Do you really think that if I pull up at a rest stop gas station they will let me plug my car in to recharge the battery? Where have you ever seen an outlet that was metered in such a way as to allow the person who pays the electric bill to charge people who plug into it for how much electricity they use? Or do you expect motels, hotels, camp grounds to allow people to charge their cars for free? That might work right now when not even.01 percent of the cars on the road are electric, but do you really think it would work if the number of electric cars got up to even 0.1%?
Really, where can I plug in my electric car when I go on vacation 100 to 200 miles from home? My understanding is that the Tesla has a range of 200 miles, my car has a range of 300 miles or so on a tank of gas and yet I go on trips where I need to fill it up in order to get home again.
Why do Americans "fear" working for a Japanese or French boss so much they are willing to nationalize a car company?
Americans don't fear working for a Japanese or French boss, the UAW (the union bosses much more than the rank and file) fears a Japanese or French owner of these companies because in either of those cases if the UAW insisted on wages above market, the owners would just close the plants. This takeover never had popular support among Americans, check the polling data.
Unless by "the cloud" you mean "anything you can run in a colo". But that's kind of diluting the term to the point of meaninglessness, isn't it?
That is what is meant by "the cloud". "Cloud" computing is just another way of saying client/server, except that "cloud" computing usually means that the Internet is involved somehow. The only difference between "cloud computing" and client/server architecture is that in "cloud" you don't pay any attention to where the server actually is (whereas in traditional client/server you might, although not necessarily).
Right now, none of the major car companies could sell as many of the Tesla Roadster for the price that Tesla is selling it as Tesla is. I don't believe that will change in the next three years. A significant number of the people who are buying the Tesla (and of the potential market for the "Model S") are buying it because Tesla is a start up doing something "new and different". In the U.S., at least, the infrastructure is not in place to allow an all electric car to be sold solely on its merits vs. other options, at least for the foreseeable future (approximately 5 years), electric cars will be novelty items.
This doesn't mean there is anything wrong with electric cars, just that the people who are buying cars from Tesla would be less likely to buy the exact same spec car from one of the established car manufacturers. I believe that if Tesla is still manufacturing cars in 5 years (possibly as a division of a larger company), the infrastructure necessary to make all electric cars a viable competitor to current technology automobiles (gasoline and hybrid) for the average driver in the U.S. will be starting to be built (or already built in certain limited areas). If Tesla is not manufacturing cars in 5 years, the day of the electric car will still be in the indefinite future as opposed to the imminent future.
In Iran (and many other failed states), no external force is imposing the current brutal government on the Iranians. The folks running the government are Iranian. The president is Iranian. The secret police are Iranian. The thugs who will torture and kill democracy advocates are Iranian.
Actually, there is significant evidence that many of the thugs who torture and kill democracy advocates in Iran are imported from outside of Iran (in particular members of Hezbollah from Lebanon and Syria).
however the idea of sensors inside your portable devices
That is the mistake right there, the article is talking about sensors inside of Apple's devices. What you thought you owned that device you bought from Apple? That's not what Apple thought, they are just allowing you to use it, as long as you give them money and don't use it in any way that they disapprove of.
Perhaps you're not understanding what the "echo chamber" he's referring to here is. Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, you have to admit that the left wing is simply not organized enough to have an "echo chamber". Perhaps there's a mini-sort of version of it in the meager media offerings of the left-wing, mostly blogs, but certainly nothing that reaches the public at large and definitely nothing on the scale of Fox News/Talk radio.
What are you talking about? A story appears in the NYT, by the end of the day it is on all of the alphabet network news, CNN and MSNBC. The next day it is in most of the major newspapers in the country. Or perhaps you never heard about the group of guys who were members of the Clinton Administration who now work for various "news" organization. These guys have a conference call most mornings to discuss the days news (and their take on it).
I know a guy who followed that principle in business. He would find a business partner and start a business (or sometimes the other way around). Then he would proceed to screw his business partner over and pocket the partner's money, in the process bankrupting the business. After 15 to 20 years of this he is completely bankrupt. He has been trying to start a new business for the last five years. He gets about 50% of the way into negotiations with his new business partners when they back out. Why does this happen?
The potential business partners tell people about this new business opportunity they are developing. The people ask who they are going into business with. The partner tells them, the people say, "He is a no-good scumbag who will rip you off. Don't take my word for it. Talk to So-and-so and So-and-so." The partner talks to those two who tell him the same thing and refer him to more people. The partner tells the guy I know, "You know, I've had some set backs in my primary business and I just don't have the money to invest right now."
The Duelfer report was based on inspections that occurred after the invasion. It doesn't tell us anything about what people knew BEFORE the invasion. You keep referring to "people" who said there were no WMDs in Iraq before the invasion, but you don't give me any references.
I happen to know of exactly one person who said that there were no WMDs in Iraq before the invasion. The problem with him is that he had published a book saying there were WMDs in Iraq in 2000, then in 2002, with no source for new information, he said that there were no WMDs in Iraq. That person was Scott Ritter. Can you name one other person who said, BEFORE the invasion, that there were no WMDs in Iraq.
Please give me a reference to someone who said BEFORE the invasion that Iraq had no WMDs.
You mention France, Jacques Chirac was implicated in receiving bribes from Saddam through the oil-for food program. France and Germany wanted to delay because the invasion would disrupt the lucrative business deals they had with Iraq, not because they believed Iraq had no WMDs.
Once more, please provide me with a reference to someone who said BEFORE the invasion that Iraq had no WMDs.
France and Russia were not part of the coalition of the willing and yet both countries believed that Saddam Hussein had WMDs.
Charles Duelfer joined the UN weapons inspection team in 2003. I can't find any reference to him saying BEFORE the invasion that Iraq had no WMDs. So, once again, please list who expressed the opinion that Sadamm Hussein's Iraq had no WMDs BEFORE the invasion?
Both of your stories are a result of our society telling teenagers that if they want to get ahead, they should go to college, even if their academic skills are no better than average and their trade skills are above average.
Go back and read Bush's speech about why we needed to remove Saddam Hussein from power. WMDs were only one of many reasons given. Second go back and read the reasons given by the French and Russians to oppose intervention in Iraq, they don't challenge the the idea that Iraq had WMDs.
Colin Powell is this guy that people keep holding up as some great statesman. Were you aware that he was apparently involved in attempts to cover up the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War? Everything I have ever seen about Colin Powell suggests that he was a political opportunist, who took the job of Secretary of State because it made him look good and resigned when he did for the same reason. I have seen no evidence that he ever took a principled stand on anything.
Please note, I do not know that he was a political opportunist, merely that what I have seen of his behavior suggests that.
Good thing you made that correction...socialism is the exact opposite of corporatism.
Actually, socialism is not the opposite of corporatism/fascism. They are both forms of command economy where the government decides how to distribute resources. They are also both about the group being more important than the individual.
When Stallworth was at this stage of his arrest/trial I believe that he was facing up to 25 years in jail. the 10 years in this article is only the most he could get, not necessarily what he will get.
That would be similar to someone putting performance parts on their car and a cop pulling up and arresting them for street racing on the basis that they would be using said modifications to do so. No crime has been committed unless it has become illegal to modify purchased devices and hardware. I know they say he was circumventing parts of the hardware that protect copyrights of games against piracy but I do not see how that is against the law unless it is proven without a doubt that he did so with piracy in mind.
Because they wrote a law (DMCA) that explicitly says it is against the law to circumvent copy protection. The way it was worded makes what he was doing expressly a violation of the DMCA. It was noted by many people when the DMCA was passed in 1998 that this would be a consequence of the law.
For those that say "What's the news here? He clearly broke the law. It's a bad law, but we knew that.", there have been many people who have said that the DMCA wasn't aimed at people like this guy, so they would never go after somebody like him. Well, now they have.
. It would be nice if that sort of morality could return, but I just can't imagine how. The story of how it was all lost would be an interesting story to hear. I just know we had some morality at some point and it was lost... I feel the loss.
Quite simply most people will only behave morally if they believe that there is some higher power that will hold them to account. Western Civilization has been busily training its young that there is no such higher power for several generations and is now surprised that those same young when they reach adulthood have, for the most part, no morality.
But Saddam Hussein was doing his best to convince the world that he did have WMDs. Unfortunately for him, he succeeded. Before the invasion, no one argued that he didn't have any WMDs, the only argument was whether it was worth invading to get rid of them. Also remember that before 9/11, there was major world pressure to remove the sanctions from Iraq.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you really think that if I pull up at a rest stop gas station they will let me plug my car in to recharge the battery? Where have you ever seen an outlet that was metered in such a way as to allow the person who pays the electric bill to charge people who plug into it for how much electricity they use? Or do you expect motels, hotels, camp grounds to allow people to charge their cars for free? That might work right now when not even .01 percent of the cars on the road are electric, but do you really think it would work if the number of electric cars got up to even 0.1%?
Really, where can I plug in my electric car when I go on vacation 100 to 200 miles from home? My understanding is that the Tesla has a range of 200 miles, my car has a range of 300 miles or so on a tank of gas and yet I go on trips where I need to fill it up in order to get home again.
Why do Americans "fear" working for a Japanese or French boss so much they are willing to nationalize a car company?
Americans don't fear working for a Japanese or French boss, the UAW (the union bosses much more than the rank and file) fears a Japanese or French owner of these companies because in either of those cases if the UAW insisted on wages above market, the owners would just close the plants. This takeover never had popular support among Americans, check the polling data.
Unless by "the cloud" you mean "anything you can run in a colo". But that's kind of diluting the term to the point of meaninglessness, isn't it?
That is what is meant by "the cloud". "Cloud" computing is just another way of saying client/server, except that "cloud" computing usually means that the Internet is involved somehow. The only difference between "cloud computing" and client/server architecture is that in "cloud" you don't pay any attention to where the server actually is (whereas in traditional client/server you might, although not necessarily).
Right now, none of the major car companies could sell as many of the Tesla Roadster for the price that Tesla is selling it as Tesla is. I don't believe that will change in the next three years. A significant number of the people who are buying the Tesla (and of the potential market for the "Model S") are buying it because Tesla is a start up doing something "new and different". In the U.S., at least, the infrastructure is not in place to allow an all electric car to be sold solely on its merits vs. other options, at least for the foreseeable future (approximately 5 years), electric cars will be novelty items.
This doesn't mean there is anything wrong with electric cars, just that the people who are buying cars from Tesla would be less likely to buy the exact same spec car from one of the established car manufacturers. I believe that if Tesla is still manufacturing cars in 5 years (possibly as a division of a larger company), the infrastructure necessary to make all electric cars a viable competitor to current technology automobiles (gasoline and hybrid) for the average driver in the U.S. will be starting to be built (or already built in certain limited areas). If Tesla is not manufacturing cars in 5 years, the day of the electric car will still be in the indefinite future as opposed to the imminent future.
In Iran (and many other failed states), no external force is imposing the current brutal government on the Iranians. The folks running the government are Iranian. The president is Iranian. The secret police are Iranian. The thugs who will torture and kill democracy advocates are Iranian.
Actually, there is significant evidence that many of the thugs who torture and kill democracy advocates in Iran are imported from outside of Iran (in particular members of Hezbollah from Lebanon and Syria).
The ID number is safer because at least then you have a prayer of getting reliable data.
Of course, when the data on the Server gets corrupted, there is nothing you can do. You MUST be someone attempting to forge the ID.
however the idea of sensors inside your portable devices
That is the mistake right there, the article is talking about sensors inside of Apple's devices. What you thought you owned that device you bought from Apple? That's not what Apple thought, they are just allowing you to use it, as long as you give them money and don't use it in any way that they disapprove of.
Perhaps you're not understanding what the "echo chamber" he's referring to here is. Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, you have to admit that the left wing is simply not organized enough to have an "echo chamber". Perhaps there's a mini-sort of version of it in the meager media offerings of the left-wing, mostly blogs, but certainly nothing that reaches the public at large and definitely nothing on the scale of Fox News/Talk radio.
What are you talking about? A story appears in the NYT, by the end of the day it is on all of the alphabet network news, CNN and MSNBC. The next day it is in most of the major newspapers in the country. Or perhaps you never heard about the group of guys who were members of the Clinton Administration who now work for various "news" organization. These guys have a conference call most mornings to discuss the days news (and their take on it).
I know a guy who followed that principle in business. He would find a business partner and start a business (or sometimes the other way around). Then he would proceed to screw his business partner over and pocket the partner's money, in the process bankrupting the business. After 15 to 20 years of this he is completely bankrupt. He has been trying to start a new business for the last five years. He gets about 50% of the way into negotiations with his new business partners when they back out. Why does this happen?
The potential business partners tell people about this new business opportunity they are developing. The people ask who they are going into business with. The partner tells them, the people say, "He is a no-good scumbag who will rip you off. Don't take my word for it. Talk to So-and-so and So-and-so." The partner talks to those two who tell him the same thing and refer him to more people. The partner tells the guy I know, "You know, I've had some set backs in my primary business and I just don't have the money to invest right now."
The Duelfer report was based on inspections that occurred after the invasion. It doesn't tell us anything about what people knew BEFORE the invasion. You keep referring to "people" who said there were no WMDs in Iraq before the invasion, but you don't give me any references.
I happen to know of exactly one person who said that there were no WMDs in Iraq before the invasion. The problem with him is that he had published a book saying there were WMDs in Iraq in 2000, then in 2002, with no source for new information, he said that there were no WMDs in Iraq. That person was Scott Ritter. Can you name one other person who said, BEFORE the invasion, that there were no WMDs in Iraq.
Proof that God is male- he ignores the concept of an instruction manual.
There is a manual, but since it tells people not to do things they want to do they say it is inaccurate, contradictory, and ambiguous.
Please give me a reference to someone who said BEFORE the invasion that Iraq had no WMDs.
You mention France, Jacques Chirac was implicated in receiving bribes from Saddam through the oil-for food program. France and Germany wanted to delay because the invasion would disrupt the lucrative business deals they had with Iraq, not because they believed Iraq had no WMDs.
Once more, please provide me with a reference to someone who said BEFORE the invasion that Iraq had no WMDs.
France and Russia were not part of the coalition of the willing and yet both countries believed that Saddam Hussein had WMDs.
Charles Duelfer joined the UN weapons inspection team in 2003. I can't find any reference to him saying BEFORE the invasion that Iraq had no WMDs. So, once again, please list who expressed the opinion that Sadamm Hussein's Iraq had no WMDs BEFORE the invasion?
Both of your stories are a result of our society telling teenagers that if they want to get ahead, they should go to college, even if their academic skills are no better than average and their trade skills are above average.
Really? Who?
Go back and read Bush's speech about why we needed to remove Saddam Hussein from power. WMDs were only one of many reasons given. Second go back and read the reasons given by the French and Russians to oppose intervention in Iraq, they don't challenge the the idea that Iraq had WMDs.
Colin Powell is this guy that people keep holding up as some great statesman. Were you aware that he was apparently involved in attempts to cover up the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War? Everything I have ever seen about Colin Powell suggests that he was a political opportunist, who took the job of Secretary of State because it made him look good and resigned when he did for the same reason. I have seen no evidence that he ever took a principled stand on anything.
Please note, I do not know that he was a political opportunist, merely that what I have seen of his behavior suggests that.
Good thing you made that correction...socialism is the exact opposite of corporatism.
Actually, socialism is not the opposite of corporatism/fascism. They are both forms of command economy where the government decides how to distribute resources. They are also both about the group being more important than the individual.
I am not sure whether buying bongs is illegal. However, selling them is.
When Stallworth was at this stage of his arrest/trial I believe that he was facing up to 25 years in jail. the 10 years in this article is only the most he could get, not necessarily what he will get.
That would be similar to someone putting performance parts on their car and a cop pulling up and arresting them for street racing on the basis that they would be using said modifications to do so. No crime has been committed unless it has become illegal to modify purchased devices and hardware. I know they say he was circumventing parts of the hardware that protect copyrights of games against piracy but I do not see how that is against the law unless it is proven without a doubt that he did so with piracy in mind.
Because they wrote a law (DMCA) that explicitly says it is against the law to circumvent copy protection. The way it was worded makes what he was doing expressly a violation of the DMCA. It was noted by many people when the DMCA was passed in 1998 that this would be a consequence of the law.
For those that say "What's the news here? He clearly broke the law. It's a bad law, but we knew that.", there have been many people who have said that the DMCA wasn't aimed at people like this guy, so they would never go after somebody like him. Well, now they have.
What relevance does "skepticism of any links between Iraq and al-Qaeda" have to the belief by most people pre-2003 that Saddam Hussein had WMDs?
. It would be nice if that sort of morality could return, but I just can't imagine how. The story of how it was all lost would be an interesting story to hear. I just know we had some morality at some point and it was lost... I feel the loss.
Quite simply most people will only behave morally if they believe that there is some higher power that will hold them to account. Western Civilization has been busily training its young that there is no such higher power for several generations and is now surprised that those same young when they reach adulthood have, for the most part, no morality.
Read the summary? How do you boycott something when the advertisements show up several months after you've bought it?
Start boycotting the advertisers. Make sure they know why you are boycotting them.
But Saddam Hussein was doing his best to convince the world that he did have WMDs. Unfortunately for him, he succeeded. Before the invasion, no one argued that he didn't have any WMDs, the only argument was whether it was worth invading to get rid of them. Also remember that before 9/11, there was major world pressure to remove the sanctions from Iraq.