Lets remember that there are hundreds of thousands of people who never USE any more power than the 50 horse engine. I get behind them all the time. They may have as much as 500 horsepower at their disposal, but the moment the engine begins to growl, they take their foot off the throttle.
To many claims being made here, by you and others, with no qualifications whatsoever.
In '76 I bought a new car - my first one ever. 76 Chevy Nova, 6 cyl 3 speed. The damned thing was advertised as "fuel efficient". 18 mpg off the showroom floor, combined city and highway driving. The BEST I ever got with it on the highway was about 20 1/2 mpg. I did some research, did a couple of minor mods, and improved that fuel mileage about 3 mpg. After my efforts were completed, the BEST I ever got was 24 mpg on the highway - overall lifetime fuel mileage for the car was right at 20 mpg.
In recent years, I've owned several cars that got 29 to 31 mpg, and one that got 36 mpg consistently. I've not owned or driven anything that competes with my motorcycle, which got 53 mpg out of the showroom in 1983.
Fuel mileage in vehicles that are meant to get good mileage has gone up - but not nearly as much as it should have. Cars SHOULD be getting close to 50 mpg, and they would be, if customer demand actually demanded it.
The FACTS ARE, when Congress began mandating fuel economy goals, they screwed up by allowing trucks to be exempt. Enter the SUV. The American consumer demanded his power and luxury with lots of leg room and head room, so he paid a premium to have a luxury car mounted on a truck frame. That is why we STILL have personal vehicles running up and down the roads, getting 20 mpg and less.
It would be simple matter for Congress to revisit fuel economy, and remove the exemptions for "trucks", or to modify that exemption. Slap all non-commercial "truck" frames with a ten thousand dollar excise tax, and at the same time require their fuel economy to improve to a minimum of 25 mpg. We would see a hell of a lot of more fuel efficient cars being sold, and a lot less 15 to 20 mpg vehicles on the road.
The higher demand for fuel efficiency would at the same time encourage manufacturers to research even more economical drive trains.
The wife had a Toyota Camry that flirted with 40 mpg. Never quite got it, but it was really close sometimes. That is what we should ALL be driving, unless we have a genuine need for a larger, more powerful vehicle. In which case you pay the excise tax on it, and recoup the taxes in your business.
In today's America, the words "telecom" and "internet" aren't quite synonymous, but if you pretended that they were, you wouldn't be far wrong. All of my internet activity is carried by a telecom. The alternatives include cable, satellite, and radio - all of which are dependent on telecoms. Your satellite transceiver can talk to the satellite, but where is the signal going to go from there? AT&T is shut down. Depending on protocols aboard the satellite, you may be connected to a European, or Asian, or Australian server, but queries to CONUS will simply be ignored.
They'll make one sweep to get both, then they'll loiter in suspicious areas with wardriving equipment and armored personnel carriers filled with swat teams. Fire up either your guns or your wifi, they'll be on you like stink on shite.
You obviously have an Intelligence Quotient higher than your shoe size. To bad the top echelons of "management" in this country can't say the same. Our cyber security looks like an episode of Keystone Cops, updated with technological gadgets.
Perhaps you are confusing power with authority. My government has the power to prevent me having any contact with the outside world. My government has no such authority.
What is this "illegally download" to which you refer? I just found some electrons floating freely through the tubez, and gave them a home. Apparently, you didn't do a whois on the IP addy above, LOL!
I've a better idea, really. I think that BOTH sides should represent JUSTICE. Often enough, there are two or more interests represented in a trial, debate, or whatever, but justice remains absent.
The Supreme Court has also allowed prohibitions against alcohol and marijuana to stand. History has proven prohibition to be wrong, stupid, and utter failures. Maybe you should side with civil libertarians instead of the court?
Of course an addressed envelope isn't "private" to the extent that the contents of the envelope are. But, one doesn't expect the mailman to maintain a log of every parcel that he delivers to, or picks up from your house. Nor do you expect that mailman to share his log with the police department, or the Aryan Race headquarters, or the Muslim Brotherhood's Neighborhood Ethics Patrol.
I've heard more and more people calling for a constitutional convention. Guess what would happen, if one were convened, today?
RIAA, MPAA, and a multitude of "representatives" from the military industrial complex would rewrite the constitution for us. Right now those same players are writing some abomination that they refer to as the "Trans-Pacific Partnership". Of course, that "partnership" fails to invite common citizens into the discussions.
With almost all arguments against any form of eugenics, the bottom line always seems to be, "It scares me!"
"As another poster has pointed out, that quickly becomes a "haves and have-nots" issue. Unless poor people get equal access to what will initially be a very expensive technology, you risk breeding a genetic overclass and underclass."
Or, to paraphrase, "But, I might be among the have nots, while the haves inherit the earth!"
And, while everyone quivers in fear of everything that could go wrong, government and the insurance companies cooperate in mapping the DNA of the entire population. The haves and the have nots are being determined already. How 'bout we stop quivering in fear, demand an accounting from government, and determine how all that information will be used?
You ARE aware that some police departments take DNA samples from everyone who is arrested, right? The purported reason is, for identification purposes. But, like the NSA, once that information is entered into a database, it's there forever, and government can use that data any way they wish to use it.
A lot of studies have suggested a lot of different things. Your study sounds like so much bogus nonsense, to be perfectly honest.
The most credible studies done to date, strongly suggest that sexuality is most influenced by hormonal levels within the womb.
I will give credit that you only claim that your study "suggests" that nonsense. No one yet knows why some people become homosexual. No one. Which is one reason I get so pissed off at the gay movement's claims. They are talking out their asses, no less than the hellfire and brimstone preachers who assure us that all gays are going to hell.
"2) Going down the eugenics and forced sterilization route is a slippery slope straight to hell. Look at what we used to do in the 1930s. It's the stuff of nightmares."
Sorry - I have to disagree.
By that logic, all firearms should be outlawed, because some firearms have been used to commit crimes. A LOT of people will latch onto that, and clamor for stricter gun control - but the logic doesn't stop there. Since some automobiles have been used to commit murder, then all automobiles should be outlawed. Knives have been used to murder, so all knives should be outlawed. Rocks have been used to commit murder, blah blah blah.
Horrible things have been done, in the name of science, and specifically eugenics. Does that necessarily mean that any studies into eugenics is evil? I say, "Not only NO, but HELL NO!"
While I will readily admit that eugenics can be pretty damned scary, it has the POTENTIAL of weeding out a lot of hereditary diseases and conditions. If scientists announced tomorrow that they could screen for cystic fibrosis, with greater than 99% confidence, and abort the fetus early in the first trimester, would you object to that? Or, even better for those who oppose abortion for any reason: Mother could take a prenatal supplement that would guarantee that she couldn't conceive a child subject to cystic fibrosis. She simply rejects any sperm. Yes, I'm pulling this out of my ass, it's entirely from dreamland - but IF it were possible, would you object?
How 'bout if we could prevent elephantiasis, or mongoloids, or any number of deformities and conditions? Would you object to weeding out alcoholism?
Eugenics isn't evil in and of itself. I feel that we have a responsibility to take reasonable actions to make future generations healthier. Or, smarter. Or stronger.
Forced sterilization? If we got so far along that we could screen for all the many conditions that make people's lives so miserable, sterilization wouldn't be a necessity. Instead, Mother can pick and choose traits, simply rejecting any and all number of undesirable traits.
Of course it has removable batteries. Take this hammer, and hit this edge sharply. Now that edge. Wedge a knife under there, and pry up. See that? That's your battery!
IANAD either - but from all appearances, the answer is no. The developers develop their things in isolation, mostly. Some bright boy comes up with an idea, he sells it to marketing, marketing sells it to management, then management tells the developers what to develop. Once the finished product is ready, marketing goes out to sell it. Management buys the software with little if any input from anyone at all. The end user has zero input until he calls in to support to complain that the damned software doesn't work.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets remember that there are hundreds of thousands of people who never USE any more power than the 50 horse engine. I get behind them all the time. They may have as much as 500 horsepower at their disposal, but the moment the engine begins to growl, they take their foot off the throttle.
To many claims being made here, by you and others, with no qualifications whatsoever.
In '76 I bought a new car - my first one ever. 76 Chevy Nova, 6 cyl 3 speed. The damned thing was advertised as "fuel efficient". 18 mpg off the showroom floor, combined city and highway driving. The BEST I ever got with it on the highway was about 20 1/2 mpg. I did some research, did a couple of minor mods, and improved that fuel mileage about 3 mpg. After my efforts were completed, the BEST I ever got was 24 mpg on the highway - overall lifetime fuel mileage for the car was right at 20 mpg.
In recent years, I've owned several cars that got 29 to 31 mpg, and one that got 36 mpg consistently. I've not owned or driven anything that competes with my motorcycle, which got 53 mpg out of the showroom in 1983.
Fuel mileage in vehicles that are meant to get good mileage has gone up - but not nearly as much as it should have. Cars SHOULD be getting close to 50 mpg, and they would be, if customer demand actually demanded it.
The FACTS ARE, when Congress began mandating fuel economy goals, they screwed up by allowing trucks to be exempt. Enter the SUV. The American consumer demanded his power and luxury with lots of leg room and head room, so he paid a premium to have a luxury car mounted on a truck frame. That is why we STILL have personal vehicles running up and down the roads, getting 20 mpg and less.
It would be simple matter for Congress to revisit fuel economy, and remove the exemptions for "trucks", or to modify that exemption. Slap all non-commercial "truck" frames with a ten thousand dollar excise tax, and at the same time require their fuel economy to improve to a minimum of 25 mpg. We would see a hell of a lot of more fuel efficient cars being sold, and a lot less 15 to 20 mpg vehicles on the road.
The higher demand for fuel efficiency would at the same time encourage manufacturers to research even more economical drive trains.
The wife had a Toyota Camry that flirted with 40 mpg. Never quite got it, but it was really close sometimes. That is what we should ALL be driving, unless we have a genuine need for a larger, more powerful vehicle. In which case you pay the excise tax on it, and recoup the taxes in your business.
In today's America, the words "telecom" and "internet" aren't quite synonymous, but if you pretended that they were, you wouldn't be far wrong. All of my internet activity is carried by a telecom. The alternatives include cable, satellite, and radio - all of which are dependent on telecoms. Your satellite transceiver can talk to the satellite, but where is the signal going to go from there? AT&T is shut down. Depending on protocols aboard the satellite, you may be connected to a European, or Asian, or Australian server, but queries to CONUS will simply be ignored.
They'll make one sweep to get both, then they'll loiter in suspicious areas with wardriving equipment and armored personnel carriers filled with swat teams. Fire up either your guns or your wifi, they'll be on you like stink on shite.
You obviously have an Intelligence Quotient higher than your shoe size. To bad the top echelons of "management" in this country can't say the same. Our cyber security looks like an episode of Keystone Cops, updated with technological gadgets.
" a governemt has the authority to make it so."
Perhaps you are confusing power with authority. My government has the power to prevent me having any contact with the outside world. My government has no such authority.
Think maybe they're in need of donations for a room?
What is this "illegally download" to which you refer? I just found some electrons floating freely through the tubez, and gave them a home. Apparently, you didn't do a whois on the IP addy above, LOL!
I've a better idea, really. I think that BOTH sides should represent JUSTICE. Often enough, there are two or more interests represented in a trial, debate, or whatever, but justice remains absent.
Thank God for torrents, huh? I grabbed my copy from 195.208.24.91!
Oh, wait. Oh shit!
The Supreme Court has also allowed prohibitions against alcohol and marijuana to stand. History has proven prohibition to be wrong, stupid, and utter failures. Maybe you should side with civil libertarians instead of the court?
Of course an addressed envelope isn't "private" to the extent that the contents of the envelope are. But, one doesn't expect the mailman to maintain a log of every parcel that he delivers to, or picks up from your house. Nor do you expect that mailman to share his log with the police department, or the Aryan Race headquarters, or the Muslim Brotherhood's Neighborhood Ethics Patrol.
Somewhere near you, there is a community college offering Remedial Reading 101. You should check it out.
I've heard more and more people calling for a constitutional convention. Guess what would happen, if one were convened, today?
RIAA, MPAA, and a multitude of "representatives" from the military industrial complex would rewrite the constitution for us. Right now those same players are writing some abomination that they refer to as the "Trans-Pacific Partnership". Of course, that "partnership" fails to invite common citizens into the discussions.
Think about what you're asking.
With almost all arguments against any form of eugenics, the bottom line always seems to be, "It scares me!"
"As another poster has pointed out, that quickly becomes a "haves and have-nots" issue. Unless poor people get equal access to what will initially be a very expensive technology, you risk breeding a genetic overclass and underclass."
Or, to paraphrase, "But, I might be among the have nots, while the haves inherit the earth!"
And, while everyone quivers in fear of everything that could go wrong, government and the insurance companies cooperate in mapping the DNA of the entire population. The haves and the have nots are being determined already. How 'bout we stop quivering in fear, demand an accounting from government, and determine how all that information will be used?
You ARE aware that some police departments take DNA samples from everyone who is arrested, right? The purported reason is, for identification purposes. But, like the NSA, once that information is entered into a database, it's there forever, and government can use that data any way they wish to use it.
A lot of studies have suggested a lot of different things. Your study sounds like so much bogus nonsense, to be perfectly honest.
The most credible studies done to date, strongly suggest that sexuality is most influenced by hormonal levels within the womb.
I will give credit that you only claim that your study "suggests" that nonsense. No one yet knows why some people become homosexual. No one. Which is one reason I get so pissed off at the gay movement's claims. They are talking out their asses, no less than the hellfire and brimstone preachers who assure us that all gays are going to hell.
"2) Going down the eugenics and forced sterilization route is a slippery slope straight to hell. Look at what we used to do in the 1930s. It's the stuff of nightmares."
Sorry - I have to disagree.
By that logic, all firearms should be outlawed, because some firearms have been used to commit crimes. A LOT of people will latch onto that, and clamor for stricter gun control - but the logic doesn't stop there. Since some automobiles have been used to commit murder, then all automobiles should be outlawed. Knives have been used to murder, so all knives should be outlawed. Rocks have been used to commit murder, blah blah blah.
Horrible things have been done, in the name of science, and specifically eugenics. Does that necessarily mean that any studies into eugenics is evil? I say, "Not only NO, but HELL NO!"
While I will readily admit that eugenics can be pretty damned scary, it has the POTENTIAL of weeding out a lot of hereditary diseases and conditions. If scientists announced tomorrow that they could screen for cystic fibrosis, with greater than 99% confidence, and abort the fetus early in the first trimester, would you object to that? Or, even better for those who oppose abortion for any reason: Mother could take a prenatal supplement that would guarantee that she couldn't conceive a child subject to cystic fibrosis. She simply rejects any sperm. Yes, I'm pulling this out of my ass, it's entirely from dreamland - but IF it were possible, would you object?
How 'bout if we could prevent elephantiasis, or mongoloids, or any number of deformities and conditions? Would you object to weeding out alcoholism?
Eugenics isn't evil in and of itself. I feel that we have a responsibility to take reasonable actions to make future generations healthier. Or, smarter. Or stronger.
Forced sterilization? If we got so far along that we could screen for all the many conditions that make people's lives so miserable, sterilization wouldn't be a necessity. Instead, Mother can pick and choose traits, simply rejecting any and all number of undesirable traits.
No, thanks.
http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/evilapple.jpg
Of course it has removable batteries. Take this hammer, and hit this edge sharply. Now that edge. Wedge a knife under there, and pry up. See that? That's your battery!
Hey - a good brainwashing campaign requires a lot of duplicated effort!
It is even more apt to follow links from TFA to get the real story.
http://www.symantec.com/content/en/us/enterprise/media/security_response/whitepapers/hidden_lynx.pdf
It disappears BY DESIGN. The hackers want it to disappear.
http://www.symantec.com/content/en/us/enterprise/media/security_response/whitepapers/hidden_lynx.pdf
This PDF is much more informative than the summary or TFA. I got interested, and followed links, stumbling over this along the way.
http://www.symantec.com/content/en/us/enterprise/media/security_response/whitepapers/hidden_lynx.pdf
Yanking the cord out of the power supply is a decent substitute for #shutdown -now.
IANAD either - but from all appearances, the answer is no. The developers develop their things in isolation, mostly. Some bright boy comes up with an idea, he sells it to marketing, marketing sells it to management, then management tells the developers what to develop. Once the finished product is ready, marketing goes out to sell it. Management buys the software with little if any input from anyone at all. The end user has zero input until he calls in to support to complain that the damned software doesn't work.