As a British person living in the USA I notice that the majority of my sockets outside kitchen and bathroom are not GFI protected (either at the socket or the fuse panel) and that most appliances do not use an Earth Pin.
Do note, though, that since GFCI protects everything downstream of the GFCI, any given circuit only really requires a single GFI outlet (or breaker).
But only to a few points. If you want to plug your 220V lamp or radio in, in the US you'll have to reach behind the stove to do it.
220v requires MUCH more expensive wiring
Why would that be, if we're comparing apples to apples (and not wiring for stoves)? As far as copper goes, 220 would presumably take 4 wires (hot, hot, neutral, ground) rather than the 3 for 110V, but for the same (wattage) capacity the wires would be thinner, probably using less copper, since the current would be half as great. Insulation shouldn't cost any more. I don't see why outlets and fixtures would cost any more, if they were based on the same designs used for 110V, if anything they might be a little cheaper due to the lower current used by 220V.
On the other hand, if you liked your old printer so much, why don't you just look for another NEC on eBay or other second source?
Can't speak for him, but for me, consumables. Toner carts for the NEC95 (and other printers that use the same Canon engine, like the Epson EPL6000) are getting hard to find and are quite expensive (US$200 or more OEM, but NEC doesn't sell it any more). I've had both the EPL6000 and the NEC 95, both fine workhorse printers, but the last time the toner ran out I tried ordering a reload from several online places only to have them cancel the order a week or so later because they couldn't get one. One refill place told me the carts were difficult to refill. So I got a HP6mp for ten bucks from a thrift shop, replaced a missing spring in the paper drawer with the same spring out of a dead HP4P, and frankly it's a much nicer printer (the NEC didn't have a sleep mode, and took about a minute to warm up). And toner will be available at reasonable prices pretty near forever, since HP printers are so common.
You can vote for anyone you like to your hearts content, but unless that person has the blessing of a major party they will not be permitted to take office.
Oh, in the US, if they win, they will be permitted. Granted, unless you are independently wealthy and/or famous, it's very much more difficult to win without major party backing, because winning involves having a bunch of people working for you, and (in major races) buying radio and TV ads.
Because only voting for winning candidates has effect, voting for anyone but the majors has exactly the same effect as not voting at all.
And yet, somehow Vermont has a Socialist Senator. Connecticut has an Egotistical Ass Party Senator. Minnesota recently had an Independence Party pro-wrassler Governor. In Minneapolis there are three parties. The third party is the Republicans, who haven't held a City Council seat for a decade or longer. (The second party is the Greens.)
While I understand your point of view I also understand the point of view of parents who's kids have actually died from congenital heart defects which show themselves during physical activity. These heart monitors would alert someone before the kid actually collapsed.
Seems simple to me. If the kid's heart is too bad for PE, the kid shouldn't be taking PE at all. Yes, the occasional kid may surprise you and keel over, both life and natural selection are a bitch. If parents want their kids to wear heart monitors (substitute "geolocation devices", "moon suits", etc. as desired), let them purchase them and bully their kids into wearing them (in 90% of the cases, the kid will shuck the gear as soon as they get onto the school bus).
As to the theory that PE teaches kids to enjoy exercise, I'd have to say that I found kick-ball the last exercise done in school that might have been termed enjoyable. Everything subsequent to that involved Nazi gym teachers and resulted in my avoiding those activities for the next 40 years. (Yes, it does show. Thanks for asking.)
It's got (somewhat spotty) city-wide coverage, and is in fairly wide use. It's half to two-thirds the cost of comparable speeds of cable or DSL (several speeds available, from 1M/1M to 6M/1M). APs on roughly a 2-block grid, it works well if you're close to one and don't have conductive things in the way (we have a lot of stucco buildings, and stucco is done on a wire mesh base that's pretty good radio shielding). There are (recommended, extra cost) wireless units that connect to ethernet, and they not only are a bit better than the typical cheap wifi laptop unit, but you've got the option of locating your client unit at a point that has good reception. The vendor will also assist with things like outside antennas.
How does its infrastructure and maintenance cost compare to a wider range wireless?
No idea what maintenance costs are. In many places they really need a denser grid to provide good coverage. Many of the APs have wireless connections to the network, that may use a different band. We see both flat-panel antennas (which appear to be directional and aimed at an upstream provider) and ~2 foot sticks, 2 or 3 to an AP (typically mounted on a bracket on a utility pole at a corner).
When the I-35 bridge fell down, that entire area already had coverage, and got heavy use by news media, emergency workers, and (later) construction crews.
Actually, the chances of two consecutive coin flips landing on the same side are EXACTLY 50%.
You statistics people think you're so smart.
But you have failed to account for the cases: where the coin lands on edge. where the coin rolls, and is lost under the refrigerator. where a raven swoops down out of the sky and snags the coin midair and flies away with it. where a man jumps out of the closet, grabs the coin, and runs away. where when the coin hits, it breaks into two pieces, the microfilm flies out, and the pieces come to rest hollow side up. where Annie Oakley shoots from the next room and blasts the coin to smithereens. the Creationist case, where God, being extremely bored, miraculously causes the coin to turn into a glass of Guiness, which smashes to the ground and gets beer everywhere. And probably other cases.
The thing is, there are much fewer cases of violence against Muslims than there are vice versa.
As others have pointed out, if one counts the violence committed by the US military etc., that's probably not true. Mostly because we're much better at mass violence than they are. Was it "because" they were Muslims? Without knowing what was going on inside of Bush's head, we can't really know.
There are douchebags all over the place, it just seems that the Muslim world, especially the ones who are brought up knowing nothing but the Koran and being brainwashed into thinking all of America is the great Satan
I'd say a lot of that has to do with the fact that America has a history of overthrowing their governments (Iraq, Iran), occupying their lands militarily, and propping up (anticommunist) unpopular dictatorships like the Shah. Not to speak of propping up Israel, who (in their eyes) stole their land. IMO religion is mostly just a veneer used as an additional justification by their politicians, a justification that their people perhaps identify with more easily.
If you drew the same cartoons of Jesus, you would be hard pressed to find a Christian that would threaten you over them, much less actually do something about it.
Well, our sensitivities are a little different. I'm pretty sure if I published cartoons in Mississippi of Jesus having sex with animals and/or the Apostles, it would draw death threats. Blogs like DailyKos receive death threats on account of their politics. In any case, Christians who murder abortion clinic workers for religious reasons don't count?
What happens if you get "the rest of the word" up to speed economically to the level where they can compete with us - and note that economic competitiveness implies military capability - and it turns out that their morals are diametrically opposite to ours (e.g., "Behead all those who insult Islam!", as written on the sign of one Muslim protester)?
You mean, as opposed to those people whose morals are "like ours"? Maybe the military officer who "made wisecracks about the soldiers heading off to Iraq to kill some ragheads and burn some turbans"? Or forum posts like "Damn Ragheads! We need to simply kill everyone in fuggin Iraq!"? Or "Reaper", the Brit who says "I like to Kill Haji's, they disgust me"? Yep, them Christians and Americans and Brits sure are some peace lovin' people, morally far superior to Muslims.
Bman is founded on principles of enjoying oneself and being free without concern that people will take photos and 'out' folks for recreational activities.
Let's assume (I don't know) that BM has an exclusive lease to the area. Because if they don't, other people may legitimately be there, and take whatever pictures they want, and do whatever is legally possible to do with them. In a public place, your privacy rights are rather limited.
Then the simplest (and least abusable) solution would be to ban cameras entirely. That would be fair, and not susceptible to abuse. Problem solved.
That said, all forms of "consumption tax" (either sales or VAT) are regressive because they disproportionately tax people who spend higher percentages of their incomes on consumables.
That is only true because the really big ticket items are exempted from the tax. Buildings. Airplanes. Company stock. Lawyers and architects. Lobbyists.
It wouldn't be so if there weren't loopholes for these things. For example, a sales tax on sale of corporate stock (which after all represents ownership in a company) would raise a lot of money, even if it was at a lesser rate than the sales tax on a pair of shoes. It would have the added benefit of discouraging the financial houses who are distorting the market with computerized trading based on fluctuations in a small fraction of a second.
In comparison to Dyson you are an insignificant nit.
Of course I am. As are you.
A great mind has some questions perhaps you should STFU and listen rather than trying to drag his reputation into the mud by implying "he's old therefore useless".
Perhaps you should STFU. I've listened to him. I'm not saying he's wrong. "He's old therefore useless" is what you said, not me. I'm old, too. What I said was, the penalties for wrongly dismissing global warming are far more severe than the penalties for wrongly accepting it.
What's gone on in the 2 cases that have gone to trial is like one long, bad dream. The root problem is economics. The defendants can't afford to go out and hire a competent lawyer, and lawyers can't afford to do these cases without getting paid. A good lawyer would have either prevented the outlandish things that occurred, or developed an impervious record for an appeal.
I have to admit, IANAL even though I read Groklaw, and I haven't been following this case closely. But I saw that the judge's rationale was that plaintiffs had asked the defendant "are you liable" and he said "yes". It seems to me that when that question was asked, all of the defense lawyers should have levitated out of their seats screaming "Objection!" Perhaps I just don't understand the routine, or maybe reflex time is the difference between academic lawyers and lawyers who actually spend their time in the courtroom.
With all due respect to an eminent and brilliant physicist, Freeman Dyson is not a climatologist. The very article you link notes that he is a "subversive" who feels it's important to be in opposition. While I find that a commendable trait, it should be noted when considering his "anti-establishment" views. IMO, he's right when he says that global warming is not adequately established. But my metaphor is, "the majority of runs made by fire departments turn out not to be fires; we could save a lot of money by requiring an independent confirmation of a fire before the trucks go out." Maybe it's true, but the potential consequences are too horrible to contemplate.
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." Arthur C. Clarke said that. Dyson, to his credit, does not say climate change is impossible. He merely says he does not believe it to be bad.
Can you put the cables through the desk, then under the carpet?
Don't put 110V power cables under the carpet. They do emit heat, and if the heat can't escape, it builds up. I know somebody who set their house on fire that way. If the cable gets damaged by walking on it, that exacerbates the problem. And while it isn't dangerous, I don't think I'd want to be walking on my ethernet/USB/parallel/serial cables, either.
Use any common P2P file-sharing system, preferably one that doesn't require a central server. Gnutella would work fine, I know people do this using Shareaza and Limewire, and probably any other of the clients will work. DC would work. I used WASTE for a while to do this. Probably some other P2P software would work, too. They almost all use hash checks to ensure accurate transmission. Set up a private file sharing network, using one folder on each end, and your files should get transferred 100% error-free between your computers. Should be fairly simple, just don't share C::) The only downside I can see (outside of the IT people freaking out because you've got a file-sharing program on your computer) is that they're "pull" oriented, rather than "push", so the recipient has to retrieve the files. See also Friend-to-friend and Private P2P
Like others have said, find out why your network is breaking data in transmission and fixing that would be the more direct fix, but I'm guessing OP doesn't have control over that part.
I do beleve that online retailers should be made to collect the sales tax for the state the good are being delivered to.
What, you want to force everyone out of online retailing except for a couple of megacorps? I defy anyone to even figure out what taxes are due and on what and to whom. There are tens of thousands of tax jurisdictions, and their tax rates and rules are all different. In my immediate area, there is a state sales tax. There is a city sales tax. There is a county sales tax. There is a "convention center district" sales tax (the convention center district is a subset of the city). There is a "7 county metro area" sales tax. All of these taxes have different boundaries (the county is much larger than the city), and the boundaries do not correspond to zip codes. Christ, I live in the area and not only can I not always tell which taxes are applicable, the state tax office (which collects them) can't either (the best they can do is say "portions of that zipcode").
Now lets move on to what gets taxed. Food? No, not in my state, unless it's a carbonated beverage or uncarbonated water in containers less than one liter, or contains more than a specified percentage of alcohol (that's a bonus tax). Nor clothing, except furs and jewelery. Nor, for a limited time, solar panels. 40 miles away, in the next state, both are taxed.
Can requiring retailers to collect tax for all destinations work? Of course. Simply require that every state agree on a single uniform tax rate for goods, and a single uniform set of rules on what those goods are. (And hopefully, that the tax will be applied to all sales, including sales to nonprofits and government units of various sorts, because it's really hard to tell who qualifies when you're a retailer on the other side of the country.) Let the states provide a single unified destination (at their expense) to send all sales tax payments to, identified by either zipcode or state, and have that central point figure out who gets what, and pay them.
Come back when the states get their shit together, and we can talk.
Legally, there is a big difference between the two.
Legally, sure. It's simple to create laws to justify or prohibit anything. Legally, a torturer who works for the CIA is a upstanding patriotic citizen, while a torturer who works for Al Quaida is a terrorist and should be killed. Legally, when China executes people to harvest organs, it's unfortunate, while when Germany killed people doing medical experiments on them, it was a crime against humanity. Legally, when American soldiers murdered 504 civilians at My Lai, it was... well, it really wasn't anything since only one served any time at all (4 1/2 months) for the deed.
Morally, there is no difference whatsoever. Well, the numbers are bigger in China, so the naive observer would think that was more serious.
So what's your point? That the Iranian regime is okay because of some nefarious activities by others in the past?
Of course not. The (AC) OP was not condemning the regime, but "Iranian culture and its people". First of all, those are the words of a bigot. Secondly, for Americans to do that is like the Mafia condemning the business practices of the Gulf Cartel. Their objections may be correct, but who's going to take them seriously?
The Iranians bear 100% of the blame for the existence of a tyrannical government in Iran. We should condemn Iranian culture and its people.
You mean, as opposed to the democracy they had in the early 1950s, before the US (and UK) overthrew it to install a dictator who could be trusted to do what the US/UK wanted? The dictator who the US was still trying to prop up in 1979 when the current crop of religious nuts (is "religious nuts" redundant? probably.) took power? Should we not condemn the American and British culture and people for the interference that led to this state?
Does he like them for the books? He knows you can read books on the Internet, right? Maybe he just doesn't know how to use the internet properly
You can read some books on "the Internet". I just had a look for a few books that were important to me at one time or another. "Big Tiger and Christian". Nope, reviews, amazon listings, but not the book. Not Tolkein's Ring Trilogy (though I could probably find a pirated version on USENET or BT). Not Rockwell Kent's illustrations. Not Jung's "Man and His Symbols". Not Reyntien's "The Art of Stained Glass". Not Minor White's "Mirrors Messages Manifestations" (even if one could find it online, the image quality would be degraded, and probably take forever to load). In fact, not most books published since the 1920s (since we now have perpetual copyright).
If you read online, you almost certainly read fewer books. When was the last time you read an entire book online (or downloaded)? (Yes, I know attention spans have been growing shorter and shorter, and while that's not entirely due to the Internet, it's almost certainly a factor.) For me, probably a month or two ago, and it was a crappy pdf scanned from a hard copy, complete with distortion in the gutter (it had many pictures that spanned pages). Even if you use a laptop or ebook reader, it's far harder to read unless lighting conditions are just right, and it's far harder to get comfortable while you're reading.
And digital media are far more ephemeral than paper. They get bit rot. They depend on access to technologies that have become obsolete, unless one continually re-records things (hardly anyone does). What's on a website may change from one day to the next, making it easier to rewrite history, whereas printed copy is frozen in time when it is printed. (That can be an advantage of digital media, but it can also be a disadvantage). Sites come and go, a significant number of the bookmarks I've accumulated yield 404 errors. I'm told that a literate Chinese can with naked eyeball alone read documents that were recorded 2000 years ago. With a computer, you're unlikely to be able to read something recorded 20 years ago (sure, I could send you an 8" floppy with the text in Displaywrite format, but you couldn't read it).
These days, I do most of my reading on the Internet. And that means I read far fewer books. Yeah, Bradbury is an old fogey, and his writing was always more poetic than scientific anyway, but I can understand why he feels as he does.
Slashdot Mirror
As a British person living in the USA I notice that the majority of my sockets outside kitchen and bathroom are not GFI protected (either at the socket or the fuse panel) and that most appliances do not use an Earth Pin.
Do note, though, that since GFCI protects everything downstream of the GFCI, any given circuit only really requires a single GFI outlet (or breaker).
To be fair, most houses have 220v as well as 110v
But only to a few points. If you want to plug your 220V lamp or radio in, in the US you'll have to reach behind the stove to do it.
220v requires MUCH more expensive wiring
Why would that be, if we're comparing apples to apples (and not wiring for stoves)? As far as copper goes, 220 would presumably take 4 wires (hot, hot, neutral, ground) rather than the 3 for 110V, but for the same (wattage) capacity the wires would be thinner, probably using less copper, since the current would be half as great. Insulation shouldn't cost any more. I don't see why outlets and fixtures would cost any more, if they were based on the same designs used for 110V, if anything they might be a little cheaper due to the lower current used by 220V.
On the other hand, if you liked your old printer so much, why don't you just look for another NEC on eBay or other second source?
Can't speak for him, but for me, consumables. Toner carts for the NEC95 (and other printers that use the same Canon engine, like the Epson EPL6000) are getting hard to find and are quite expensive (US$200 or more OEM, but NEC doesn't sell it any more). I've had both the EPL6000 and the NEC 95, both fine workhorse printers, but the last time the toner ran out I tried ordering a reload from several online places only to have them cancel the order a week or so later because they couldn't get one. One refill place told me the carts were difficult to refill. So I got a HP6mp for ten bucks from a thrift shop, replaced a missing spring in the paper drawer with the same spring out of a dead HP4P, and frankly it's a much nicer printer (the NEC didn't have a sleep mode, and took about a minute to warm up). And toner will be available at reasonable prices pretty near forever, since HP printers are so common.
You can vote for anyone you like to your hearts content, but unless that person has the blessing of a major party they will not be permitted to take office.
Oh, in the US, if they win, they will be permitted. Granted, unless you are independently wealthy and/or famous, it's very much more difficult to win without major party backing, because winning involves having a bunch of people working for you, and (in major races) buying radio and TV ads.
Because only voting for winning candidates has effect, voting for anyone but the majors has exactly the same effect as not voting at all.
And yet, somehow Vermont has a Socialist Senator. Connecticut has an Egotistical Ass Party Senator. Minnesota recently had an Independence Party pro-wrassler Governor. In Minneapolis there are three parties. The third party is the Republicans, who haven't held a City Council seat for a decade or longer. (The second party is the Greens.)
While I understand your point of view I also understand the point of view of parents who's kids have actually died from congenital heart defects which show themselves during physical activity. These heart monitors would alert someone before the kid actually collapsed.
Seems simple to me. If the kid's heart is too bad for PE, the kid shouldn't be taking PE at all. Yes, the occasional kid may surprise you and keel over, both life and natural selection are a bitch. If parents want their kids to wear heart monitors (substitute "geolocation devices", "moon suits", etc. as desired), let them purchase them and bully their kids into wearing them (in 90% of the cases, the kid will shuck the gear as soon as they get onto the school bus).
As to the theory that PE teaches kids to enjoy exercise, I'd have to say that I found kick-ball the last exercise done in school that might have been termed enjoyable. Everything subsequent to that involved Nazi gym teachers and resulted in my avoiding those activities for the next 40 years. (Yes, it does show. Thanks for asking.)
Is it in wide use already? Is it holding up?
It's got (somewhat spotty) city-wide coverage, and is in fairly wide use. It's half to two-thirds the cost of comparable speeds of cable or DSL (several speeds available, from 1M/1M to 6M/1M). APs on roughly a 2-block grid, it works well if you're close to one and don't have conductive things in the way (we have a lot of stucco buildings, and stucco is done on a wire mesh base that's pretty good radio shielding). There are (recommended, extra cost) wireless units that connect to ethernet, and they not only are a bit better than the typical cheap wifi laptop unit, but you've got the option of locating your client unit at a point that has good reception. The vendor will also assist with things like outside antennas.
How does its infrastructure and maintenance cost compare to a wider range wireless?
No idea what maintenance costs are. In many places they really need a denser grid to provide good coverage. Many of the APs have wireless connections to the network, that may use a different band. We see both flat-panel antennas (which appear to be directional and aimed at an upstream provider) and ~2 foot sticks, 2 or 3 to an AP (typically mounted on a bracket on a utility pole at a corner).
When the I-35 bridge fell down, that entire area already had coverage, and got heavy use by news media, emergency workers, and (later) construction crews.
Actually, the chances of two consecutive coin flips landing on the same side are EXACTLY 50%.
You statistics people think you're so smart.
But you have failed to account for the cases:
where the coin lands on edge.
where the coin rolls, and is lost under the refrigerator.
where a raven swoops down out of the sky and snags the coin midair and flies away with it.
where a man jumps out of the closet, grabs the coin, and runs away.
where when the coin hits, it breaks into two pieces, the microfilm flies out, and the pieces come to rest hollow side up.
where Annie Oakley shoots from the next room and blasts the coin to smithereens.
the Creationist case, where God, being extremely bored, miraculously causes the coin to turn into a glass of Guiness, which smashes to the ground and gets beer everywhere.
And probably other cases.
Where's your 50% now, eh?
The thing is, there are much fewer cases of violence against Muslims than there are vice versa.
As others have pointed out, if one counts the violence committed by the US military etc., that's probably not true. Mostly because we're much better at mass violence than they are. Was it "because" they were Muslims? Without knowing what was going on inside of Bush's head, we can't really know.
There are douchebags all over the place, it just seems that the Muslim world, especially the ones who are brought up knowing nothing but the Koran and being brainwashed into thinking all of America is the great Satan
I'd say a lot of that has to do with the fact that America has a history of overthrowing their governments (Iraq, Iran), occupying their lands militarily, and propping up (anticommunist) unpopular dictatorships like the Shah. Not to speak of propping up Israel, who (in their eyes) stole their land. IMO religion is mostly just a veneer used as an additional justification by their politicians, a justification that their people perhaps identify with more easily.
If you drew the same cartoons of Jesus, you would be hard pressed to find a Christian that would threaten you over them, much less actually do something about it.
Well, our sensitivities are a little different. I'm pretty sure if I published cartoons in Mississippi of Jesus having sex with animals and/or the Apostles, it would draw death threats. Blogs like DailyKos receive death threats on account of their politics. In any case, Christians who murder abortion clinic workers for religious reasons don't count?
What happens if you get "the rest of the word" up to speed economically to the level where they can compete with us - and note that economic competitiveness implies military capability - and it turns out that their morals are diametrically opposite to ours (e.g., "Behead all those who insult Islam!", as written on the sign of one Muslim protester)?
You mean, as opposed to those people whose morals are "like ours"? Maybe the military officer who "made wisecracks about the soldiers heading off to Iraq to kill some ragheads and burn some turbans"? Or forum posts like "Damn Ragheads! We need to simply kill everyone in fuggin Iraq!"? Or "Reaper", the Brit who says "I like to Kill Haji's, they disgust me"? Yep, them Christians and Americans and Brits sure are some peace lovin' people, morally far superior to Muslims.
Of course. And the participants want to take pictures.
Trouble is, people want to have it both ways. That's where the problem arises.
Bman is founded on principles of enjoying oneself and being free without concern that people will take photos and 'out' folks for recreational activities.
Let's assume (I don't know) that BM has an exclusive lease to the area. Because if they don't, other people may legitimately be there, and take whatever pictures they want, and do whatever is legally possible to do with them. In a public place, your privacy rights are rather limited.
Then the simplest (and least abusable) solution would be to ban cameras entirely. That would be fair, and not susceptible to abuse. Problem solved.
That said, all forms of "consumption tax" (either sales or VAT) are regressive because they disproportionately tax people who spend higher percentages of their incomes on consumables.
That is only true because the really big ticket items are exempted from the tax. Buildings. Airplanes. Company stock. Lawyers and architects. Lobbyists.
It wouldn't be so if there weren't loopholes for these things. For example, a sales tax on sale of corporate stock (which after all represents ownership in a company) would raise a lot of money, even if it was at a lesser rate than the sales tax on a pair of shoes. It would have the added benefit of discouraging the financial houses who are distorting the market with computerized trading based on fluctuations in a small fraction of a second.
Wouldn't the defendant have been able to refuse to answer, or at least raise concerns, regarding that sort of questioning as well?
Of course. But you can't really fault the defendant for not understanding how suicidal saying "yes" was going to be, he's not a lawyer.
In comparison to Dyson you are an insignificant nit.
Of course I am. As are you.
A great mind has some questions perhaps you should STFU and listen rather than trying to drag his reputation into the mud by implying "he's old therefore useless".
Perhaps you should STFU. I've listened to him. I'm not saying he's wrong. "He's old therefore useless" is what you said, not me. I'm old, too. What I said was, the penalties for wrongly dismissing global warming are far more severe than the penalties for wrongly accepting it.
What's gone on in the 2 cases that have gone to trial is like one long, bad dream. The root problem is economics. The defendants can't afford to go out and hire a competent lawyer, and lawyers can't afford to do these cases without getting paid. A good lawyer would have either prevented the outlandish things that occurred, or developed an impervious record for an appeal.
I have to admit, IANAL even though I read Groklaw, and I haven't been following this case closely. But I saw that the judge's rationale was that plaintiffs had asked the defendant "are you liable" and he said "yes". It seems to me that when that question was asked, all of the defense lawyers should have levitated out of their seats screaming "Objection!" Perhaps I just don't understand the routine, or maybe reflex time is the difference between academic lawyers and lawyers who actually spend their time in the courtroom.
here is a prominent scientist that has been crapped on by his peers for not following the status quo- http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html
With all due respect to an eminent and brilliant physicist, Freeman Dyson is not a climatologist. The very article you link notes that he is a "subversive" who feels it's important to be in opposition. While I find that a commendable trait, it should be noted when considering his "anti-establishment" views. IMO, he's right when he says that global warming is not adequately established. But my metaphor is, "the majority of runs made by fire departments turn out not to be fires; we could save a lot of money by requiring an independent confirmation of a fire before the trucks go out." Maybe it's true, but the potential consequences are too horrible to contemplate.
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." Arthur C. Clarke said that. Dyson, to his credit, does not say climate change is impossible. He merely says he does not believe it to be bad.
Can you put the cables through the desk, then under the carpet?
Don't put 110V power cables under the carpet. They do emit heat, and if the heat can't escape, it builds up. I know somebody who set their house on fire that way. If the cable gets damaged by walking on it, that exacerbates the problem. And while it isn't dangerous, I don't think I'd want to be walking on my ethernet/USB/parallel/serial cables, either.
You think it's EASY to get into a dark cellar with no stairs, and then leave a leopard behind to guard it??
Leave? The leopard is bored, pissed off, and hungry. Who said anything about leaving?
Use any common P2P file-sharing system, preferably one that doesn't require a central server. Gnutella would work fine, I know people do this using Shareaza and Limewire, and probably any other of the clients will work. DC would work. I used WASTE for a while to do this. Probably some other P2P software would work, too. They almost all use hash checks to ensure accurate transmission. Set up a private file sharing network, using one folder on each end, and your files should get transferred 100% error-free between your computers. Should be fairly simple, just don't share C: :) The only downside I can see (outside of the IT people freaking out because you've got a file-sharing program on your computer) is that they're "pull" oriented, rather than "push", so the recipient has to retrieve the files. See also Friend-to-friend and Private P2P
Like others have said, find out why your network is breaking data in transmission and fixing that would be the more direct fix, but I'm guessing OP doesn't have control over that part.
I do beleve that online retailers should be made to collect the sales tax for the state the good are being delivered to.
What, you want to force everyone out of online retailing except for a couple of megacorps? I defy anyone to even figure out what taxes are due and on what and to whom. There are tens of thousands of tax jurisdictions, and their tax rates and rules are all different. In my immediate area, there is a state sales tax. There is a city sales tax. There is a county sales tax. There is a "convention center district" sales tax (the convention center district is a subset of the city). There is a "7 county metro area" sales tax. All of these taxes have different boundaries (the county is much larger than the city), and the boundaries do not correspond to zip codes. Christ, I live in the area and not only can I not always tell which taxes are applicable, the state tax office (which collects them) can't either (the best they can do is say "portions of that zipcode").
Now lets move on to what gets taxed. Food? No, not in my state, unless it's a carbonated beverage or uncarbonated water in containers less than one liter, or contains more than a specified percentage of alcohol (that's a bonus tax). Nor clothing, except furs and jewelery. Nor, for a limited time, solar panels. 40 miles away, in the next state, both are taxed.
Can requiring retailers to collect tax for all destinations work? Of course. Simply require that every state agree on a single uniform tax rate for goods, and a single uniform set of rules on what those goods are. (And hopefully, that the tax will be applied to all sales, including sales to nonprofits and government units of various sorts, because it's really hard to tell who qualifies when you're a retailer on the other side of the country.) Let the states provide a single unified destination (at their expense) to send all sales tax payments to, identified by either zipcode or state, and have that central point figure out who gets what, and pay them.
Come back when the states get their shit together, and we can talk.
Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 30, @08:40AM wrote:
I can't believe you're all so god damn naive.
These are not honest people.
Whereas, anyone can see that your name is your bond.
China is a controlled export country.
Iran is an embargoed country.
Legally, there is a big difference between the two.
Legally, sure. It's simple to create laws to justify or prohibit anything. Legally, a torturer who works for the CIA is a upstanding patriotic citizen, while a torturer who works for Al Quaida is a terrorist and should be killed. Legally, when China executes people to harvest organs, it's unfortunate, while when Germany killed people doing medical experiments on them, it was a crime against humanity. Legally, when American soldiers murdered 504 civilians at My Lai, it was... well, it really wasn't anything since only one served any time at all (4 1/2 months) for the deed.
Morally, there is no difference whatsoever. Well, the numbers are bigger in China, so the naive observer would think that was more serious.
So what's your point? That the Iranian regime is okay because of some nefarious activities by others in the past?
Of course not. The (AC) OP was not condemning the regime, but "Iranian culture and its people". First of all, those are the words of a bigot. Secondly, for Americans to do that is like the Mafia condemning the business practices of the Gulf Cartel. Their objections may be correct, but who's going to take them seriously?
The Iranians bear 100% of the blame for the existence of a tyrannical government in Iran. We should condemn Iranian culture and its people.
You mean, as opposed to the democracy they had in the early 1950s, before the US (and UK) overthrew it to install a dictator who could be trusted to do what the US/UK wanted? The dictator who the US was still trying to prop up in 1979 when the current crop of religious nuts (is "religious nuts" redundant? probably.) took power? Should we not condemn the American and British culture and people for the interference that led to this state?
number11 (posting AC because I've moderated)
Does he like them for the books? He knows you can read books on the Internet, right? Maybe he just doesn't know how to use the internet properly
You can read some books on "the Internet". I just had a look for a few books that were important to me at one time or another. "Big Tiger and Christian". Nope, reviews, amazon listings, but not the book. Not Tolkein's Ring Trilogy (though I could probably find a pirated version on USENET or BT). Not Rockwell Kent's illustrations. Not Jung's "Man and His Symbols". Not Reyntien's "The Art of Stained Glass". Not Minor White's "Mirrors Messages Manifestations" (even if one could find it online, the image quality would be degraded, and probably take forever to load). In fact, not most books published since the 1920s (since we now have perpetual copyright).
If you read online, you almost certainly read fewer books. When was the last time you read an entire book online (or downloaded)? (Yes, I know attention spans have been growing shorter and shorter, and while that's not entirely due to the Internet, it's almost certainly a factor.) For me, probably a month or two ago, and it was a crappy pdf scanned from a hard copy, complete with distortion in the gutter (it had many pictures that spanned pages). Even if you use a laptop or ebook reader, it's far harder to read unless lighting conditions are just right, and it's far harder to get comfortable while you're reading.
And digital media are far more ephemeral than paper. They get bit rot. They depend on access to technologies that have become obsolete, unless one continually re-records things (hardly anyone does). What's on a website may change from one day to the next, making it easier to rewrite history, whereas printed copy is frozen in time when it is printed. (That can be an advantage of digital media, but it can also be a disadvantage). Sites come and go, a significant number of the bookmarks I've accumulated yield 404 errors. I'm told that a literate Chinese can with naked eyeball alone read documents that were recorded 2000 years ago. With a computer, you're unlikely to be able to read something recorded 20 years ago (sure, I could send you an 8" floppy with the text in Displaywrite format, but you couldn't read it).
These days, I do most of my reading on the Internet. And that means I read far fewer books. Yeah, Bradbury is an old fogey, and his writing was always more poetic than scientific anyway, but I can understand why he feels as he does.