Bingo! The word 'copyright' has been twisted to favor the publishing company, when in reality, it's supposed to outline a set of rights consumers have with copies of works they purchase. If anything, the publishing companies (RIAA, MPAA, and now many in the video games industry) are the ones who have been violating copyright laws.
I think it was around 8.04 that my dad asked me to reinstall Windows because he was tired of having to learn a new way to do things on each new version.
Then stop upgrading after an LTS release and let the good times roll for a few years.
1) A good chunk of these ISPs are owned by copyright owners, and will likely take a default position on their side.
Precisely the reason the USA needs to go the way of the UK and make it easier to enter into the ISP market instead of cuddling these legalized monopolies. Oh I'm sorry, duopolies (get your 'net from cable or phone companies). If we had real competition, we wouldn't be seeing this kind of bullshit because they couldn't pull off a stunt like this without the possibility of losing customers.
But I will point to this, which puts the probabilities of getting cancer from a single scan about equal with the probabilities of boarding a plane that would get blown up by a terrorist.
As for cancer risk, 1 million people flying 10 times a week will have 4 additional cases of cancer (using current models of radiation-cancer association).
OK, I'm not sure I buy that radiation comparison being as how it's a completely different type of radiation as well as method of delivery.... but, let's just pretend those are realistic numbers and that only 1 million people are flying 10 times a week.
Using that logic, that means these machines are killing more people than they are saving. If 4 additional people are getting cancer because of these machines per week for each 1 million people flying 10 times a week, that amounts to 208 per year. How many people are they saving using these machines? The underwear bomber under the worst case scenario would have killed about that many? It's not like we get these attacks all that often, and I highly doubt these machines are stopping that many more terrorists than the old methods. By comparison, 1,115 people were killed in 2010 in aircraft accidents, so maybe it'd be a lot more effective to put scanner machine money into more R&D on how to make flying safer.
Considering that roughly 12.17 million people are flying per week in the U.S. alone (most are probably rare flyers though), I think I'm safe to assume that at least twice that many people are getting cancer from these machines every week, so they're killing 2 good-sized aircraft full of people per year just for PR and security theater.
The clear reason for the current rate of population growth in the United States is immigration.
The yearly US population growth rate is 0.97%. By my calculation that's very close to 3 million people per year. The annual increase in the population due to immigration is about 900,000 per year. So while immigration is indeed a large part of population growth, I don't think the way you characterise it is correct. Even if all immigration were curtailed, the population would grow by over 2 million a year.
You're not factoring 1st generation immigrant babies.
You left out ebola, mad cow, and of course, avian flu. Oh yeah, and it looks like there is a possibility that there might be a shortage of flu shots next winter.
I thought she already had had all those, along with smallpox and every STD we know of.
1/4 of the planet has not become unlivable. when a nuclear installation gets stricken with a 9 quake, it will.
That's embarrassingly exaggerated. Keep on talking; you are helping the pro-nuclear side more than your own.
1/4 the planet. Christ.
People only get in an uproar over anything related to nuclear power. Then they go pounding the Chernobyl drums when something actually happens, which is insanely rare especially compared to other power generation accidents. Hell, I didn't even hear this much fear and dread when BP flooded the Gulf with crude. Put things into perspective and quit creating hysteria over 1 significant event.
And really? "1/4 the world unlivable"?? Please. We've had 3 significant nuclear accidents in a span of what, 25 years? And none of them made 1/4 the world unlivable, not even a small fraction of THAT. Friggin' dropping two nukes didn't even do that.
As far as being afraid of the big scary quakes... yes, believe it or not, we do have our major fault lines mapped out, and we know where one could hit. We even have prediction models on approximately when one will hit (not an exact date, but a general timeline) based on the history of that timeline and recurrence patterns.
I'm honestly more afraid of people like you who are willing to sacrifice the planet's limited resources (and possibly more than that) because of completely unnecessary paranoia. It's fine to be overly cautious, it's needed in fact, but paranoia doesn't help anything.
WERE safer you mean. it was a gamble against time. see, a 9 scale quake happened NEAR a nuclear installation, and there is a country-worth of mess right now. (and this is the situation now, heaven knows what it will develop into).
who is guaranteeing a major nuclear installation will not be directly in the midst of a level 8-9 quake next time ?
Well, considering the next time this kind of quake happens in that area of Japan will probably be in roughly 800 to 1,100 years, we'll leave that up to them.
The problem is that during the nuclear accident in Japan, the Japanese authorities were saying the same thing.
It's nice to see a little skepticism out of our media for once.
For once? Do not misunderstand their intent, and their intent is to get you to tune in. That is all. Lots of drama is created for nothing in today's media.
A little flood that's been prepared for months ahead of time != giant earthquake + giant tsunami + total surrounding infrastructure going offline + a few hours to react
DC = "Doctor of Chiropractic", a Doctor.
If you think you'd be better off going to a BigPharma shill like an "MD", cross your fingers and get ready for the prescriptions.
Listen pal, I don't go a Doctor of Archeology or a Doctor of History for a medical diagnosis. Don't kid yourself. You're NOT a medical professional.
Well, let's get real here. While it's much safer than alcohol, and definitely safer than tobacco products, it's not 100% safe. MJ smoke has toxins in it that causes damage to DNA in cells. There have been a number of studies proving this (simple observation). The part that's up for debate is whether or not those damaged cells turn malignant, as some of these same studies have shown decreased sizes of existing tumors as well as the damaged cells not progressing any further (in the short term). Most of them did conclude it's somewhat difficult to do an accurate study on live people as MJ is either illegal, people aren't entirely honest about their uses of other drugs with it, or people haven't used it exclusively and habitually long-term.
But for now, let's just stick with "probably pretty safe for casual users", mmkay?
Also, pointless religion/gender/race/sexuality bashing never really helps an argument.
HTC - Makes Android and WinPhones on basically the same hardware... I suspect that the failure rate is comparable
iPhone is one manufacturer - Apple - they do not differentiate between hardware and software errors
Blackberry - again one manufacturer who does not differentiate
Who exactly are they getting these figures?
Yep, and those numbers are fine and dandy and all, but completely meaningless unless you're reporting on each manufacturer, not the OS that runs on them. It's like saying Milk is less healthy than Soda because more people out there are lactose intolerant.
The funny thing is, from what I see, most of the world (with the exception of Australia and maybe Canada) has been moving towards unlimited data plans everywhere. The USA are the ones regressing.
There is too much lobbying by people with big pockets and, in the end, the only one losing is the final consumer. Sigh.
Well, to be fair, you can only pack so much into radio waves. You can't just decide to add more cable or something. So, it really depends how many people you're serving and how much bandwidth you have available on whether or not you really even need to consider it.
So, it might be a lot easier for a provider to offer truly unlimited data over the airwaves if they're serving a smaller European country for example. It's tough to compare this kind of thing between countries.
The 2GB cap however is nothing short of a money grab. Listening to Pandora at work will put you over that, and it's designed to grab that extra $10 out of a good portion of their customers.
Often, there must be federal laws to protect citizens' freedoms from their state and local governments.
What you suggest is like turning a game of herding 50 lions into a game of herding 5,000 cats.
Because the federal government cares more about your rights than your state and local governments? Wow. Let me tell you one thing: the more power you have, the more corrupt you can be. As an example, those federal 3-letter agencies all have far more power than your local town cop.
The nature of overpopulation problem (if in fact it exists) is that it will not cause boom when we reach population level X but rather we will be getting in more and more trouble, social strife, small and bigger wars for resources but also to subdue political parties at home etc. I do not think we can do anything so it is better to enjoy the going as long as it is good. So I will.
If it does exist, Friedman is telling it to the wrong people. Birth-rates in every western nation are declining. So if the world population is too large, then what exactly if Friedman expecting us to do about it? Start nuking 3rd world nations, or what?
Birth rates might be declining, but they have a ways to go before they settle to flatter levels (each new human replacing a dead one, whether it be accidental or old age).
Slashdot Mirror
Then follow the countless citations embedded within, smartass. Protip: it's going to be accurate more than 99% of the time.
Wait, so I can't charge someone the cost of a recliner every time they experience reclining in it?
Bingo! The word 'copyright' has been twisted to favor the publishing company, when in reality, it's supposed to outline a set of rights consumers have with copies of works they purchase. If anything, the publishing companies (RIAA, MPAA, and now many in the video games industry) are the ones who have been violating copyright laws.
I think it was around 8.04 that my dad asked me to reinstall Windows because he was tired of having to learn a new way to do things on each new version.
Then stop upgrading after an LTS release and let the good times roll for a few years.
That, and now dump Firefox for Chromium. Then dump Thunderbird all together and just add a link to Gmail.com.
Soooo.... ChromeOS?
1) A good chunk of these ISPs are owned by copyright owners, and will likely take a default position on their side.
Precisely the reason the USA needs to go the way of the UK and make it easier to enter into the ISP market instead of cuddling these legalized monopolies. Oh I'm sorry, duopolies (get your 'net from cable or phone companies). If we had real competition, we wouldn't be seeing this kind of bullshit because they couldn't pull off a stunt like this without the possibility of losing customers.
I honestly wasn't trying to exaggerate the impact. That's just how I read it. Apologies for misreading it.
Either way, apparently the risk of getting cancer from a single scan is approximately the same as boarding a plane that will get blown up by a terrorist, which is about 1 in 30 million. So, being the risk is "about the same", why do it at all (and let the terrorists win)?
Apologies for the misread.
But I will point to this, which puts the probabilities of getting cancer from a single scan about equal with the probabilities of boarding a plane that would get blown up by a terrorist.
As for cancer risk, 1 million people flying 10 times a week will have 4 additional cases of cancer (using current models of radiation-cancer association).
OK, I'm not sure I buy that radiation comparison being as how it's a completely different type of radiation as well as method of delivery.... but, let's just pretend those are realistic numbers and that only 1 million people are flying 10 times a week.
Using that logic, that means these machines are killing more people than they are saving. If 4 additional people are getting cancer because of these machines per week for each 1 million people flying 10 times a week, that amounts to 208 per year. How many people are they saving using these machines? The underwear bomber under the worst case scenario would have killed about that many? It's not like we get these attacks all that often, and I highly doubt these machines are stopping that many more terrorists than the old methods. By comparison, 1,115 people were killed in 2010 in aircraft accidents, so maybe it'd be a lot more effective to put scanner machine money into more R&D on how to make flying safer.
Considering that roughly 12.17 million people are flying per week in the U.S. alone (most are probably rare flyers though), I think I'm safe to assume that at least twice that many people are getting cancer from these machines every week, so they're killing 2 good-sized aircraft full of people per year just for PR and security theater.
Yeah, sounds like a sweet deal to me.
The clear reason for the current rate of population growth in the United States is immigration.
The yearly US population growth rate is 0.97%. By my calculation that's very close to 3 million people per year. The annual increase in the population due to immigration is about 900,000 per year. So while immigration is indeed a large part of population growth, I don't think the way you characterise it is correct. Even if all immigration were curtailed, the population would grow by over 2 million a year.
You're not factoring 1st generation immigrant babies.
No. Manbearpig first bore his ugly mug in the 18th century, and it scared the shit out of the whales.
You left out ebola, mad cow, and of course, avian flu. Oh yeah, and it looks like there is a possibility that there might be a shortage of flu shots next winter.
I thought she already had had all those, along with smallpox and every STD we know of.
1/4 of the planet has not become unlivable. when a nuclear installation gets stricken with a 9 quake, it will. That's embarrassingly exaggerated. Keep on talking; you are helping the pro-nuclear side more than your own. 1/4 the planet. Christ.
Christ does make 1/4 the planet unlivable, depending on your perspective.
BP's oil spill had a FAR GREATER impact in terms of deaths as a direct result, area affected, and destroying or negatively impacting ecosystems.
And no natural disaster caused it to happen.
But hey, let's just destroy the cleanest applicable energy source we can deploy on a large scale over a few misinformed paranoid citizens.
OK, it's time for you to hang up your tinfoil hat. You have no basis for these claims.
People only get in an uproar over anything related to nuclear power. Then they go pounding the Chernobyl drums when something actually happens, which is insanely rare especially compared to other power generation accidents. Hell, I didn't even hear this much fear and dread when BP flooded the Gulf with crude. Put things into perspective and quit creating hysteria over 1 significant event.
And really? "1/4 the world unlivable"?? Please. We've had 3 significant nuclear accidents in a span of what, 25 years? And none of them made 1/4 the world unlivable, not even a small fraction of THAT. Friggin' dropping two nukes didn't even do that.
As far as being afraid of the big scary quakes... yes, believe it or not, we do have our major fault lines mapped out, and we know where one could hit. We even have prediction models on approximately when one will hit (not an exact date, but a general timeline) based on the history of that timeline and recurrence patterns.
I'm honestly more afraid of people like you who are willing to sacrifice the planet's limited resources (and possibly more than that) because of completely unnecessary paranoia. It's fine to be overly cautious, it's needed in fact, but paranoia doesn't help anything.
WERE safer you mean. it was a gamble against time. see, a 9 scale quake happened NEAR a nuclear installation, and there is a country-worth of mess right now. (and this is the situation now, heaven knows what it will develop into). who is guaranteeing a major nuclear installation will not be directly in the midst of a level 8-9 quake next time ?
Well, considering the next time this kind of quake happens in that area of Japan will probably be in roughly 800 to 1,100 years, we'll leave that up to them.
Your tinfoil hat needs replacing. That didn't quite sound paranoid enough.
The problem is that during the nuclear accident in Japan, the Japanese authorities were saying the same thing.
It's nice to see a little skepticism out of our media for once.
For once? Do not misunderstand their intent, and their intent is to get you to tune in. That is all. Lots of drama is created for nothing in today's media.
A little flood that's been prepared for months ahead of time != giant earthquake + giant tsunami + total surrounding infrastructure going offline + a few hours to react
DC = "Doctor of Chiropractic", a Doctor. If you think you'd be better off going to a BigPharma shill like an "MD", cross your fingers and get ready for the prescriptions.
Listen pal, I don't go a Doctor of Archeology or a Doctor of History for a medical diagnosis. Don't kid yourself. You're NOT a medical professional.
Well, let's get real here. While it's much safer than alcohol, and definitely safer than tobacco products, it's not 100% safe. MJ smoke has toxins in it that causes damage to DNA in cells. There have been a number of studies proving this (simple observation). The part that's up for debate is whether or not those damaged cells turn malignant, as some of these same studies have shown decreased sizes of existing tumors as well as the damaged cells not progressing any further (in the short term). Most of them did conclude it's somewhat difficult to do an accurate study on live people as MJ is either illegal, people aren't entirely honest about their uses of other drugs with it, or people haven't used it exclusively and habitually long-term.
But for now, let's just stick with "probably pretty safe for casual users", mmkay?
Also, pointless religion/gender/race/sexuality bashing never really helps an argument.
HTC - Makes Android and WinPhones on basically the same hardware ... I suspect that the failure rate is comparable
iPhone is one manufacturer - Apple - they do not differentiate between hardware and software errors
Blackberry - again one manufacturer who does not differentiate
Who exactly are they getting these figures?
Yep, and those numbers are fine and dandy and all, but completely meaningless unless you're reporting on each manufacturer, not the OS that runs on them. It's like saying Milk is less healthy than Soda because more people out there are lactose intolerant.
The funny thing is, from what I see, most of the world (with the exception of Australia and maybe Canada) has been moving towards unlimited data plans everywhere. The USA are the ones regressing.
There is too much lobbying by people with big pockets and, in the end, the only one losing is the final consumer. Sigh.
Well, to be fair, you can only pack so much into radio waves. You can't just decide to add more cable or something. So, it really depends how many people you're serving and how much bandwidth you have available on whether or not you really even need to consider it.
So, it might be a lot easier for a provider to offer truly unlimited data over the airwaves if they're serving a smaller European country for example. It's tough to compare this kind of thing between countries.
The 2GB cap however is nothing short of a money grab. Listening to Pandora at work will put you over that, and it's designed to grab that extra $10 out of a good portion of their customers.
Often, there must be federal laws to protect citizens' freedoms from their state and local governments.
What you suggest is like turning a game of herding 50 lions into a game of herding 5,000 cats.
Because the federal government cares more about your rights than your state and local governments? Wow. Let me tell you one thing: the more power you have, the more corrupt you can be. As an example, those federal 3-letter agencies all have far more power than your local town cop.
The nature of overpopulation problem (if in fact it exists) is that it will not cause boom when we reach population level X but rather we will be getting in more and more trouble, social strife, small and bigger wars for resources but also to subdue political parties at home etc. I do not think we can do anything so it is better to enjoy the going as long as it is good. So I will.
If it does exist, Friedman is telling it to the wrong people. Birth-rates in every western nation are declining. So if the world population is too large, then what exactly if Friedman expecting us to do about it? Start nuking 3rd world nations, or what?
Birth rates might be declining, but they have a ways to go before they settle to flatter levels (each new human replacing a dead one, whether it be accidental or old age).