It was for MLK and other reasons that intelligence oversight was established in 1984. And then in late 2001, the Patriot Act removed much of that oversight, allowing the lower level agents to actv without warrant or approval from committes.
If there is no oversight into actual electrical consumption, then there really is no useful purpose of 'banning' inefficient technologies to drive efficiency. I use the example of plugging in electrical heaters and running them all day, but you could plug anything in, use it as much as you want, and simply pay the bill. Sorry if I was not clear enough about this, but I often post via smartphone while standing idle somewhere in the regular delays produced in life.
The real issue isn't even with 'efficiency', per se. The real issue is that most our energy is produced by COAL in the US. Going to the root of the main issue in discussion draws out a much bigger underlying problem. And in the end, making lights more efficient will have very little impact on the overall CO2 output of the country. The difference in electrical use might even garner double-digit reductions, but it does nothing to solve the real problem.
The point I am getting at is that banning incandescents is like slapping a dora the explorer bandaid over a large stab wound. It's a 'show of effort' that will ultimately have little to do with fixing the problem. A surgeon with some sutures is needed, not a bandaid. Get me?
When the US pushes further to electrical vehicles, we will offset CO2 production only slightly because we will be shifting from GAS burning to COAL burning to drive the cars. And the end result is that we've done almost nothing to slow the out-of-control train we call 'CO2 emissions' down. The only viable answer is green tech NOW. Anyone following the current tech knows it is feasible in all situations (Hydro, Solar-Salt, Wave Gen, Tidal Gen, Tidal Kites, Geothermal, and now extreme advances in Solar efficiency and easy production), and that it can be deployed at costs far below our ridiculous Defense Spending budgets (1.8 Trillion/year to defense industry excluding pentagon and direct DoD expenses).
There are far better ways to promote specific technologies than to ban others. I know that many people will prefer the older tech, and forcing consumers is not a constitutional or even sensible way to achieve energy use goals. My mother is a water color artist, and is concerned with the ban because cfl and led lighting does not provide a natural reference for color like incandescents do. While she does penny pinch and has every light in her house as a cfl, she would like to use an incandescent while painting. She could plug in an electric heater and leave it on all day if she wants, so what's the point of banning the bulbs again???
Was it too hard to hold the laptop up? I think I'm missing your point...
I realize it might be 'handy', but that difference does not justify a new purchase. And if you didn't have a laptop and were to be making a choice between the two types of devices, I wonder if the actual PROS/CONS of the tablet would outweigh those of a laptop. I should note that a physical keyboard is extremely handy for *most* portable computing uses --- like e-mail, or slashdot, or forums, or address bar typing, or search queries... etc.
A kb might not matter to someone who has a low word per minute speed, but for fast typing nerds like me there is a huge difference between what a physical kb can do and what an on screen touch kb can do. Physical kb means I can get the thoughts out nearly as fast as I can think of them --- touch kb means it will be a while before my thought gets the satisfaction of completion (via communication).
It's hard to justify hundreds of dollars spent to replace a great piece of hardware I already have (epic 4g / newish laptop) simply because it has a touch screen and that it's been advertised/astroturfed/pop-culture-driven into us.
I don't want microsoft anywhere near my phone's OS. I've had them on 3 phones and their OS made all three of them annoying to use. People are choosing iOS and Android for good reasons. Not only are they functional and relatively stable, they are also NOT WINDOWS MOBILE. Many people I know are in the same boat with me.
We got burned by MS's crap mobile product and we won't ever look back.
I owned an HTC Mogul, HTC Touch Pro, and HTC Touch Pro 2 up until last December. All three phones ran Windows Mobile (which I kept updated). What I came to learn was that windows mobile is the best way to waste the great hardware that the phones were equipped with. All three of those phones were top notch upon release and could have been mind blowingly close to their advertised usability. Instead, and all because of the OS, they were so clunky and crippled it was (and still is for those using them) more of a bother to use than a pleasure. The only way I was able to rescue even *some* of the phone's intended power was to run custom roms that would remove unnecessary bloat-turd-services and provide some overclocking.
I ultimately gave the Touch Pro 2 to my father and I am astounded at what a piece of crap it is, all the while knowing that if the same hardware were running Android, the phone would be a pleasure to use.
And so while windows mobile 7 is the latest offering from microsoft, and I have yet to use it, I cannot and will not allow myself to support it with my dollars. I will not vote for more of their crap with my dollars. They (and Sprint) ruined my smartphone experience that I thought I was paying good dollars for. Instead my good dollars went to support an OS that cripples and ruins the phone experience, leaving the phone to not actually operate as advertised, or even comfortably.
In short: windows mobile is junk, and wastes the great hardware you pay for.
. are sensitive networks like NASDAQ even connected to the internet? There is a common fix for this issue called an AIR GAP. You simply physically disconnect the nternet from the sensitive technology, and then you work forward from there while always regarding the fundamental necessity of the air gap. It is, reckless and foolish considering the reality of the internet, to think you can connect and protect.
Fox News is also directly involved in generating and promoting hate and fear that has led to violence against minorities and the degradation of cooperation/trust/communities in our once great country.
Wtf are you, a lawyer? White is white. Black is black. Words have meaning and only a lawyer can manipulate them to mean what they don't actually mean while everyone else has similar interpretations of the language we speak.
It's like selling a badass car with a plastic block under the gas pedal as a governorl that you could very easily remove and then actually use the badassdedness of the car... I don't know a single person who, after knowing how easy it is to remove the plastic block, would not get MORE VALUE from their car....
Matter of fact, I know many people, lets call them 'enthusiasts', who would notice the ease of modification and deliberately buy the governed car knowing that it would be a badass car with the simple removal of the plastic block.
In the competitive world of 'low price' and 'best value', these companies are quite clearly asking for it.
I use adblock, but you can also use SELF CONTROL and simply not look at that which you can generically identify from the periphery as an advertisement.
Remember, you choose to be on facebook and you choose to offer up your personal info for the simple compensation of a 'service' that they provide. Surely they also can't guarantee that service, which is likely in their TOS.
And on the note of Facebook being a victim, I believe they were. Their site was hacked, people closed out accounts, and it gave them bad publicity. I don't agree with the amounts for damages, etc, but that doesn't mean they were not wrongfully acted upon by the defendant in a way that caused issue/damage to Facebook.
If that is the case and you're a facebook user, you should quit offering up your personal information to get spam. From your sentiment you should close your account immediately....
Methinks you're actually overplaying what you don't like and not acknowledging why you're actually on facebook.
Yes, but James Thompson, the man who patented the embryonic stem cell, has not patented any novel DNA or idea. He patented something he didn't invent nor engineer; he patented something he had nothing to do with aside from observation, and only won because our patent system is so out of date it doesn't know how to address life forms, and that he was the first person to try to.
This same jerkoff (or is it the patent system that's wrong here) charges you $200k licensing per year to do any biomedical research with it, and $5k a year for universities to license simply to do any academic research at all.
Nothing about the patent is worthy of a patent. On the contrary, Yamanaka's Induced Pluripotent Stem cell work is patentable, as he has invented novel ways to revert differentiated cells to stemness. Sheng Ding has also pioneered new methods that don't include lentiviral methods (like Yamanaka), and instead use small molecules that are homologous to the desired IPSC-inducing biochemicals (Sox2, nanog, oct4, etc).
To offer some contrast: if Yamanaka were like Thompson, he could have patented the IDEA of 'reverting differentiated cells to stem-like cells exhibiting stemness". And in doing so he would be able to cover with his patent that which Ding has done, despite Ding having his own method. But I'm sure nearly every democratic voter here would agree that Yamanaka and Ding have achieved the same end by different means, and thus would each have patents to their methodology.
Fortunately, IPSC are *NOT* ESC, and so for now people can do stem-cell research without paying the JT tax simply because JT was 'first'.
You 'pay' nothing. I think you've got a pretty skewed view of what your relationship with facebook really is. You don't have to see the ads, its your choice; and your viewing (or lack of looking) is completely compulsory. Why would facebook owe you any money in this case since you've invested no money of your own into their business, received services in a relatively free sense, and their free services were lightly compromised.
Slashdot Mirror
It was for MLK and other reasons that intelligence oversight was established in 1984. And then in late 2001, the Patriot Act removed much of that oversight, allowing the lower level agents to actv without warrant or approval from committes.
Total recall
Gotta be pretty naive to not see the benefits of small local businesses.
If there is no oversight into actual electrical consumption, then there really is no useful purpose of 'banning' inefficient technologies to drive efficiency. I use the example of plugging in electrical heaters and running them all day, but you could plug anything in, use it as much as you want, and simply pay the bill. Sorry if I was not clear enough about this, but I often post via smartphone while standing idle somewhere in the regular delays produced in life.
The real issue isn't even with 'efficiency', per se. The real issue is that most our energy is produced by COAL in the US. Going to the root of the main issue in discussion draws out a much bigger underlying problem. And in the end, making lights more efficient will have very little impact on the overall CO2 output of the country. The difference in electrical use might even garner double-digit reductions, but it does nothing to solve the real problem.
The point I am getting at is that banning incandescents is like slapping a dora the explorer bandaid over a large stab wound. It's a 'show of effort' that will ultimately have little to do with fixing the problem. A surgeon with some sutures is needed, not a bandaid. Get me?
When the US pushes further to electrical vehicles, we will offset CO2 production only slightly because we will be shifting from GAS burning to COAL burning to drive the cars. And the end result is that we've done almost nothing to slow the out-of-control train we call 'CO2 emissions' down. The only viable answer is green tech NOW. Anyone following the current tech knows it is feasible in all situations (Hydro, Solar-Salt, Wave Gen, Tidal Gen, Tidal Kites, Geothermal, and now extreme advances in Solar efficiency and easy production), and that it can be deployed at costs far below our ridiculous Defense Spending budgets (1.8 Trillion/year to defense industry excluding pentagon and direct DoD expenses).
You get me now?
There are far better ways to promote specific technologies than to ban others. I know that many people will prefer the older tech, and forcing consumers is not a constitutional or even sensible way to achieve energy use goals. My mother is a water color artist, and is concerned with the ban because cfl and led lighting does not provide a natural reference for color like incandescents do. While she does penny pinch and has every light in her house as a cfl, she would like to use an incandescent while painting. She could plug in an electric heater and leave it on all day if she wants, so what's the point of banning the bulbs again???
L M F A O. Good point.
Was it too hard to hold the laptop up? I think I'm missing your point...
I realize it might be 'handy', but that difference does not justify a new purchase. And if you didn't have a laptop and were to be making a choice between the two types of devices, I wonder if the actual PROS/CONS of the tablet would outweigh those of a laptop. I should note that a physical keyboard is extremely handy for *most* portable computing uses --- like e-mail, or slashdot, or forums, or address bar typing, or search queries... etc.
A kb might not matter to someone who has a low word per minute speed, but for fast typing nerds like me there is a huge difference between what a physical kb can do and what an on screen touch kb can do. Physical kb means I can get the thoughts out nearly as fast as I can think of them --- touch kb means it will be a while before my thought gets the satisfaction of completion (via communication).
... because I haven't bought one yet, lol.
It's hard to justify hundreds of dollars spent to replace a great piece of hardware I already have (epic 4g / newish laptop) simply because it has a touch screen and that it's been advertised/astroturfed/pop-culture-driven into us.
And so I say "meh."
I don't want microsoft anywhere near my phone's OS. I've had them on 3 phones and their OS made all three of them annoying to use. People are choosing iOS and Android for good reasons. Not only are they functional and relatively stable, they are also NOT WINDOWS MOBILE. Many people I know are in the same boat with me.
We got burned by MS's crap mobile product and we won't ever look back.
It takes two to tango...
microsoft is the bad date.
nokia accepted, and is going to the movies at 7.
.. after years of experience with them.
I owned an HTC Mogul, HTC Touch Pro, and HTC Touch Pro 2 up until last December. All three phones ran Windows Mobile (which I kept updated). What I came to learn was that windows mobile is the best way to waste the great hardware that the phones were equipped with. All three of those phones were top notch upon release and could have been mind blowingly close to their advertised usability. Instead, and all because of the OS, they were so clunky and crippled it was (and still is for those using them) more of a bother to use than a pleasure. The only way I was able to rescue even *some* of the phone's intended power was to run custom roms that would remove unnecessary bloat-turd-services and provide some overclocking.
I ultimately gave the Touch Pro 2 to my father and I am astounded at what a piece of crap it is, all the while knowing that if the same hardware were running Android, the phone would be a pleasure to use.
And so while windows mobile 7 is the latest offering from microsoft, and I have yet to use it, I cannot and will not allow myself to support it with my dollars. I will not vote for more of their crap with my dollars. They (and Sprint) ruined my smartphone experience that I thought I was paying good dollars for. Instead my good dollars went to support an OS that cripples and ruins the phone experience, leaving the phone to not actually operate as advertised, or even comfortably.
In short: windows mobile is junk, and wastes the great hardware you pay for.
. are sensitive networks like NASDAQ even connected to the internet? There is a common fix for this issue called an AIR GAP. You simply physically disconnect the nternet from the sensitive technology, and then you work forward from there while always regarding the fundamental necessity of the air gap. It is, reckless and foolish considering the reality of the internet, to think you can connect and protect.
Fox News is also directly involved in generating and promoting hate and fear that has led to violence against minorities and the degradation of cooperation/trust/communities in our once great country.
NO way. Fester's Quest.
ONE HIT. ONE DAMAGE. ONE MISTAKE> GAME IS OVER.
No no no no no.
by Congress, I think you mean judges.
Depends on how means locked down:
Wtf are you, a lawyer? White is white. Black is black. Words have meaning and only a lawyer can manipulate them to mean what they don't actually mean while everyone else has similar interpretations of the language we speak.
It's like selling a badass car with a plastic block under the gas pedal as a governorl that you could very easily remove and then actually use the badassdedness of the car... I don't know a single person who, after knowing how easy it is to remove the plastic block, would not get MORE VALUE from their car....
Matter of fact, I know many people, lets call them 'enthusiasts', who would notice the ease of modification and deliberately buy the governed car knowing that it would be a badass car with the simple removal of the plastic block.
In the competitive world of 'low price' and 'best value', these companies are quite clearly asking for it.
thanks.
I use adblock, but you can also use SELF CONTROL and simply not look at that which you can generically identify from the periphery as an advertisement.
Remember, you choose to be on facebook and you choose to offer up your personal info for the simple compensation of a 'service' that they provide. Surely they also can't guarantee that service, which is likely in their TOS.
And on the note of Facebook being a victim, I believe they were. Their site was hacked, people closed out accounts, and it gave them bad publicity. I don't agree with the amounts for damages, etc, but that doesn't mean they were not wrongfully acted upon by the defendant in a way that caused issue/damage to Facebook.
Nope, I only get spam from Facebook.
If that is the case and you're a facebook user, you should quit offering up your personal information to get spam. From your sentiment you should close your account immediately....
Methinks you're actually overplaying what you don't like and not acknowledging why you're actually on facebook.
FYI, Thompson charges universities a $5k/year licensing fee to reaserach ESC.
Yes, but James Thompson, the man who patented the embryonic stem cell, has not patented any novel DNA or idea. He patented something he didn't invent nor engineer; he patented something he had nothing to do with aside from observation, and only won because our patent system is so out of date it doesn't know how to address life forms, and that he was the first person to try to.
This same jerkoff (or is it the patent system that's wrong here) charges you $200k licensing per year to do any biomedical research with it, and $5k a year for universities to license simply to do any academic research at all.
Nothing about the patent is worthy of a patent. On the contrary, Yamanaka's Induced Pluripotent Stem cell work is patentable, as he has invented novel ways to revert differentiated cells to stemness. Sheng Ding has also pioneered new methods that don't include lentiviral methods (like Yamanaka), and instead use small molecules that are homologous to the desired IPSC-inducing biochemicals (Sox2, nanog, oct4, etc).
To offer some contrast: if Yamanaka were like Thompson, he could have patented the IDEA of 'reverting differentiated cells to stem-like cells exhibiting stemness". And in doing so he would be able to cover with his patent that which Ding has done, despite Ding having his own method. But I'm sure nearly every democratic voter here would agree that Yamanaka and Ding have achieved the same end by different means, and thus would each have patents to their methodology.
Fortunately, IPSC are *NOT* ESC, and so for now people can do stem-cell research without paying the JT tax simply because JT was 'first'.
...sorry... --or from passing/growing of established embryonic stem cell lines that have been around for 20-ish years.
Embryo farming is already illegal.
The *only* way embryonic stem cells can be sourced is from left over in-vitro fertilization work.
You 'pay' nothing. I think you've got a pretty skewed view of what your relationship with facebook really is. You don't have to see the ads, its your choice; and your viewing (or lack of looking) is completely compulsory. Why would facebook owe you any money in this case since you've invested no money of your own into their business, received services in a relatively free sense, and their free services were lightly compromised.