It's been slowly building on Slashdot for a while now, at least six months. I gave it a trial run and it seemed fine. Didn't quite cause me to change my habits and leave google, but I wouldn't have minded. It's decent, and I've recommended it as an alternative a couple times.
Not everything is all shills and secret conspiracies.
The trouble is that if you can match courses with the object to drop a beacon, you can just dispense with the object and let the beacon follow the course on its own. It doesn't gain anything by being mounted on an asteroid... at least unless we make a beacon sophisticated enough it can somehow use the asteroid's resources.
I understand how you feel. And that is the problem as well. You talk about your experience, which is influenced by many years of incandescent bulb usage. and that is how you think artificial light should be.
I think you're neglecting the actual and measurable effects of the spectrum emitted by the different bulbs. Incandescents are not equal to the sun, but they are fairly close, and emit light at every frequency from ultraviolet to infrared in roughly similar amounts. The other bulbs don't. They fake it by mixing combinations of colors together to seem white, but there are gaps and valleys in the spectrum, and they have a measurable effect on the appearance of some colors.
No. Audiophiles complain about things that are simply impossible to perceive. Incandescent lightbulbs put out a spectrum that is clearly and substantially different than the spectrum put out by halogens. Do a double blind test if you don't believe that; especially, pay attention to how a colorful image on paper looks under each of the types of light. It's clearly different.
There *isn't* a law banning them! There's a law which sets new efficiency requirements. The only reason incandescent bulbs are "banned" under that law is because they're too inferior to meet those standards.
The standards were set so that no incandescent WOULD meet them. This is a ridiculous argument. It's similar to setting a minimum MPG of 120, and claiming you're not banning internal combustion vehicles.
Most likely, its a corporate lobby to give them an excuse to raise the price of incandescent bulbs. In other words, legalized price fixing.
Certainly true. The environmental aspect is just the marketing point, and it's worked perfectly. You'll see all the slashdot posters who decry 'crony capitalism' and bitch about the '1%' supporting this law, which will earn GE and other such mammoth corporations hundreds of millions of dollars by removing choice from the American consumer... the 99% which they claim to care about.
Social progress would allow freedom, not remove choice. Many people don't understand that this and, say, invasive searches by the TSA are symptoms of the SAME PROBLEM.
You can also buy 'warming' bulbs which give off light as a side-effect. I expect that will be the way these regulations are skirted... or just bringing up bulbs from Mexico and handing them out to friends & family.
No, it's because there's income tax and capital gains tax. Income is taxed at a different rate, that is higher than capital gains. Poor people are taxed at a lower income tax rate than rich people; poor people are taxed at a lower capital gain rate than rich people. The only reason Buffet can claim to pay lower tax rates than a poor person is because he's comparing his capital gain rate to their income tax rate. It's a bit deceptive on his part.
You're confusing legal code with the English language. Legally, it's not theft. In English, which is the general-purpose language we speak, it is. Much like how legally, George Lucas didn't rape childhood fans of his movies.
"Damn near guarantee" in this context seems more like "I don't have proof".
I'm fairly confident that corporate donations are usually higher than individual, but I wouldn't assert it as a fact unless I had... facts.
Anyway, I think it's not so terrible. The candidate that is probably going to win, will innately attract more donations by people currying favor. The correlation there may not be causation. Also, there is no corporate donation that isn't, at some point, decided by an individual.
Seems like your mother never taught you that other persons bad actions does not justify you doing bad things.
Study military history. Sometimes it does. If USSR tossed nuclear/chemical/biological our way, we'd not only be justified in doing the same back, we'd be remiss not to do so overwhelmingly.
Most people don't remember but the U.S., Britain and the Dutch embargoing oil going to Japan was the reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, it was neither a a surprise nor a sneak attack. FDR wanted Japan to attack the U.S. so he could overcome resistence from isolationists and enter World War II against Germany.
An embargo in place because Japan attacked China. If I stop selling things to you because you attacked my friend, am I at fault when you then attack me?
Besides, the attack was a surprise, in the most fundamental sense: We didn't know it was coming. Whether it was intended to be a sneak attack or not is up for debate, but there is no doubt that Japan was relying on surprise in their strategy. Even the people claiming Japan let us know about the attack beforehand admit they only intended at most a few hours of warning.
Yes, we're overpopulated, and the fact that you and at least 6 billion other people on the planet would deny it has no bearing on the fact.
Nor do your assertions have any bearing on the fact.
We are not overpopulated. The Earth could easily support seven billion people for many thousands of years. The problem of limited resources is purely social and political.
Slashdot Mirror
It's been slowly building on Slashdot for a while now, at least six months. I gave it a trial run and it seemed fine. Didn't quite cause me to change my habits and leave google, but I wouldn't have minded. It's decent, and I've recommended it as an alternative a couple times.
Not everything is all shills and secret conspiracies.
The trouble is that if you can match courses with the object to drop a beacon, you can just dispense with the object and let the beacon follow the course on its own. It doesn't gain anything by being mounted on an asteroid... at least unless we make a beacon sophisticated enough it can somehow use the asteroid's resources.
And the business can have them towed and collect a nice kickback from the impound fee...
I understand how you feel. And that is the problem as well. You talk about your experience, which is influenced by many years of incandescent bulb usage. and that is how you think artificial light should be.
I think you're neglecting the actual and measurable effects of the spectrum emitted by the different bulbs. Incandescents are not equal to the sun, but they are fairly close, and emit light at every frequency from ultraviolet to infrared in roughly similar amounts. The other bulbs don't. They fake it by mixing combinations of colors together to seem white, but there are gaps and valleys in the spectrum, and they have a measurable effect on the appearance of some colors.
No. Audiophiles complain about things that are simply impossible to perceive. Incandescent lightbulbs put out a spectrum that is clearly and substantially different than the spectrum put out by halogens. Do a double blind test if you don't believe that; especially, pay attention to how a colorful image on paper looks under each of the types of light. It's clearly different.
There *isn't* a law banning them! There's a law which sets new efficiency requirements. The only reason incandescent bulbs are "banned" under that law is because they're too inferior to meet those standards.
The standards were set so that no incandescent WOULD meet them. This is a ridiculous argument. It's similar to setting a minimum MPG of 120, and claiming you're not banning internal combustion vehicles.
You think the $0.99 incandescent would always be the wrong choice? That's silly of you.
Most likely, its a corporate lobby to give them an excuse to raise the price of incandescent bulbs. In other words, legalized price fixing.
Certainly true. The environmental aspect is just the marketing point, and it's worked perfectly. You'll see all the slashdot posters who decry 'crony capitalism' and bitch about the '1%' supporting this law, which will earn GE and other such mammoth corporations hundreds of millions of dollars by removing choice from the American consumer... the 99% which they claim to care about.
We are to assume that you will arbitrate what the proper choices are?
Social progress would allow freedom, not remove choice. Many people don't understand that this and, say, invasive searches by the TSA are symptoms of the SAME PROBLEM.
Read his comment more carefully. You didn't understand what he said.
You can also buy 'warming' bulbs which give off light as a side-effect. I expect that will be the way these regulations are skirted... or just bringing up bulbs from Mexico and handing them out to friends & family.
I suspect this is the real reason. Profiteering off legislation that won't be questioned because it fits into green orthodoxy.
The energy usage point of view is often not the relevant one.
No, it's because there's income tax and capital gains tax. Income is taxed at a different rate, that is higher than capital gains. Poor people are taxed at a lower income tax rate than rich people; poor people are taxed at a lower capital gain rate than rich people. The only reason Buffet can claim to pay lower tax rates than a poor person is because he's comparing his capital gain rate to their income tax rate. It's a bit deceptive on his part.
You're confusing legal code with the English language. Legally, it's not theft. In English, which is the general-purpose language we speak, it is. Much like how legally, George Lucas didn't rape childhood fans of his movies.
"Damn near guarantee" in this context seems more like "I don't have proof".
I'm fairly confident that corporate donations are usually higher than individual, but I wouldn't assert it as a fact unless I had... facts.
Anyway, I think it's not so terrible. The candidate that is probably going to win, will innately attract more donations by people currying favor. The correlation there may not be causation. Also, there is no corporate donation that isn't, at some point, decided by an individual.
'ronpaulisanidiot'
Those sorts of user IDs are only used by frenzied and overzealous obsessives. No one will be swayed by anything you ever say.
You can't make that comment while simultaneously understanding the situation. You probably shouldn't be discussing the issue until you read more.
That's just Hezbollah's trick. Only fools buy it.
Unfortunately, there's a lot of fools out there, making it an effective trick.
Who is president?
Seems like your mother never taught you that other persons bad actions does not justify you doing bad things.
Study military history. Sometimes it does. If USSR tossed nuclear/chemical/biological our way, we'd not only be justified in doing the same back, we'd be remiss not to do so overwhelmingly.
They would still fight, but they would be safely ignored by the rest of the world, much like Africa.
Most people don't remember but the U.S., Britain and the Dutch embargoing oil going to Japan was the reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, it was neither a a surprise nor a sneak attack. FDR wanted Japan to attack the U.S. so he could overcome resistence from isolationists and enter World War II against Germany.
An embargo in place because Japan attacked China. If I stop selling things to you because you attacked my friend, am I at fault when you then attack me?
Besides, the attack was a surprise, in the most fundamental sense: We didn't know it was coming. Whether it was intended to be a sneak attack or not is up for debate, but there is no doubt that Japan was relying on surprise in their strategy. Even the people claiming Japan let us know about the attack beforehand admit they only intended at most a few hours of warning.
Yes, we're overpopulated, and the fact that you and at least 6 billion other people on the planet would deny it has no bearing on the fact.
Nor do your assertions have any bearing on the fact.
We are not overpopulated. The Earth could easily support seven billion people for many thousands of years. The problem of limited resources is purely social and political.