Slashdotters may think that it looks bad for the President's email systems to be horribly unreliable. Compared with what was probably in those emails, this is nothing. In fact, this whole missing email thing is brilliant, and from the Pres's perspective, a job well done. The missing content gives the Pres a get-out-of-jail-free card. Not that he really needs one, since our Constitution makes kings out of our Presidents here in America, with the ability to do whatever they damn well please.
Yes, hot salty, um, fluid is real solution to the world's energy problems. There is an excellent article in Scientific American about it in the latest issue.
Unfortunately, it will take massive investments to make this stuff really viable. Fortunately, some European governments are stepping up with real money. Unfortunately, America hasn't for about a decade.
That's a good point, although said flaw is not fundamental to the argument. I was too loose with my language. Instead of lobbyists I should have said interest groups. And interest groups follow the money.
I can't believe people still bring this up. This has been discussed on Slashdot plenty o' times before. It is out of complete ignorance, I know, but still. Would you rather inhale the mercury than bury it in a landfill? Would you rather eat it in a fish sandwich? According to the EPA, should should be able to eat about 4 bulbs a week.
The amount of mercury is so small that this issue is laughable.
This was fine everywhere except the bathroom, because the bulbs would take 45 seconds to reach full brightness. Generally, that's acceptable, but when you have to pee and can't hit the toilet because the light is too dim, you need a bulb that turns on faster.
That's a bit difficult to believe. Most CF's achieve at least 80% brightness instantly. And then, since CF's use so much less energy, you can safely put a much brighter bulb in if it's really required, like a "150-watt equivalent" that only draws about 40w.
Free markets can break down in all kinds of ways, usually because there are many factors that can escape monetization. For example, if I make a widget, and the production of my widget secretly poisons the air (and lets assume that it's only a little poison, so that I'm not really hurting anyone, although in combination with my fellow widget producing competitors, we are collectively hurting people), there is no direct way for the market to handle it. Everyone will pay a price (poisoned lungs), yet I will reap only the benefits. The only fair solution to this is government regulation/action, maybe by artificially adjusting the market by requiring that I disclose said poisoning, and maybe then people wouldn't buy my widget. But even better, since the average human in the world is a moron, and is much more influenced by marketing and lobbyists, would be for the government to stop me from poisoning the air to begin with.
I think that free markets are an excellent first choice in most cases. But when they fail, like, when people are too ignorant to buy expensive bulbs to save money and energy and air quality in the long run, it is the governments job to step in for the benefit of all of us.
I respect and admire a strict libertarian position, but it just doesn't map well to reality. I think it is a worthy goal, but you can't let abstract principles cloud your good judgment.
You're right; non-competes reduce competition. You're wrong about "nothing says you have to help your enemies," as we have numerous laws that say exactly that, like the CLEC system with telephone companies.
The issue of trade secrets is a separate one from the issue of non-competes. Trade secret laws could still be enforced without the need for non-competes. Again, like the article says, look at the Silicon Valley vs. Boston thing.
I'd call that skullfuckery myself. Or perhaps skullrapery would be more accurate.
God I hate Comcast. They just started charging me monthly modem rental, out of the blue. I called and said no, I own my modem, but thank you. That went unheeded, so today I called them again, and said, pretty please, take off the charge, since I am not renting your modem. Lady says oh, I see, there is a note here that says that, from the last time you called.
They make me so mad.... I'm gonna switch!! To, um..., oh that's right, I have no choice, since they are a monopoly in my area. Sad, sad. I hope Congress actually proves its worth for once, and better regulates this monopolistic abuse.
Slashdot Mirror
There are still a lot of Slashdotters that don't know what the hell they are talking about, including some in this thread.
Slashdotters may think that it looks bad for the President's email systems to be horribly unreliable. Compared with what was probably in those emails, this is nothing. In fact, this whole missing email thing is brilliant, and from the Pres's perspective, a job well done. The missing content gives the Pres a get-out-of-jail-free card. Not that he really needs one, since our Constitution makes kings out of our Presidents here in America, with the ability to do whatever they damn well please.
God I wish I could mod parent to 6.
Yes, hot salty, um, fluid is real solution to the world's energy problems. There is an excellent article in Scientific American about it in the latest issue.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan
Unfortunately, it will take massive investments to make this stuff really viable. Fortunately, some European governments are stepping up with real money. Unfortunately, America hasn't for about a decade.
That sounds great in theory, but tell that to these folks
That's a good point, although said flaw is not fundamental to the argument. I was too loose with my language. Instead of lobbyists I should have said interest groups. And interest groups follow the money.
I can't believe people still bring this up. This has been discussed on Slashdot plenty o' times before. It is out of complete ignorance, I know, but still. Would you rather inhale the mercury than bury it in a landfill? Would you rather eat it in a fish sandwich? According to the EPA, should should be able to eat about 4 bulbs a week.
The amount of mercury is so small that this issue is laughable.
Free markets can break down in all kinds of ways, usually because there are many factors that can escape monetization. For example, if I make a widget, and the production of my widget secretly poisons the air (and lets assume that it's only a little poison, so that I'm not really hurting anyone, although in combination with my fellow widget producing competitors, we are collectively hurting people), there is no direct way for the market to handle it. Everyone will pay a price (poisoned lungs), yet I will reap only the benefits. The only fair solution to this is government regulation/action, maybe by artificially adjusting the market by requiring that I disclose said poisoning, and maybe then people wouldn't buy my widget. But even better, since the average human in the world is a moron, and is much more influenced by marketing and lobbyists, would be for the government to stop me from poisoning the air to begin with.
I think that free markets are an excellent first choice in most cases. But when they fail, like, when people are too ignorant to buy expensive bulbs to save money and energy and air quality in the long run, it is the governments job to step in for the benefit of all of us.
I respect and admire a strict libertarian position, but it just doesn't map well to reality. I think it is a worthy goal, but you can't let abstract principles cloud your good judgment.
You're right; non-competes reduce competition. You're wrong about "nothing says you have to help your enemies," as we have numerous laws that say exactly that, like the CLEC system with telephone companies.
The issue of trade secrets is a separate one from the issue of non-competes. Trade secret laws could still be enforced without the need for non-competes. Again, like the article says, look at the Silicon Valley vs. Boston thing.
I'd call that skullfuckery myself. Or perhaps skullrapery would be more accurate.
God I hate Comcast. They just started charging me monthly modem rental, out of the blue. I called and said no, I own my modem, but thank you. That went unheeded, so today I called them again, and said, pretty please, take off the charge, since I am not renting your modem. Lady says oh, I see, there is a note here that says that, from the last time you called.
They make me so mad.... I'm gonna switch!! To, um..., oh that's right, I have no choice, since they are a monopoly in my area. Sad, sad. I hope Congress actually proves its worth for once, and better regulates this monopolistic abuse.