When you use forest waste products there is no fertilizer involved so this really reduces the amount of fossil fuel input. They do need quite a lot
of heat input for their process so they may be less efficent than enzyme processes, but they are ready to go into production now. -- Solar power without the permit hassles: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
This is the ratio of fossil energy put in to energy out. Most of the fossil energy input for corn comes from nitrogen fertilizer which is produced using natural gas (though it does not need to be http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/04/smelling-salts .html) and fuel used for harvesting and planting. Some distilleries also use natural gas. Forest waste products to be used here don't have any fertilizer inputs and much of the fuel used for harvesting would have been used anyway. Brazil is achieving some very impressive values for this ratio in its biodiesel production: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/05/juicing.html. On the energy out side, everything is really stored solar power.
-- Get solar power with no installation cost: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
I don't actually have a fax number, but since you have made a good faith attempt to meet the terms, I grant you a non-exclusive right to use the works of the public domain so long as you leave them in the public domain. I have selected the entire works of the public domain to assert my copyright which supersedes any other claim to selection. You may convey this permision to use without further need to attempt to meet the terms. Conveyance by you is not required for anyone else to have an equal right, your single good faith effort covers all such circumstances for everyone.
And the horrible thing is that it is the unrealized income that you are taxed on. This is the real cause of the deficit, unrealized tax revenue. But, this also means the deficit is imaginary, so just ignore it and it will go away;-)
I have heard more than once about the suprise Asian students encounter when they find out the cost of science texts in the US. Arfken would not be
so widely read there if not for the copying. So, you are correct that his publisher is not losing revenue on a per sale basis. And, it might be argued
that high textbook prices have harmed US science relative to Asian science.
And, that's Mr. Regurgitating to you Bub!
PS: I paid quite a lot for a first edition of Bevington. I would like for it to retain its resale value, so please don't start reprinting it. If you want to read a copy, go look in your library, where you will find it has been stolen.
Their daily wastewater stream is 21 million gallons, and they will now be allowed 1584 pounds/day of ammonia, a 54 percent increase. This makes ammonia 1 part in 100,000 by weight. So, you could do something about this with a good treatment facility, but it would be hard to concentrate the ammonia for sale. But,
using the waste water to grow algae for biofuels could make financial sense http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/photosynthesis .html. They should have a pretty strong CO2 waste stream from the refinery. Nice way to catch the sludge too. -- Why mess with the goo? http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
I'm not sure it is all that bad generally for the kids to have an income, though it might be bad for some of them personally. When I said a right, I'm pretty sure I was thinking right-under-law. I think a farmer has a right to be paid for his crop in a moral sense but the manner, in kind or in cash
is up to the farmer and the trading partner. That is bordering on a moral right since if you just take his crop, that is stealing even though, in principle, he can grow another crop. The deer around my house don't seem to understand this idea and just nod and flick their ears when I try to explain it to them so maybe they are right and I should just be growing things for them out of the goodness on my heart. It may be also that they are just slyly taking advantage of the fact that I can't sue them because of the species thing.
One of the things that I see as a problem with copyright law is that you can run into a situation where you want a copy but nobody is making copies anymore and the used market is empty. Once we get into these kinds of issues we are talking about copyright reform and modifying legal rights. Are you thinking that shortening the copyright to, say 14 years, would be the way to go? I notice Arfken is in its fifth edition so if you want the latest, that might be under copyright while the older (but not, to my mind, obsolete) editions might be public domain. Or, are you thinking of something more like Bucky Fuller's lifetime fellowships and no copyright at all?
That is what I guessed but I wanted to be sure. The rental car analogy is not such a good one. The company still gets both its rent and its car back. Your friend might be in trouble if it is damaged though. Yes, it is that Arfken. Now, he has his copy of the book he wrote, and I have my copy that I
paid for. But my copy was printed by a publishing house that makes photoreproductions of science books without paying a royalty so while Arfken did not loose his copy, he did loose his royalty. So, he lost something, though he did gain my admiration which he would not have done (at the time I bought the
book) because there were no legitmate versions available to me. Now, I don't think Arfken wrote his book primarily for income and there are probably
a number of ways physics has been advanced by the existance of all these pirate editions in Asia. But, the lose of revenue is there for the author and the
legitimate publisher. Someone is being harmed. But, I think you are correct, that it is the Taiwanese publishing house that is doing the harm rather than the purchaser of the book. Eventually I'll buy a second hand legitimate copy so that the used market will be tighter and the book will stay in print. But, that is an obligation I put on myself.
So, I would say that buying my copy of Arfken is not buying stolen goods, but the production and sale of the book is violated rights: namely if the book is to be sold (new) the copyright holder has a right to a royalty.
Anything that is written so that it can be compiled with gcc is free software.
if (C=gcc) prepend GPLv4
recurse
Massa Bill says "Recurses! Foiled Again!"
As you thinking of a case where you don't know that the work is copyrighted? Or do you feel that its is the agreement breaker generally who is responsible?
This coming from someone who has yet to replace his Taiwanese edition (obtained there) of Arfken's book.
He declares himself to be an atheist. His introducers last night (at the Green Party National Meeting) however insisted that he was spiritual. That was some fun schtick. -- For Sun worshipers (or electron junkies): http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
RMS spoke about the situation were the EULA does not allow you to make a copy and share it: If you are asked by a friend for a copy, and say no, you are breaking friendship, if you say yes, you are breaking the agreement. He picks breaking the agreement as the lesser of two evils. He was illustrating how proprietary software has negative social consequences. My son (who is nine) pointed out that you could be friendly by letting your friend know where to buy the software. RMS disagreed because of the core freedom issue, but I think my son hit it on the head and RMS's hypothetical is a poor one. During the talk he gave what I see as the correct answer: don't agree to the license and then you won't be tempted. But, (to me) if you do, well you could give your friend the software and not keep a copy, or let them know how they can get it. Breaking the agreement is not honorable since it was freely entered into. You knew it was propritary when you paid for it. Wonder what you think?
I was at the Green Party National Meeting http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2007_07_10.shtml last night where RMS gave a talk and he was asked about the issues with the kernel team. The main thing he had
to say is that without GPL3, there could be problems with tivoization, where yes, the source is provided, but modifications are not allowed on the specific hardware thus disallowing improvements that are freely made by the community. You can share the code, but if you fix it or improve it or
change it is some way that you like, you can't run it, and so you can not share your work. Me: Maybe that kind of deadending is OK since there are other
versions that you can hack, and hey, it is just one set of hardware, but it does defeat the spirit of the GPL and GPL3 covers this issue according to
RMS. (I have not read it. I just click accept whenever this kind of thing comes up which is why I'm now a towel boy in the house of the borg. Thanks for letting me go to the meeting Mr. Bill.) So, RMS feels, not surisingly, that the changes in the GPL3 are good for free (as in speech) software and it is
regrettable if the kernel group does not go along with it. (Didn't they have input?) -- Get solar power with no installation cost. Register your home today: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
In fact Official Use Only was a category required by the Navy for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's dealings with Nuclear Fuel Services Erwin Plant in Tennessee. This OUO classification meant that after a major incident, a public licensing hearing was held, but nobody attended because the NRC could not even reveal the accident at the NRC licensed plant. The FOUO is being used as a work around to areas where there is required public disclosure (NRC rules) but a national security interest (how Navy reactor fuel is handled). This may turn out to be an abuse, but it is certainly the way it is being used http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/05/us/06cnd-nuke.ht ml. In the past, DOE handled military use of nuclear materials and NRC handled civilian use. Here we have weapons material being converted to fuel under NRC licensing, but with OUO restrictions. This is obviously not working very well at all. -- Do energy right: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
So, Bush is going to blame the troops now? Pathetic. This stuff endangers the troops and so this is a big error, but I really doubt it was on purpose. As is clear, the torture violated the UCMJ and had to come out. It seems clear now that Rumsfeld and the President were well aware of it long before it came out and if they wanted it suppressed they were conspiring to obstruct justice. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/ 2007/06/18/BL2007061800791.html
Freeman, who showed the AP the documents from Sandia and the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, said he made a conscious effort to avoid information labeled classified but still managed to accidentally download files from Sandia with "top secret" classifications, forcing him to wipe his computer hard drive clean and notify authorities. Now, top secret is not suppose to be anywhere near the internet, so it could be disinformation, but I kind of think that this was a real error in
handling classified material because it happens. People put things on laptops that shouldn't be there for example. So, what the AP found was unclassified, but that does not mean that classified material has not been treated this way, and the article does point this out. -- Solar power in the wild: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
Hum... I also read it and what I took away is that "I have nothing to hide" is an argument that makes privacy a personal issue whereas privacy is a public or civic issue. Just as your right to vote only has meaning if everyone has a right to vote, or when justice is denied to someone else, justice is also
diminished for you, reducing privacy hurts you even if it does not hurt you directly because it reduces the practice of the rights of assembly or freedom of speech. If people stop signing petitions because they are worried they'll come under closer scurtiny then our government begins to fail to function.
Your position that it is an individual-state thing is just what he is arguing against. It is the individual who can say "I have nothing to hide." but that turns out to be a red herring. The right of assembly is obviously not an individual right but a right of the people. You can't have an assembly of one. I think he is arguing that privacy is similar. An individuals can obviously skip a meeting if they don't want to attend, and there are people who put their whole lives up on the web. No assembly or no privacy at their individual discretion, but the people cannot be deprived of these rights because our government cannot get along without these things. Without these things it is not a government of the people but of whichever despot has managed to claw his way to power. The author picks on this administration because it is showing so many despotic tendencies.
"There will be great progress when the nicotine sister drugs come to market," he says. "About half the cigarettes in this country are bought by people with psychiatric problems -- high percentages of people with depression and schizophrenia smoke, for example. Wow, about a quarter of people smoke so 12% of people have psychiatric problems.
I think google owns blogger so that should help them out a bit. Folks will generally spend 1:07 on a blog page that takes three scroll roles. Seems everyone reads faster than I do. -- Solar power the easy way: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html
Slashdot Mirror
When you use forest waste products there is no fertilizer involved so this really reduces the amount of fossil fuel input. They do need quite a lot of heat input for their process so they may be less efficent than enzyme processes, but they are ready to go into production now.s -selling-solar.html
--
Solar power without the permit hassles: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
This is the ratio of fossil energy put in to energy out. Most of the fossil energy input for corn comes from nitrogen fertilizer which is produced using natural gas (though it does not need to be http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/04/smelling-salts .html) and fuel used for harvesting and planting. Some distilleries also use natural gas. Forest waste products to be used here don't have any fertilizer inputs and much of the fuel used for harvesting would have been used anyway. Brazil is achieving some very impressive values for this ratio in its biodiesel production: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/05/juicing.html. On the energy out side, everything is really stored solar power.
s -selling-solar.html
--
Get solar power with no installation cost: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
I don't actually have a fax number, but since you have made a good faith attempt to meet the terms, I grant you a non-exclusive right to use the works of the public domain so long as you leave them in the public domain. I have selected the entire works of the public domain to assert my copyright which supersedes any other claim to selection. You may convey this permision to use without further need to attempt to meet the terms. Conveyance by you is not required for anyone else to have an equal right, your single good faith effort covers all such circumstances for everyone.
Problem solved.
And the horrible thing is that it is the unrealized income that you are taxed on. This is the real cause of the deficit, unrealized tax revenue. But, this also means the deficit is imaginary, so just ignore it and it will go away ;-)
I have heard more than once about the suprise Asian students encounter when they find out the cost of science texts in the US. Arfken would not be so widely read there if not for the copying. So, you are correct that his publisher is not losing revenue on a per sale basis. And, it might be argued that high textbook prices have harmed US science relative to Asian science.
And, that's Mr. Regurgitating to you Bub!
PS: I paid quite a lot for a first edition of Bevington. I would like for it to retain its resale value, so please don't start reprinting it. If you want to read a copy, go look in your library, where you will find it has been stolen.
Their daily wastewater stream is 21 million gallons, and they will now be allowed 1584 pounds/day of ammonia, a 54 percent increase. This makes ammonia 1 part in 100,000 by weight. So, you could do something about this with a good treatment facility, but it would be hard to concentrate the ammonia for sale. But, using the waste water to grow algae for biofuels could make financial sense http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/photosynthesis .html. They should have a pretty strong CO2 waste stream from the refinery. Nice way to catch the sludge too.s -selling-solar.html
--
Why mess with the goo? http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
The works of the public domain are under my copyright. Please fax me a dollar for each use.s -selling-solar.html
--
Mass production solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
I'm not sure it is all that bad generally for the kids to have an income, though it might be bad for some of them personally. When I said a right, I'm pretty sure I was thinking right-under-law. I think a farmer has a right to be paid for his crop in a moral sense but the manner, in kind or in cash is up to the farmer and the trading partner. That is bordering on a moral right since if you just take his crop, that is stealing even though, in principle, he can grow another crop. The deer around my house don't seem to understand this idea and just nod and flick their ears when I try to explain it to them so maybe they are right and I should just be growing things for them out of the goodness on my heart. It may be also that they are just slyly taking advantage of the fact that I can't sue them because of the species thing.
One of the things that I see as a problem with copyright law is that you can run into a situation where you want a copy but nobody is making copies anymore and the used market is empty. Once we get into these kinds of issues we are talking about copyright reform and modifying legal rights. Are you thinking that shortening the copyright to, say 14 years, would be the way to go? I notice Arfken is in its fifth edition so if you want the latest, that might be under copyright while the older (but not, to my mind, obsolete) editions might be public domain. Or, are you thinking of something more like Bucky Fuller's lifetime fellowships and no copyright at all?
That is what I guessed but I wanted to be sure. The rental car analogy is not such a good one. The company still gets both its rent and its car back. Your friend might be in trouble if it is damaged though. Yes, it is that Arfken. Now, he has his copy of the book he wrote, and I have my copy that I paid for. But my copy was printed by a publishing house that makes photoreproductions of science books without paying a royalty so while Arfken did not loose his copy, he did loose his royalty. So, he lost something, though he did gain my admiration which he would not have done (at the time I bought the book) because there were no legitmate versions available to me. Now, I don't think Arfken wrote his book primarily for income and there are probably a number of ways physics has been advanced by the existance of all these pirate editions in Asia. But, the lose of revenue is there for the author and the legitimate publisher. Someone is being harmed. But, I think you are correct, that it is the Taiwanese publishing house that is doing the harm rather than the purchaser of the book. Eventually I'll buy a second hand legitimate copy so that the used market will be tighter and the book will stay in print. But, that is an obligation I put on myself.
So, I would say that buying my copy of Arfken is not buying stolen goods, but the production and sale of the book is violated rights: namely if the book is to be sold (new) the copyright holder has a right to a royalty.
GNUHypocrisy is not Hypocrisy.
Anything that is written so that it can be compiled with gcc is free software.
if (C=gcc) prepend GPLv4
recurse
Massa Bill says "Recurses! Foiled Again!"
As you thinking of a case where you don't know that the work is copyrighted? Or do you feel that its is the agreement breaker generally who is responsible?
This coming from someone who has yet to replace his Taiwanese edition (obtained there) of Arfken's book.
He declares himself to be an atheist. His introducers last night (at the Green Party National Meeting) however insisted that he was spiritual. That was some fun schtick.s -selling-solar.html
--
For Sun worshipers (or electron junkies): http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
RMS spoke about the situation were the EULA does not allow you to make a copy and share it: If you are asked by a friend for a copy, and say no, you are breaking friendship, if you say yes, you are breaking the agreement. He picks breaking the agreement as the lesser of two evils. He was illustrating how proprietary software has negative social consequences. My son (who is nine) pointed out that you could be friendly by letting your friend know where to buy the software. RMS disagreed because of the core freedom issue, but I think my son hit it on the head and RMS's hypothetical is a poor one. During the talk he gave what I see as the correct answer: don't agree to the license and then you won't be tempted. But, (to me) if you do, well you could give your friend the software and not keep a copy, or let them know how they can get it. Breaking the agreement is not honorable since it was freely entered into. You knew it was propritary when you paid for it. Wonder what you think?
I was at the Green Party National Meeting http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2007_07_10.shtml last night where RMS gave a talk and he was asked about the issues with the kernel team. The main thing he had to say is that without GPL3, there could be problems with tivoization, where yes, the source is provided, but modifications are not allowed on the specific hardware thus disallowing improvements that are freely made by the community. You can share the code, but if you fix it or improve it or change it is some way that you like, you can't run it, and so you can not share your work. Me: Maybe that kind of deadending is OK since there are other versions that you can hack, and hey, it is just one set of hardware, but it does defeat the spirit of the GPL and GPL3 covers this issue according to RMS. (I have not read it. I just click accept whenever this kind of thing comes up which is why I'm now a towel boy in the house of the borg. Thanks for letting me go to the meeting Mr. Bill.) So, RMS feels, not surisingly, that the changes in the GPL3 are good for free (as in speech) software and it is regrettable if the kernel group does not go along with it. (Didn't they have input?)s -selling-solar.html
--
Get solar power with no installation cost. Register your home today: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
In fact Official Use Only was a category required by the Navy for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's dealings with Nuclear Fuel Services Erwin Plant in Tennessee. This OUO classification meant that after a major incident, a public licensing hearing was held, but nobody attended because the NRC could not even reveal the accident at the NRC licensed plant. The FOUO is being used as a work around to areas where there is required public disclosure (NRC rules) but a national security interest (how Navy reactor fuel is handled). This may turn out to be an abuse, but it is certainly the way it is being used http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/05/us/06cnd-nuke.ht ml. In the past, DOE handled military use of nuclear materials and NRC handled civilian use. Here we have weapons material being converted to fuel under NRC licensing, but with OUO restrictions. This is obviously not working very well at all.s -selling-solar.html
--
Do energy right: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
H-1B Visas. Just hire some competent foreigners to handle national security. Oh, wait....
So, Bush is going to blame the troops now? Pathetic. This stuff endangers the troops and so this is a big error, but I really doubt it was on purpose. As is clear, the torture violated the UCMJ and had to come out. It seems clear now that Rumsfeld and the President were well aware of it long before it came out and if they wanted it suppressed they were conspiring to obstruct justice. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/ 2007/06/18/BL2007061800791.html
--
Solar power in the wild: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Sure that wasn't just a jump into hyperspace?
Hum... I also read it and what I took away is that "I have nothing to hide" is an argument that makes privacy a personal issue whereas privacy is a public or civic issue. Just as your right to vote only has meaning if everyone has a right to vote, or when justice is denied to someone else, justice is also diminished for you, reducing privacy hurts you even if it does not hurt you directly because it reduces the practice of the rights of assembly or freedom of speech. If people stop signing petitions because they are worried they'll come under closer scurtiny then our government begins to fail to function.
Your position that it is an individual-state thing is just what he is arguing against. It is the individual who can say "I have nothing to hide." but that turns out to be a red herring. The right of assembly is obviously not an individual right but a right of the people. You can't have an assembly of one. I think he is arguing that privacy is similar. An individuals can obviously skip a meeting if they don't want to attend, and there are people who put their whole lives up on the web. No assembly or no privacy at their individual discretion, but the people cannot be deprived of these rights because our government cannot get along without these things. Without these things it is not a government of the people but of whichever despot has managed to claw his way to power. The author picks on this administration because it is showing so many despotic tendencies.
I wonder if the statement is based on this study: http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2004/Nov/02-573 349.html? Though the study seems a little circular. You're correct of course that you don't have to smoke to have these difficulties.s -selling-solar.html
--
Smoke free elecrtic power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
It's the coffee man.
Well, more on the question is algae better than switchgrass http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/photosynthesis .html and it's one of my most popular pages. Apples are less orange than oranges.
I think google owns blogger so that should help them out a bit. Folks will generally spend 1:07 on a blog page that takes three scroll roles. Seems everyone reads faster than I do.s -selling-solar.html
--
Solar power the easy way: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user