Corporations with personhood status is something I personally consider utterly evil and corrupt, not to mention demeaning and belittling to actual people.
People tend to be of the "I WANT IT NOW!" variety. You liked that book? Great, the sequel is available in the stores now for $5. Or you could wait 5 years to get it for free legally and online, assuming you can find it. Yeah, I don't know of anyone with that kind of patience, do you? And that's with a non-existent 5 year limit, what do you think of the current life+70?
I know 5 years isn't nearly as much to a movie studio. Heck, they tend to take twice that long just to get funding and script approval.
you'd be amazed at what binary math does.:) If you put one grain of rice on a square on a chessboard, and doubled it on each square, you would exceed the quantity of rice on earth. Those numbers get big really quickly.
Although your decendants could be having children as early as 12 (more or less) or as late as 40, assuming reproductive technologies aren't used which could extend that to something way the heck out there like 70 or 90 if the other medical techs keep up. (Most people seem to currently have their first child at around 20, but that's just my observation, I have no idea what the statistics are on that one.)
Sounds great, although I can't stand Game of Thrones, every time I try to read it I end up just wanting to club a handful of characters to death with a clue-by-four, and just outright kill the rest of them for being too stupid to live. Still haven't gotten past chapter 14.
Nope, it's far far worse than that, and that's even if you only think in terms of thermodynamics since the raw material processing takes energy at each stage.
Now from the articles I've seen on making bio-diesel that take into account the fuel used for farming a crop that's good for making bio-diesel you get only get about 3 units for every 2 units you expend with our current technologies. Ok, it is a net gain, but it's not what most of our industry would consider efficient, unless there were no other realistic choices. Now don't forget, you not only get the pollution from that one unit of bio-diesel you have to sell, but you also got if the other 2 you used to produce that one.
Ok, now onto the pollution aspect. On the old standards of petroleum based internal combustion engine pollution tests, bio-diesel rates lower. Of course, those tests were designed for a particular set of pollutants & fuel combination. Bio-diesel is not the same. If you expand the range of pollutants testing, you find that bio-diesel tends to pump out more pollutants, just different ones. Maybe that can be improved with research & testing.
Land use. The world food market is a messy place with problems involving distribution, inconsistent yields, and lots of other issues. We won't go into that mess, it's a whole argument on it's own. However, generating bio-diesel from crops is mostly using what would otherwise be food. You see, the portions of the crops we eat are the parts that are high in energy that can be easily converted to fuels for machines. It is possible to do this with the rest of the plants, but our current technologies totally suck at that, so it's a very low yield method and totally uneconomical at this time. There is a lot of research going on in attempts to change that, but they don't have an economically viable method to do so at this time. Until they do, your bio-diesel was food that somebody didn't get to eat.
I've heard people suggest that we employ some of the land that's only marginal (or worse) for farming to farm crops for bio-diesel. Do you see the obvious problem there? That land sucks for farming, so you can't farm enough food off of it to make bio-diesel worth doing. There's a reason people aren't farming it in the first place. Although it could be land more useful for something else, which is again, a situation where they won't be farming there. I've even heard someone mentioning farming in contaminated lands. Ok, that's a little better, but you risk spreading the contamination, it's probably going to need extra steps to remove it from the product before you can sell it (cyanide in the ground is bad enough, cars spitting out cyanide in their exhaust is much worse.), as well as the additional testing and the knee-jerk reactions that various groups will have that will try to block you, even if you can prove your processing removes the risk of contamination. One more thing about contaminated lands, it's not that uncommon for crops to not grow well there, though that is completely dependent on the contamination type and level. One more thing to cover on land use, there would have to be a bugger-load-plus of land devoted to growing fuel if you intend to replace other sources. It takes a LOT of land to provide enough food to make enough bio-diesel to cover our current levels of fuel usage. I've seen estimates that place it at unavailable levels. (ie, needs more land for that purpose than is even available.) I don't remember what the numbers are, but you could look it, just like everything else I'm mentioning.
If you don't like what I've written, want more information, or want to verify, just go look it up. Try to stick to the science sites. There's a simple reason for that. You see, most sites on these subjects are politically motivated to try and backup their point. Scientists on the other hand, are motivated to be right, even if it makes them unpopular with some group or another. Sure, they're human, and occasionally they make mistakes, or are swayed by one reason or another, bu
No, really, it's a total non-issue if accept that we have and transport nuclear devices. These things are heavily monitored, if they vary from their designated route or timetable, a response team, well, responds. They have panic buttons, same thing if that is triggered. Yet again if contact is lost. And they've been doing it for over 40 years.
Also, if you have been watching too much Hollywood schlock (pretty much everything they make), nukes do NOT go nuclear by accident. The worst thing you can get is a dirty explosion of the normal variety. Still something you don't want, but it's not taking out a town, just maybe a block, or half a block, less if your town has those really big blocks.
Worried about glowing in the dark if one of those things drives by you? Don't. Those things are so heavily shielded you can use them as radiation shield from other sources. No joke. So again, where Hollywood shows you detecting nukes with a Geiger counter, it's not going to happen. Unless it's a piece of crap engineering by a suicide group, if you run a Geiger counter over a nuke, it will just show the normal background radiation, if you run it under the nuke, it will drop, by a LOT. Like I said, Hollywood is full of it. You want something to gauge it by? Hows, this. Have you ever been in a car wreck? Statistics say you probably have. I've been a passenger in 10 wrecks in my life, a driver in 2. (Fortunately none have been my fault.) So, how many of those exploded? None... Ok, how many caught fire? None? Yeah, that's what I thought. If you go by Hollywood, having a shopping cart roll into a trashcan has at least a 50% chance to cause a fiery explosion.
If you've taken classes on nuclear war (They exist, I took mine in High school the semester the University decided to copy it, with the teachers permission and assistance.) or have looked into this stuff with available documentation (Try the library, not Herbpolitics.web or Conspiracy.tfh) you'd already know this. Bugger the governments propaganda, it's pure science, from before the Manhattan Project right through to now and tomorrow.
Sorry, I'm rather sore about the false portrayals of a real issue by fools, politicians, and the ignorant. Sure, I don't know a lot on the subject, but I know volumes more than those jerks.
The state run stuff is the government, and you know how they like to run themselves under different rules than their populace. The indian casinos are only due to the tribes having sovereignty, in other words, they are state ran, it's just a different government than the USA government. Nevada being legal for non-government gambling is pretty odd. I think Atlantic City is the only other place that allows that kind of stuff in the US.
The gambling that is allowed in other places and circumstances in the US, is not commercial. It's in the personal entertainment category, and sometimes it's actually legal, other times it's just ignored by the police. Yes, that's right, in most places in the US, that saturday night poker game or church raffle are usually not legal, but the cops don't care and won't enforce the laws on those types of situations. On the other hand, start a casino, or get too big, then see what happens.
ianal, nor an expert on gambling, I've only looked into it a little bit back when the indian casinos started popping up out here, so if it really matters, go do your own research and treat mine as 2nd hand rumor:)
We have quakes where I live all the time, just had a 4 or 5 point a couple days ago. Lesser quakes do NOT mean that a big one is imminent.
Does that number seem high to you? It's not really. Remember, these numbers are on a scale (they don't use the richter scale anymore, but I forget the name of the current one.) so each point is worth a lot more than the previous point.
Also, the geologic structures counts for a lot as well. We have oodles of faults here, and those help to dissipate the energy of any quake. End result is that if you aren't right on top of a big one, it probably won't even knock stuff off wall or cupboards.
If you're curious, I'm in Oregon. To be honest, I've only noticed 2 of our quakes in my entire life, and that was only because the hanging plants inside started swinging for no apparent reason. Honestly, I'd like to be in a big one to know what it's like, just don't like the idea of anyone getting hurt.
Colonoscopy is usually used to find colon cancer. Cancer is NOT contagious, so the only life he's risking is his own.
It's kind of like the difference between jumping off a bridge alone, or jumping off a bridge while holding onto a rope tied to several other people, mostly young children and elderly.
Besides that, how many years did your Doctor study medicine to become a recognized expert of that field (aka, an M.D.), versus the 20 minutes or so you spent googling crackpot conspiracy theories by paranoid movie stars that didn't even bother to look up anything and instead ran full tilt with an unsubstantiated rumor they heard at a Hollywood party one night when they ran out of cocaine?
Is the doctors opinion and advice more valuable than yours when it comes to matters of medicine? HELL YES!
Do you suddenly think you can fly an airplane better than a commercial pilot because you saw the movie Airplane? Is it some sort of father figure worship that you let a scientist with a masters in particle physics analyze the data from the LHC? Does an astronaut a half dozen flights on the space shuttles have less experience in zero-g/microgravity than you do?
Listen, unless you ARE an expert in a particular field, you can have opinions, but always remember, the experts of that field REALLY DO KNOW MORE THAN YOU.
Don't know. I know some farmers that would make a hell of a lot more use in their job with more data and connectivity than most people do in their entire lives. The uses are apparently more than can be summed up in a 300 page article.
And it's not just farmers that don't live in the cities. I know of a lot of towns and small cities that have connectivity that harkens back to the 1930s or 40s, except they don't have human switchboard operators or crank phones.
It's already been shown that when the government gives the corporations tax breaks or incentives, and even grants, for the purpose of expanding the infrastructure, the corporations do everything in their power to reap the benefits and turn it into cash bonuses as they possibly can without actually doing what was intended or agreed upon. Then as deadlines approach, they whine about there being enough time and not enough money in their attempts to get a new deadline and more money for a job they don't intend to do unless forced to. Not to sound like I'm wearing a tin hat or anything, but they've done it before, and they'll do it again.
Science is progressing at a reasonable pace BECAUSE scientists share data, results, ideas, etc. If you limit or remove that capability, you will be wiping out a large portion of the creative and lateral thinking that often leads to new methods, as well as create much more waste of resources due to duplication of effort. And when you are dealing with something that involves infection rates, you really want MORE research on it, how else can you gain the knowledge to apply to real situations.
Can something like this be used in a combat or terrorist situation? Yes, but it can also be used to develop countermeasures as well. Besides, there isn't any invention of mankinds that wasn't used to further the ways and means of violence. Medicine, to keep your troops healthy and useful. Food Preservation, to conquer foreign lands. (In fact, that's why Napoleon paid people to develop it.), Vehicles and other means of transportation, you have to get your troops their. HIghways and roads, you have to get them their quickly. (Both the USA and the Roman Empire built their major roads for that purpose, the boost to trade was just a favorable byproduct.), etc.
So if you want to ban research from being shared among the scientists in that field just because it might be used for non-peaceful purposes, then you'll just have to ban everything. And hey, once you've thrown a tablecloth over one genie lamp, it gets a lot easier to justify doing it again. After all, it's just one more...
I'm tempted to sign up for it, I'd like $25 gift card, I could get a book or two I want with that. Of course, it wouldn't be my actual desktop it would be installed on. It would either be one of the junker laptops I rarely use, or a virtual machine that is carefully monitored. Either way, it would see a totally boring, and possibly scripted, tour of common news and corporate websites as if it were done by a paranoid person who know they're being tracked.
If this throws off their data, I would feel happy that I got paid enough to take my daughter out to lunch just by demonstrating their flaws.
Since I already did that, I guess the answer is YES. In my own defense, I didn't jump first because I'm terrified of falling, and the water was really cold.
Slashdot Mirror
That just illustrates the duplicity and vileness of the majority of the legal profession.
Corporations with personhood status is something I personally consider utterly evil and corrupt, not to mention demeaning and belittling to actual people.
Yeah, the article already covered that idea.
People tend to be of the "I WANT IT NOW!" variety. You liked that book? Great, the sequel is available in the stores now for $5. Or you could wait 5 years to get it for free legally and online, assuming you can find it. Yeah, I don't know of anyone with that kind of patience, do you? And that's with a non-existent 5 year limit, what do you think of the current life+70?
I know 5 years isn't nearly as much to a movie studio. Heck, they tend to take twice that long just to get funding and script approval.
you'd be amazed at what binary math does. :) If you put one grain of rice on a square on a chessboard, and doubled it on each square, you would exceed the quantity of rice on earth. Those numbers get big really quickly.
Give a set time for something to exceed the minimum, let's say you have 14 years to break that $100 tax mark before you get public domained.
Although your decendants could be having children as early as 12 (more or less) or as late as 40, assuming reproductive technologies aren't used which could extend that to something way the heck out there like 70 or 90 if the other medical techs keep up. (Most people seem to currently have their first child at around 20, but that's just my observation, I have no idea what the statistics are on that one.)
Sounds great, although I can't stand Game of Thrones, every time I try to read it I end up just wanting to club a handful of characters to death with a clue-by-four, and just outright kill the rest of them for being too stupid to live.
Still haven't gotten past chapter 14.
I find XKCD.com and HTG2tG to both be very funny most of the time. Ellen on the other hand is a good reason to bbq the tv.
No, cockroaches have more ethics than that :)
You are assuming that they won't have already increased it by some absurd amount, err, by another absurd amount.
Nope, it's far far worse than that, and that's even if you only think in terms of thermodynamics since the raw material processing takes energy at each stage.
Now from the articles I've seen on making bio-diesel that take into account the fuel used for farming a crop that's good for making bio-diesel you get only get about 3 units for every 2 units you expend with our current technologies. Ok, it is a net gain, but it's not what most of our industry would consider efficient, unless there were no other realistic choices. Now don't forget, you not only get the pollution from that one unit of bio-diesel you have to sell, but you also got if the other 2 you used to produce that one.
Ok, now onto the pollution aspect. On the old standards of petroleum based internal combustion engine pollution tests, bio-diesel rates lower. Of course, those tests were designed for a particular set of pollutants & fuel combination. Bio-diesel is not the same. If you expand the range of pollutants testing, you find that bio-diesel tends to pump out more pollutants, just different ones. Maybe that can be improved with research & testing.
Land use. The world food market is a messy place with problems involving distribution, inconsistent yields, and lots of other issues. We won't go into that mess, it's a whole argument on it's own. However, generating bio-diesel from crops is mostly using what would otherwise be food. You see, the portions of the crops we eat are the parts that are high in energy that can be easily converted to fuels for machines. It is possible to do this with the rest of the plants, but our current technologies totally suck at that, so it's a very low yield method and totally uneconomical at this time. There is a lot of research going on in attempts to change that, but they don't have an economically viable method to do so at this time. Until they do, your bio-diesel was food that somebody didn't get to eat.
I've heard people suggest that we employ some of the land that's only marginal (or worse) for farming to farm crops for bio-diesel. Do you see the obvious problem there? That land sucks for farming, so you can't farm enough food off of it to make bio-diesel worth doing. There's a reason people aren't farming it in the first place. Although it could be land more useful for something else, which is again, a situation where they won't be farming there. I've even heard someone mentioning farming in contaminated lands. Ok, that's a little better, but you risk spreading the contamination, it's probably going to need extra steps to remove it from the product before you can sell it (cyanide in the ground is bad enough, cars spitting out cyanide in their exhaust is much worse.), as well as the additional testing and the knee-jerk reactions that various groups will have that will try to block you, even if you can prove your processing removes the risk of contamination. One more thing about contaminated lands, it's not that uncommon for crops to not grow well there, though that is completely dependent on the contamination type and level.
One more thing to cover on land use, there would have to be a bugger-load-plus of land devoted to growing fuel if you intend to replace other sources. It takes a LOT of land to provide enough food to make enough bio-diesel to cover our current levels of fuel usage. I've seen estimates that place it at unavailable levels. (ie, needs more land for that purpose than is even available.) I don't remember what the numbers are, but you could look it, just like everything else I'm mentioning.
If you don't like what I've written, want more information, or want to verify, just go look it up. Try to stick to the science sites. There's a simple reason for that. You see, most sites on these subjects are politically motivated to try and backup their point. Scientists on the other hand, are motivated to be right, even if it makes them unpopular with some group or another. Sure, they're human, and occasionally they make mistakes, or are swayed by one reason or another, bu
No, really, it's a total non-issue if accept that we have and transport nuclear devices.
These things are heavily monitored, if they vary from their designated route or timetable, a response team, well, responds.
They have panic buttons, same thing if that is triggered.
Yet again if contact is lost.
And they've been doing it for over 40 years.
Also, if you have been watching too much Hollywood schlock (pretty much everything they make), nukes do NOT go nuclear by accident. The worst thing you can get is a dirty explosion of the normal variety. Still something you don't want, but it's not taking out a town, just maybe a block, or half a block, less if your town has those really big blocks.
Worried about glowing in the dark if one of those things drives by you? Don't. Those things are so heavily shielded you can use them as radiation shield from other sources. No joke. So again, where Hollywood shows you detecting nukes with a Geiger counter, it's not going to happen. Unless it's a piece of crap engineering by a suicide group, if you run a Geiger counter over a nuke, it will just show the normal background radiation, if you run it under the nuke, it will drop, by a LOT. Like I said, Hollywood is full of it. You want something to gauge it by? Hows, this. Have you ever been in a car wreck? Statistics say you probably have. I've been a passenger in 10 wrecks in my life, a driver in 2. (Fortunately none have been my fault.) So, how many of those exploded? None... Ok, how many caught fire? None? Yeah, that's what I thought. If you go by Hollywood, having a shopping cart roll into a trashcan has at least a 50% chance to cause a fiery explosion.
If you've taken classes on nuclear war (They exist, I took mine in High school the semester the University decided to copy it, with the teachers permission and assistance.) or have looked into this stuff with available documentation (Try the library, not Herbpolitics.web or Conspiracy.tfh) you'd already know this. Bugger the governments propaganda, it's pure science, from before the Manhattan Project right through to now and tomorrow.
Sorry, I'm rather sore about the false portrayals of a real issue by fools, politicians, and the ignorant. Sure, I don't know a lot on the subject, but I know volumes more than those jerks.
The state run stuff is the government, and you know how they like to run themselves under different rules than their populace.
:)
The indian casinos are only due to the tribes having sovereignty, in other words, they are state ran, it's just a different government than the USA government.
Nevada being legal for non-government gambling is pretty odd. I think Atlantic City is the only other place that allows that kind of stuff in the US.
The gambling that is allowed in other places and circumstances in the US, is not commercial. It's in the personal entertainment category, and sometimes it's actually legal, other times it's just ignored by the police. Yes, that's right, in most places in the US, that saturday night poker game or church raffle are usually not legal, but the cops don't care and won't enforce the laws on those types of situations. On the other hand, start a casino, or get too big, then see what happens.
ianal, nor an expert on gambling, I've only looked into it a little bit back when the indian casinos started popping up out here, so if it really matters, go do your own research and treat mine as 2nd hand rumor
My seven year old is apparently still in an ever-changing subjective reality with only a few commonalities shared with her parents views of reality.
We have quakes where I live all the time, just had a 4 or 5 point a couple days ago. Lesser quakes do NOT mean that a big one is imminent.
Does that number seem high to you? It's not really. Remember, these numbers are on a scale (they don't use the richter scale anymore, but I forget the name of the current one.) so each point is worth a lot more than the previous point.
Also, the geologic structures counts for a lot as well. We have oodles of faults here, and those help to dissipate the energy of any quake. End result is that if you aren't right on top of a big one, it probably won't even knock stuff off wall or cupboards.
If you're curious, I'm in Oregon. To be honest, I've only noticed 2 of our quakes in my entire life, and that was only because the hanging plants inside started swinging for no apparent reason. Honestly, I'd like to be in a big one to know what it's like, just don't like the idea of anyone getting hurt.
Colonoscopy is usually used to find colon cancer. Cancer is NOT contagious, so the only life he's risking is his own.
It's kind of like the difference between jumping off a bridge alone, or jumping off a bridge while holding onto a rope tied to several other people, mostly young children and elderly.
Besides that, how many years did your Doctor study medicine to become a recognized expert of that field (aka, an M.D.), versus the 20 minutes or so you spent googling crackpot conspiracy theories by paranoid movie stars that didn't even bother to look up anything and instead ran full tilt with an unsubstantiated rumor they heard at a Hollywood party one night when they ran out of cocaine?
Is the doctors opinion and advice more valuable than yours when it comes to matters of medicine? HELL YES!
Do you suddenly think you can fly an airplane better than a commercial pilot because you saw the movie Airplane?
Is it some sort of father figure worship that you let a scientist with a masters in particle physics analyze the data from the LHC?
Does an astronaut a half dozen flights on the space shuttles have less experience in zero-g/microgravity than you do?
Listen, unless you ARE an expert in a particular field, you can have opinions, but always remember, the experts of that field REALLY DO KNOW MORE THAN YOU.
No they don't. That kind of activity is very illegal and monitored. Unlike political bribes... err, donations.
Wouldn't that be pissed off victims, err, targets, err, defendants of IP Lawyers?
Don't know. I know some farmers that would make a hell of a lot more use in their job with more data and connectivity than most people do in their entire lives.
The uses are apparently more than can be summed up in a 300 page article.
And it's not just farmers that don't live in the cities. I know of a lot of towns and small cities that have connectivity that harkens back to the 1930s or 40s, except they don't have human switchboard operators or crank phones.
It's already been shown that when the government gives the corporations tax breaks or incentives, and even grants, for the purpose of expanding the infrastructure, the corporations do everything in their power to reap the benefits and turn it into cash bonuses as they possibly can without actually doing what was intended or agreed upon. Then as deadlines approach, they whine about there being enough time and not enough money in their attempts to get a new deadline and more money for a job they don't intend to do unless forced to. Not to sound like I'm wearing a tin hat or anything, but they've done it before, and they'll do it again.
sorry about the bad grammar and misspellings. (Like their when I meant there.)
Science is progressing at a reasonable pace BECAUSE scientists share data, results, ideas, etc. If you limit or remove that capability, you will be wiping out a large portion of the creative and lateral thinking that often leads to new methods, as well as create much more waste of resources due to duplication of effort. And when you are dealing with something that involves infection rates, you really want MORE research on it, how else can you gain the knowledge to apply to real situations.
Can something like this be used in a combat or terrorist situation? Yes, but it can also be used to develop countermeasures as well. Besides, there isn't any invention of mankinds that wasn't used to further the ways and means of violence. Medicine, to keep your troops healthy and useful. Food Preservation, to conquer foreign lands. (In fact, that's why Napoleon paid people to develop it.), Vehicles and other means of transportation, you have to get your troops their. HIghways and roads, you have to get them their quickly. (Both the USA and the Roman Empire built their major roads for that purpose, the boost to trade was just a favorable byproduct.), etc.
So if you want to ban research from being shared among the scientists in that field just because it might be used for non-peaceful purposes, then you'll just have to ban everything. And hey, once you've thrown a tablecloth over one genie lamp, it gets a lot easier to justify doing it again. After all, it's just one more...
I'm tempted to sign up for it, I'd like $25 gift card, I could get a book or two I want with that.
Of course, it wouldn't be my actual desktop it would be installed on. It would either be one of the junker laptops I rarely use, or a virtual machine that is carefully monitored. Either way, it would see a totally boring, and possibly scripted, tour of common news and corporate websites as if it were done by a paranoid person who know they're being tracked.
If this throws off their data, I would feel happy that I got paid enough to take my daughter out to lunch just by demonstrating their flaws.
Since I already did that, I guess the answer is YES. In my own defense, I didn't jump first because I'm terrified of falling, and the water was really cold.