim that since it's illegal in the US to (for example) host a porn site with 16 year old girls that would be legal elsewhere, the US is just the same as China is fairly ludicrous.
The Chinese government has every reason in the world to make it up. One of the major worries of the powers that be in China is the internet and it's ability to connect their citizens with those of other countries in a free and open social space. Have you not seen the plethora of other news reports where they have tried to put a stop to this? Fearmongering over the dangers of internet gaming fits into an anti-MMORPG propaganda strategy quite nicely. They don't currently have the resources to effectively police internet gaming or internet use in general, so they have to supplement what control they do have with propaganda.
Just wanted to throw in that I liked the DT ending, too. But yes, the books were getting bloated as time went along and lost some of the magic that Drawing of the Three had.
"adjustments" are no different than cracking knuckles. Once in a while isn't the end of the world, but if you do it all the time, you will eventually have problems in those joints.
Wow, talk about quackery. Please link to the scientific experiments which back up your theory. Time and again, this old wives tail gets trotted out and allowed to go unchallenged.
http://phoenix.gov/WATER/drpers04.html
This drought constitutes the longest in the past 110 years of recordkeeping.... Given that we could experience another 10 or more years of drought... it is important to be aware of the steps that can be taken now to avert potential future impacts from severe, sustained drought.... If, as some climatologists have predicted, the current drought is actually a return to "normal" conditions from a very long wet period, many temporary drought measures may have to become permanent.
My thoughts exactly. The only place I have typically seen goat is at Indian restaurants. As long as it's not too filled with bones and difficult to disassemble (sometimes a problem even at good buffets), it is terrific.
Errr... if this was supposed to be satirical, I think you need to rework it a bit.
Because you do realize that this is what slashdot, digg, reddit and untold how many other sites are, right? And yes, they run ads, too. The only real difference is that google indexes things with robots, and the other sites use slightly less intelligent methods.
Except it's not presentation. It's name recognition, driven by ads. It's like if you said "this meal was made by Iron Chef Sakai" to someone, simply to make them think the food tasted (and looked) better.
As I've said above, I think it highly unlikely google will do all this confirmation for everyone who applies to comment. We're talking about a worldwide service. They post a lot of articles each and every day. Can you imagine if everyone who signed on to slashdot had to be "verified" in this method? And you might suggest that they'd only try to "verify" someone after they submitted a good comment. Well, then they'd have to read all the comments.
I very much expect the "verification" step will only happen when someone files a dispute with google over the comment (like someone from a university saying there is no such professor, or MacDonald's saying this person is not representing their company).
I did RTFA. You might also consider DBAFA (FYI, that's Don't Be a Fucking Asshole).
Google says that you must provide a way to authenticate who you are. But that's not the same as authenticating who you are. Do you really believe Google will authenticate all users who try to comment? That seems a bit much. I would think it much more likely that they only do it if there's a complaint about the comment. Or maybe they won't do it at all but just have there as a CYA measure.
No, it's not high-security. It's just giving you a false sense of confidence. Every Tom, Dick and Harry at Columbia could claim to be a professor there. And for big companies, we already have press releases and responses to the story right there in the article. For smaller or mid-size companies, plenty are using services like hotmail or gmail instead of their own hosted email. On top of all that, you also get people who work at companies who could fake up an "official" company response. Imagine a disgruntled employee from a @macdonalds.com commenting in a hilariously embarrassing way. Or, more likely, just someone at the company responding before it was cleared through their communications department.
Oh, and just to head off a couple of the replies saying things like "well, they also filter based on who you are and if you're involved." What's keeping anyone from saying they are "Professor of X", where X is whatever they claim. Unless they are sending in more credentials than their email address, it's rife for abuse. And as you see from this page, both responses are opinion. I'd say a good portion of stories on Google News "involve" just about everyone (otherwise, they wouldn't be on there) in some way. So everyone will have an opinion.
So you get two comments - a response from the company and a decent response (except for weird ED/abstinence bit) by someone who claims to be a professor of pediatrics. While I think the first may be typical, I think you should look more to slashdot and digg for what the comments will look like. Registering by email in an age of free and plentiful anonymous email addresses is hardly a filter.
Not disagreeing with your post, but I'd just like to point out that BitTorrent owns uTorrent now. So any changes to BitTorrent(the product)'s protocol is very likely to quickly appear as if by magic in uTorrent.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.html
We get 94% of our power generation from coal (50%), natural gas (19%), nuclear (19%) and hydroelectric (7%). Simply put, very little of our power generation fuel comes from foreign sources.
I'm sure you already know about our copious coal reserves. We are the world's second largest natural gas producer, closely behind Russia. We import a little from Canada, Trinidad and a tiny amount from other countries.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/natgassupply.html
You, my friend, are working from a bad set of facts. Nuclear power has nothing to do with oil use in the US. Oil use in the US is mostly for transportation. To address that, you need to push for higher fuel efficiency and invest in alternative forms of fuel which cut out oil (ethanol, be it from corn, switchgrass, some weird brazillian weed, etc.).
As for your comments on "greens" protesting hydroelectric, wind power and geothermal - you yourself have shown exactly what the problem is. Some small minority of people don't think things through and get all the facts, yet they feel they should be vocal about expressing this ignorant opinion.
Your post seems to lack "a legitimate, technical need for that hash to be there". I'm still waiting to hear what that is.
Sorry to interrupt your rant, but it clear you don't actually not understand that .com is already "handled" by the US gov't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.com
Has been since the beginning. Only difference is that it went from the DoD to the NSF to the Dept of Commerce.
It's long seemed to me that the best option would be to nuke .com/.org/.net (and double-nuke .biz, .info, etc.) and have ONLY country code TLDs. Then the UN could be involved, but only in decided country codes for new countries. Everything under that country code TLD would be completely up to that country - who runs it, what subdomains it has, who you buy domains from, what is legal and illegal in it, how copyrights are respected, etc. The TLDs we have now try to pretend that geography and nationality don't exist. But they do and it comes up all the time in court.
Just to try to clarify some things:
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/highlights/cbp_responds/facts_automated_targeting_sys.xml
While the ATS was started in the 90s, reading between the lines it appears it was originally much smaller in scope and has been expanded a lot since then, especially once DHS was created. I also don't think it ever specifically came up in any bills when it was established. The only references I can find in THOMAS are from 2002 and 2005. Much like Total Information Awareness, I don't think this is something that's usually put in a bill but is rather the prerogative of the administration to create programs in various bureaucracies.
I'd just like to point out not every Republican voted no. The following voted yes:
Hagel (R-NE)
Lugar (R-IN)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Sununu (R-NH)
Personaly, I'm looking forward to smision.
Man, I'd love to have a vibrating compass belt. Actually, you can keep the compass.
I would recommend rather than going by what you think a word "sounds like", you go by what it means .
electrocute
-verb (used with object), -cuted, -cuting.
1. to kill by electricity.
2. to execute (a criminal) by electricity, as in an electric chair.
If you are looking for a non-trademarked word, just say "shocked."
The Chinese government has every reason in the world to make it up. One of the major worries of the powers that be in China is the internet and it's ability to connect their citizens with those of other countries in a free and open social space. Have you not seen the plethora of other news reports where they have tried to put a stop to this? Fearmongering over the dangers of internet gaming fits into an anti-MMORPG propaganda strategy quite nicely. They don't currently have the resources to effectively police internet gaming or internet use in general, so they have to supplement what control they do have with propaganda.
Just wanted to throw in that I liked the DT ending, too. But yes, the books were getting bloated as time went along and lost some of the magic that Drawing of the Three had.
http://phoenix.gov/WATER/drpers04.html This drought constitutes the longest in the past 110 years of recordkeeping.
Bravo. I especially liked the part about "100's of hectares of 1m deep concrete pools" in the desert.
My thoughts exactly. The only place I have typically seen goat is at Indian restaurants. As long as it's not too filled with bones and difficult to disassemble (sometimes a problem even at good buffets), it is terrific.
Errr... if this was supposed to be satirical, I think you need to rework it a bit.
Because you do realize that this is what slashdot, digg, reddit and untold how many other sites are, right? And yes, they run ads, too. The only real difference is that google indexes things with robots, and the other sites use slightly less intelligent methods.
Except it's not presentation. It's name recognition, driven by ads. It's like if you said "this meal was made by Iron Chef Sakai" to someone, simply to make them think the food tasted (and looked) better.
As I've said above, I think it highly unlikely google will do all this confirmation for everyone who applies to comment. We're talking about a worldwide service. They post a lot of articles each and every day. Can you imagine if everyone who signed on to slashdot had to be "verified" in this method? And you might suggest that they'd only try to "verify" someone after they submitted a good comment. Well, then they'd have to read all the comments.
I very much expect the "verification" step will only happen when someone files a dispute with google over the comment (like someone from a university saying there is no such professor, or MacDonald's saying this person is not representing their company).
I did RTFA. You might also consider DBAFA (FYI, that's Don't Be a Fucking Asshole).
Google says that you must provide a way to authenticate who you are. But that's not the same as authenticating who you are. Do you really believe Google will authenticate all users who try to comment? That seems a bit much. I would think it much more likely that they only do it if there's a complaint about the comment. Or maybe they won't do it at all but just have there as a CYA measure.
No, it's not high-security. It's just giving you a false sense of confidence. Every Tom, Dick and Harry at Columbia could claim to be a professor there. And for big companies, we already have press releases and responses to the story right there in the article. For smaller or mid-size companies, plenty are using services like hotmail or gmail instead of their own hosted email. On top of all that, you also get people who work at companies who could fake up an "official" company response. Imagine a disgruntled employee from a @macdonalds.com commenting in a hilariously embarrassing way. Or, more likely, just someone at the company responding before it was cleared through their communications department.
Oh, and just to head off a couple of the replies saying things like "well, they also filter based on who you are and if you're involved." What's keeping anyone from saying they are "Professor of X", where X is whatever they claim. Unless they are sending in more credentials than their email address, it's rife for abuse. And as you see from this page, both responses are opinion. I'd say a good portion of stories on Google News "involve" just about everyone (otherwise, they wouldn't be on there) in some way. So everyone will have an opinion.
So you get two comments - a response from the company and a decent response (except for weird ED/abstinence bit) by someone who claims to be a professor of pediatrics. While I think the first may be typical, I think you should look more to slashdot and digg for what the comments will look like. Registering by email in an age of free and plentiful anonymous email addresses is hardly a filter.
Not disagreeing with your post, but I'd just like to point out that BitTorrent owns uTorrent now. So any changes to BitTorrent(the product)'s protocol is very likely to quickly appear as if by magic in uTorrent.