We ostensibly invaded Iraq to liberate its people and bring them democracy. By applying anything short of our own standards of justice, we betrayed both these purported goals and showed our true colors.
That's revisionistic bullshit. The pretext was that Saddam had WMDs. The thinly veiled motives were granting no bid contracts to Halliburton and getting control of the oil fields. That liberate Iraq and bring democracy was a contingency reason given AFTER the war.
Do you think the previous US administration cared about liberating the people of North Korea or Sudan ?
This is a dishonest argument. The price breakdown of the $10 item must be around $8 onshore (from product management and engineering to warehousing and retail), $1 for shipping and $1 for slave labour and parts.
First, I cannot imagine that onshore blue collar work could not produce the item for $10 or less, considering the white collar counterpart cost $8. Economically, this is still a valid reason for offshoring, as your competition has a retail price per item of $10, while you'll be around $20 and bankrupt. But even if manufacturing onshore cost $80, your arguments fail to account for one thing: cost of living.
If you were to pay the same wages to the Chinese slave as to the onshore unionized blue collar worker, he'd be living like a king. Heck, with their $5 A DAY they (barely) make it. Most probably for as long as they don't get ill, weak, indebted. Suppose they make 100 items a day (probably much more). If they received just 10c per item made, it would double their standards of living. While changing 1% of the retail price. If that buys a "Fair trade" label to the manufacturing company that is correctly publicized, many would buy that instead the keyboards with child blood on them.
Bottom line: life in the third world is dirt cheap. The equivalent would be to have slaves onshore doing slave work for $500 full time job. The retail price would not magically double or triple, let alone almost decuplate if you paid living wages to the workers. (1)
(1) I sense a Broken Window in this argument, but I can't make it make sense numerically.
Net neutrality is to the free flow of information as currency is to the free flow trade items.
You want gizmos, you have gadgets. You tell the gizmo vendor you give him two mandays' worth of gadgets for two mandays' worth of gizmos, he tells you he doesn't need gadgets, he needs stuff. You go to the stuff vendor, and exchange the gadgets for stuff. You go back to the gizmo vendor and finally you have your gizmos.
With currency, you just go to the gizmo vendor and buy the gizmos with simoleons, separating the gizmo-simoleons transaction from any other transaction. Provided you can always sell your gadgets at some market price points, you'll always have simoleons to buy gizmos.
Now without Net Neutrality, you'd have to give extra money to the midget porn vendor so that HE can pay your ISP to get interested in relaying midget porn for you. Seen the anecdotical interest in midget porn, it's not even sure midget porn would be available. Compare to the current model where everybody, from consumer to ISP to online service provider, just pays for whatever upstream/downstream they need.
Basically, without Net Neutrality, the Internet would have been yet another AOL/Compuserve/Prodigy.
Basically, lack of Net Neutrality means some videos on online video sites are not available to me because they are "Not available for your country".
IE CAN be removed, whatever 11y of propaganda convinced you of. Look at XP Lite, they did it without the specs. MS can do it very easily.
From a legal point of view anyway, it would be sufficient that IE be present but deactivated, and the reasonable price for IE removed from the price of Windows. Heck, they could even sue the evil (and very foolish) hackers that reactivate IE on a "IE-free" Windows version.
I predict the economic crisis will solve this. Just like the CD market shrinked to make place for the DVD/MP3/mobile phone market, that market will shrink to make place for the basic needs and savings markets. I predict the now massively broke consumers will turn to the free alternatives, which are the ones for which DRM has already been removed (the warez version). The more well off will become more conscious and will only buy stuff the can copy for their broke friends. Hollywood and the VG industry just will have to live and build its business model around it: you can't get money from where there is no money.
[ ] physical [ ] legislative [ ] market-based [ ] chemical approach to waste management. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws.)
[x] it violates the First Law of Thermodynamics [ ] it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics [x] catalysts are NOT magic Specifically, your plan fails to account for
[x] the energy needed to accomplish your simple tranformation [x] it requires more non-renewable energy inputs than the renewable energy produced by it. [ ] It requires immediate cooperation from the entire world all at once. [ ] People will cheat. [ ] It requires the population to act contrary to self-interest. [x] Extensive existing infrastructure. [ ] Problems storing power. [ ] Inefficient power transport systems. [ ] Variable weather. [x] Rich and powerful industries and lobby groups who stand to lose money. [ ] Politicians who know nothing about science. [ ] It uses Nuclear power, and that scares a large number of people who don't get the science behind it. [x] It uses science, and that scares a large number of people who don't get the science behind it. In summary: [ ] Nice try, but it won't actually work. [x] You're a scammer trying to blind investers with psuedoscience. [ ] You're completely nuts.
Slashdot Mirror
They were hardly 3D. With only yaw and no roll or pitch, it used very simplified maths.
Hint: if you have to watch/shoot in the direction you're running, it's not 3D
But why should the gov even care if it's hybrid ? What matters is if it is fuel efficient or not.
That's revisionistic bullshit. The pretext was that Saddam had WMDs. The thinly veiled motives were granting no bid contracts to Halliburton and getting control of the oil fields. That liberate Iraq and bring democracy was a contingency reason given AFTER the war.
Do you think the previous US administration cared about liberating the people of North Korea or Sudan ?
after the quake, it's still running Solaris.
Isn't NASA internally using SI ?
Does this mean a company will create a hardware gold plated CODEC/Filter and sell it to future audiophiles for 500 bucks ?
Why do you think Disney called Mickey's friend Pluto.
what happened to the basic principle that security through obscurity is not security ?
Correct, plus there are things like NRTRDE (Near Real Time Roaming Data Exchange)
If they're going to sail backwards all the time, they should have put a mirror.
This is a dishonest argument. The price breakdown of the $10 item must be around $8 onshore (from product management and engineering to warehousing and retail), $1 for shipping and $1 for slave labour and parts.
First, I cannot imagine that onshore blue collar work could not produce the item for $10 or less, considering the white collar counterpart cost $8. Economically, this is still a valid reason for offshoring, as your competition has a retail price per item of $10, while you'll be around $20 and bankrupt. But even if manufacturing onshore cost $80, your arguments fail to account for one thing: cost of living.
If you were to pay the same wages to the Chinese slave as to the onshore unionized blue collar worker, he'd be living like a king. Heck, with their $5 A DAY they (barely) make it. Most probably for as long as they don't get ill, weak, indebted. Suppose they make 100 items a day (probably much more). If they received just 10c per item made, it would double their standards of living. While changing 1% of the retail price. If that buys a "Fair trade" label to the manufacturing company that is correctly publicized, many would buy that instead the keyboards with child blood on them.
Bottom line: life in the third world is dirt cheap. The equivalent would be to have slaves onshore doing slave work for $500 full time job. The retail price would not magically double or triple, let alone almost decuplate if you paid living wages to the workers. (1)
(1) I sense a Broken Window in this argument, but I can't make it make sense numerically.
It's written "cachet".
I'd put it another way.
Net neutrality is to the free flow of information as currency is to the free flow trade items.
You want gizmos, you have gadgets. You tell the gizmo vendor you give him two mandays' worth of gadgets for two mandays' worth of gizmos, he tells you he doesn't need gadgets, he needs stuff. You go to the stuff vendor, and exchange the gadgets for stuff. You go back to the gizmo vendor and finally you have your gizmos.
With currency, you just go to the gizmo vendor and buy the gizmos with simoleons, separating the gizmo-simoleons transaction from any other transaction. Provided you can always sell your gadgets at some market price points, you'll always have simoleons to buy gizmos.
Now without Net Neutrality, you'd have to give extra money to the midget porn vendor so that HE can pay your ISP to get interested in relaying midget porn for you. Seen the anecdotical interest in midget porn, it's not even sure midget porn would be available. Compare to the current model where everybody, from consumer to ISP to online service provider, just pays for whatever upstream/downstream they need.
Basically, without Net Neutrality, the Internet would have been yet another AOL/Compuserve/Prodigy.
Basically, lack of Net Neutrality means some videos on online video sites are not available to me because they are "Not available for your country".
What lame to make fun of someone's name. That's very impedant.
What's a "3G MMS" ? MMS is application layer, 3G is physical/datalink layer, arguably network layer. You don't need 3G for MMS.
IE CAN be removed, whatever 11y of propaganda convinced you of. Look at XP Lite, they did it without the specs. MS can do it very easily.
From a legal point of view anyway, it would be sufficient that IE be present but deactivated, and the reasonable price for IE removed from the price of Windows. Heck, they could even sue the evil (and very foolish) hackers that reactivate IE on a "IE-free" Windows version.
Tens of millions of european couples would disagree with you.
Oh the irony...
I'm not sure Himmler made a huge propaganda difference, otherwise old Germans would be crazy about occult/pagan shit.
How exactly is creating jobs a good thing ?
In other companies it's called MBTI profile, personal developement plan. There they call it Dianetics. What's the difference ?
In other news, it appears a weighted evaluation can lead to any result.
Film at 11.
I predict the economic crisis will solve this. Just like the CD market shrinked to make place for the DVD/MP3/mobile phone market, that market will shrink to make place for the basic needs and savings markets.
I predict the now massively broke consumers will turn to the free alternatives, which are the ones for which DRM has already been removed (the warez version). The more well off will become more conscious and will only buy stuff the can copy for their broke friends. Hollywood and the VG industry just will have to live and build its business model around it: you can't get money from where there is no money.
Your post advocates a
.)
[ ] physical [ ] legislative [ ] market-based [ ] chemical
approach to waste management. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws
[x] it violates the First Law of Thermodynamics
[ ] it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics
[x] catalysts are NOT magic
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
[x] the energy needed to accomplish your simple tranformation
[x] it requires more non-renewable energy inputs than the renewable energy produced by it.
[ ] It requires immediate cooperation from the entire world all at once.
[ ] People will cheat.
[ ] It requires the population to act contrary to self-interest.
[x] Extensive existing infrastructure.
[ ] Problems storing power.
[ ] Inefficient power transport systems.
[ ] Variable weather.
[x] Rich and powerful industries and lobby groups who stand to lose money.
[ ] Politicians who know nothing about science.
[ ] It uses Nuclear power, and that scares a large number of people who don't get the science behind it.
[x] It uses science, and that scares a large number of people who don't get the science behind it.
In summary:
[ ] Nice try, but it won't actually work.
[x] You're a scammer trying to blind investers with psuedoscience.
[ ] You're completely nuts.