Greenpeace advocates use of photovoltaics. I'm sure there's a better document somewhere, but I'm not a greenpeace member and I don't work for them, so I'm not used to their web sites.
I believe most environmentalists are against nuclear power for reasons like not knowing what to do with the nuclear waste. Some have decided that global warming is a bigger problem, others haven't.
There are also environmentalists like Amory Lovins that advocate working with companies to make them more efficient.
I know there are uninformed people on all sides of all issues. Using labels like eco-terrorist for legitimate disagreements is wrong and just polarizes the debate.
Greenpeace never advocated tree spiking. That was Earth First!
The APL jade was not piracy. It was exactly the same thing Greenpeace does with whaling boats. They boarded the boat to hang a banner on it to advertise the fact that it was carrying illegally harvested mahogany.
Greenpeace never advocated arson. That was the Earth Liberation Front.
I don't care if you don't like Greenpeace. But if the only things you know about them are lies, then the only thing you don't like about Greenpeace are the lies that their enemies spout.
Signing statements are illegal, but both Congress and the Judiciary lack enough spine to call Bush on them. Other presidents (mostly Reagan and Clinton) included signing statements, but Bush is the first to use them to say that he feels free to ignore the law he just signed.
As Bruce Fein (Associate deputy attorney general 1981-83) said, "the ultimate result of a signing statement is that the president exercises what's known as an absolute line-item veto. That's something the Supreme Court held was unconstitutional in the case called Clinton v. New York in 1998".
Even simpler. use the free thing when you have no revenue and no one cares. When the product becomes successful and someone notices that you're doing something illegal, then delay long enough to re-write it. When Skype is no longer using Linux, then they won't have to divulge their code.
there is simply no need to expect things like the value of "true" to change
And yet it has. In C++, the value of false has always been 0, but the value of true was compiler dependent. Some libraries set TRUE to -1. Other libraries used 1.
I was very happy when !0 was defined to be 1, although I started seeing programmers use !! to force the value to a 1 or a zero.
I've yet to meet a millionaire who wasn't extremely selfish
I've met many selfish people, and most of them were not millionaires. I've also met many generous, kind, and caring millionaires. See:
That's Something that I have written about to my congressman's office several times, and they just say that it's not politically a good idea because they're afraid that the public will see them as wasting time on nothing.
Perfectly good satellite that can be saved or sold, but being dumped for insurance?
Makes no sense.
Not only does it make no sense, it sounds like insurance fraud.
if I have a fire, but I ask the fire department to stop putting out the fire, then I shouldn't get the insurance money.
SES had a launch failure, but they have a perfectly good option for recovering the use of the satellite themselves or selling it and letting someone else move it to a stable orbit. Therefore it's insurance fraud and they shouldn't collect the full value of the satellite.
> No. It is possible, for instance, to get a 4 year degree from a state university for around > $15,000. Spread out over, say, 6 years because you're working, that's 2500 a year. Not
> what a reasonable person would call costly
In Massachusetts, it costs over $17000 per year to attend UMass / Amherst. Non-residents pay even more at $32,000 per year. Most reasonable people would call that a lot of money.
Let's look at some of the other states:
UNH - $19,000 (residents) and $32,000 non-residents.
UConn - $17,000 (residents) and $31,000 non-residents.
NYU - $47,000 - maybe this isn't a state school
Univ of California - $23,000 (residents) and $42000 non-residents.
Where did you get your numbers from?
I'm including estimated housing costs, but excluding those still wouldn't bring the costs down to $2500 per year.
I didn't see anything in the paper about the effects of an aging population. There is plenty of evidence that violent crimes are primarily carried out by 15-29 year old guys. I would be more interested in his conclusion if I saw a graph showing that lead levels explained crime reduction better than simply changing demographics. As the baby boomers age, fewer of them commit crimes, the population ages, and the 15-29 year olds have to commit many more crimes to get to the same crimes per capita over the entire population.
I trust the exit polls more than I trust the election results. Here's a link to a paper showing how unlikely it is that the polls were wrong.
http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitofsky.pdf
I don't want Republicans, Democrats, or plutocrats hacking our elections. As a software engineer, I originally thought it would be pretty easy to create a safe voting machine. But following the KISS principle, I now believe that paper ballots or ballot printing machines are much safer. If an election can't be audited and verified with a recount, then why should anyone trust the results?
Slashdot Mirror
All private videos were excluded. Only viewing info about public videos is included.
Greenpeace differentiates between large scale hydro and small scale hydro.
Greenpeace is for wind power
Greenpeace advocates use of photovoltaics. I'm sure there's a better document somewhere, but I'm not a greenpeace member and I don't work for them, so I'm not used to their web sites.
I believe most environmentalists are against nuclear power for reasons like not knowing what to do with the nuclear waste. Some have decided that global warming is a bigger problem, others haven't.
There are also environmentalists like Amory Lovins that advocate working with companies to make them more efficient.
I know there are uninformed people on all sides of all issues. Using labels like eco-terrorist for legitimate disagreements is wrong and just polarizes the debate.
The APL jade was not piracy. It was exactly the same thing Greenpeace does with whaling boats. They boarded the boat to hang a banner on it to advertise the fact that it was carrying illegally harvested mahogany.
Greenpeace never advocated arson. That was the Earth Liberation Front.
I don't care if you don't like Greenpeace. But if the only things you know about them are lies, then the only thing you don't like about Greenpeace are the lies that their enemies spout.
As Bruce Fein (Associate deputy attorney general 1981-83) said, "the ultimate result of a signing statement is that the president exercises what's known as an absolute line-item veto. That's something the Supreme Court held was unconstitutional in the case called Clinton v. New York in 1998".
Even simpler. use the free thing when you have no revenue and no one cares. When the product becomes successful and someone notices that you're doing something illegal, then delay long enough to re-write it. When Skype is no longer using Linux, then they won't have to divulge their code.
And yet it has. In C++, the value of false has always been 0, but the value of true was compiler dependent. Some libraries set TRUE to -1. Other libraries used 1.
I was very happy when !0 was defined to be 1, although I started seeing programmers use !! to force the value to a 1 or a zero.
I wish I had mod points to bump this up.
I've met many selfish people, and most of them were not millionaires. I've also met many generous, kind, and caring millionaires. See:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2580682/ which talks about George Pillsbury who founded the social justice group haymarket People's Fund.
and http://www.faireconomy.org/about_ufe/mission_vision_goals_strategy/ has a responsible wealth project that networks people with wealth into a group to build a "fairer economy through shareholder activism, support for the living wage, and fair taxation work."
That's Something that I have written about to my congressman's office several times, and they just say that it's not politically a good idea because they're afraid that the public will see them as wasting time on nothing.
Not only does it make no sense, it sounds like insurance fraud.
if I have a fire, but I ask the fire department to stop putting out the fire, then I shouldn't get the insurance money.
SES had a launch failure, but they have a perfectly good option for recovering the use of the satellite themselves or selling it and letting someone else move it to a stable orbit. Therefore it's insurance fraud and they shouldn't collect the full value of the satellite.
> No. It is possible, for instance, to get a 4 year degree from a state university for around > $15,000. Spread out over, say, 6 years because you're working, that's 2500 a year. Not > what a reasonable person would call costly In Massachusetts, it costs over $17000 per year to attend UMass / Amherst. Non-residents pay even more at $32,000 per year. Most reasonable people would call that a lot of money. Let's look at some of the other states: UNH - $19,000 (residents) and $32,000 non-residents. UConn - $17,000 (residents) and $31,000 non-residents. NYU - $47,000 - maybe this isn't a state school Univ of California - $23,000 (residents) and $42000 non-residents. Where did you get your numbers from? I'm including estimated housing costs, but excluding those still wouldn't bring the costs down to $2500 per year.
I didn't see anything in the paper about the effects of an aging population. There is plenty of evidence that violent crimes are primarily carried out by 15-29 year old guys. I would be more interested in his conclusion if I saw a graph showing that lead levels explained crime reduction better than simply changing demographics. As the baby boomers age, fewer of them commit crimes, the population ages, and the 15-29 year olds have to commit many more crimes to get to the same crimes per capita over the entire population.
I trust the exit polls more than I trust the election results. Here's a link to a paper showing how unlikely it is that the polls were wrong. http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitofsky.pdf I don't want Republicans, Democrats, or plutocrats hacking our elections. As a software engineer, I originally thought it would be pretty easy to create a safe voting machine. But following the KISS principle, I now believe that paper ballots or ballot printing machines are much safer. If an election can't be audited and verified with a recount, then why should anyone trust the results?