Of course, there are those who can afford and will buy such an electric vehicle if only to offset their guilt about the amount of crud their factory on the other side of the planet is pumping out.
I.e., pure cost analysis may not be applicable - with the long-term result that research is being done to change that cost analysis result. Not to mention, gasoline is indeed a finite resource; substitutes such as ethanol, in turn, require that growing space remains available which in turn relies upon the assumption that humans will show some sense and quit breeding at faster than replacement rates - which is not a good bet.
I lollled when I thought of Microsoft's having started offshoring back in 2004; the thought of Indian programmers writing code for their old colonial master's warships is...amusing.
Of course, I also find the thought of having blind faith in the golden handcuffs of capitalism to be amusing.
You have to give 'em credit for courage. Moving away from the incremental change model transforms the consumer's unacknowledged secondary role of beta tester into that of alpha tester, so they either get it right the first time or they likely become a blip in automotive history.
...and so I despise those "free traders" who gave away our technology - particularly our computer and manufacturing technology - because they could make a fast buck in the now by ditching American workers.
I don't much like being left with either crossing my fingers or the threat of nuclear Armageddon as my only defenses against the possibility that China - still a state-directed society controlled by a powerful few whose decision process is anything but open - should seek something other than peace forevermore.
Oh, and I also hope that China doesn't decide that, as resources get scarcer, by golly they'll just go take more of whatever from wherever. That might lead them to do something unimaginable - something without precedent - like inventing a reason to invade a nation that has a resource that they perceive value in.
But such an action would never be attempted by a civilized nation, eh? Oh, wait...
Thank heavens for the taxpayers' sakes that - given the historical lack of examples of collusion or insider trading among those who dabble in high finance in America - it is safe to assume the word "against", eh?
Don't feel bad. All I have to contribute is "A stable rev of dd-wrt for the DIR-655 that addresses speed issues with the existing version, and I won't care." (Besides, my wireless routers are behind another unaffected router.)
If there had been copyrights and patents at the dawn of man, the first and last tool invented would have been the stick; lawyers, lawsuits, and the judges of Eastern Texas would have prevented all derivative works.
That's quite simply impossible. The amount of data your suggesting is both effectively 100% false positive and so large in size that we can never review it by hand.
lollll....yes, reviewing it by hand would be quite the chore, wouldn't it? I do so hope that somebody invents computers someday.
Perhaps you might enjoy this Slashdot story? You might take note of the following quote from the linked article:
And what is the puerile approach taken by not only the politicians but also by the clueless amateurs who now lead the intelligence community: No problem, they say. Technology permits us to build a database of one billion names....easy!
There is no little information out there in "the public domain" that is entertaining, at least. As to the possibility that I am personally paranoid...let us just say that my "life experience" leaves no doubt in my mind as to what can be done when you transition between the red and the black. I doubt not the available capabilities; I remember how stunned I was when I found out how...primitive...civilian technology was.
Clearly there is an axe to grind here, probably for more than what Tenet deserves.
That was not so clear to me. What I read between the lines is that a man who is intimately familiar with the wide range of talent and capabilities that our intelligence community has to offer became angry and frustrated when those positive factors were neutralized by malfeasance in office - and then nobody was held accountable even though the number of Americans sacrificed as a direct consequence may soon approach 10,000.
Of course, there is that line in the article ("McGovern, a former Army infantry/intelligence officer, and then a CIA analyst for 27 years") that suggests that McGovern is not a political animal, but rather is someone who "grew up", as it were, in service to our country with the thought that the individual acts independently to accomplish the mission no matter what it takes, even unto the sacrifice of your own life.
Such find the politics of corruption - the money-centric thinking - that is the guiding tenet (npi) of one of our political parties and the corrupter of the other one to be millstones around America's neck.
My point is that security considerations should identify each and every person, area, and item as to whether they are secure or insecure.
100% inspection each and every time an item or individual transitions from an insecure area to a secure area gives you the greatest chance at security. The smartcards blur that line by permitting people and items to cross without inspection between secure and insecure, transforming the safety of the nation and the traveling public into a matter of faith.
Arrogance, that.
There was this doctor at a military base recently...he wore all of the right accoutrements and carried the right ID - and military ID is also a smartcard, these days - to be designated as no security threat by any official who observed him...
I would observe that - beyond the potential for the counterfeiting of smart cards that are used some places both for airport personnel assets and for people who deem themselves to be too important for delays at the screening stations - there is the possibility that you have handed "the keys to the kingdom", as it were, to a deep cover mole.
As you see this person that you know has been cleared (or assume has been cleared because a screen grants authorization or the door opens) wave a smartcard at the RFID scanner and cruise into sensitive areas without physical inspection, if you are a thinking person at all you should wonder if this IS the day that his or her lunch or tool box - that they have each and every day, and so most think nothing of it - goes boom.
FYI: If the proper keywords are there, they alone trigger alerts for further review by an analyst; I am not the arrogant one.
Takes a lot of arrogance, to decide that some people are so important that they should be entitled to bypass security, and so in order to achieve that, you create a method to bypass security.
The arrogance lies in making the assumption that no terrorist group will ask themselves the question: "How do we bypass their security?" and fail to arrive at the answer: "Why, the same way they do!".
(P.S. I'm a good guy [albeit with the caveat that the term is relative], Carnivore/Altivore/Echelon. The timing of this Der Spiegal article and the fact that I've recently said the same thing as I did above elsewhere is purely coincidental. I happen to work with the stuff, so such conversations pique my curiosity. There's no need to waste gasoline coming to see me.)
lolll...or perhaps I shouldn't be so "clever" when pointing out how people moderate things which are an insight as if they carried hard (npi) information.
I think your comment would have been much more effective if you'd have disproved any of those stories you quoted. A willingness to ignore the cumulative load of small facts brings the analogy of the ostrich to my mind.
But perhaps that is just me, seeing that the story's line "because with patents, it's important to consider quality, as well as quantity" reminds me of the fact that not too many military people are killed by having a 130mm artillery shell land squarely on their noggin, but lots die from tiny whizzing pieces of lead and shrapnel.
Sorry about the lawn. I was just admiring the lightbulb in your lamp post; nice to see Americans using products from American companies like Sylvania. Was that a Zenith TV I saw through your window?
There is a third political Party - Economic Libertarians - who are responsible for all of the inequitable free trade laws and treaties, and while I thought said laws and treaties were the project and goal of the Republicans and were achieved with the cooperation of some neoliberal Democrats, I misunderstood the situation (much as I overlooked their Party on the ballot)
Wal*Mart, Disney, et al have a side of their stores that is marked "Made in the U.S.A." and another side marked "Imported Goods", and the consumers all flock to the "Imported Goods" side which is where their children notice and demand the bright, shiny thing they see on the shelf
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, there are those who can afford and will buy such an electric vehicle if only to offset their guilt about the amount of crud their factory on the other side of the planet is pumping out.
I.e., pure cost analysis may not be applicable - with the long-term result that research is being done to change that cost analysis result. Not to mention, gasoline is indeed a finite resource; substitutes such as ethanol, in turn, require that growing space remains available which in turn relies upon the assumption that humans will show some sense and quit breeding at faster than replacement rates - which is not a good bet.
I lollled when I thought of Microsoft's having started offshoring back in 2004; the thought of Indian programmers writing code for their old colonial master's warships is...amusing.
Of course, I also find the thought of having blind faith in the golden handcuffs of capitalism to be amusing.
You have to give 'em credit for courage. Moving away from the incremental change model transforms the consumer's unacknowledged secondary role of beta tester into that of alpha tester, so they either get it right the first time or they likely become a blip in automotive history.
The Big One
Won't be a big one. Will be creeping expansionism - and I point the finger at no individual country, yet - in the name of resource monopolization.
OK...let's see...then going by current trends, its manufacture should be offshored in 2012.
...when you think phone encryption and recall devices approximately the size of an ATM.
Coach passengers may opt to purchase oxygen.
...and so I despise those "free traders" who gave away our technology - particularly our computer and manufacturing technology - because they could make a fast buck in the now by ditching American workers.
I don't much like being left with either crossing my fingers or the threat of nuclear Armageddon as my only defenses against the possibility that China - still a state-directed society controlled by a powerful few whose decision process is anything but open - should seek something other than peace forevermore.
Oh, and I also hope that China doesn't decide that, as resources get scarcer, by golly they'll just go take more of whatever from wherever. That might lead them to do something unimaginable - something without precedent - like inventing a reason to invade a nation that has a resource that they perceive value in.
But such an action would never be attempted by a civilized nation, eh? Oh, wait...
Investors bid against each other
Thank heavens for the taxpayers' sakes that - given the historical lack of examples of collusion or insider trading among those who dabble in high finance in America - it is safe to assume the word "against", eh?
Don't feel bad. All I have to contribute is "A stable rev of dd-wrt for the DIR-655 that addresses speed issues with the existing version, and I won't care." (Besides, my wireless routers are behind another unaffected router.)
Is it still "free trade" when your $10 is their $100, but the "widget" costs $10 both places?
America's job market seems to think not.
I reckon it depends on how much you trust your ISP (Is it Comcast? comes to mind), but you could roll your own DNS server.
If there had been copyrights and patents at the dawn of man, the first and last tool invented would have been the stick; lawyers, lawsuits, and the judges of Eastern Texas would have prevented all derivative works.
That's quite simply impossible. The amount of data your suggesting is both effectively 100% false positive and so large in size that we can never review it by hand.
lollll....yes, reviewing it by hand would be quite the chore, wouldn't it? I do so hope that somebody invents computers someday.
Perhaps you might enjoy this Slashdot story? You might take note of the following quote from the linked article:
And what is the puerile approach taken by not only the politicians but also by the clueless amateurs who now lead the intelligence community: No problem, they say. Technology permits us to build a database of one billion names....easy!
There is no little information out there in "the public domain" that is entertaining, at least. As to the possibility that I am personally paranoid...let us just say that my "life experience" leaves no doubt in my mind as to what can be done when you transition between the red and the black. I doubt not the available capabilities; I remember how stunned I was when I found out how...primitive...civilian technology was.
Clearly there is an axe to grind here, probably for more than what Tenet deserves.
That was not so clear to me. What I read between the lines is that a man who is intimately familiar with the wide range of talent and capabilities that our intelligence community has to offer became angry and frustrated when those positive factors were neutralized by malfeasance in office - and then nobody was held accountable even though the number of Americans sacrificed as a direct consequence may soon approach 10,000.
Of course, there is that line in the article ("McGovern, a former Army infantry/intelligence officer, and then a CIA analyst for 27 years") that suggests that McGovern is not a political animal, but rather is someone who "grew up", as it were, in service to our country with the thought that the individual acts independently to accomplish the mission no matter what it takes, even unto the sacrifice of your own life.
Such find the politics of corruption - the money-centric thinking - that is the guiding tenet (npi) of one of our political parties and the corrupter of the other one to be millstones around America's neck.
My point is that security considerations should identify each and every person, area, and item as to whether they are secure or insecure.
100% inspection each and every time an item or individual transitions from an insecure area to a secure area gives you the greatest chance at security. The smartcards blur that line by permitting people and items to cross without inspection between secure and insecure, transforming the safety of the nation and the traveling public into a matter of faith.
Arrogance, that.
There was this doctor at a military base recently...he wore all of the right accoutrements and carried the right ID - and military ID is also a smartcard, these days - to be designated as no security threat by any official who observed him...
I would observe that - beyond the potential for the counterfeiting of smart cards that are used some places both for airport personnel assets and for people who deem themselves to be too important for delays at the screening stations - there is the possibility that you have handed "the keys to the kingdom", as it were, to a deep cover mole.
As you see this person that you know has been cleared (or assume has been cleared because a screen grants authorization or the door opens) wave a smartcard at the RFID scanner and cruise into sensitive areas without physical inspection, if you are a thinking person at all you should wonder if this IS the day that his or her lunch or tool box - that they have each and every day, and so most think nothing of it - goes boom.
FYI: If the proper keywords are there, they alone trigger alerts for further review by an analyst; I am not the arrogant one.
Takes a lot of arrogance, to decide that some people are so important that they should be entitled to bypass security, and so in order to achieve that, you create a method to bypass security.
The arrogance lies in making the assumption that no terrorist group will ask themselves the question: "How do we bypass their security?" and fail to arrive at the answer: "Why, the same way they do!".
(P.S. I'm a good guy [albeit with the caveat that the term is relative], Carnivore/Altivore/Echelon. The timing of this Der Spiegal article and the fact that I've recently said the same thing as I did above elsewhere is purely coincidental. I happen to work with the stuff, so such conversations pique my curiosity. There's no need to waste gasoline coming to see me.)
maybe you need to be more clever
Indeed; clearly it would be clever of me to be far more selective in the future.
lolll...or perhaps I shouldn't be so "clever" when pointing out how people moderate things which are an insight as if they carried hard (npi) information.
I note that you got modded informative rather than insightful, but I couldn't find your link to better porn?
The best hope of hitting this kind of targets would be lasers.
Discounting homing on the signals the satellites are continually emitting, I presume.
I think your comment would have been much more effective if you'd have disproved any of those stories you quoted. A willingness to ignore the cumulative load of small facts brings the analogy of the ostrich to my mind.
But perhaps that is just me, seeing that the story's line "because with patents, it's important to consider quality, as well as quantity" reminds me of the fact that not too many military people are killed by having a 130mm artillery shell land squarely on their noggin, but lots die from tiny whizzing pieces of lead and shrapnel.
Sorry about the lawn. I was just admiring the lightbulb in your lamp post; nice to see Americans using products from American companies like Sylvania. Was that a Zenith TV I saw through your window?