7) They are making drugs there is a *huge* risk even after years of *expensive* research and getting FDA approval that a drug may do nasty things to the user over the long term or to a tiny fraction of the population - the result could be lawsuits that costs BILLIONS. It is important to note that this harm doesn't have to be proven scientifically it has to be "proven" in a court of law - One scientist with a pet theory as an expert witness and a handful (out of millions) that have some unexplained syndrome and all the profits from all the drugs produced by hundreds of scientists over dozens of years may end up in the pockets of a few dozen lawyers that "worked" for at most four or five years to "earn" it.
I'e always wondered why it wouldn't be a defense to put a prominent notice on the bottle: "We make no guarantees that this will do you any good. In fact, it might harm you up to and including death. Don't take it if you don't want to risk a bad outcome." You might lose some business, but it seems worth it to bypass the potential for being sued out of existence.
So they're going to use wind, sun, and tidal energy, eh? How many thousands of square kilometers of land/sea do they plan to deote to this? Try telling the enviros that you want to erect solar/wind/tide collectors on vast swatches of the planet and see what happens. They don't want to see a quarter-of-a-square mile of land dedicated to a gas-fired power plant here in the U.S., so how are they going to feel about 100 times that for the equivalent renewable source? Not to mention some form of storage for the days when the sun don't shine or the wind don't blow.
I sent my support along even though I don't live in Oregon, but I'm left wondering what this "Senate e-mail system" is and why it restricts him from replying to any out-of-state emails. It's perfectly understandable (and admirable) that he puts his constituents first, but is he forbidden to correspond with citizens that he doesn't directly represent?
The translation of his message is:
if you're aren't a constituent (and can prove it), I'm not going to care.
There's nothing inherent in the Senate email system that's going to keep him from responding if you're not from his state. He just doesn't want to hear from anyone who isn't in a position to vote for him.
I wasn't part of the in crowd, but nobody bugged me in high school. It certainly didn't hurt being 6'1" and 180 pounds of solid muscle (I delivered TVs for my family's business, and those damned things weighed a lot in those days. Great workout.). One guy (a football team member, actually) tried to take my school newspaper once and without thinking I punched him in the arm as hard as I could. No retaliation, and after that I had a rep as a dangerous hothead. Good times, good times.
And just what exactly are these bacteria going to eat while they're inside your skull to build all these little computer parts? Brain tissue? Meninges? Cerebrospinal fluid? Do tell.
The organic material that other foreign organisms use to live and reproduce in our bodies. I think the poster envisioned brain enhancement as employing organic tissue, not little bacteria-built pentiums, so the bacteria wouldn't be hunting around your corpus for silicon and gold.
Can you imagine how much effort it then takes people dispersed throughout the population to organize against it? Voting should be made easier to offset special interests, not harder to encourage it.
As the French would say, au contraire (literally: your cat stinks). By eliminating those who vote based on pure emotional and advertising slogans, you have less dilution of the informed vote. I argue that we'd be more likely to get public policy that actually benefits the public rather than specific powerful groups.
Its getting Joe Six-Pack and the rest of the disenchanted voters off thier duffs and out to the polls.
Personally, I think voting ought to be made as difficult and inconvenient as possible. If voting were like crawling over broken glass, only those who really really were interested would do it, and we'd get a better product. Keep the ignorant and lazy out of the electoral process, I say.
that the present occupants of those political offices are the product of the present system. Don't expect wild enthusiasm for anything that has the potential to cause a personnel change.
You are way off base here. Al Gore would have won the election if the liberals had not denounced him and ultimately voted for a third party.
Perhaps, but that's the way it goes; Nader did run. Had Perot not run, Bush the Elder probably would have won against Clinton, and we might not even be talking about Gore (or Bush the younger for that matter -- who can say what alternate reality would now exist?).
Bill Clinton certainly was criticized in liberal journals and articles, and many people call him a Liberal. (What they usually mean is that he's a Democrat, which is a completely different thing.) Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are often denounced by liberals, as is Catherine McKinnon. (sp?)
I can't speak for everyone on my side (which is more libertarian than conservative), but I personally think of all those people as belonging to the Hustler party. I don't think there's a principle that they wouldn't compromise if it meant more power to them. And there's plenty of them on the other side as well, so a pox on all of them.
Why is it that you can't give the same respect to Liberals that you wish liberals to give Conservatives? Can't you disagree with them without invoking a mythical "hive-mind"?
A bit of hyperbole, but grounded in truth. The Democrat party is dominated by liberals, but the Republicans are more willing to put up with different ideas. As one small example, no Pro-Life speakers were permitted at the last Democratic National Convention, while there were a number of Pro-Choice speakers at the RNC. Opposition to established doctrine in liberal circles gets one treated like a heretic and excommunicated.
Touchee on my confusing "Conservatives" with "Republicans." Now can you agree that not all Democrats are liberal, and not all liberals are Democrats?
Sure. I'd happily vote for a Zell Miller. However his type are getting scarce on the ground, having either been voted out of office or having switched parties, whereas there are lots of liberal Republicans, like Olympia Snow and John Warner.
The conservatives of Texas are trying to start taxing groceries. What is your reaction?
Anyone wanting to impose sales tax on groceries (I'll have to leave as an unproven assertion your claim that they're 'conservatives' -- I suspect what you mean is that they're Republicans, which is a completely different thing) a bunch of cretious dickwads, that's my reaction. Unlike the attachees of the liberal hive mind, I have no problem denouncing friend or foe if they're going against my beliefs. I was one of the people who helped run the corrupt Republican Insurance Commissioner out of California. I'm still waiting for the Democrats to do the same for the equally-corrupt Democrat governor.
If you buy something in another state and then bring it into California within some amount of time (not sure exactly how long, 90 days maybe), you're supposed to pay California a 'use tax' that's the same as the sales tax. A company trying to launder stuff through a no-tax state would be found out and fined.
I know that some individuals establish addresses in other states and get credit cards issued there. They then make online purchases at that address for shipment to their California address. I think as an individual you can get away with that, since it's tough for the state to detect.
Am I the only one who looks at topics like this and says, "what the hell are they talking about?" Like the entire geek universe knows what Cosplay is EXCEPT ME?
Since this affects where I live (SoCal) I'd like mention that I, as well as others here in LA, pay 8.25% sales tax on EVERYTHING we buy, including food, drugs, etc.
Prepared food, yes, but even the nutlogs of California haven't (yet) started taxing groceries. By the way, if the Democrats have their way, the sales tax is going to jump another 1%, so you'll be paying 9.25%. If I were running a business like a server farm or other high-tech outfit and had to start paying nearly 10% more for my software on top of the sky high electricity rates (thank you Gray Davis, to whom we owe so so sooo much) I'd be moving it elsewhere right damned quick.
"I know as well as anyone how much we owe the tech industry, but what are the geeks going to do if we piss them off with Internet taxes? Leave?" -- California governor Gray Davis at a private dinner
I don't know what all the fuss about the 60 GXP is about. I've had one running nonstop in my Tivo for 2.5 years with nary a problem. Of course those OTHER 3 I've replaced in my computers kind of ruin the averages...
Every time you think the "state's rights" people are whackos, think of bills like this. If you're in favor of Washington regulating things like the legal drinking age, or whether to let guns near schools, then you're going to have to live with this sort of interference as well.
Note: I'm aware that Washington doesn't have those particular direct powers right now. Congress induces the states to knuckle under and pass the laws the feds want by witholding things like highway funds. Which is a good reason to reduce federal taxes and derive the revenue for those things at the state or local level, if the people of those locales decide they want, for example, better roads.
Like all things in life, Twilight Zone foresaw it
on
When Appliances Revolt
·
· Score: 1
How much of the total costs are tied to infrastructure versus the human component
Isn't the cost of the infrastructure basically the amortized cost of producing it, which, when you get down to it, is the labor of humans? I can think of a few exceptions (for example a premium charged for a scarce resource that's in demand), but it seems to me that the bulk of the cost of something is the human effort involved in creating it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'e always wondered why it wouldn't be a defense to put a prominent notice on the bottle: "We make no guarantees that this will do you any good. In fact, it might harm you up to and including death. Don't take it if you don't want to risk a bad outcome." You might lose some business, but it seems worth it to bypass the potential for being sued out of existence.
So they're going to use wind, sun, and tidal energy, eh? How many thousands of square kilometers of land/sea do they plan to deote to this? Try telling the enviros that you want to erect solar/wind/tide collectors on vast swatches of the planet and see what happens. They don't want to see a quarter-of-a-square mile of land dedicated to a gas-fired power plant here in the U.S., so how are they going to feel about 100 times that for the equivalent renewable source? Not to mention some form of storage for the days when the sun don't shine or the wind don't blow.
The translation of his message is:
There's nothing inherent in the Senate email system that's going to keep him from responding if you're not from his state. He just doesn't want to hear from anyone who isn't in a position to vote for him.A lot you know, punk. We old farts watch The Ed Sullivan Show on our Dumonts and Philcos.
I wasn't part of the in crowd, but nobody bugged me in high school. It certainly didn't hurt being 6'1" and 180 pounds of solid muscle (I delivered TVs for my family's business, and those damned things weighed a lot in those days. Great workout.). One guy (a football team member, actually) tried to take my school newspaper once and without thinking I punched him in the arm as hard as I could. No retaliation, and after that I had a rep as a dangerous hothead. Good times, good times.
The organic material that other foreign organisms use to live and reproduce in our bodies. I think the poster envisioned brain enhancement as employing organic tissue, not little bacteria-built pentiums, so the bacteria wouldn't be hunting around your corpus for silicon and gold.
No problemo. She'd be drinking right there in the cellar with me, with our Bushmasters leaning on the wall next to us.
Like hell. If I know Armageddon is coming, I can be finishing the last bottle of wine from my cellar just as the shockwave hits.
As the French would say, au contraire (literally: your cat stinks). By eliminating those who vote based on pure emotional and advertising slogans, you have less dilution of the informed vote. I argue that we'd be more likely to get public policy that actually benefits the public rather than specific powerful groups.
Personally, I think voting ought to be made as difficult and inconvenient as possible. If voting were like crawling over broken glass, only those who really really were interested would do it, and we'd get a better product. Keep the ignorant and lazy out of the electoral process, I say.
that the present occupants of those political offices are the product of the present system. Don't expect wild enthusiasm for anything that has the potential to cause a personnel change.
Perhaps, but that's the way it goes; Nader did run. Had Perot not run, Bush the Elder probably would have won against Clinton, and we might not even be talking about Gore (or Bush the younger for that matter -- who can say what alternate reality would now exist?).
Bill Clinton certainly was criticized in liberal journals and articles, and many people call him a Liberal. (What they usually mean is that he's a Democrat, which is a completely different thing.) Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are often denounced by liberals, as is Catherine McKinnon. (sp?)
I can't speak for everyone on my side (which is more libertarian than conservative), but I personally think of all those people as belonging to the Hustler party. I don't think there's a principle that they wouldn't compromise if it meant more power to them. And there's plenty of them on the other side as well, so a pox on all of them.
Why is it that you can't give the same respect to Liberals that you wish liberals to give Conservatives? Can't you disagree with them without invoking a mythical "hive-mind"?
A bit of hyperbole, but grounded in truth. The Democrat party is dominated by liberals, but the Republicans are more willing to put up with different ideas. As one small example, no Pro-Life speakers were permitted at the last Democratic National Convention, while there were a number of Pro-Choice speakers at the RNC. Opposition to established doctrine in liberal circles gets one treated like a heretic and excommunicated.
Touchee on my confusing "Conservatives" with "Republicans." Now can you agree that not all Democrats are liberal, and not all liberals are Democrats?
Sure. I'd happily vote for a Zell Miller. However his type are getting scarce on the ground, having either been voted out of office or having switched parties, whereas there are lots of liberal Republicans, like Olympia Snow and John Warner.
Anyone wanting to impose sales tax on groceries (I'll have to leave as an unproven assertion your claim that they're 'conservatives' -- I suspect what you mean is that they're Republicans, which is a completely different thing) a bunch of cretious dickwads, that's my reaction. Unlike the attachees of the liberal hive mind, I have no problem denouncing friend or foe if they're going against my beliefs. I was one of the people who helped run the corrupt Republican Insurance Commissioner out of California. I'm still waiting for the Democrats to do the same for the equally-corrupt Democrat governor.
If you buy something in another state and then bring it into California within some amount of time (not sure exactly how long, 90 days maybe), you're supposed to pay California a 'use tax' that's the same as the sales tax. A company trying to launder stuff through a no-tax state would be found out and fined.
I know that some individuals establish addresses in other states and get credit cards issued there. They then make online purchases at that address for shipment to their California address. I think as an individual you can get away with that, since it's tough for the state to detect.
Am I the only one who looks at topics like this and says, "what the hell are they talking about?" Like the entire geek universe knows what Cosplay is EXCEPT ME?
Prepared food, yes, but even the nutlogs of California haven't (yet) started taxing groceries. By the way, if the Democrats have their way, the sales tax is going to jump another 1%, so you'll be paying 9.25%. If I were running a business like a server farm or other high-tech outfit and had to start paying nearly 10% more for my software on top of the sky high electricity rates (thank you Gray Davis, to whom we owe so so sooo much) I'd be moving it elsewhere right damned quick.
-- California governor Gray Davis at a private dinner
California discovers vast untapped source of renewable energy.
I don't know what all the fuss about the 60 GXP is about. I've had one running nonstop in my Tivo for 2.5 years with nary a problem. Of course those OTHER 3 I've replaced in my computers kind of ruin the averages ...
How long before these DVDs degrade into a pool of goo?
Every time you think the "state's rights" people are whackos, think of bills like this. If you're in favor of Washington regulating things like the legal drinking age, or whether to let guns near schools, then you're going to have to live with this sort of interference as well.
Note: I'm aware that Washington doesn't have those particular direct powers right now. Congress induces the states to knuckle under and pass the laws the feds want by witholding things like highway funds. Which is a good reason to reduce federal taxes and derive the revenue for those things at the state or local level, if the people of those locales decide they want, for example, better roads.
Episode 40: A Thing About Machines
Thanks for the 'please'. At least you're a polite sullen asshole.
The monthly fee for me is $12.95. How are you getting it for $4.95?
"We need to put in speed bumps to keep people honest," said Jack Valenti
Personally, I think Jack Valenti needs a few speed bumps on his head to knock some sense into him.
How much of the total costs are tied to infrastructure versus the human component
Isn't the cost of the infrastructure basically the amortized cost of producing it, which, when you get down to it, is the labor of humans? I can think of a few exceptions (for example a premium charged for a scarce resource that's in demand), but it seems to me that the bulk of the cost of something is the human effort involved in creating it.