The reaction to these types of revelations should be the same as for the VW emissions scandal. A fired CEO, congressional FCC and FTC investigations, class-actions, naming and shaming of the individuals responsible, and the source code.
Contrast with VW, where the culprits behind the emissions fiasco will be named and shamed. Congressional committees will investigate, class-action suits will be filed, company finances will take an enormous hit and heads will roll.
For Juniper it will all blow over, leaving a faint stench.
Everyone knows that all even-numbered Windows versions are rubbish. I was toying with the idea of installing Windows 10, on the basis that it is in reality Windows 9. But now I understand clearly the reason Microsoft skipped 9 and went straight to 10. I shall now resist the install to the utmost.
According the movies, it was an heroic American, backed by the genius, efficiency and derring-do of that nation, that captured the Enigma. The kind-hearted Americans then let their fumbling English cousins in on the wheeze.
Money in banks belongs to individual people, who have worked to earn it. The ocean and its resources belong to no person, although nation-states may claim rights to utilize it. Thus we have the tragedy of the commons, because of this type of socialism. If the ocean were demarcated into blocks and sold to the highest bidder, then then new owner would be sure to protect and preserve his valuable asset.
The carbon footprint of a solar photovoltaic (PV) panel – the average level of greenhouse gas emissions it is responsible for over its lifetime – is about 72 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalent per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated (gCO2e/kWh) .
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
CNS/Paramount, you are:
- Not promoting the Progress of the Arts [yes, I know the original meaning of Arts is different]
- Not respecting limited times [in any realistic sense]
All property is (theoretically) safe from the government and others (4th Amendment), so why was this clause included in the Constitution? Because intellectual "property" is not really property. So the drafters had to address the concept separately. They did so with the goal to promote progress - implicitly to maximize progress for society as a whole. So there is a balance between reward for creators, and a resulting reward for society. A copyright or patent for a year is little incentive for new inventions, and a forever patent or copyright provides no return for society in return for that protection.
Thanks for this good exposition. I think a time will come that this legal reasoning will be categorized with the medieval concept of animal trials. At lease we no longer hang pigs.
Of course it should never happened in the first place, but that's a bit different to pretending there's no effort at correction whether it's a cosmetic band-aid or something real.
Who are "they"? Are you referring to the Justice Department, which is part of the Executive? I am talking about the courts, the third branch of government. As far as I can tell, they have done nothing, and have made no effort in correcting their inertness. They are supposed to protect us from the depredations of the Executive and Legislative branches and to see the Constitution upheld.
So I feel fully justified in my rant, unless you can provide examples of courts putting a halt to the whole program.
Not tolerating it? The feds are asset-forfeiting the assets that have been forfeited.to the state and local authorities! Although this is amusing in a perverse way, and the feds are scaling back on their own seizures, they have done nothing to stop the states' actions. In fact, they are probably encouraging them because now they get to keep their cut.
And as a said before, the courts still smile on all of this with amusement. How is it possible that SCOTUS has not accepted a case on this?
My question is, how in heaven's name can the courts tolerate this? By what twisted reasoning can such an obvious travesty upon the Constitution be allowed to stand? Surely at least one case has come before a court in which the judge ruled that the assets must be returned within 20 minutes or the sheriff has to lock himself up for contempt?
The Judicial branch of government has proved itself completely useless and devoid of a spine. All three branches of government are revealed as thieving despots. Civil forfeiture is only one item of evidence in this assertion. It makes the population lose all respect for the law. Every man for himself, and devil take the hindmost. For shame, judges and other officers of the court!
Thanks for your reply. I'm not sure you are getting my point. Just saying that things aren't bad because of controls does not mean that the controls are ok. You have to consider what might have been otherwise. You say electricity is reasonable at 10.45 c/kWh, but what if it were 5 c/kWh? Maybe the economy, living standards and life expectancy would be better. Maybe we would not have a disappearing middle class.
You make a valid point that not addressing global warming has consequences and costs. But these costs have to be balanced against the costs of emissions controls, to confirm that we are better off overall. I'm not seeing these scientific studies and economic evaluations.
Other approaches, such as geoengineering, may be orders of magnitude cheaper. I just don't see them getting serious consideration and funding.
Taking a course of action doesn't mean that research can't and won't continue on other options. Pursuing the EPA's current clean power plan doesn't mean economic collapse either. Minnesota is already half way towards its 2030 emissions goal and its economy is doing quite well.
I'm just not seeing the research into other options happening. Am I missing something?
No economic collapse is a pretty low hurdle. The latest statistic is that the US economy grew by 2%. What if it could have been 5%? Minnesota is doing "quite well". Maybe it could be doing fantastically, if not for emissions goals.
I am not arguing for or against emissions controls, only that they are being implemented on an entirely unscientific basis.
Slashdot Mirror
The reaction to these types of revelations should be the same as for the VW emissions scandal. A fired CEO, congressional FCC and FTC investigations, class-actions, naming and shaming of the individuals responsible, and the source code.
Grease = tryglycerides = fatty acids + glycerin
Glycerin + Nitric acid = Nitroglycerin
Nitroglycerin + diatomaceous earth = Dynamite
Dynamite = Profit!
Contrast with VW, where the culprits behind the emissions fiasco will be named and shamed. Congressional committees will investigate, class-action suits will be filed, company finances will take an enormous hit and heads will roll.
For Juniper it will all blow over, leaving a faint stench.
A government's wet dream.
Everyone knows that all even-numbered Windows versions are rubbish. I was toying with the idea of installing Windows 10, on the basis that it is in reality Windows 9. But now I understand clearly the reason Microsoft skipped 9 and went straight to 10. I shall now resist the install to the utmost.
Why are they all such sniveling cowards? They are supposedly all for the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, but don't give a shit about the 4th?
A pox on all these jingos!
And the Democrats are no better, not ever a bit.
According the movies, it was an heroic American, backed by the genius, efficiency and derring-do of that nation, that captured the Enigma. The kind-hearted Americans then let their fumbling English cousins in on the wheeze.
That's where the money should be going. Nip the problem at its source.
Money in banks belongs to individual people, who have worked to earn it. The ocean and its resources belong to no person, although nation-states may claim rights to utilize it. Thus we have the tragedy of the commons, because of this type of socialism. If the ocean were demarcated into blocks and sold to the highest bidder, then then new owner would be sure to protect and preserve his valuable asset.
The carbon footprint of a solar photovoltaic (PV) panel – the average level of greenhouse gas emissions it is responsible for over its lifetime – is about 72 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalent per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated (gCO2e/kWh) .
https://www.edfenergy.com/ener...
Jus' sayin'.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
CNS/Paramount, you are:
- Not promoting the Progress of the Arts [yes, I know the original meaning of Arts is different]
- Not respecting limited times [in any realistic sense]
All property is (theoretically) safe from the government and others (4th Amendment), so why was this clause included in the Constitution? Because intellectual "property" is not really property. So the drafters had to address the concept separately. They did so with the goal to promote progress - implicitly to maximize progress for society as a whole. So there is a balance between reward for creators, and a resulting reward for society. A copyright or patent for a year is little incentive for new inventions, and a forever patent or copyright provides no return for society in return for that protection.
Where is the optimum? I believe it is 14 years.
The Chinese will wait until the US, UK and Australia implement this first, then will activate their own rules.
On second marriages: "The triumph of hope over experience."
Samuel Johnson
Thanks for this good exposition. I think a time will come that this legal reasoning will be categorized with the medieval concept of animal trials. At lease we no longer hang pigs.
http://www.wired.com/2014/09/f...
...they are doing enough or not ....
Of course it should never happened in the first place, but that's a bit different to pretending there's no effort at correction whether it's a cosmetic band-aid or something real.
Who are "they"? Are you referring to the Justice Department, which is part of the Executive? I am talking about the courts, the third branch of government. As far as I can tell, they have done nothing, and have made no effort in correcting their inertness. They are supposed to protect us from the depredations of the Executive and Legislative branches and to see the Constitution upheld.
So I feel fully justified in my rant, unless you can provide examples of courts putting a halt to the whole program.
Not tolerating it? The feds are asset-forfeiting the assets that have been forfeited.to the state and local authorities! Although this is amusing in a perverse way, and the feds are scaling back on their own seizures, they have done nothing to stop the states' actions. In fact, they are probably encouraging them because now they get to keep their cut.
And as a said before, the courts still smile on all of this with amusement. How is it possible that SCOTUS has not accepted a case on this?
My question is, how in heaven's name can the courts tolerate this? By what twisted reasoning can such an obvious travesty upon the Constitution be allowed to stand? Surely at least one case has come before a court in which the judge ruled that the assets must be returned within 20 minutes or the sheriff has to lock himself up for contempt?
The Judicial branch of government has proved itself completely useless and devoid of a spine. All three branches of government are revealed as thieving despots. Civil forfeiture is only one item of evidence in this assertion. It makes the population lose all respect for the law. Every man for himself, and devil take the hindmost. For shame, judges and other officers of the court!
Two year's jail for the USAF.
Ha ha, I crack myself up!
"If you stay here much longer, you will go home with slitty eyes." – Prince Philip, speaking to a British student during a trip to China in 1986.
$20 says he gets double the sentence he would have if he had broken into a house, cracked a safe and stolen said goods.
Still can't find the G-spot?
Thanks for your reply. I'm not sure you are getting my point. Just saying that things aren't bad because of controls does not mean that the controls are ok. You have to consider what might have been otherwise. You say electricity is reasonable at 10.45 c/kWh, but what if it were 5 c/kWh? Maybe the economy, living standards and life expectancy would be better. Maybe we would not have a disappearing middle class.
You make a valid point that not addressing global warming has consequences and costs. But these costs have to be balanced against the costs of emissions controls, to confirm that we are better off overall. I'm not seeing these scientific studies and economic evaluations.
Other approaches, such as geoengineering, may be orders of magnitude cheaper. I just don't see them getting serious consideration and funding.
Taking a course of action doesn't mean that research can't and won't continue on other options. Pursuing the EPA's current clean power plan doesn't mean economic collapse either. Minnesota is already half way towards its 2030 emissions goal and its economy is doing quite well.
I'm just not seeing the research into other options happening. Am I missing something?
No economic collapse is a pretty low hurdle. The latest statistic is that the US economy grew by 2%. What if it could have been 5%? Minnesota is doing "quite well". Maybe it could be doing fantastically, if not for emissions goals.
I am not arguing for or against emissions controls, only that they are being implemented on an entirely unscientific basis.
It's already too late. We need other options, quick, but I detect an irrational reluctance to consider them. You are the foot dragger.