The most significant factor in reducing population growth is per capita wealth. Amazingly, per capita wealth is also the largest factor into how much effort a country puts into protecting the environment. The most significant factor in increasing per capita wealth is rule of law, that is countries that have laws that only change slowly and apply the same to everyone have the highest per capita wealth over the long term. This is why the U.S. is slipping economically, over my lifetime, more and more laws are written with the intention that they will be applied differently to those with political connections (just look at the waivers that have been issued for Obamacare, although that is just the most obvious recent example and there are many more).
Yes, China is investing heavily in wind power, but it is investing just as heavily (if not more so) in expanding its coal power infrastructure as well. China is not investing in wind power as a replacement for coal power, but as a supplement to it.
As it becomes economical to switch to alternative energy, people will do so. There are even people who will start to switch before it is economocal. Those people fall into three groups. The first, and smallest, group do it because they can afford to and they want to supply the funds that will speed the development process. The second group do it because their calculations indicate that by the time they have switched to the alternatives, they will be more economical (so far this group is composed of people who are in some specialized economic niche that makes this be the case). The last, and by far the largest, group are those who are stupid, for the most part they think they fall into the second group, but they have left some important point out of their calculations (those I have known have overestimated the lifetime of the equipment, underestimated the maintenance costs of the equipment, or both).
Oh, so that's why they passed on the rumor that John McCain was having an affair..no wait, they reported that one. Of course, it turned out to be untrue, unlike the John Edwards story.
I removed the hard drive and backed it up using an Ubuntu PC before I wiped the disk. Unfortunately, whatever had infected the machine had already wiped many of their pictures.
You paint an excessively strong picture. Someone I worked with at my last job who was somewhat computer literate asked me to clean their computer after their kids got it infected with a particularly nasty virus. I did so and they paid me for my time (I gave them a very reasonable rate because they were my friend). I noticed at the time that they had a lot of stuff on the PC that was important to them. I told them that they should get an external hard drive and back up the data because the virus infection had come very close to requiring a disk wipe and OS re-install. A couple of months later they called me because their system was infected again. This time I had to wipe the hard drive. They had not yet made a backup of their pictures. They are still mad at me because I wasn't able to recover their pictures of their grandkids that had only existed on the PC. They accused me of not caring about other people.
Well, you are right, I have no proof that Armitage leaked Plame's name...except of course the statement by Robert Novak and by Richard Armitage himself. The reason I think that Armitage opposed the Iraq War is because I have a memory and I remember him doing so.
The investigation was into who told Robert Novak Plame"s name. Robert Novak testified that it was Richard Armitage. Richard Armitage testified that it was Richard Armitage. Why should I think that someone else told him when he said that it was one specific person who told him and that one specific person admitted to telling him? The thing is, "leaking" Valerie Plame's name was not a crime, that is why Richard Armitage was not prosecuted. The special prosecutor knew early on that Richard Armitage was the one who leaked the name. Everything he did after that was a fishing expedition.
Why is any of that relevant. Richard Armitage was someone who had clearance to know who Valerie Plame was and what she did. I find it hard to believe that he did not already know who she was and her relationship to Joe Wilson. However, that is beside the point. The prosecutor was commissioned to investigate who had revealed Valerie Plame's name to Richard Novak. He very quickly discovered that it was Richard Armitage. Why was the prosecutor still investigating when he knew who had revealed the name? And it was someone who would have had no part in "revenge" against Joe Wilson. There is no evidence that Libby ever revealed Valerie Plame's name to anyone who was not cleared to know it.
The prosecutor in this case was on a witch hunt and he was unwilling to end his investigation without charging someone with something...even though the "crime" he was investigating was not a crime (revealing Valerie Plame's name was not a violation of the law as it is written, which is why he did not charge Richard Armitage).
Libby did not endanger the life of an intelligence operative. He didn't even reveal the name of an intelligence operative. All he did was recount a telephone conversation under oath differently than the other party to that conversation did. I do not understand how his lawyer failed to present reasonable doubt that the reporter (who was the other party to the conversation) remembered correctly, or that Libby legitimately remembered the conversation as he recounted it. That being said, when the prosecutor questioned Libby, the prosecutor already knew that Richard Armitage was the person who had revealed Valerie Plame's name (Richard Armitage was, at the time he revealed her name, trying to undermine the Bush case for war with Iraq--whether that played any role in him revealing her name is unknown, but doubtful).
As can be seen by the fact that the post I replied to is moderated +3 "insightful", which is really stupid since it isn't insightful to repeat a false meme.
If there was no Hamas, there would be some other organization doing the same thing. If the International community would stop interfering, the Israelis would be able to once and for all defeat the Arabs (or vice versa, although the latter would be much more complete). General Sherman demonstrated the only way to win a war of the sort that Israel finds itself in.
I would say that your definiton of "bricked" is close. My definition of "bricked" is "the unit in question has the functionality of a brick." It may turn on, but it does nothing useful. If you can recover it without opening the case, you should not use the term "bricked". If someone else can recover it, you may use the term "bricked", but they should not.
In the case of this story on this board, the term "bricked" is completely inappropiate. It seems that you will still be able to manually program these to record programs, you just will no longer receive scheduling data which will allow the unit to automatically record shows for you. Not only that, but I would think that a good portion of slashdot readers would be able to hack one of these to obtain programming data from an alternate source (I'm not familiar enough with Tivos to know how difficult that might be, it may be more difficult than I imagine).
But in Hamas's case they can point around them and say "It's the fault of the Jews' and they wouldn't be wrong would they.
Actually, they would be. There is an amazing comparison. Hamas controls Gaza. From Gaza, they have waged war against Israel. The West Bank is controlled by the Palestinian Authority (which is really the current version of the PLO). The West Bank has not been used for attacks on Israel for several years. As a result of this the West Bank is thriving economically relative to Gaza.
It is a precept of Islam that once land is under Muslim rule it must remain under Muslim rule forever. This is an even stronger precept than the one that calls for all of the earth to be under Muslim rule eventually. Israel was once under Muslim rule. It is now under the rule of non-Muslims. It is the duty of every faithful Muslim to do everything in their power to revert Israel to Muslim rule. This means that no faithful Muslim can enter into long term peace with a Jewish state in the land of Israel.
As to the carrot winning over the stick, the carrot was very effective at stopping the Nazis pre-WWII wasn't it?
So, you think we should make it illegal for people to pool their money and hire someone to spend fulltime keeping track of what Congress is doing and then report back to the group. Additionally, this person will take the opinions of the group and communicate them to various members of Congress, so that the members of Congress will know what those of their constituents who are members of this group think of various laws bills being considered by Congress.
Of course, that would require a Constitutional Amendment since the Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
While you can interpret it differently, everything lobbyists do can be interpreted as petitioning the Government for redress of grievances. And everything that you can do to petition the Government for redress of grievances can be interpreted as lobbying.
Many economists were predicting a repeat of the great depression.
So, naturally, the best thing the government could do is what it did to make the great depression a great depression. You know, that isn't always the wisest course. Usually, when you look at history and see that certain courses of action had extremely negative consequences, then you find yourself in a similar situation, it is best to do something different. Unfortunately, our government decided that it liked the great depression so much that it would try the same thing again.
Sorry, you are comparing to the wrong point in the history of PCs. What I am describing is exactly how the Macintosh computer was perceived back in the day. It is also what Windows did to the MacOs when it came out.
No, Amazon won't sell it for 30% less on Android (that would probably violate Apple's rules anyway), but someone else will. However, if someone with deep pockets (say, perhaps Walmart) decided to start up a competitor to Amazon and came out with their own e-reader software, they might come out with it only for Android. This hypothetical company could sell their e-books for 20% less than Amazon and make more profit. How long do you think it would take for everybody using an Android as an e-book reader to switch? How many such companies would it take for products sold for use on IOS devices to be perceived as being routinely overpriced?
Slashdot Mirror
Current predictions of population growth project it topping out at 9 billion.
The most significant factor in reducing population growth is per capita wealth. Amazingly, per capita wealth is also the largest factor into how much effort a country puts into protecting the environment. The most significant factor in increasing per capita wealth is rule of law, that is countries that have laws that only change slowly and apply the same to everyone have the highest per capita wealth over the long term. This is why the U.S. is slipping economically, over my lifetime, more and more laws are written with the intention that they will be applied differently to those with political connections (just look at the waivers that have been issued for Obamacare, although that is just the most obvious recent example and there are many more).
Yes, China is investing heavily in wind power, but it is investing just as heavily (if not more so) in expanding its coal power infrastructure as well. China is not investing in wind power as a replacement for coal power, but as a supplement to it.
As it becomes economical to switch to alternative energy, people will do so. There are even people who will start to switch before it is economocal. Those people fall into three groups. The first, and smallest, group do it because they can afford to and they want to supply the funds that will speed the development process. The second group do it because their calculations indicate that by the time they have switched to the alternatives, they will be more economical (so far this group is composed of people who are in some specialized economic niche that makes this be the case). The last, and by far the largest, group are those who are stupid, for the most part they think they fall into the second group, but they have left some important point out of their calculations (those I have known have overestimated the lifetime of the equipment, underestimated the maintenance costs of the equipment, or both).
Oh, so that's why they passed on the rumor that John McCain was having an affair..no wait, they reported that one. Of course, it turned out to be untrue, unlike the John Edwards story.
I removed the hard drive and backed it up using an Ubuntu PC before I wiped the disk. Unfortunately, whatever had infected the machine had already wiped many of their pictures.
You paint an excessively strong picture. Someone I worked with at my last job who was somewhat computer literate asked me to clean their computer after their kids got it infected with a particularly nasty virus. I did so and they paid me for my time (I gave them a very reasonable rate because they were my friend). I noticed at the time that they had a lot of stuff on the PC that was important to them. I told them that they should get an external hard drive and back up the data because the virus infection had come very close to requiring a disk wipe and OS re-install. A couple of months later they called me because their system was infected again. This time I had to wipe the hard drive. They had not yet made a backup of their pictures. They are still mad at me because I wasn't able to recover their pictures of their grandkids that had only existed on the PC. They accused me of not caring about other people.
Well, you are right, I have no proof that Armitage leaked Plame's name...except of course the statement by Robert Novak and by Richard Armitage himself. The reason I think that Armitage opposed the Iraq War is because I have a memory and I remember him doing so.
The investigation was into who told Robert Novak Plame"s name. Robert Novak testified that it was Richard Armitage. Richard Armitage testified that it was Richard Armitage. Why should I think that someone else told him when he said that it was one specific person who told him and that one specific person admitted to telling him? The thing is, "leaking" Valerie Plame's name was not a crime, that is why Richard Armitage was not prosecuted. The special prosecutor knew early on that Richard Armitage was the one who leaked the name. Everything he did after that was a fishing expedition.
Why is any of that relevant. Richard Armitage was someone who had clearance to know who Valerie Plame was and what she did. I find it hard to believe that he did not already know who she was and her relationship to Joe Wilson. However, that is beside the point. The prosecutor was commissioned to investigate who had revealed Valerie Plame's name to Richard Novak. He very quickly discovered that it was Richard Armitage. Why was the prosecutor still investigating when he knew who had revealed the name? And it was someone who would have had no part in "revenge" against Joe Wilson. There is no evidence that Libby ever revealed Valerie Plame's name to anyone who was not cleared to know it.
The prosecutor in this case was on a witch hunt and he was unwilling to end his investigation without charging someone with something...even though the "crime" he was investigating was not a crime (revealing Valerie Plame's name was not a violation of the law as it is written, which is why he did not charge Richard Armitage).
Libby did not endanger the life of an intelligence operative. He didn't even reveal the name of an intelligence operative. All he did was recount a telephone conversation under oath differently than the other party to that conversation did. I do not understand how his lawyer failed to present reasonable doubt that the reporter (who was the other party to the conversation) remembered correctly, or that Libby legitimately remembered the conversation as he recounted it. That being said, when the prosecutor questioned Libby, the prosecutor already knew that Richard Armitage was the person who had revealed Valerie Plame's name (Richard Armitage was, at the time he revealed her name, trying to undermine the Bush case for war with Iraq--whether that played any role in him revealing her name is unknown, but doubtful).
As can be seen by the fact that the post I replied to is moderated +3 "insightful", which is really stupid since it isn't insightful to repeat a false meme.
Except that Valerie Plame's name was not leaked by Libby/Cheney. It was leaked by Richard Armitage (who opposed the Iraq war).
Well, it isn't really an Arab problem either. It is a Muslim problem.
Israel does not have a Palestinian Problem, there is no such ethnic group. Palestinians are merely Arabs who live in one particular geographic area.
If there was no Hamas, there would be some other organization doing the same thing. If the International community would stop interfering, the Israelis would be able to once and for all defeat the Arabs (or vice versa, although the latter would be much more complete). General Sherman demonstrated the only way to win a war of the sort that Israel finds itself in.
I view the actions of Hamas to be counterproductive for any purpose other than Hamas' declared goal: the complete elimination of Israel.
I would say that your definiton of "bricked" is close. My definition of "bricked" is "the unit in question has the functionality of a brick." It may turn on, but it does nothing useful. If you can recover it without opening the case, you should not use the term "bricked". If someone else can recover it, you may use the term "bricked", but they should not.
In the case of this story on this board, the term "bricked" is completely inappropiate. It seems that you will still be able to manually program these to record programs, you just will no longer receive scheduling data which will allow the unit to automatically record shows for you. Not only that, but I would think that a good portion of slashdot readers would be able to hack one of these to obtain programming data from an alternate source (I'm not familiar enough with Tivos to know how difficult that might be, it may be more difficult than I imagine).
But in Hamas's case they can point around them and say "It's the fault of the Jews' and they wouldn't be wrong would they.
Actually, they would be. There is an amazing comparison. Hamas controls Gaza. From Gaza, they have waged war against Israel. The West Bank is controlled by the Palestinian Authority (which is really the current version of the PLO). The West Bank has not been used for attacks on Israel for several years. As a result of this the West Bank is thriving economically relative to Gaza.
It is a precept of Islam that once land is under Muslim rule it must remain under Muslim rule forever. This is an even stronger precept than the one that calls for all of the earth to be under Muslim rule eventually. Israel was once under Muslim rule. It is now under the rule of non-Muslims. It is the duty of every faithful Muslim to do everything in their power to revert Israel to Muslim rule. This means that no faithful Muslim can enter into long term peace with a Jewish state in the land of Israel.
As to the carrot winning over the stick, the carrot was very effective at stopping the Nazis pre-WWII wasn't it?
They did basically the same thing that FDR did in the 1930s, which prolonged the Great Depression.
So, you think we should make it illegal for people to pool their money and hire someone to spend fulltime keeping track of what Congress is doing and then report back to the group. Additionally, this person will take the opinions of the group and communicate them to various members of Congress, so that the members of Congress will know what those of their constituents who are members of this group think of various laws bills being considered by Congress.
Of course, that would require a Constitutional Amendment since the Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
While you can interpret it differently, everything lobbyists do can be interpreted as petitioning the Government for redress of grievances. And everything that you can do to petition the Government for redress of grievances can be interpreted as lobbying.
Many economists were predicting a repeat of the great depression.
So, naturally, the best thing the government could do is what it did to make the great depression a great depression. You know, that isn't always the wisest course. Usually, when you look at history and see that certain courses of action had extremely negative consequences, then you find yourself in a similar situation, it is best to do something different. Unfortunately, our government decided that it liked the great depression so much that it would try the same thing again.
Yes, and until recently (when their relative price has dropped somewhat), they were nothing but a niche player in the PC market.
Sorry, you are comparing to the wrong point in the history of PCs. What I am describing is exactly how the Macintosh computer was perceived back in the day. It is also what Windows did to the MacOs when it came out.
No, Amazon won't sell it for 30% less on Android (that would probably violate Apple's rules anyway), but someone else will. However, if someone with deep pockets (say, perhaps Walmart) decided to start up a competitor to Amazon and came out with their own e-reader software, they might come out with it only for Android. This hypothetical company could sell their e-books for 20% less than Amazon and make more profit. How long do you think it would take for everybody using an Android as an e-book reader to switch? How many such companies would it take for products sold for use on IOS devices to be perceived as being routinely overpriced?