Believe it or not, most people in the US see this as the class warfare tripe that it is, and most of them don't agree that rich people are "assholes". Why? Because most of those people are looking forward to the day when they too get to be "rich". And when they "arrive" they don't want to be greeted by a bunch of rabble rousers who have nothing to offer but the concentration of power in the hands of politicians who "earn" their money at the points of guns and convoluted legal systems.
A related fact is that health care is what economists call a prestige good - the more expensive the health care product, the more desirable it is to the consumer. You dream about TV ads on how hospital X charges 35% less than hospital Y, but that ain't going to happen - perversely, this may drive consumers AWAY from X and toward Y. (When was the last time you saw Harvard claiming its tuition was 35% less than Yale? Or Mercedes trying to undercut BMW in price?).
OK... I can see the point. Maybe under full disclosure hospitals would continue to run "fluff ads" just as universites run fluff ads during football games. Ever seeth just a little bit knowing that some of your bill went to pay for a fluff ad for a service that you are just going to buy anyway?
Your university and Mercedes analogy are both flawed. Why did I go to the University of Virginia? In state tuition and the reputation as a "public ivy". For "public ivy" read "good education at an affordable price". Why do you think Mercedes has the C-class?
You're dancing around the larger issue anyway, which is that at least the BMW has a sticker, and university tuition is public knowledge.
Under full disclosure, yes, there will continue to be people who pay out the wazoo for Cedar Sinai. They will be the minority.
If true, that's totally f***ed up. I've never heard restricting disclosure used as a tactic to prevent price-fixing. Sure enough, if doctors had to disclose their labor rates, they would converge to a narrow band of rates--just as they do for gasoline prices. When charges of price-fixing occur in the petroleum industry, they launch an investigation to determine whether or not the actors involved actually met to fix prices. The same thing could be applied for doctors. What would it be like filling up if you didn't get the price until after you'd filled your tank? Does anybody with a lick of common sense think the price would be less, or that petroleum companies would have less incentive to fix prices?
There are several reasons healthcare is so expensive.
1. Litigation. Does the phrase "malpractice insurance crisis" ring a bell?
2. A side effect of (1.) is something called "CYA medicine". Ever receive a chest CT because your heartburn just might be a pulmonary embolism? It happened to me just recently.
3. Failed accountability. This one takes a bit more explaining. Ever bother to look at your bill? Of course not. Why? Because chances are, the insurance company pays it. Aha! You say. What if I'm not insured? Well then, many people who aren't insured "spend down" and go on Medicaid. Once more, nobody looks at what Medicaid is being billed, except for the hardworking beurocrats (cough)bull***(cough). Only the very narrow slice of the population that is "self paying" actually looks at a bill (more on thatlater) You would think that insurance companies would be on guard for their bottom line, but corporate inefficiency is often no better than government inefficiency.
4. Complex and inefficient billing. Health care is one of the few businesses where you receive service at a single location, yet billing goes from subconractors directly to insurance companies or patients. Worse yet, billing from some contractors takes weeks, or even months. Yuck! Imagine if every business worked like this. Imagine getting your car fixed, and you get bills from the mechanic, the parts department, and the oil supplier spread out over 2 months. It's not just inconvenient. It actually hinders your ability to make financial plans because you don't know what's coming. And why don't you know what's coming? That leads us to...
5....Secrecy. That's right. Secrecy. Try to call up a hospital and ask them for their price list. Chances are, you'll get the same answer I got: "That's on a computer and it's confidential". I was transferred to a manager who had her phone on voicemail. In retrospect, I should have known I was in trouble when the phone tree had "press 2 if you're an attorney". This is probably one of the biggest reasons healthcare costs too much. Sure, there are several hospitals within driving distance, but if I think I am going to need an exam that is likely to involve half an hour with a doctor, some medication, and an x-ray... I have no idea who charges the least for an x-ray, or what the hourly billing rate is for a doctor, or what the average examining time is for diagnosing a condtion. We have more accountability at the garage than we do at the hospital (Chilton's guides, posted labor rates, etc).This alone is probably the single biggest factor driving up healthcare costs. Lack of pricing information makes comparison impossible, resulting in a virtual monopoly even though there are multiple companies. So, what did I do? I gave up and paid a price that I could not verify as accurate because I knew that the only way to get the price list was to make a federal case out of it, and spend 100 times more in legal fees than my bill was.
6. Vested interests. You can call me a conspiracy theorist if you like, but I think various interests want the price of healthcare to skyrocket so that they can use that as an excuse to socialize it. The corporations actually secretly like the idea of socialized medecine, because then they get to become government agencies. If you are a corporate sleazeball, the next step up is to become a government sleazeball; the perks are just that much better. You can just hear them salivating.
Want to fix healthcare? Fine. Require providers to give one bill in a timely manner--no pass-throughs to subcontractors. Require providers to post price-lists online if they have a website, or to make price-lists available to the local libraries. Require employers who insure their employees to provider high deductable insurance. There should be no claims or forms until annual out-of-pocket costs exceed 10% of your annual pay. Place a cap punitive damages, as many have suggested.
I was sick and tired of scraping them off the windshield and out of the grill of my semi-tractor.
Seriously, whenever I saw the sparrow I couldn't help but be reminded of the driver's ed film they showed us where they crashed small imports into American 4-door sedans. The intended message was "your father's crappy old car isn't cool, but it's a lot safer". Of course, we were teenage boys so the received message was "Oh boy! We get to sit in class and watch car crashes!".
I for one, would be willing to chip in 50 bucks to see a Sparrow go mano-a-bird with a Chevy Caprice. OK... 5 bucks... as part of the gate fee at the stock car races. Very doable. Hey... this could save the company.
Oh come on. Eveybody knows that "hi" means "I am a sleazy spammer from the pit of Hell". If you don't believe me, just look in the brand new unabridged OED.:)
I would never dream of sending e-mail with "hi" in the subject.
I don't think I emphasized this enough... this is the first year since I was a kid that I've planted anything. Intensive agriculture? I think I'll be lucky if I get enough stuff so I can give surplus to 3 or 4 neighbors. If that works out, then maybe I'll get fancy next year.
The plot is small enough to weed in minutes with tools, and then about half an hour for the stuff that's too close to the plants for tools. They say corn makes enough shade to kill most weeds. I was thinking of planting marigolds around the tomatoes because they say it's a natural insect repelant.
Anyhow, the corn is in rows, with a few gaps now because 3 plants got knocked over by critters or possibly from the fierce winds. I had to bank extra dirt around them because here on the east coast we've had wind and rain that blew hard on the plants and washed away some of the soil. Now that they are about a foot high, they seem to have developed enough of a root system so this is no longer a danger, but I had to use some of my back-up plants a few weeks ago (I sprouted them in doors during the frost danger period). There are about 3 or 4 backups planted in far-flung corners of the yard, which I will probably just leave now. They will look interesting next to the azaleas; although I've also been told that isolated corn is less likely to have ears because it might not pollinate. There are also backup pumpkins growing in a less optimal spot... I did give two pumpkin seedlings to a neighbor. It will be interesting to see how they do.
Anyhow, although I don't know how this is all going to come out, I highly recommed sprouting indoors as opposed to just planting and praying. If I had done that, I think I'd have had to use twice the seed, because I think squirrels were digging for the little kernels that were still left at the bottom of the sprout. Next year I'll keep them indoors even longer.
Strangely enough, no critters have bothered the pumpkins or the tomatoes yet. I think they're smart enough to wait for those. I've been joking that this is a really labor intensive way to feed the squirrels and the birds.
I love the irony that iff a safe is being broken into, the guy that does it is a "safe cracker". If it's a computer, he's a hacker. If it's a house, he's a burglar. If it's a car, he's a jacker--but only if the car is occupied. If the car is empty there's no particular word for it. You can say "my system was hacked" but you sound silly if you say "my house was burgled". For both the car and the house, you say "it was broken into".
Silver lining?
It will continue to be very difficult for foreigners to learn the language.
If you're a geek who is still sore about this cracker business, remember that complex, arcane, illogical, and inconsistant rules like this help us spot English n00bs.
That's interesting. This is the first year that I've found the time to grow vegetables. I've got corn, pumpkins, and the one "conformist" crop that you must have where I live: tomatoes.
I never thought of this small garden as a "geek" endevour, but I must admint, because this is my first attempt to grow more than just "decorative" corn, I went online and found out all kinds of stuff about it.
A big part of the appeal for me in gardening is not to waste land, and not to get ripped off by people. The mentality that leads me to go the extra mile and grow pumpkins so I don't have to pay some ridiculous price in the Fall is a kin to the mentality that makes people edit arcane config files in Linux so they don't have to pay Bill Gates. Also, I think growing food on your land is somehow quintessentially American... OK, that's less of a geek thing, and more of a pride thing. Remember when pennies had the wheat on them, and America took pride in agriculture? OK... too much semiotics... at any rate, I've come to appreciate farmers. Don't let people tell you farmers are stupid. If they do, ask them about crop rotation and soil pH... put them in their place.
Efficiency Near 100% ?
on
Mastering Light
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Of course I haven't seen their simulations, but where does this "near 100%" figure come from? The first test is going to use a bullet (!) and they are projecting that a more refined version will use sound waves. Something has to produce those sound waves, and the waves have to be powerful enough to alter the characteristics of the crystal.
Now I understand that in theory a light wave at a given frequency could transform to a higher frequency and lower intensity (conservation of energy is not violated), but that's analogous to changing the gear ratio on a motor. A gear system always introduces some loss.
Now, given that any practical implementation of this will require a wave generator that's likely to make some noise, I don't see it ending up in lightbulbs or solar cells. If you want to get more light to a solar cell, focusing a mirror on it and keeping it cool is probably more practical.
However, the medical imaging tech sounds like a great application. Noise from medical scanners is an acceptable part of that experience.
How can you take something away from programmer B, if he never had it?
If you start with the assumption that all code is free by default, then the GPL takes away. If you start with the assumption that all code is closed by default, the GPL gives.
If you take copyright law as the meme that formulates your view, then the GPL gives. If you take the state of the "hacker community" before GPL as the meme to formulate your view, then the GPL takes away. Remember, at MIT researchers were free to take basic research and build it into proprietary products. The GPL was a response to that. AFAIK, before GPL, MIT was releasing research under the MIT license, which is non-copyleft, but I could be wrong about that.
Wrong model. If not for the GPL RedHat would have probably turned into another BSDI.
Or MacOS X.
"I am sharing this code on the condition that you are obligated to return the favor."
If your neighbor sent you a box of chocolates with a card that read "I am giving you these chocolates on the condition that you are obligated to return the favor", how would you feel?
Of course good neighbors tend to reciprocate anyway, but only a rude neighbor would actually insist on it. That's what the GPL is--a rude neighbor.
This Bring Back Fond Memories...
on
Water Flows Uphill
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
This brings back fond memories of an illusion I first saw when I was a kid. I saw it in Springfield Mall. It was put on by a plumbing contractor, or a hot tub installer, or somebody like that.
It was a faucet, seemingly suspended in mid-air, with an endless supply of water coming from it.
I marvelled at it for several minutes, pondering how it could be done, yet my child's mind, while knowing it wasn't real, was beyond fathoming any art or science that could accomplish this.
Leaning closer to inspect it, my suspicions were aroused by the strange apparatus in the catch basin, but I still needed a full explanation from an adult:
All you do is run a pipe up to the faucet. The pipe supports the faucet. The faucent contains a concavity that directs the water to flow in a hollow cylinder that hides the pipe and completes the illusion.
You can buy table-top models of this, with yellow-dyed water flowing into a mug of beer.
Kudos to this guy though, for taking the concept and wedding it to Escher in a novel way.
This is completly wrong! It does not restrict the right of programmers - it's more the opposite, it gives programmers the right to view technology and learn from it, and even more importantly - they don't have to reinvent the wheel every time as long as they want to GPL their work too.. What is this with forcing them to open what they have done to the world? It is not forcing anyone, it is just a license which the programmer choose to distribute his software under, or he choose not to, I can't see how that is forcing anything on anyone.unless you consider the vast "market penetration" of the GPL.
(bold remarks are mine)
The GPL does very little to protect the rights of the original author (programmer A), and it does a lot to restrict the rights of others (programmer B).
Let's take different points of view here.
First, programmer B. Unless he wants to GPL his code, all GPL'd software is unuseable as a building block. If we consider the body of Open Source as potential building blocks, and the fact that more than 50% of OSS is GPL'd, then the GPL has taken away more than half the building blocks from programmer B.
Now, programmer A. This guy released his app under the GPL. He can be sure that other programmers won't use his app in proprietary applications, but he has nothing to defend himself against companies like RedHat distributing his "music" in ways that make the RIAA look like a generous patron by comparison. In other words, the GPL restricts a very narrow class of exploitation, and allows all others.
If programmer A had released his app under BSD, he would have lost protection from proprietary authors, but that's it. He would no longer be able to say "this software is under the GPL, if you want other terms, contact me". Now, how many authors of GPL'd software actually exploit this possibility? Very few, if any, I say. That's becuase it's contrary to the culture, and because contributors would stop contributing. GPL advocates always cite this ownership to argue that programmer A can still make money from deals with proprietary developers, but for all intents and purposes they can't. So programmer A gives up nothing by BSD'ing his code.
Thus, from the POV of a 3rd party wishing to "exploit" developers, BSD and GPL look very much alike unless the exploiter is using the code as a building block.
However, even under BSD you can't just repackage the code, slap a different label on it, and expect to be anything more than a commodity distributor with a very thin margin (think CheapBytes).
What BSD gives you is the potential to add your own work, on your own terms, and set your own price and license. If your mods are trivial, you approximate CheapBytes. If your mods are non-trivial then you can only be rewarded for what you've added--not BSD itself. Thus, programmer A can't argue that you're exploiting him any more than CheapBytes or RedHat.
BSD says "I can't make money off this, maybe you can". GPL says "I can't make money off this, neither can you."
In all seriousness, doesn't Australia have plenty of desert? Arid places make excellent places to store most equipment of this kind.
A tent is probably too flimsy... get one of those big metal half-pipes that they use to house enlisted personnel here in the 'States. At least... they used to... maybe it's not that bad anymore. I think they're called "quonset huts" or something like that. They're real cheap. Get some generous station owner to loan you a few acres, and put quonset huts on them. Just make sure they're properly ventilated because excessive heat could destroy the equipment.
I don't know how arid the desert is there, but the other night they were doing a thing on Discovery about that bomber that crashed in the Sahara, which is probably one of the most arid deserts. The radio still worked after 20+ years--and it was a tube radio.
OK, if you want to keep this stuff in Sydney, that's more of a challenge. You know what they say about real estate--location, location, location. Do you really want to pay for location? Maybe there is some lonely outpost in the desert that could use the tourist dollars more than Sydney. Yes, you'd make more money from admissions in Sydney, but that's a moot point if you can't buy the land to start.
Even big name museums have this problem. The U.S. National Air and Space museum is building an annex way out in the 'burbs at Dulles airport. Real estate on the downtown mall is almost all used up, and other locations in the city are too expensive. The massive new hangars at Dulles will be able to display exhibits like the Enola Gay, as well as many other large (and less controversial) aircraft. I think that's a good example to follow.
So what you're really saying is that you want stronger environmental enforcement, regulations that favor less strenuous work-weeks, and corporate executives that think long-term.
The first two are political issues that have been hashed out among mainstream political actors for well over a century. If you really care about them, join one of the many groups that work to push these issues in the direction you seek, but be mindful of the fact that there's an equilibrium that's been collectively decided among many participants. Less work? Fewer nice things. Sometimes efforts to avoid damaging the environment can lead to more damage. How do you discourage pollution from heating oil? Tax it? Put expensive emission controls on heaters? Guess what happens? You end up having to subsidize more people, or people end up burning wood which is even worse for the environment. Many of us hate to admit it, but much of the system as it is has been fine-tuned to the point where wholesale change would do more harm than good. That's not to say more tuning won't help; but it's tuning--not an overhaul.
As for executives not thinking ahead, well... time should take care of the ones that don't... unless it turns out that people can't actually predict that far in the future, in which case "thinking ahead" is really just bunk.
Last, but not least, if the current system really bothers you that much, join a commune or "slack". I slacked for a while. Eventually I decided that $10k/year and a bike was not really any better than $50k/year and a car. That's what happens to most idealists... except for the ones that manage to attract a following and lead it to mass suicide.:)
1. uncouple the regenerator/motor on downhills. My bicycle can go 40+ mph on a downhill. I don't see why a NEV can't, as long as you beef up the brakes for safety.
2. Lower it and re-do the roof. Most of the NEVs I've seen are built for comfort, not speed. They have high roofs and look like expensive golf carts, which is really what they are. Close those windows too. Plenty of room to reduce wind resistance on these babies.
3. DIY pulsejets. 'nuff said.
4. I'm already sick of Monster Garage, but as long as that show's on the air, they might was well stick one of their chromed bike motors in a NEV.
Of course, these last two suggestions take the E out of NEV, but what they heck.
You're mistaking capitalism for monarchy. Monarchies arise out of lawlessness when feudal lords accumulate enough power to form city-states, which then coalesce into nation-states, of which they are the monarchs. Now, in the US, we are laissez-faire enough so that we are almost lawless sometimes. Thus, it has been possible for corporate monarchies to arise, forming the market-states. Monsanto rules the agricultural market-state, RIAA the recording market-state, and so on. An ineffective government could allow the market-states to coalesce into a nation-state just as traditional monarchies did. Some argue that this has already happened--that our republic which arose in the wake of a monarchy has been completely co-opted by a loose association of monarchist market-states.
Capitalism, OTOH, is where the government establishes a framework in which a sufficient number of individual actors compete to provide goods and services, but without forming enough power to become market-states. Those who argue that capitalism needs to be replaced, when confronted with the question "replaced with what?" usually have one of two responses: 1. A blank stare, or anger followed by a re-affirmation that capitalism needs to be replaced, or 2. Socialism/Communism/Leftism/"the people". Invariably, "the people" is a euphemism for their people who are almost always Socialists/Communists/... etc.
The truth of the matter is that capitalism doesn't need to be replaced--it needs to be reinstated.
What the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant is to Moe's Bar.
Both are corrupt in their own way, but the scope of the potential damage, the feasibility of remedying the problem, and the immorality (if any) of Microsoft pales in comparison to Monsteranto. The latter has been on so many people's hit lists for years before Microsoft even existed, and for many good reasons. Just google around, you'll see what I'm talking about. This is by no means the first case where they've tried to pull something like this. If there's ever a "new American revolution" Monsanto should be the first corporation to lose its charter. Boston corn party, anyone?
Slashdot Mirror
Believe it or not, most people in the US see this as the class warfare tripe that it is, and most of them don't agree that rich people are "assholes". Why? Because most of those people are looking forward to the day when they too get to be "rich". And when they "arrive" they don't want to be greeted by a bunch of rabble rousers who have nothing to offer but the concentration of power in the hands of politicians who "earn" their money at the points of guns and convoluted legal systems.
when putting content on the web, "rarely do we ask the question: is anybody interested in reading that?"
Is anybody really intersted in this?
A related fact is that health care is what economists call a prestige good - the more expensive the health care product, the more desirable it is to the consumer. You dream about TV ads on how hospital X charges 35% less than hospital Y, but that ain't going to happen - perversely, this may drive consumers AWAY from X and toward Y. (When was the last time you saw Harvard claiming its tuition was 35% less than Yale? Or Mercedes trying to undercut BMW in price?).
OK... I can see the point. Maybe under full disclosure hospitals would continue to run "fluff ads" just as universites run fluff ads during football games. Ever seeth just a little bit knowing that some of your bill went to pay for a fluff ad for a service that you are just going to buy anyway?
Your university and Mercedes analogy are both flawed. Why did I go to the University of Virginia? In state tuition and the reputation as a "public ivy". For "public ivy" read "good education at an affordable price". Why do you think Mercedes has the C-class?
You're dancing around the larger issue anyway, which is that at least the BMW has a sticker, and university tuition is public knowledge.
Under full disclosure, yes, there will continue to be people who pay out the wazoo for Cedar Sinai. They will be the minority.
Can you cite the law on this?
If true, that's totally f***ed up. I've never heard restricting disclosure used as a tactic to prevent price-fixing. Sure enough, if doctors had to disclose their labor rates, they would converge to a narrow band of rates--just as they do for gasoline prices. When charges of price-fixing occur in the petroleum industry, they launch an investigation to determine whether or not the actors involved actually met to fix prices. The same thing could be applied for doctors. What would it be like filling up if you didn't get the price until after you'd filled your tank? Does anybody with a lick of common sense think the price would be less, or that petroleum companies would have less incentive to fix prices?
What are you going to tell me next, people buy Windows?
Well, he told you that the wxWindows Licence was GPL, so what do you expect?
There are several reasons healthcare is so expensive.
1. Litigation. Does the phrase "malpractice insurance crisis" ring a bell?
2. A side effect of (1.) is something called "CYA medicine". Ever receive a chest CT because your heartburn just might be a pulmonary embolism? It happened to me just recently.
3. Failed accountability. This one takes a bit more explaining. Ever bother to look at your bill? Of course not. Why? Because chances are, the insurance company pays it. Aha! You say. What if I'm not insured? Well then, many people who aren't insured "spend down" and go on Medicaid. Once more, nobody looks at what Medicaid is being billed, except for the hardworking beurocrats (cough)bull***(cough). Only the very narrow slice of the population that is "self paying" actually looks at a bill (more on thatlater) You would think that insurance companies would be on guard for their bottom line, but corporate inefficiency is often no better than government inefficiency.
4. Complex and inefficient billing. Health care is one of the few businesses where you receive service at a single location, yet billing goes from subconractors directly to insurance companies or patients. Worse yet, billing from some contractors takes weeks, or even months. Yuck! Imagine if every business worked like this. Imagine getting your car fixed, and you get bills from the mechanic, the parts department, and the oil supplier spread out over 2 months. It's not just inconvenient. It actually hinders your ability to make financial plans because you don't know what's coming. And why don't you know what's coming? That leads us to...
5. ...Secrecy. That's right. Secrecy. Try to call up a hospital and ask them for their price list. Chances are, you'll get the same answer I got: "That's on a computer and it's confidential". I was transferred to a manager who had her phone on voicemail. In retrospect, I should have known I was in trouble when the phone tree had "press 2 if you're an attorney". This is probably one of the biggest reasons healthcare costs too much. Sure, there are several hospitals within driving distance, but if I think I am going to need an exam that is likely to involve half an hour with a doctor, some medication, and an x-ray... I have no idea who charges the least for an x-ray, or what the hourly billing rate is for a doctor, or what the average examining time is for diagnosing a condtion. We have more accountability at the garage than we do at the hospital (Chilton's guides, posted labor rates, etc).This alone is probably the single biggest factor driving up healthcare costs. Lack of pricing information makes comparison impossible, resulting in a virtual monopoly even though there are multiple companies. So, what did I do? I gave up and paid a price that I could not verify as accurate because I knew that the only way to get the price list was to make a federal case out of it, and spend 100 times more in legal fees than my bill was.
6. Vested interests. You can call me a conspiracy theorist if you like, but I think various interests want the price of healthcare to skyrocket so that they can use that as an excuse to socialize it. The corporations actually secretly like the idea of socialized medecine, because then they get to become government agencies. If you are a corporate sleazeball, the next step up is to become a government sleazeball; the perks are just that much better. You can just hear them salivating.
Want to fix healthcare? Fine. Require providers to give one bill in a timely manner--no pass-throughs to subcontractors. Require providers to post price-lists online if they have a website, or to make price-lists available to the local libraries. Require employers who insure their employees to provider high deductable insurance. There should be no claims or forms until annual out-of-pocket costs exceed 10% of your annual pay. Place a cap punitive damages, as many have suggested.
I was sick and tired of scraping them off the windshield and out of the grill of my semi-tractor.
Seriously, whenever I saw the sparrow I couldn't help but be reminded of the driver's ed film they showed us where they crashed small imports into American 4-door sedans. The intended message was "your father's crappy old car isn't cool, but it's a lot safer". Of course, we were teenage boys so the received message was "Oh boy! We get to sit in class and watch car crashes!".
I for one, would be willing to chip in 50 bucks to see a Sparrow go mano-a-bird with a Chevy Caprice. OK... 5 bucks... as part of the gate fee at the stock car races. Very doable. Hey... this could save the company.
Well, I infinity DMCA you. So there.
Oh come on. Eveybody knows that "hi" means "I am a sleazy spammer from the pit of Hell". If you don't believe me, just look in the brand new unabridged OED. :)
I would never dream of sending e-mail with "hi" in the subject.
I don't think I emphasized this enough... this is the first year since I was a kid that I've planted anything. Intensive agriculture? I think I'll be lucky if I get enough stuff so I can give surplus to 3 or 4 neighbors. If that works out, then maybe I'll get fancy next year.
The plot is small enough to weed in minutes with tools, and then about half an hour for the stuff that's too close to the plants for tools. They say corn makes enough shade to kill most weeds. I was thinking of planting marigolds around the tomatoes because they say it's a natural insect repelant.
Anyhow, the corn is in rows, with a few gaps now because 3 plants got knocked over by critters or possibly from the fierce winds. I had to bank extra dirt around them because here on the east coast we've had wind and rain that blew hard on the plants and washed away some of the soil. Now that they are about a foot high, they seem to have developed enough of a root system so this is no longer a danger, but I had to use some of my back-up plants a few weeks ago (I sprouted them in doors during the frost danger period). There are about 3 or 4 backups planted in far-flung corners of the yard, which I will probably just leave now. They will look interesting next to the azaleas; although I've also been told that isolated corn is less likely to have ears because it might not pollinate. There are also backup pumpkins growing in a less optimal spot... I did give two pumpkin seedlings to a neighbor. It will be interesting to see how they do.
Anyhow, although I don't know how this is all going to come out, I highly recommed sprouting indoors as opposed to just planting and praying. If I had done that, I think I'd have had to use twice the seed, because I think squirrels were digging for the little kernels that were still left at the bottom of the sprout. Next year I'll keep them indoors even longer.
Strangely enough, no critters have bothered the pumpkins or the tomatoes yet. I think they're smart enough to wait for those. I've been joking that this is a really labor intensive way to feed the squirrels and the birds.
Truer words were never spoken.
I love the irony that iff a safe is being broken into, the guy that does it is a "safe cracker". If it's a computer, he's a hacker. If it's a house, he's a burglar. If it's a car, he's a jacker--but only if the car is occupied. If the car is empty there's no particular word for it. You can say "my system was hacked" but you sound silly if you say "my house was burgled". For both the car and the house, you say "it was broken into".
Silver lining?
It will continue to be very difficult for foreigners to learn the language.
If you're a geek who is still sore about this cracker business, remember that complex, arcane, illogical, and inconsistant rules like this help us spot English n00bs.
There. Doesn't that feel better?
(sigh) Your Slashdot ID is way too low for you to ever understand. :)
grow food, etc
That's interesting. This is the first year that I've found the time to grow vegetables. I've got corn, pumpkins, and the one "conformist" crop that you must have where I live: tomatoes.
I never thought of this small garden as a "geek" endevour, but I must admint, because this is my first attempt to grow more than just "decorative" corn, I went online and found out all kinds of stuff about it.
A big part of the appeal for me in gardening is not to waste land, and not to get ripped off by people. The mentality that leads me to go the extra mile and grow pumpkins so I don't have to pay some ridiculous price in the Fall is a kin to the mentality that makes people edit arcane config files in Linux so they don't have to pay Bill Gates. Also, I think growing food on your land is somehow quintessentially American... OK, that's less of a geek thing, and more of a pride thing. Remember when pennies had the wheat on them, and America took pride in agriculture? OK... too much semiotics... at any rate, I've come to appreciate farmers. Don't let people tell you farmers are stupid. If they do, ask them about crop rotation and soil pH... put them in their place.
Of course I haven't seen their simulations, but where does this "near 100%" figure come from? The first test is going to use a bullet (!) and they are projecting that a more refined version will use sound waves. Something has to produce those sound waves, and the waves have to be powerful enough to alter the characteristics of the crystal.
Now I understand that in theory a light wave at a given frequency could transform to a higher frequency and lower intensity (conservation of energy is not violated), but that's analogous to changing the gear ratio on a motor. A gear system always introduces some loss.
Now, given that any practical implementation of this will require a wave generator that's likely to make some noise, I don't see it ending up in lightbulbs or solar cells. If you want to get more light to a solar cell, focusing a mirror on it and keeping it cool is probably more practical.
However, the medical imaging tech sounds like a great application. Noise from medical scanners is an acceptable part of that experience.
How can you take something away from programmer B, if he never had it?
If you start with the assumption that all code is free by default, then the GPL takes away. If you start with the assumption that all code is closed by default, the GPL gives.
If you take copyright law as the meme that formulates your view, then the GPL gives. If you take the state of the "hacker community" before GPL as the meme to formulate your view, then the GPL takes away. Remember, at MIT researchers were free to take basic research and build it into proprietary products. The GPL was a response to that. AFAIK, before GPL, MIT was releasing research under the MIT license, which is non-copyleft, but I could be wrong about that.
Wrong model. If not for the GPL RedHat would have probably turned into another BSDI.
Or MacOS X.
"I am sharing this code on the condition that you are obligated to return the favor."
If your neighbor sent you a box of chocolates with a card that read "I am giving you these chocolates on the condition that you are obligated to return the favor", how would you feel?
Of course good neighbors tend to reciprocate anyway, but only a rude neighbor would actually insist on it. That's what the GPL is--a rude neighbor.
This brings back fond memories of an illusion I first saw when I was a kid. I saw it in Springfield Mall. It was put on by a plumbing contractor, or a hot tub installer, or somebody like that.
It was a faucet, seemingly suspended in mid-air, with an endless supply of water coming from it.
I marvelled at it for several minutes, pondering how it could be done, yet my child's mind, while knowing it wasn't real, was beyond fathoming any art or science that could accomplish this.
Leaning closer to inspect it, my suspicions were aroused by the strange apparatus in the catch basin, but I still needed a full explanation from an adult:
All you do is run a pipe up to the faucet. The pipe supports the faucet. The faucent contains a concavity that directs the water to flow in a hollow cylinder that hides the pipe and completes the illusion.
You can buy table-top models of this, with yellow-dyed water flowing into a mug of beer.
Kudos to this guy though, for taking the concept and wedding it to Escher in a novel way.
This is completly wrong! It does not restrict the right of programmers - it's more the opposite, it gives programmers the right to view technology and learn from it, and even more importantly - they don't have to reinvent the wheel every time as long as they want to GPL their work too.. What is this with forcing them to open what they have done to the world? It is not forcing anyone, it is just a license which the programmer choose to distribute his software under, or he choose not to, I can't see how that is forcing anything on anyone.unless you consider the vast "market penetration" of the GPL.
(bold remarks are mine)
The GPL does very little to protect the rights of the original author (programmer A), and it does a lot to restrict the rights of others (programmer B).
Let's take different points of view here.
First, programmer B. Unless he wants to GPL his code, all GPL'd software is unuseable as a building block. If we consider the body of Open Source as potential building blocks, and the fact that more than 50% of OSS is GPL'd, then the GPL has taken away more than half the building blocks from programmer B.
Now, programmer A. This guy released his app under the GPL. He can be sure that other programmers won't use his app in proprietary applications, but he has nothing to defend himself against companies like RedHat distributing his "music" in ways that make the RIAA look like a generous patron by comparison. In other words, the GPL restricts a very narrow class of exploitation, and allows all others.
If programmer A had released his app under BSD, he would have lost protection from proprietary authors, but that's it. He would no longer be able to say "this software is under the GPL, if you want other terms, contact me". Now, how many authors of GPL'd software actually exploit this possibility? Very few, if any, I say. That's becuase it's contrary to the culture, and because contributors would stop contributing. GPL advocates always cite this ownership to argue that programmer A can still make money from deals with proprietary developers, but for all intents and purposes they can't. So programmer A gives up nothing by BSD'ing his code.
Thus, from the POV of a 3rd party wishing to "exploit" developers, BSD and GPL look very much alike unless the exploiter is using the code as a building block.
However, even under BSD you can't just repackage the code, slap a different label on it, and expect to be anything more than a commodity distributor with a very thin margin (think CheapBytes).
What BSD gives you is the potential to add your own work, on your own terms, and set your own price and license. If your mods are trivial, you approximate CheapBytes. If your mods are non-trivial then you can only be rewarded for what you've added--not BSD itself. Thus, programmer A can't argue that you're exploiting him any more than CheapBytes or RedHat.
BSD says "I can't make money off this, maybe you can". GPL says "I can't make money off this, neither can you."
Outback. Tent. 'nuff said.
In all seriousness, doesn't Australia have plenty of desert? Arid places make excellent places to store most equipment of this kind.
A tent is probably too flimsy... get one of those big metal half-pipes that they use to house enlisted personnel here in the 'States. At least... they used to... maybe it's not that bad anymore. I think they're called "quonset huts" or something like that. They're real cheap. Get some generous station owner to loan you a few acres, and put quonset huts on them. Just make sure they're properly ventilated because excessive heat could destroy the equipment.
I don't know how arid the desert is there, but the other night they were doing a thing on Discovery about that bomber that crashed in the Sahara, which is probably one of the most arid deserts. The radio still worked after 20+ years--and it was a tube radio.
OK, if you want to keep this stuff in Sydney, that's more of a challenge. You know what they say about real estate--location, location, location. Do you really want to pay for location? Maybe there is some lonely outpost in the desert that could use the tourist dollars more than Sydney. Yes, you'd make more money from admissions in Sydney, but that's a moot point if you can't buy the land to start.
Even big name museums have this problem. The U.S. National Air and Space museum is building an annex way out in the 'burbs at Dulles airport. Real estate on the downtown mall is almost all used up, and other locations in the city are too expensive. The massive new hangars at Dulles will be able to display exhibits like the Enola Gay, as well as many other large (and less controversial) aircraft. I think that's a good example to follow.
I'm waiting for the 3 Ghz Jesus model to come out. Apparently it would be able "to do miracles!"
You'll have to re-Pentium first.
What I'd like to see is a more moderate form of capitalism, coming not from external pressures and regulation, but from internal philosophy
So become a preacher.
I just don't want to be pursuing the last dollar or cent I can get my hands on, ignoring everything I have to do to get it.
So don't.
So what you're really saying is that you want stronger environmental enforcement, regulations that favor less strenuous work-weeks, and corporate executives that think long-term.
The first two are political issues that have been hashed out among mainstream political actors for well over a century. If you really care about them, join one of the many groups that work to push these issues in the direction you seek, but be mindful of the fact that there's an equilibrium that's been collectively decided among many participants. Less work? Fewer nice things. Sometimes efforts to avoid damaging the environment can lead to more damage. How do you discourage pollution from heating oil? Tax it? Put expensive emission controls on heaters? Guess what happens? You end up having to subsidize more people, or people end up burning wood which is even worse for the environment. Many of us hate to admit it, but much of the system as it is has been fine-tuned to the point where wholesale change would do more harm than good. That's not to say more tuning won't help; but it's tuning--not an overhaul.
As for executives not thinking ahead, well... time should take care of the ones that don't... unless it turns out that people can't actually predict that far in the future, in which case "thinking ahead" is really just bunk.
Last, but not least, if the current system really bothers you that much, join a commune or "slack". I slacked for a while. Eventually I decided that $10k/year and a bike was not really any better than $50k/year and a car. That's what happens to most idealists... except for the ones that manage to attract a following and lead it to mass suicide. :)
1. uncouple the regenerator/motor on downhills. My bicycle can go 40+ mph on a downhill. I don't see why a NEV can't, as long as you beef up the brakes for safety.
2. Lower it and re-do the roof. Most of the NEVs I've seen are built for comfort, not speed. They have high roofs and look like expensive golf carts, which is really what they are. Close those windows too. Plenty of room to reduce wind resistance on these babies.
3. DIY pulsejets. 'nuff said.
4. I'm already sick of Monster Garage, but as long as that show's on the air, they might was well stick one of their chromed bike motors in a NEV.
Of course, these last two suggestions take the E out of NEV, but what they heck.
You're mistaking capitalism for monarchy. Monarchies arise out of lawlessness when feudal lords accumulate enough power to form city-states, which then coalesce into nation-states, of which they are the monarchs. Now, in the US, we are laissez-faire enough so that we are almost lawless sometimes. Thus, it has been possible for corporate monarchies to arise, forming the market-states. Monsanto rules the agricultural market-state, RIAA the recording market-state, and so on. An ineffective government could allow the market-states to coalesce into a nation-state just as traditional monarchies did. Some argue that this has already happened--that our republic which arose in the wake of a monarchy has been completely co-opted by a loose association of monarchist market-states.
Capitalism, OTOH, is where the government establishes a framework in which a sufficient number of individual actors compete to provide goods and services, but without forming enough power to become market-states. Those who argue that capitalism needs to be replaced, when confronted with the question "replaced with what?" usually have one of two responses: 1. A blank stare, or anger followed by a re-affirmation that capitalism needs to be replaced, or 2. Socialism/Communism/Leftism/"the people". Invariably, "the people" is a euphemism for their people who are almost always Socialists/Communists/... etc.
The truth of the matter is that capitalism doesn't need to be replaced--it needs to be reinstated.
What the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant is to Moe's Bar.
Both are corrupt in their own way, but the scope of the potential damage, the feasibility of remedying the problem, and the immorality (if any) of Microsoft pales in comparison to Monsteranto. The latter has been on so many people's hit lists for years before Microsoft even existed, and for many good reasons. Just google around, you'll see what I'm talking about. This is by no means the first case where they've tried to pull something like this. If there's ever a "new American revolution" Monsanto should be the first corporation to lose its charter. Boston corn party, anyone?